Smacking Ban

[Serebii]

Oh so if your child is going around, trashing the place, breaking things and being generally unruly, and they wont listen to you saying for them to go to their room or that <INSERTITEMHERE> is off limits to them for X days/weeks/months, then you wouldnt physically grab them, possibly smack them once and just sort them out? Please. Don't try taking the moral high-ground here

[Flaight]

Just so that you all know, I am all for smacking... (if that long post was too long to make that clear)

[The fish]

I got sent to my room for hours with my TV/Computer etc gone. There's always something to do and it solves nothing and you just don't learn.

 

Well, I never had a TV or computer in my room until I was 17, so it works providing the place the kid is sent is void of "fun".

 

Oh so if your child is going around, trashing the place, breaking things and being generally unruly, and they wont listen to you saying for them to go to their room or that <INSERTITEMHERE> is off limits to them for X days/weeks/months, then you wouldnt physically grab them, possibly smack them once and just sort them out? Please. Don't try taking the moral high-ground here

 

No, I wouldn't. I don't ever hit people unless it's in defence, and I doubt my own child would pose a serious threat...

[Jonnas]

Well, I never had a TV or computer in my room until I was 17, so it works providing the place the kid is sent is void of "fun".

 

What place do you suggest, then? An empty room is the only thing I can think of.

[ipaul]

I voted yes but I wouldn't smack my kids and I think parents should avoid it all costs where possible. However, the Government can fuck right off where this is concerned, it is a matter for the individual. Do they just think we have a nation of bad parents or something? Sick of all these laws and autocratic measures by these people

[The fish]

What place do you suggest, then? An empty room is the only thing I can think of.

 

A bedroom, but without a TV or computer in, for starters...

[EEVILMURRAY]

Alternative to smacking...electro shock.

I "read" an article that they were going to start using cattle prods in Australia on people who took the piss finding a job.

You still don't have to hit them. Send them to their room, and make sure that their room is not a place they want to spend lots of their time whilst awake.

They have to be scared of going to their own room? Where they can watch TV and play games etc.

Well, I never had a TV or computer in my room until I was 17, so it works providing the place the kid is sent is void of "fun".

I would say you're one of the rare ones, but I'm not sure. But even if you lacked a TV or computer, I daresay you had some delightful toys you could play with or books to pass the time of your punishment. You'd certainly learn that way.

 

I don't think it's been posted here yet, but the Maddox advice on child punishment is a real eye opener.

http://www.thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=beat

Website isn't working for me at present.

[Emasher]

I would have to say I agree with your government. Canada has had this law for years now.

 

There are much better ways to solve problems without resorting to violence.

[Zell]

I guess smacking can be related to pain reflexes and the like as a young child. Children sort of associate pain with "wrong", if you get what I'm saying: if a child touches a flame, pain tells them that they won't do it again. Similarly if a child feels pain after misbehaving then they will learn that it's wrong. So I have no doubt that it as effective way to discipline a child.

 

I think people relate smacking too much to child abuse, which is wrong since smacking doesn't cause any harm. Obviously though it shouldn't be used all the time, just when the child has been really bad or is completely out of control.

[Shino]

What if there's no room around? What if you're in the middle of a restaurant and your kind is throwing food at other people? You can try to reason him to death and make him understand that he's hurting the other persons feelings but you'll be the one losing.

 

And why is enclosure morally better than a little smacking? After denying the kid's freedom, should we deny food and water? Besides, kids are extremely creative, an empty room is full of possibilities.

 

I've seen parents that won't even yell at their kids and they just keep getting what they wish. I'm don't like bullies (having been bullied myself) but they do have a good part in this, as soon as this spoiled kids get to school they soon learn that there's always someone bigger (I've seen this happen to my cousins and other kids).

[Emasher]

Its not a question of wether or not its effective, its a question of wether or not its right.

[Iun]

Its not a question of wether or not its effective, its a question of wether or not its right.

 

What? Seriously, what?

 

Of course it's right!

 

The problem is the generation of children who were brough up by hippies are now starting to breed and they weren't smacked like they should have been.

 

Smacking is NOT the only form of punishment, in fact it should be the very LAST weapon n your arsenal. But that does not mean you should be afraid to use it.

 

Shouting, exclusion, naughty steps, the corner, removal of privileges are all effective when used in the right manner. The firm whack across the very much deserving backside of the little shit who believes himself immune to punishment should be used to snap the little bastard back into reality.

 

But again, it's about balance. If you smack for every offence, then the child knows that no matter what he does wrong, he will receive the same punishment. Similarly, if you discipline for trivial offences like fidgeting or playing with hair, then the child thinks it really does not matter what he or she does, because they will always be punished for it. So therefore the child just ignores the rules as irrelevant, because they will always be in the wrong.

 

The rule of three is a damn good way of getting things sorted:

 

Stage one: Tell the child what you want e.g. "stop biting your sister"

 

If the child does not respond, go to Stage 2.

 

Stage 2: Tell the child what you want, and the consequences of not doing it.

 

"Stop biting your sister, or you will go and stand in the corner."

 

If the child does not does as he/she is told, then immediately enact the consequences at Stage 3.

 

Stage 3: "You did not stop biting your sister, now you stand in the corner." Take child, place in corner.

 

The issue here is that a lot of people get to stage 3 and then the child says they will stop being naughty. Igore them. They had adequate chance to comply, and now it is time to show the consequences of their actions.

 

Punishments should also always be immediate and appropriate. If you wait to discipline a child, then they can dissociate the action with the result, and repeat it again.

 

This is not the only way to do things, but it is generaqlly a good starting point. Some children will not respond and there are other methods. Such as a good smack.

 

For example, we had a child in our kindergarten who was just basically a piece of shit with legs. Rude, inconsiderate of other kids around him and a general spoilsport whenever he did not get what he wanted. We tried so many methods of discipline with him: exclusion, the rule of three, rewards for good behaviour... we even asked his parents what they did with hime. The answer was unsurprisingly "At home, he can do whatever he likes. We're too busy enjoying our social life and watching TV to take the time."

 

The solution: WHACK!

 

One day he was subjected to the rule of three, and the consequence was a smack. It scared him shitless. He'd been living in his own little world where he was king for so long that he could just ignore reality. The swift, forewarned consequence of his action snapped him back ino reality. Ever since then: model pupil.

 

You tried the rest, there was only one solution remaining. Of course, schools in the West aren't prone to smacking kids, in fact I was shocked at my colleague for what she did, but it turned out it was exactly what he needed.

[Jonnas]

A bedroom, but without a TV or computer in, for starters...

 

Books, Action figures, Footballs, Legos, Jumping on the bed, climbing bookshelves and tables, etc.

 

Kids can have fun with a lot of stuff.

The point is, they won't necessarily see "going to your room" as a punishment.

[Beast]

I don't think it should be banned. As everyone has said here, a little clip tells you not to do it again. If you just take away their stuff and say you can't have it for such an amount of time, then they are just going to moan and scream at you.

 

I know there are parents out there who take it just a little too far and I disagree with that, but I had clips when I was doing something I wasn't supposed to do. I think almost everyone has had clips when they were a child.

 

But I think there shouldn't be a ban on it.

[Rummy]

My opinion has changed over time. Pre-parenthood I thought that smacking would be okay, but now I don't see a need for it.

 

There are alternative punishments that work that don't involve violence (that's what it is).

 

Naughty steps are the way forward. Has anyone seen Supernanny? Often the kids on there are being smacked but misbehave wildly because it is generally done in anger, which relieves only the parent. If there's a non-violent option and a violent option I think we should go for the non-violent.

 

I don't think it should be banned, but the old adage violence begets violence rings true.

 

I agree(and with later posts, this is the first I read and quoted). However, I also agree with Cube that it should be up to the parents.

Me personally, I took a good old beating as a child, I wouldn't say my parents were abusive, it was just how they were raised(physical discipline maybe being a bit more extreme than the average child's over here). Though on that note, my dad never really hit my sister, only me and my brother, and my mum kind of hit us all equally(come to think of it, not my sister so much!) but yeah, both my parents hit us but they still tried different things. Some people might look on some of the things I could tell you and say it was too far, but I think it only ever went too far two or three times that I remember. The biggest thing of note though? I don't begrudge my parents for it at all(though of course I did at the time), because I'll admit I'm a little angry sometimes and people have jokingly blamed a harsh upbringing(i guess we can't say though) but on top of that, I think I'm a rather awesome person and I think my parents did an amazing job to raise me like this. It makes me seriously worried for when I have kids, will I ever be able to do the job as well as they did? On which note, my parents were also more strict than my friends' on average(was allowed out alot less, had to be in earlier, no tv in my room, no games on weekdays), and in the later years I had to break free of it, but I'm still glad.

 

Also Danny, it's all well and good trying to say you just tell your kids what to do, but you've already said that children are naturally curious, just telling will not work, they need to understand it and sometimes they don't. In fact, you try and TELL you children not to do something with no reason as to why, I'd say there's a 90% chance they'll try and do it when you're not looking.

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

To the comment about my argumentation being intellectual, I can only agree. My thinking will always be very intellectual, though I also like to think of myself as socially thinking.

 

I have had time since yesterday to think about it, and while I on the whole still don't agree with you, I can see your points. I was told a story by some of friends that for a period of time some years ago, their daughter had been completely hysterical to the point where they couldn't even get through to her. A slap in the face brought her out of it, just like a slap in the face is used to get people out of a state of shock. It turned out she may have had some psychological problems somewhere in her unconscious that she was later treated for through hypnosis, after which she calmed completely down.

 

Reading people's well-argued opinions, I have reached the conclusion that it's a very grey area with many nuances. It seems almost impossible to set up anything but guidelines regarding upbrining, as children are vastly different. Even though they get most of their personality through upbringing (especially in the youngest years where the right upbringing is thus of utmost importance), they still have very different reaction patterns from birth.

 

My conclusion is that a slap might be the only solution in extreme cases where nothing else can be used to get through. But many of you still seem to think that children behave badly and will cross any rule regardless of prior upbringing. My theory (i.e. the theory of a 17 year old male) is that if brought up properly from the beginning, they won't do anything so bad that they need smacking.

 

I like Iun's 3-step-method very much, especially because I like the idea of showing children that actions have consequences. It fits very nicely with my intellectual way of thinking. I still find smacking to the wrong way to go, though.

 

If anyone is wondering, laying hand on your child has been illegal in Denmark since 1997.

 

----------

 

Sorry if the above seems a little rambling. I had a lot that I wanted to say, so it may be a little unorganised.

[Jim]

Glad to see the yes's are winning, by a large margin. There is some sense left in the world..

[EEVILMURRAY]

Danny, it almost seems like you're admitting you were wrong but not completely. :s

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Danny, it almost seems like you're admitting you were wrong but not completely. :s

 

I admit to the fact you guys have made me think about my opinion with your good arguments. I must say, though, that I find it complicated and confusing. That being said, I still find laying hand on you children - even if it's only a smack - very wrong. It's just so wrong in my head. Blame my upbringing for that. I had a difficult childhood because I suffered from Autism, something I have since almost completely overcome, but it resulted in me having a very deep relationship with my parents. I was extremely dependent on them, so I really felt bad about doing something I knew I wasn't supposed to do. Not to say I didn't do things I wasn't supposed to do, but my parents' disappointment was often just too much for me.

[EEVILMURRAY]

Autism aside, were you pimpsmacked as a kid?

[Dannyboy-the-Dane]

Autism aside, were you pimpsmacked as a kid?

 

Nope, never. Considering my state, it would only have been for the worse.

[MoogleViper]

My conclusion is that a slap might be the only solution in extreme cases where nothing else can be used to get through. But many of you still seem to think that children behave badly and will cross any rule regardless of prior upbringing. My theory (i.e. the theory of a 17 year old male) is that if brought up properly from the beginning, they won't do anything so bad that they need smacking.

 

You're right, to a certain extent. But to say they will never misbehave and will always obey the rules then you're living in a dream world.

 

For starters children learn what is wrong by doing what is wrong. They learn that it is wrong by the punishment and consequences. So they will misbehave at some point no matter how well their upbringing.

 

Also you aren't in control of you children 24/7 they go to school. Maybe you lived in a nice area but I lived in quite a rough area, where primary school children smoked, and stole and vandalised. You can't hide your children from this. So you need to teach them that it is wrong. But peer pressure is a powerful thing. And one day that child is going to do something that oversteps the line, and if all they get is the punishment that they receive when they do things that are a lot less worse, then they will think, "If I get the same punishment for both of these things then I may as well do the worse one." Or something along those lines. A smack tells them that there is a punishment worse than the naughty step. And it tells them that what they have done is very wrong.

[The fish]

Glad to see the yes's are winning, by a large margin. There is some sense left in the world..

 

Yeah, thanks god we can still legally assault those who can't defend themselves! What would the world be like without that!

 

Oh, wait, it would be better...

 

Autism aside, were you pimpsmacked as a kid?

 

I wasn't either, and neither was my sister. My father is a senior nurse specialist/manager working in child and adolescent mental health - he's been in the field long enough to notice the correlation between getting hit and being badly behaved. As such, he (nor my mother) never hit either of us.

[MoogleViper]

Yeah, thanks god we can still legally assault those who can't defend themselves! What would the world be like without that!

 

Oh, wait, it would be better...

 

Assault? Get real. If you want to go down that route then I could say that forcing your child to stay in a room with no fun is taking away his human rights.

 

And a better world? Most of the complete dicks in this world were brought up without any discipline. And we want to limit the amount of discipline a parent can use? What a fucking joke.

[Jonnas]

Yeah, thanks god we can still legally assault those who can't defend themselves! What would the world be like without that!

 

Oh, wait, it would be better...

 

We are voting against banning the choice of smacking. As in, a single last resort slap, if the child ever crosses the line.

Wether you agree with it or not is one thing, but the choice shouldn't be taken away.

 

Beating them senseless is still illegal (thankfully), as far as I know.