So smacking your own kids is back on the political gender
Published 1 year, 7 months ago in My life.Here we go again.All the do gooders out in force and the gvernment sticking their nose in where it doesn’t belong. Next we won’t be able to fart without getting permission from the government. Who do they think they are telling parents how to raise their kids. I don’t agree with belting into a child nor hitting them on the face or head but my god a smack on the bum or hand never turned anyone I know into a mass murderer or violent criminal because they copped a smack as a child. I don’t care what people think of me and yes my 2 kids get a smack for doing the wrong thing (not often as they are 11 and 12 now and more responsible). On the one hand people are blaming the parents for not knowing what their kids are up to and are being told it’s their fault for their childs behaviour and on the other hand parents are copping it for trying to discipline their kids. Everyone should butt out and mind their own business.I was in the supermarket yesterday when a child of 4 or 5 was screaming at the top of his lungs for a good 15 minutes,driving everyone nuts you would have thought the child was being belted with a strap. Guess what ? He was screaming because his mother would not buy him an ice cream. This tantrum continued all the way out to the carpark and he was still screaming when she put him in the car. If it was one of my kids they would have had my hand around their backside within 5 minutes. You have to be careful now though as the smacking police could become involved. What is this world coming to?
46 Responses to “So smacking your own kids is back on the political gender”
Leave a Reply
Your reply will not appear on the site until it has been approved
!@#$%^&&* the smacking police.
A smack is not the act of causing physical pain,it is the ultimate act (embarassment) of conveying the message, YOU CAN NOT BE REASONED WITH AT THIS MOMENT, SO I AM GIVING YOU A SMACK TO BRING YOU BACK TO REALITY.
HO HUM, IT’S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE IS IT.
cheerio
theshadow
I agree skyhooks, I think you have stated the case most eloquently and as theshadow said “it’s not rocket science”.
The do-gooders seem to believe that you can reason with a child who was just about to stick the fork in the power socket or stab that puppy… a short sharp smack can send a clear message to someone who you can not negotiate with. However, if you beat your children you can go to jail as an abuser!
I am far from a do-gooder but am completely, utterly opposed to showing children first-hand that violence is the answer to anything. Show me one bit of proof that smacking a child makes them a better adult. How can you teach them not to be violent if you resort to it yourself because you can’t find a better solution and because you can get away with it because you are bigger and stronger? Smack an adult and you will end up on an assault charge. Why is it ok then to smack a child who is, after all, just acting like a kid?
Violence should never be a solution and thumping a kid on the backside or slapping their hand because they’re having an embarrassing tantrum in the supermarket is a violent solution to your own frustration, born of a lack of imagination. Grow up.
Skyhooks, the “dogooders'’ you refer to include people who work with abused children and abusive parents. The Australian Childhood Foundation has spent a great deal of time and money (much of it tax-payer funded) researching the impact of smacking. The foundation’s chief Joe Tucci could tell you stories that would make your guts turn to ice. He and dogooders like him know what they’re talking about.
If less people “butted out'’ and more of sent a message that it’s not OK to hit your kid or beat your wife then there’d be fewer beaten kids and wives.
I think there are two sorts of smacking.
The first is smacking in anger and frustration. This should be avoided at all costs. Anger is not a good platform from which to take any sort of action.
The second is when the smack is delivered as a punishment that is an understood consequence of an action. Here is an example. My two year old got into the habit of biting her one year old brother. Not just a nip but nasty bruising bites. After three or four of these bites I told her that if she bit her brother again she would get a smack on the bottom. I asked her several times over the next days if she knew what would happen if she bit her brother and I am quite satisfied that she understood. The next time she bit her brother she received the smack. She has never bitten him or anyone again.
I used to think smacking was OK. I got smacked, I smacked my kids. Anyone remember the Bill Connolly sketch: How (smack) many (smack) times (smack) do(smack) I (smack) have (smack) to (smack) tell (smack) you …
A short while ago I saw something that shocked me. Two girls, only toddlers, were bickering and quite suddenly one smacked the other. Two things were immediately obvious. The first child had experienced smacking and thought it was an OK way to get her way in an argument. The second child had just received her first lesson in the technique of arguing; if the other person doesn’t listen or agree - smack ‘em.
There will always be good parents and bad parents. I now believe smacking should only be used as a last resort and that, when things have calmed down, it should be explained to the child why it was used and why it should be avoided if at all possible.
Great, thanks solomongrundy, fossil etal.
With you lot in charge we should soon have a great time with plenty of spoilt brats not knowing that there are consequences to there actions.
Every child that touches a hot kettle rarely ever does it again. any child that cuts themselves with a sharp instrument will be more careful next time, any child that screams in a supermarket because they want something they cant have will eventually learn that it is perfectly good social behavior to do so unless they feel the consequences.
Spare the rod and spoil the child, take a look around people and look at how the children respond to sparing the rod, selfishness, violence, theft and every crime imaginable, just at the time many parents leave their kids in the hands of substitute carers or spare the rod (not that i use any instrument, but you know what i mean)
My children rarely got smacked, because i did it the instant they screamed or tantrumed for nothing, publically or privately, and they never did it again. its not fun to do it but in the end i have three of the best behaved children who know how much they are loved and love in turn.
My Daughter is eleven and actually said ‘they’re stupid’ when she heard about the laws in NZ… out of the mouths of babes.
I certainly hope this increasingly socialist government that we seem to have in Victoria will consider proper evidence before banning disciplinary actions that has been in use for thousands of years.
Valen,
my children are well behaved, they are not spoiled and they understand consequences. If they do something wrong they lose privileges: access to the sandpit, computer, TV, playroom, friends/ favourite relatives. This takes a little longer than a whack on the bum and at times deprives me of the peace half an hour in the sandpit can provide, but it works as a deterrent. Children are small, they are not very worldly, but they’re smart. They work out what is acceptable behaviour and what is not. What your children have clearly discovered is that is acceptable to belt someone if you don’t like what they’re doing and that anyone who says that’s not OK is in stupid. From the mouths of babes.
valen I didn’t say a child shouldn’t be set boundaries, I just said they shouldn’t be belted. Your argument that children who are “spared the rod” turn into violent delinquints is absurd and I would have thought entirely unsupportable. Quite frankly I’d rather have kids throw a tantrum (as they all do, smacked or not) than have them behave because they are physically afraid of tyrannical parents.
What century is this?
Thing is, and remember i am just a dog. A denied priveledge is something that can be tolerated, and once the denial period is over, everything is back to normal.
Thing with a smack on the bum, is, it is conditioning. Rather than protracted long debates re the rationale of an unwise decision, or perhaps a tantrum, an appropriate smack on the bum is a bit like pavlovs dog…
However, the embarrassment (and not the pain) of a smacked bottom lasts for, perhaps a lifetime.
Then again, i am just a dog.
cheerio
theshadow
What is in fact not supported, is that smacking causes violence.
My children are far from violent, yet i see violence in children that are not disciplined in this immediate way, many (not all) of my friends choose not to use this type of punishment and its amazing to watch them at play.
My Children have known not to hit as there are consequences.
Yet not all children need to have a smack and certainly not all the time. my daughter (11) responds by my stating that i am disappointed in her for something she did, my son needed a number of smacks when younger but at the age of eight or nine it was no longer necessary, my youngest daughter is six, has not had a smack for some time but i will not rule it out if it is well deserved, she also responds well to talking, i have tried taking away privileges and yes, at times, it also works, but there are times when a firm hand on the bottom has definite precedence.
theshadow
possibly if you were smacked as a teenager, i would agree but lets not exaggerate the point.
solomongrundy
My kids only ever threw the one tantrum, there is behavior that is simply not acceptable in any Child, tantrums are a rebellious feature in a child displayed too young, against a parent that deserves a great deal more respect for all they do. Its only in these modern (warped) times that tantrums are becoming a regular feature (particularly in shopping centers) and you need to ask the question, why?
But my point however, is that to make a Government decision for how we bring up our children due to an unestablished philosophical view, is invasive at best and a grand over extension of the rights of any Government body. To be told by some bureaucrat that the way i discipline my own child, for whom i have a far greater concern than they, is criminal.
We have laws for abuse, but smacking a child on the bottom is hardly abuse and there is no evidence anywhere that would bring out the idea that smacking (open hand on the bum) leads to violence in children.
The level of control governments are looking for is frightening.
valen, you say spare the rod and children respond with “selfishness, violence, theft and every crime imaginable”. I challenge you on this ridiculous claim and your response is to say you’ve seen children not smacked behaving violently at play…that’s quite a step down from your first suggestion that they turn into anti-social and hardened criminals.
Bottom line is you can’t justify corporal punishment beyond using it as a tool to save yourself from embarassment when kid plays up and you can’t handle them.
Tantrums are not some sign of misguided children as you seem to think, but a an accepted part of development in young children grappling to cope in a big, big world and not yet having the emotional and mental tools to match. Are you really boasting that through corporal discipline you’ve managed to prevent your children showing normal emotions?
The only thing you and I will agree on is that we are over-governed. Despite my views I agree that government regulation is unnecessary. Unfortunately we live in the nanny state.
Fossil you are using some very emotive words - hit, beat, belt, thump. No one here is advocating beating or belting children. Simply that at particular times a smack on the hand or bottom IS an appropriate disciplinary action. The biting example I mentioned above was such a time. It became appropriate because all the usual punishments failed and it was necessary to take immediate, decisive action because somebody else was being badly hurt. This is the only time I have had to smack either of my children, but I will not rule it out in the future.
Many of you seem to think that children only learn to hit or be violent as a result of having it done to them and while this is often the case it has been my observation that children who have never been exposed to violence of any kind are just as capable of smacking, biting, spitting, kicking etc as those who have. Quite often children react violently as a result of the frustration of “grappling to cope in a big, big world and not yet having the emotional and mental tools to match.”
It also does not necessarily follow that children who are smacked learn that violence is the ONLY way to resolve a dispute. My siblings and I have very vivid memories of the wooden spoon and hairbrush, yet none of us have ever used violence in our dealings with other people. Why is that? Probably because smacking was a last resort punishment, other means of negotiating disputes were generally explored first, we understood exactly, the parameters of our behaviour and we knew how much we were loved.
There will always be ignorant people who abuse both their physical dominance and their positions of authority over their children no matter how many laws are in place to stop them. This however should not be used to take away disciplinary powers from parents, who for the most part, have their children’s best interests at heart.
Not defending them but the government’s stance is the easy way out. If you are not against ALL violence towards children then you have to define what is acceptable:
a smack on the bum
a smack on the legs
a smack on the arm
a smack around the ear
a smack in the face
a good shaking
a smack with a hairbrush
a smack with a belt
any repetition of the above
any combination of the above
Its not easy. Where do you draw the line. Where do other people draw the line.
And, of course, if the line is blurred then it gives an excuse for really bad parents, who are in effect beating their children, to say ” Well, Its no worse than I got when I was a kid”. Just to teach ‘em a lesson they wont forget, just a few bruises, just a little blood, just a broken bone or two.
G1, “it has been my observation that children who have never been exposed to violence of any kind are just as capable of smacking, biting, spitting, kicking etc.” How can you possibly know that they have never been exposed to violence ? In my experience the minds of children are like a blank page, waiting to be written upon. They absorb information like blotting paper and this includes behaviour, good or bad. Childhood, the age of innocence, is a fleeting thing. It should be treasured, not endured.
Golden, you say that “no one here is advocating beating or belting children’’. I’m not so sure. The report that forms the basis of the Australian Childhood Foundation’s recommendations “Crossing the Line’’ found that 45 per cent of adults believed that it was reasonable to leave a mark on a child as a result of physical punishment, 1 in 10 supported the use implements like canes, sticks or belts, 1 in 7 say the wooden spoon is fine and a “small proportion’’ think that hitting a child across the head or shaking them is OK.
You accuse me of using emotive language - you prefer “smack on the bottom'’.
The report includes a submission from a 12 year old girl who SUPPORTS her parent’s right to smack her. She doesn’t use “emotive’’ language at all, she’s pretty matter of fact and ACCEPTING of her parents’ brutality.
Quote:
“Mostly, I get given several smacks on my bum with a strap but sometimes when I’m in really serious trouble mum uses the cane. Of course it hurts a lot at the time. Mum says that’s the whole point! Having my mum pull my pants down and having to bend over so they can hit me is embarrassing but that is why spanking works so well for me as a last resort punishment. It may seem cruel but in my case it really is the one effective way of helping me to behave.’’
Surely you agree that both the acts this girl describes and her non-emotive, accepting attitude to them is just plain wrong? Unfortunately her experiences and her attitudes are all too common.
The foundation has not recommended sanctions against parents who smack their children. It has recommended that the defence of “lawful correction” or “reasonable chastisement” be repealed so that parents who cause serious injury to their children cannot argue in court – as they can and do now – that the assault is less serious because it was committed in the name of discipline.
Doesn’t sound so onerous to me, but then I don’t hit my kids.
The other day my three year old refused to pack up her play dough after she had played with it, so I threatened to throw it away if she did not pack it away immediately. She turned to me shrugged her shoulders and said “Throw it away. I don’t care.” So off I went, placed it all into a bag and threw it in the bin, playdough and cutters. She then brought the play dough tin to me and said “This needs to go into the bin too” Now answer me this, how do we discipline our children when the loss of privilages do not work?
Sandra, your daughter was being defiant, testing her boundaries - that’s how we all learn about expectations and limitations - she does not deserve to be smacked for it.
The biggest privilege of all, for just about any kid, is the company of their parents. If mine are behaving very poorly and can’t be reasoned with they lose the right to be part of the family group for a time and are placed in a time-out room. My five year old stays there for five minutes, my two year old for two minutes.
At the end of that time they have to come out and resolve the issue that landed them in trouble - apologise or pack up the play dough. If they don’t. Time out. It always works, eventually.
One final point then I think I’ll bow out of the discussion.
Parents are the only group within the general community who are permitted, by law, to hit someone else. Teachers - professionals who are highly trained in discipline techniques - are not allowed to hit children. Any idiot can be a parent and unfortunately many parents are idiots.
Yet we allow them to decide when it is best to use physical force against the most vulnerable group of people in our society. And intelligent, caring people, support that right.
Weird.
“Time out. It always works, eventually.” Well no Fossil, that is my point, it didn’t and I couldn’t wait for “eventually”. After each bite, my girl was sent to the naughty spot. The issue was explained to her, she said sorry, gave her brother a cuddle and an apology and the next time he annoyed her or had something she wanted, she promptly bit him again. Now this could have gone on indefinitely, but the bite he received before I introduced the “smack on the bottom” left bruising and teeth marks that took 10 days to heal and it simply was not fair to him to continue in this fashion, something had to be done immediately to stop this behaviour. I am interested to hear what you think I should have done - really - please don’t read this as sarcasm- I would genuinely love to know what an alternative would have been. I am someone who always vowed they would NEVER smack their children.
Many people, having stated their opinions publicly, are then unable to back down, no matter how much evidence is stacked against them. I am not one of those people. You argue very eloquently. The statistics you quote are shocking at the very least, and I was totally unconscious of these facts. If the change of law stops people from injuring their children and getting away with it, then I am all for it. If there is an alternative method of discipline for situations such as the one I have mentioned, again, I am 100% for it.
Hannahsgranpa, just to clarify my comments above. The observation I speak of, was of my own children, my little girl came up with, biting, kicking and smacking without ever having been bitten, kicked or smacked. When I said “exposed to violence” I should perhaps have said “experienced violence” for of course, as you say, children are “exposed” to things from a great number of sources. I guess my point was that the little girl you saw smacking may not have been smacking because she herself had been smacked by her parents, but may have learned it from another child, television, or perhaps had just lashed out in frustration.
Oh Yeah - just in defence of my little girl, who has come out of this discussion looking like a right little horror, she is an absolutely delightful, joyful, compassionate, articulate little person 99% of the time. ( She is also a two year old who likes to get her own way!)
Fossil, as a parent I do use time-out and it does work most of the time. However, I do agree with the others that there is nothing wrong with using an open-hand smack (only on the behind)as a discpline tool as long as it is done in a loving environment and an explanation is also given for its delivery. Also, please be aware that there is a philosphy that “time-out” is also wrong and should not be used. I say, use whatever works as long as it is used within a loving and caring environment.
Golden, aggressive behaviour in toddlers – including biting – is “normal’’. It’s frustrating, embarrassing and (when you’re on the receiving end of a bite) it’s painful. It is most often directed at other toddlers and I agree with you that they deserve your protection and comfort. I can’t offer you an alternative quick fix to smacking.
There have been hundreds of studies written over the past 60 years into the impact of smacking on children. A researcher from Texas by the name of Gershoff selected and analyzed 88 of them. She found that physical punishment was an effective way of achieving a child’s short-term compliance. She also found that physical punishment had short and long-term consequences including increased fear, anxiety, aggression, anger, mental health problems and antisocial behaviour.
Sorry Golden, I believe you could have and should have persevered and waited for the “eventually’’.
I know I’ve come across high-minded and preachy in this debate. I don’t mean to suggest that I’m any better at this parenting stuff than everyone else, I’m not.
I do find smacking abhorrent.
Violence has no place in a loving environment.
G1, I was going to write a long diatribe but in the end:
Sounds to me you are a good parent.
Children need boundaries and then will try to stretch them.
Some people call what you are experiencing ‘the terrible twos’
Which is a comfort.
Before the …………. fours.
Don’t worry, others have been there before - and made worse mistakes.
I still think there are better ways but I’m not such an idealist to believe it cannot be achieved without education and a change of attitude towards corporal punishment.
Yep parenting is a tough gig. Still - at the end of the day no one in our house is being bitten anymore. Or smacked!
Just as with any LAW that gets introduced the ones that get punished are the ones who love and care for their kids enough to provide suitable discipline at the time needed, while those who abuse their kids continue to do so behind closed doors and in secret, just as the Guns laws took the guns away from law abiding citizens but were kept by all the criminals.
These laws can and will be stretched into other areas of our lives, Germany has outlawed the rights of parents to home school their kids, those that break the laws have their children taken from them, is this where we want our state to be?
Fossil, i am sorry but i cannot agree that spanking leads naturally to violence, even the stats you mention clearly outline it as a rarity and does not exclude other factors in the lives of these families which could easily attribute to violence.
Why is it that we are so quick to ban corporal punishment in children but willingly allow them to play games with such violence that is beyond imagining and watch television shows that contain people drilling into people backs (Prison break), cutting off heads and other limbs (Heroes), bullets entering flesh (CSI) etc. There are many primary school aged children watching these shows. How is it that these items that are so graphically portrayed are not made an issue?
ARE we SO naive to think this does not affect them at all, yet a smack on the backside or hand scars them for life and leads them to violent behavior???
We need to seriously get a grip and work out what is really going on here!
solomongrundy
“tantrums are….an accepted part of development in young children grappling to cope in a big, big world and not yet having the emotional and mental tools to match.”
Are you for real? I can understand YOU thinking the world is big NOW, assuming your an adult, but how big was your world at five? At five years of age you think you and your immediate surroundings ARE THE EXTENT of your world. Please don’t use high minded subjective philosophy here.
Tantrums are only “accepted” behavior if you accept it. Just like any rebellious behavior, it is quite “normal” to lie, cheat, steal etc notice that you never have to teach a child to do any of these things yet they do so until they learn the consequences, but it is only “accepted” if society accepts it!
you can accept it if you like, good luck!
By the way, shaking children leads to brain damage or death, THIS IS ABUSE PLAIN AND SIMPLE.
ah, golden1, no one in your house is being bitten, what happens elsewhere?
hannahsgranpa
Abuse is where we draw the line, and we have Laws.
I thought about this when i found out about the new laws in NZ, anything that left a mark like bruising or cut or abrasion should be banned, but then thats abuse and we have laws that cover this don’t we?
I don’t agree with smacking anywhere other than hand or bum.
I agree with Time out, grounding, removal of privileges and other passive ideas, all are good as deterrences and all are good disciplinary actions and all effective for the children that respond well to them, but not ALL kids do and not ALL situations suit it.
I don’t agree with Government assuming responsibility for disciplining my children. There is no possible way that anyone could care for the wellbeing and future of my children more than myself or my wife.
Regards
What hapens elsewhere Dr Fell? I guess we won’t know until I release the children from the cellar!
As a mum of two and a teacher of special needs children who has worked with parents and families or very frustrated, low language students - just a few thoughts.
When you consider a cup of coffee scalds a small child in the same capacity that a bucket would scald an adult we need to wonder about the force and surface area of an adult hand on a small child.
When do you smack, when do you not? Can we really believe that we can smack a child in a calm and consistent manner? How do you make sure you are consistent? Are we smacking this time because they have bitten, because they have bitten badly, because it is the fourth naughty thing they have done in 15 minutes, because we’ve been up half the night with a sick child and can hardly think straight? When do we stop? When they are 7, 9, 13? When they are still smaller than us? What do we do instead? Scream, swear, belittle?
What are we teaching them? That it is okay to hit? That it is never okay to hit? That you should never hit anyone unless provoked? That you should never hit anyone unless they are small and need to learn something and you are bigger, older, know better and have sole responsibility and care of them?
When you don’t smack or hit you can have the high minded response when they are violent: “Do we hit in this family? Does anyone hurt you? Is it nice to hit people? What do you say to your brother / sister / friend?”
We take professional advice for so many things in our lives these days; financial decisions, buying a house, career moves, nutrition. Are we so sure we are right when it comes to trusting instinct with child rearing? Research suggests that when your back is against the wall you will do what your parents did to you.
I believe time out works well when used well and that we should seek, ponder, discuss and actively follow professional advice. A great book I am reading: Getting on with Others: A Guide to Teaching Your Child Essential Social Skills by Dr John Cooper.
I am trying to learn to stop yelling!!
Oh dear. This is a terrible debate, isn’t it? Well I was always smacked when I was younger, and my mother’s implement of choice was the wooden spoon. Now I am a teenager, and I can barely understand how other teens have so little respect for their parents. I always knew mum loved me, so the smacking was just to let me know how to behave. I probably won’t smack my kids much if I ever have any, but I can’t say I’d rule it out if absolutely necessary.
Nice riposte, golden1. You actually made me laugh !
Well here is the definitive answer, at no charge to nooksters.
I think children need a taste of the smack on the bum, and then progress to the time out scenario.
This was the way it was with me. There was no mystery to it, we were told, go to your room and come back when you can behave in a more civilised manner.
In this way, there was no transference from being found guilty of an offence, and re directing to anger at the parent for the smack. Quite soon, i realised i was being a little s##t, and came out demurely, respectfuly, and perhaps sometimes, with an apology.
Worked for me
cheerio
theshadow
It seems to me that in most cases with most children, the threat of action has the desired result. Haven’t we all heard:”Just wait ’til your father comes home!’?
I remember just the shadow of my father’s pork-sausage fingers was not enough to have me reaching for the brown flannel pyjamas. And if that wasn’t enough, my mother had a glare that would silence you across a crowded room. I have neither the glare nor the large hand, but my son - without any smacking - still thinks I’m “the meanest person in the world'’. Go figure!
Smacking is a cop-out. It’s a way to show that parents can’t cope. There are better ways but it takes enormous skill and good coping mechanisms. Parenting is the hardest job in the world so you have to always keep a step ahead, be devoted to the cause and realised that every action is modelled. So smacking is modelled, a copied and learned behaviour and the more someone does it, the more it’s firmly entrenched. So how do we break the cycle? Through education, conscious effort and not sweating over the smaller stuff. Life is all about relationships, and if we smack our children, they will be scarred and carry that experience through life. They see violence and may offend in the future. Smacking is often a last resort but we know it’s an act of desperation. So how do we stop it? By becoming mini-psychologists and saying to kids: “I like it when you do this… you are such a good boy.” By constantly empowering children to adopt positive behaviours, this will enforce preventive measures which could save a lot of breakdown. It’s mind over matter but the mind has to be strong.
But little peoples minds are not necessarily developed enough to understand logic and reasoning, and sometimes, (not when angry ) a smack may be appropriate to bring home the message.
cheerio
theshadow
Why is smacking a cop-out ? Because we can talk or because we can reason ? Young children cannot reason, cannot distinguish the future from the present and cannot understand the consequences of their actions. If a dog has puppies she will bite their ear to bring them into line - I see nothing wrong with this approach.
Dr Fell, i am beginning to like you…
cheerio
theshadow
Dr Fell I think your post aptly sums up what is so wrong about many of the comments above supporting smacking children. Children are NOT dogs and it is terrifying that you would even flippantly base your argument on the behaviour of canines. Equally it’s not acceptable to smack our children just because our parents did it or it was accepted parental behaviour 1000 years ago. Apply the same logic and we’d still be blowing cigarette smoke all over them at home and telling the headmaster to give them a good strapping to keep them in line. We need to apply parenting techniques based on modern thinking and learnings, that make sense in a modern world and which are suited to the increasingly intelligent, sensitive and capable children that we breed. Other comments justify physical punishment against children by drawing some fuzzy line between an acceptable tap on the bum or the hand and “real” violence or abuse. Clearly there is only one easy to delineate and unequivicol line that can be drawn in the sand, one that even the most knucklehead of parents can understand. Don’t smack or hit in the first place and there is no risk at all of physical abuse. And you never know, you might even find your children still grow up to be great people.
To align ones self with so-called modern thinking, would, in retrospect, also align with Dr Spock. AND MY GOD WASN’T HE WRONG.
You have to use your instict. Trust it. All kids are different. Some will respond to reasoning, and some, will need that smack on the bum.
cheerio
theshadow
Dr Spock modern? No, I don’t consider 1940s thinking as modern, do you?
The fact you dredged up his name only adds to my argument about the old thinking on the slapping side of this debate.
Unfortunately we can’t trust our instinct as when you are stressed (and having a few rowdy kids can do that to a gal) you will do what your parents did to you. We need to take heed of today’s research and professional, learned opinion and break the smacking cycle. Then when our kids are faced with the stress of parents they will be able to instinctively fall back on the calm, consistent and reasonable discipline we are dishing out right now!
Seriously, go and read something about parenting - there are few areas that professionals all agree on in any field but I haven’t seen any parenting advice that says the occasional smack can be a good idea. If they can all agree on this one I have to say it sounds like damn good advice.
solomongrundy, i said in retrospect. By this, i mean, from the 1940’s. Dr Spock was considered progressive, and very appropriate. If we take that as an example of modern (at the time thinking) then would it be reasonable to say that todays 2007 modern thinking could also be flawed.
Trust your instincts.
cheerio
theshadow
Sorry I misread. That’s a curious argument theshadow that everything once was modern so therefore current thinking could be equally flawed. While I’m sure we’ll keep on getting many things wrong, we are learning all the time so surely the amount of mistakes we make through ignorance must reduce?
My instinct very sharply says slapping, no matter how appealing in some circumstances, isn’t right and, even if you believe the end justify the means, probably isn’t going to turn out better children anyway.
Is the world flat.
Does cutting an artery to bleed a person, cure all ills.
The list goes on.
What i am trying to establish is, getting on board with modern thinking is not necessarily valid, unless you have done the research to validate the premise in question.
Something as emotional, or perhaps subjective (spare the rod, spoil the child etc) is very hard to form a collective, subjective right or wrong.
so, sorry if i am going around in circles, either show me the supporting data, and i will listen, otherwise, with respect, even though it is a modern concept, it is still just a subjective conjecture.
Bottom line, i think we have to trust our own instincts, in our own environment, with our own kids.
If you study crimmonology (theshadow has) there is more to negative behaviour than parental authority. Kids from the best, perfect home environment often get themselves into trouble. Peer groups, external environments, economic factors, etc.
cheerio
and yes, a big lick
theshadow
when you decide to have children, there is no contract drawn up that proves you hold your childs rights. if a work collegue wanted to go home early and the boss said no, and your collegue chucked a tantrum would you “smack” them? no, you would be up for assault. if you are able to honestly tell your collegue to stop being a lazy whinge and stay at work, you can use the same honesty when dealing with your children and you know why? because childrens brains are sponges, you dont talk to them in gaga language when they are developing their language skills so why beat around the bush about what is right and what is wrong?
when your child is born, the bond they share with their parents is a priceless, lifetime gift. why break such a trusting bond because your 2-year-old wants a lollypop? i was never smacked as a child, i know perfectly well that violence wont stop that child wanting a lollypop next time you go shopping, because they will. they’ll simply be too afraid to ask incase mummy or daddy smack them.
kids remember things. and they wont want to remember their daddy or mummy who smacked them because they were unable to deal with a situation. kids need to be kids and learn right and wrong the honest way, they dont need to ‘learn the hard way’ in a 5 second stinging slap.
im 17 years old and i understand the importance of childrens rights, some of you who think smacking is “ok” should open your eyes on the broader subject. any phyical abuse is abuse, on indefensible children, it is simply the easy way out for indolent parents.
Rudell each to their own opinion but at seventeen and being bought up in this so called “politically correct”world it will be interesting to see how you cope in 10 to 15 years from now having had your own children to deal with. I don’t mean to infer that you will have kids then, but just an example of how times change.As you will see above there are lots of different opinions on this subject and nobody is right or wrong. There is no book of child rearing as such (although some people think there is , just look at all the books written by people who will tell you exactly the right way)so they believe.You just learn as you go.