Ban Smacking

[tim_noone]

I've had it with kids and gonna get me a Hoss! Can you still whip em?

[If it be your will]

Judged by the other entries, it looks like my 'squeezing the wrist firmly to let it be known I really, really mean it this time' technique puts me at the more violent end of the parenting spectrum. This is a bit disconcerting, I have to say. I didn't imagine that to be so.

It does mean they don't go pulling chocolate bars off the checkout counter whilst I stand there hopelessly balling my head off, though.

[Darnhill Claret]

At last Mkmel, post 95. Someone who mentioned positive strokes. Talk to your kids, explain things to them, play with them, praise them, reward them, keep lines of communication open at all times. Don’t talk or act aggressively, be a positive role model. If you do all these things you will not feel the need to physically discipline your child, your child will not require such discipline. Parent them properly. If you don’t they will run ‘feral’ within their home environment and an exasperated, frustrated parent will lose control and is more likely to resort to physical discipline to try and regain ‘control’.
People say they haven’t written the book to tell you how to parent. Well they have, it’s called ‘The Incredible Years’. I strongly recommend it to all parents. The sooner you start interacting with your children the easier it is and the better the results will be.

[Elbarad]

A few posters who advocate smacking children have said that they didn’t do it to hurt the child, just to deter bad behaviour. But if the smacking didn’t hurt the child how did it deter the bad behaviour?

Rowls mentions the threat of physical punishment being a deterrent. Again, how will the child know that physical punishment hurts unless it’s been used before.

I should have been more precise with my wording. Yes, I expected it to sting when I spanked her, I do not want to injure her. I don't want to bruise her. I don't want to raise welts. Mostly I wanted her to be aware that if she continued to ignore what her mother or I was saying, she could find herself sitting on her bed waiting for me to come in. And after I did it once, she knew it wasn't a toothless threat, but something that had happened in the past. Mostly I found that I only had to say, 'you don't want another spanking do you? ' and she would straighten out.

I'm not trying to convince people to spank their kids, they're your kids, try using only time out and logic if you want. What I'm saying is I felt, and still do that there can be a benefit to a swat on the butt, and if you keep yourself in control and use care, you won't injure your child and in my experience, you can positively effect behavior.

There's no excuse for abusing your children, I don't believe a swat on a bottom is abuse, if you do, well that's your right.

Anyway, that's my opinion, hopefully clearly stated this time. I'm logging off. Hopefully we win this weekend.

[NottsClaret]

Got to say Elbarad, you’re sounding like a bit of a wrong ‘un here mate.

[Swizzlestick]

If you’re smacking a child, you’ve lost control. Of your actions and emotions. What is the line? It’s indefensible yet I see some people continue to defend violence against children. Usually people who aren’t parents weirdly.

[Rowls]

I think I speak for the board when I say

**** off Rowls

Rowls hits children and dogs.

I knew I should have stopped reading after the first three words.

Rowls seems to think he’s an expert on everything. He ought to realise that he’s not.

Read this thread back and tell me that people haven’t advocated child abuse. Unless of course you think that hitting children isn’t child abuse.

*See post from Rowls [suggesting I should be 'smacked' for my opinions]

I sit on the Local children's safeguarding board.
That the likes of Rowls may slip through our vetting procedures and actually get an interview for a job involving kids is a scary prospect.

Here's a quick guide to spotting a bandwagon, guys.

1. Everybody in complete agreement, even on complex issues of nuance
2. Nobody engaging in debate
3. Insults
4. Misrepresentation
5. Backslapping and cheerleading

A particular point of order needs to be highlighting fatboy47 who wants to use this as an opportunity to imply that I am somehow dangerous to be in the company of children and that they need "safeguarding" from me, whilst naturally reinforcing his own saintly position.

This is truly low and despicable.

[tim_noone]

Here's a quick guide to spotting a bandwagon, guys.

1. Everybody in complete agreement, even on complex issues of nuance
2. Nobody engaging in debate
3. Insults
4. Misrepresentation
5. Backslapping and cheerleading

A particular point of order needs to be highlighting fatboy47 who wants to use this as an opportunity to imply that I am somehow dangerous to be in the company of children and that they need "safeguarding" from me, whilst naturally reinforcing his own saintly position.

This is truly low and despicable.

That's how easy it is to tarnish/blacken someone's name on social media etc. Don't be concerned they were only "kidding".

[ClaretAndJew]

That's how easy it is to tarnish/blacken someone's name on social media etc. Don't be concerned they were only "kidding".

Is kidding the act of hitting children?

[damo_whitehead]

Children and dogs benefit enormously from smacking and the concept of physical punishment. Why people cannot distinguish between this and hitting or beating is beyond me.

Show me a single toddler or dog who understands the reasoning behind "You mustn't run into the road because it could kill you" and I'll join the opposition to smacking.

Just as a comforting hug from a mother means everything to a baby, "You mustn't run into the road because you could be killed" means nothing.

Smacking is not about causing physical pain - it is about instructing those who do not have the mental capacity to understand danger that they cannot do certain things.

Ideally it should never go beyond a raised hand and should only become an actual smack if the threat of the punishment is not acknowledged.

Both toddlers and dogs intuitively understand physical punishment (when they lack the capacity for understanding why certain things are not allowed) and -most importantly- they also intuitively understand the threat of physical punishment.

The real punishment comes not from anything physical but from the fact that it is administered from a parent, "pack leader" or other respected or loved authority.

It shouldn't be necessary once a child is old enough to truly reason why certain things are forbidden. It is ineffective when administered from a person for whom the child or dog has no respect - in these instances it only breeds resentment or anger.

Policing smacking is necessary and it is essential to correctly discriminate between smacking and child abuse or physical violence.

Banning smacking is unwise.

Rowls, you wrote.. "Smacking is not about causing physical pain - it is about instructing those who do not have the mental capacity to understand danger that they cannot do certain things."

By the same understanding, does that mean it would be acceptable to smack a disabled person who lacks mental capacity due to their illness, or someone with alzheimers? I can't see what the difference is personally if the argument is purely "lacks mental capacity"

[dsr]

All through this thread there seems to be an assumption that all children are the same and they can all be taught the same way. It isn't true.

[ClaretAndJew]

What if your wife or girlfriend are out of control? Do we hit them too?

[Lancasterclaret]

Here's a quick guide to spotting a bandwagon, guys.

1. Everybody in complete agreement, even on complex issues of nuance
2. Nobody engaging in debate
3. Insults
4. Misrepresentation
5. Backslapping and cheerleading

A particular point of order needs to be highlighting fatboy47 who wants to use this as an opportunity to imply that I am somehow dangerous to be in the company of children and that they need "safeguarding" from me, whilst naturally reinforcing his own saintly position.

This is truly low and despicable.

Bandwagon?

You said something to a load of parents that was unacceptable.

This is you being you.

[fatboy47]

Here's a quick guide to spotting a bandwagon, guys.

1. Everybody in complete agreement, even on complex issues of nuance
2. Nobody engaging in debate
3. Insults
4. Misrepresentation
5. Backslapping and cheerleading

A particular point of order needs to be highlighting fatboy47 who wants to use this as an opportunity to imply that I am somehow dangerous to be in the company of children and that they need "safeguarding" from me, whilst naturally reinforcing his own saintly position.

This is truly low and despicable.

On reflection ...what I said was uncalled for..and went too far..so apologies for that Rowls...I still think you're talking out of your rear end though.

[tim_noone]

What if your wife or girlfriend are out of control? Do we hit them too?

Sexist.

[Bfcboyo]

On reflection ...what I said was uncalled for..and went too far..so apologies for that Rowls...I still think you're talking out of your rear end though.

I thought we all were and that is why we enjoy this site?

[Bfcboyo]

I had an incident many years ago when a child was repeatedly slamming a large glass sliding wardrobe door whilst on holiday in the apartment. The door would potentially have shattered over them. Said child was explained to that they must stop it was dangerous but being so strong willed the child continued.

With only two available options being either scold the child and slap the leg to let them have a good cry and a nap or remove ourselves from the apartment for a short time with child in tow , I still regret the choice I made today.

Patience takes a lifetime to develop in parenting. To be criminally charged for that slap on the leg however I feel would be scandalous.

[Lord Beamish]

Here's a quick guide to spotting a bandwagon, guys.

1. Everybody in complete agreement, even on complex issues of nuance
2. Nobody engaging in debate
3. Insults
4. Misrepresentation
5. Backslapping and cheerleading

A particular point of order needs to be highlighting fatboy47 who wants to use this as an opportunity to imply that I am somehow dangerous to be in the company of children and that they need "safeguarding" from me, whilst naturally reinforcing his own saintly position.

This is truly low and despicable.

In fairness, I wouldn’t leave someone like you in charge of my kids.

[claretnproud]

One of my grand children is only 21 months but she has nails and knows how to nip and pull ears etc. I counteract this by giving her a small chinese burn. Her devilish expression changes and she understands that if she does this it has consequences. A bit like real ife really. No way I would ever harm her as love her to bits and thats why I wont let her grow into a brat that thinks she can get away with anything.
Oh and our politically correct brigade will not be having a say in how our family brings up our children. Love and discipline critical requirements when bringing up kids.

[Walton]

Just logged in to congratulate Rowls on becoming a father and completing his masters in child psychology.

[TheFamilyCat]

I've never thought of smacking my three year old or punishing him physically in any way.

But tonight, while getting him ready for bed he was really struggling when undressing him. He swung an elbow at me, catching me square on the nose. I was angry but didn't react. I told him that it was wrong to hit out and that he should apologise. He threw his vest at me and, without thinking I threw it straight back in his face and he burst into tears.

I felt, and still do feel incredibly guilty about it.

[Burnleyareback2]

This is truly low and despicable.[/quote]

A term that I am sure will come back to haunt you.

[JohnMcGreal]

Just logged in to congratulate Rowls on becoming a father and completing his masters in child psychology.

Child psychology, dog psychology...what's the difference, right Rowls?

[Bin Ont Turf]

I've never thought of smacking my three year old or punishing him physically in any way.

But tonight, while getting him ready for bed he was really struggling when undressing him. He swung an elbow at me, catching me square on the nose. I was angry but didn't react. I told him that it was wrong to hit out and that he should apologise. He threw his vest at me and, without thinking I threw it straight back in his face and he burst into tears.

I felt, and still do feel incredibly guilty about it.

Oh the shame, throwing soft clothing at him.

He's definitely going to be a quivering wreck when he starts going to school.

[dsr]

Just logged in to congratulate Rowls on becoming a father and completing his masters in child psychology.

Quite a lot of people have been successfully brought up by people who don't have degrees in child psychology, you know. I bet if you asked round this board, you would find more than half had a least one parent with no degree in child psychology, and some with neither parent having a degree in child psychology. Poor things.

Astonishingly, there are lots of parents who believe that smacking their child is cruel in any degree and must be banned altogether, while moving away and leaving the child behind is OK. I would have thought the latter to be more damaging - should action be taken against absentee parents?

[Rowls]

Rowls,...
By the same understanding, does that mean it would be acceptable to smack a disabled person who lacks mental capacity due to their illness, or someone with alzheimers? I can't see what the difference is personally if the argument is purely "lacks mental capacity"

No.

This is not "by the same understanding". In fact it is a more like a complete mis-understanding of what I have said.

People with alzheimers and people aren't going to learn anything from the experience so I wouldn't advise it. The point of punishing children is to teach them to improve their behaviour. This is almost certainly not going to be the case with somebody with alzheimers who is also likely to be elderly too.

Your question doesn't appear to be engaging in any kind of meaningful debate - it reads more like one of those "So what you're saying is...." kind of point-scoring exercises whereby the things that you want to imply that I'm saying is not at all what I'm saying.

So I'll say it to you again to help you understand what I am saying:

I think smacking can be a useful tool in teaching children to behave properly and in safeguarding them from behaviour that could put in danger of harm them.

[Rowls]

What if your wife or girlfriend are out of control? Do we hit them too?

No.

For reasons which have been explained above, if you'd care to look properly.

Happy to clear this up for you.

[Rowls]

Bandwagon?

You said something to a load of parents that was unacceptable.

This is you being you.

4. Mistrepresentation, again

So I "said something to a load of parents" did I?

Or did I post an opinion on an open internet forum?

Which of these best describes what has actually happened?

How to spot a bandwagon, continued:

6. Doubling down when challenged

[Rowls]

On reflection ...what I said was uncalled for..and went too far..so apologies for that Rowls...I still think you're talking out of your rear end though.

Apology accepted. Thank you.

It's a shame you couldn't have said it without insulting language at the end but thank you all the same.

[Rowls]

In fairness, I wouldn’t leave someone like you in charge of my kids.

"In fairness" you don't know me from Adam.

I wouldn't put you in charge of my financial affairs or seek fashion advice from you.

[Rowls]

Just logged in to congratulate Rowls on becoming a father and completing his masters in child psychology.

A belated welcome to the bandwagon, Walton.

Although I don't have a masters in psychology I helped write a substantial amount of memoire of my girlfriend's masters in psychology and I'm more than knowledgable enough to post opinions on the subject.

Given that we're all posting our opinions I don't know who isn't "qualified" enough to post here. Maybe you can police all threads in this manner and tell us who is and isn't allowed to voice their opinions?

How to spot a bandwagon, continued:

8. Using humour to hide sheer nastiness

[Rowls]

Rowls wrote: "This is truly low and despicable."

A term that I am sure will come back to haunt you.

I stand by what I said and fatboy, to his credit, has posted an apology to me.

I'm confident in my own strength of character and in who I am. If I ever do anything wrong, needless or hurtful I'll have the courage to accept it and apologize.

Feel free to police me as you choose on the matter.

I shan't be losing any sleep by my use of that phrase.

[Rowls]

Child psychology, dog psychology...what's the difference, right Rowls?

If you studied psychology you'd know that the exact same mechanisms are in play when it comes to conditioning and reinforcing behaviours.

This was first demonstrated by somebody who is probably the second most famous psychologist in history - Pavlov. He of "Pavlov's Dogs" fame.

You'll be aware that he experimented on dogs but what you might not know is that he replicated his experiments on orphan children.

So yes, despite your ignorance, in this instance it is the same.

Click the link only if you aren't of a nervous or sensitive disposition, it's sickening:

https://owlcation.com/humanities/The-Mo ... Vulnerable" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rowls]

Child psychology, dog psychology...what's the difference, right Rowls?

PS: I gave your post a "like" for its unwitting irony. You've made me chuckle.

[Burnleyareback2]

I shan't be losing any sleep by my use of that phrase.[/quote]

Ironically a dose of over wind woke me up when I read this.

[Bfcboyo]

No.

This is not "by the same understanding". In fact it is a more like a complete mis-understanding of what I have said.

People with alzheimers and people aren't going to learn anything from the experience so I wouldn't advise it. The point of punishing children is to teach them to improve their behaviour. This is almost certainly not going to be the case with somebody with alzheimers who is also likely to be elderly too.

Your question doesn't appear to be engaging in any kind of meaningful debate - it reads more like one of those "So what you're saying is...." kind of point-scoring exercises whereby the things that you want to imply that I'm saying is not at all what I'm saying.

So I'll say it to you again to help you understand what I am saying:

I think smacking can be a useful tool in teaching children to behave properly and in safeguarding them from behaviour that could put in danger of harm them.

If the person with alzheimer's used to smack you then this is a great opportunity to balance the scales of justice.

[Lord Beamish]

Although I don't have a masters in psychology I helped write a substantial amount of memoire of my girlfriend's masters in psychology and I'm more than knowledgable enough to post opinions on the subject.

Oh dear.

[Darnhill Claret]

It is possible to distract young children. You don’t have to be Einstein to work out how, just an instinct to nurture and protect. Hitting isn’t the best way to protect. For those advocating hitting children, what would your reaction be if a stranger stopped your child from running into the road and then spanked your child twice before returning your child to you?

[Rowls]

Oh dear.

She did well thanks. She’s now lecturing psychology in Paris.

Your contribution to this thread has been simply outstanding. Thank you.

[Darnhill Claret]

How many smackers would ever link bed wetting to their actions. Very few I reckon.

[Devils_Advocate]

Although I don't have a masters in psychology I helped write a substantial amount of memoire of my girlfriend's masters in psychology and I'm more than knowledgable enough to post opinions on the subject.

Im guessing she specialised in imaginary friends

[Darnhill Claret]

A family friend told me that she used to be hit often as a child and it never did her any harm. We once had a disagreement about this subject. She was proud to state that she hit her kids and I said that I believed hitting small defenceless children was an abusive thing to do. She got very angry and said that I was therefore accusing her of child abuse. Going back to her statement of ‘it never did me any harm’, she is morbidly obese, self injures by cutting and admits that she is quick to anger and will physically fight someone if she wants to. Now I am not saying that there is a direct causal link, but there is probably a higher percentage link. Opinions in response are welcomed although I am now on my way out for the day, back after 6.30 from the match.

[GodIsADeeJay81]

For those advocating hitting children, what would your reaction be if a stranger stopped your child from running into the road and then spanked your child twice before returning your child to you?

Yeah I'd be perfectly fine with a stranger belting my kids

[Lord Beamish]

Your contribution to this thread has been simply outstanding. Thank you.

And your’s truly revealing.

[Rowls]

Im guessing she specialised in imaginary friends

Yeah oh please please let me win the approval of some guys on the internet.

I’m desperate to prove it all to you.

TBH I helped mostly with translation into English but we discussed her studies, conclusions and implications at length.

[Rowls]

And your’s truly revealing.

Yeah I’m one of the roughly 50% of people who believe banning smacking is pointless and that it can, used sparingly and in the correct circumstances, be a useful disciplinary tool.

You on the other hand have revealed yourself as somebody who loves demonstrating how liberal, nice and progressive you are on here but will jump onto a bandwagon and gang up to bully, insult and denigrate other posters simply because you disagree with their views.

Never come down from those mental heights that is the self-proclaimed Beamish Towers where you are a be-knighted force for Good in the world. Truly you are a Lord amongst men.

[Lord Beamish]

Yeah I’m one of the roughly 50% of people who believe banning smacking is pointless and that it can, used sparingly and in the correct circumstances, be a useful disciplinary tool.

You on the other hand have revealed yourself as somebody who loves demonstrating how liberal, nice and progressive you are on here but will jump onto a bandwagon and gang up to bully, insult and denigrate other posters simply because you disagree with their views.

Never come down from those mental heights that is the self-proclaimed Beamish Towers where you are a be-knighted force for Good in the world. Truly you are a Lord amongst men.

Rowls almost at Full Wrongo.

[If it be your will]

It is possible to distract young children. You don’t have to be Einstein to work out how, just an instinct to nurture and protect. Hitting isn’t the best way to protect. For those advocating hitting children, what would your reaction be if a stranger stopped your child from running into the road and then spanked your child twice before returning your child to you?

I would want that person to launch themselves at the child, grip them hard enough to remove any doubt they could possibly break free (erring on the side of too much rather than too little), and keep gripping them hard as they went into an inevitable tantrum over it - even if if hurt - then hand them back and hope they didn't call the authorities. I'd be eternally grateful (and full of regret that I'd had a momentary parenting lapse to let this situation develop in the first place).

If, however, they tried a distraction technique to prevent them running in the road I'd be "What in flaming hell's sake are you doing?? Just grab him will you!"

I'm an 'old-school' parent, by the looks of it, aren't I??

[LoveCurryPies]

When my child does something good I reward him by allowing him to hit me. But only with an open hand, and only on my naked backside.

I’ve read this several times and still confused

[LoveCurryPies]

what would your reaction be if a stranger stopped your child from running into the road and then spanked your child twice before returning your child to you?

I’d be grateful to anyone who stopped my child running into the road. But it’s not their job to hit your child. It’s the parents job to explain how they could have been hurt or killed. Why the need for violence?