If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
Take a look around and enjoy reading the discussions. If you'd like to join in, it's really easy to register and then you'll be able to post. If you'd like to learn what this place is all about, head here.
Comments
Yes - better in my eyes. It's called an opinion. I never professed to knowing more about child psychology than and child psychologists (fuck I hate typing that word). I ask you again, please read my posts and inwardly digest them before commenting.
This isn't a practical parenting forum. This is about informed and constructive debate. I'm not asking anyone to take my advice nor do I expect anyone to in the same way I wouldn't practice what anyone else preached here. I am merely entering into a debate about which I have things to say.
So you've asked me to define the difference between 'mild punishment' and 'abuse' as well as the degrees of 'bad behaviour'. It's called perception and interpretation. What may be mild to you may be abuse to me and vice versa. Don't be a moron.
Well surely, as you've said, 'violence' is all about degrees. If I pat my brother's head, is that violence? Surely anything that causes the nerves to register some form of pain, however mild, is violence? I won't fall into your trap of asking you to define inherently abstract notions, but saying that 'it's still violent' is rather unhelpful as it encompasses a myriad of different levels of pain.
Well that's merely opinion and I guess that's where you and I differ.
Common sense, experience, interpretation; take your pick.
Yes, otherwise I wouldn't have spent time and effort typing it now would I?
That's the key thing. If you say you agree with smacking, a lot of anti-smack people assume that means you agree with people belting their kids merrily every time they need disciplining. Which is clearly bollocks. I agree with parents being able to have smacking as a last-resort tool in their arsenal of disciplinary methods. Hopefully they won't have to use it, but if they do, I don't think we should be pointing the finger or putting them in the same category as people who abuse their kids, because anyone who can't see the difference has a problem.
As for smacking teaching violence - does it? Or do we just assume that? I come from a generation where most kids were smacked, now and again. Until I was about 6, we got smacked at school. I don't see that my generation are particularly violent. Sure as hell not compared to kids these days.
Very interesting thought. Perhaps not being smacked doesn't give you a perspective on 'violence' and thus may be more likely to inflict it? Just an interesting theory.
I think it would have been a lot more accurate if you had said "I don't really understand/know why child psychologists have said smacking children is wrong but I think..." which would be fine. But that isn't what you posted. You simply said your method was better, thus I am asking you to prove that. Just as a reminder: you brought them into this, not me.
So what's it gonna be, are you going to rephrase what you said or provide some evidence so we can start debating?
Well clearly. Which is why I'm trying to understand your reasons for the perceptions you have and interpretations you make, hence the question 'where do you draw the line'? If everything was left to subjectivity then what would be the point of talking about anything really? People will always have different opinions about things, but we talk to reach certain agreements and parameters which society conforms by, don't we?
Now with this we're getting somewhere: Well of course it does, I think the point of discussion is to what degrees this pain is acceptable or not (and what is considered violence). I offered pain as an alternative of a criteria to define it by, but of course there can be many others which we can discuss.
If it's only a tap, then no. Of course, if a belt or something else is used, then yes, in one way it could 'teach' violence.
If violence IS the last resort, what happens next ?
If the violence doesn`t achieve the "desired behaviour" from the child, what next for the "smacker". How much does he/she crank up the violence if that "desired behaviour" isn`t produced ?
It seems that way to me,too.
I was "smacked" a few times as a child, the only one I remember is knocking all the dishes off the draining board when my dad was about to dry them -- and then laughing my ass off. Big mistake, as that was the first and only appearance of the "ringstinger" with a teatowel (which me and my brothers then used to subject one another to - nice way of leading by example there, dad, haha!) I haven't been traumatised by it, and if I had been in charge of dealing with the horrendous little shit I was at times then I probably would've turned to a wee smack as a last resort, too. It stopped me dead in my mischevious tracks, that's for sure.
If he'd gone out to rip a branch off the birch tree I might've thought a little differently, I guess. I think we have to be very, very careful about throwing words like "abuse" around, though.
The removal of toys, being frog-marched to a room, being grounded or having friends sent home could all be seen as unnecessary, humiliating and unfair. I don't see how you can blanket all contact discipline as morally reprehensible when it's obvious that every child reacts differently to different methods of discipline, given different situations. I can recall many instances from both my own and my brother’s upbringing where the only way to stop us doing something dangerous to our own health, was a smack. I was a pig-headed little fucker as a kid and you could shout at me all day long with no result, but a smack would always bring me up short.
The problem is always of degrees. If you use a weapon, be it a slipper or a leather belt, then it IS morally wrong. And its not usually a good idea to do it when you're angry either.
Being honest, if you're smacking hard enough to hurt the child then you're smacking them too hard.
Such as? And what if you have exhausted those, what if they are not appropriate at that particular moment...?
Of course it is, the whole relationship isn't "fair" and nor should it be - certainly at that young age.
theres a difference between a disciplined smack, and abuse, much like theres a difference between a 'oi stop perving' slap and assault
The point seeker is making is when you smack and it makes no difference, you smack harder until it does make a difference.
Quite so.
And then I think the question you should ask yourself is how hard are you prepared to go ?
The opening poster asks, and I quote, "Is smacking a child ever ok?”.
Not one poster who has responded in the positive has done anything other than express the opinion that given a certain circumstance and child, then a smack can sometimes be the most effective measure.
The straw man argument constructed by posters attempting to divert the discussion towards beatings or raising a hand in temper is an egregious attempt to curry favour toward their anti-smacking ideals, and are ultimate purporting a fallacy IMO. The title of this thread is “Smacking” not beating, assaulting or abusing. Anyone who can not differentiate needs to go away and rethink their position.
I’ve asked this before, and I’ll ask again, why is a contact discipline morally reprehensible while non-contact discipline remains among the upper echelons of morally upstanding parenting?
If you argue that it is OK to smack a child gently as a "last resort", what happens if that last resort fails to curb the child's bad behaviour? It's important to argue about degrees.
Firstly, i've never argued that i would use smacking as a "last resort". Secondly, as a parent who knows my child intimately, i know what my child does and doesn't respond to given a specific situation.
But we digress, to use a overly-coined phrase, smacking will be an implement in my parenting tool-box.
Personally I believe smacking is wrong and encourages violence.
Surely from that view-point it could be argued that the removal of privileges or confinement to a room would promote despotic tendencies in later life?
Surely the same could be said for smacking?
How would you personally feel if as an adult, one of your friends smacked you because they thought you had done something wrong? It isn't acceptable for adults to smack eachother so I don't see why it is acceptable for a fully sized adult to smack a child.
I was smacked as a child and all I remember feeling is confusion. No matter how much you sugarcoat it. It is still violence and intended to cause pain. Oh and for the people who say 'it never did me any harm'. No course it didn't, apart from the learnt pattern of behaviour and you then go on to smack your kid.
have you ever tried to have a rational conversation with an 18 month old intent on picking up every breakable object in your house, sticking fingers in doorframes/pulling cat's tail etc ad nauseum?
Indeed it is.
It is also partly responsible for not only my respect and politeness but also that of my children.
I think we also need to look at the violent intent or agression as well as the pain inflicted. A tone of voice can be recieved and meant aggressivly and can have a negative impact on a child's development; a smack can be delivered softly with less pain than a playground stumble but be a short sharp unexpected shock that stops a child in it's tracks.
Yes, so we could start a reasoned discussion arguing that no one method of discipline is perfect and that a parent has to use their intimate knowledge of their child to parent as best they see fit.
The comparison is false and overly simplistic. The relationship I have with my peers and other adults isn’t one of parental responsibility. I wouldn’t attempt to alter my friends’ behaviour by sending them to their room either.
Maybe smacking wasn’t a correct punishment for you but I don’t believe that should cause you to reject it all together. Smacking was appropriate on the handful if times it was used by my parents, and no, it didn’t do me any harm regardless of what you may believe.
As I posted aaages ago, the point of smacking is not just to tell the child that it has done something wrong. The point is to teach it lessons that it will need for life. Ie. as Skive pointed out earlier, sticking objects in wall sockets. It is done to condition the child into a certain behaviour pattern; one that will ensure the child's survival and ensure that it does things not to the detriment of itself or society.
You cannot possibly say that it's the same as one adult smacking another. Adults do (or at least should) know better. So it is not the same thing at all.
Yes, because it is that pain that discourages the child from doing whatever he or she is doing in order to get them to learn that it's not right, it does cause damage and that's it's not acceptable behaviour. I don't know why people see words like 'violence' and immediately recoil. If violence is something that induces pain, then surely the cat sat on my lap as I type this is being violent towards me because she's giving me a dead leg. If you use the word 'violence' or 'abuse' to use anything that causes the nerves in your body to register a sensation of pain, however slight it may be, the meaning of the word is completely negated owing to the myriad of sensations it encompasses and thus becomes rather a meaningless word.
And also the pattern of behaviour that it discouraged me to do the things I was smacked for. I don't think it taught me that smacking is acceptable. Perhaps back then it did when my powers of reasoning weren't as developed as they are now but now that I am a rational, intelligent adult, I can see why my parents did it, weigh up the pros and cons of smacking and use my experience to make a valued judgement. Surely I, having been smacked as a child, am in a better position to make a judgement about it with regards to my future children than people who weren't smacked?
Pain and/or beatings ?
Which tactic do you use then ?
All the highlights leads me to suspect that you think you know what is the "correct" behaviour for another. :chin:
none of us are saying we deliver or agree with beatings! As for pain, do you have some objection to it? Do you know how much a smack actually 'hurts'? Do you think it causes more 'pain' than the stiff Clarks shoes that well meaning parents require their children to break in rather than buying cheap loose floppy shoes?