General / Off-Topic To forbid the spanking and the slaps on the children ?

[beelbeebub]

But isn't the parent child relationships based on dominance/submission?
:
Certainly in the early years the parent has to make the decisions and the child has to accept the decision.
:
If a 5 year old wants to get a tattoo and the parent says no (as you would expect) the child has to submit to the will of the parent.
:
If a 5 year old wants to play in the road is it not right that they submit to their parent's dominant will?
:
Obviously this relationship changes over time, if the dominant/submissive relationship continues into adulthood that is clearly unhealthy, but for a certain period during childhood, the parent dominant/child submissive model would seem to be appropriate.
:
Mote i am not advocating total subjugation of the child by the parent in all matters, again there should clearly be levels of decision where the child makes decisions for itself and as the child develops it can take more of the decisions for itself until it is capable of making all the decisions for itself (i.e. it has become an adult)

 

[Surfinjo]

But isn't the parent child relationships based on dominance/submission?
:

No. Dominance and fear are imposed. Parental authority is guidance. There is nothing normal about a child being in fear of anything.

Teachers impose their authority on classes of 30 or more children without any threat of violence. The principal is the same, though sensible parents tend to have rather fewer offspring.

 

[beelbeebub]

No. Dominance and fear are imposed. Parental authority is guidance. There is nothing normal about a child being in fear of anything.

Teachers impose their authority on classes of 30 or more children without any threat of violence. The principal is the same, though sensible parents tend to have rather fewer offspring.

I'd agree that fear, as in terror, is out of place in the P2C relationship, but you can't always guide a 3 year old, sometimes its "tv off, brush teeth, bed - because I say so", because a reasoned argument about the need for oral hygiene and sleep will not work when Peppa Pig is on the telly.
:
At that point the relationship is about the parents will overriding the wishes of the child, which i would say is dominance.
:
Children will sometimes 'submit' out of love for the parent or the desire to please them, but sometimes it is out of "fear" of the consequences (be that no trip to the zoo, no pocket money, being grounded etc.).

 

[Surfinjo]

:
At that point the relationship is about the parents will overriding the wishes of the child, which i would say is dominance.
.

And there in lies the problem.

What are the questions?

What are the terminologies?

How do we define anything?

Your example is fine as it stands. A defiant child resisting, what most would say are reasonable routines.

Some might say, for example, that the test of parenting is resolve. Not arguing, the issue is settled. Bed time. Force of adult personality.

But some parents don't have very strong personalities.

How about a young boy, 4 years, over excited, running among a group of children, his age and younger, with a pair of open scissors in his hand?

It isn't about the child or what the child is doing. It's about the limits that we believe must be applied to the treatment of children.

In an ideal world, we could have capital punishment for the most heinous crimes. But the Guildford Four, the Birmingham Six, the Maguire Seven and Stefan Kishko have demonstrated that the risks are too great.

In an ideal world, Teachers, Police officers and parents could give naughty children a short sharp smack to bring them back into line. But sadly, experience has shown that not all Teachers, Police officers and Parents are responsible or mature or reasonable.

It may be surprising to discover how many parents deliberately stub their children with a lit cigarette or even put their hands briefly onto a hot stove. This is applying pain as a form of punishment.

It is accepted that minimal restraint may be necessary in may example, the child running with scissors, the drunk attacking people.

But as a society we have little choice but to completely prohibit the use of applied pain as a punishment. Not because we can prove one way or the other because the nature of this type of research boils down to opinion or allegory or empiracle evidence.

 

[beelbeebub]

Ah Surfinjo, having debated with you before i suspect we will fall foul is semantics and terminology again!
:
If i understand you correctly (please correct me if i've got something amiss) your position is:

.
It is acceptable for a parent to override (or dominate if you will) the will of a child.
This "domination" should vary from absolute (a baby) to nothing (adult) over time.
This domination may include the infliction of pain as a sanction.
There are methods of stimulating the pain receptors with no physical damage e.g. mild slap on buttocks
Such application of pain, when used correctly (extremely sparingly and appropriately) has no adverse developmental impacts on the child
:
Ok so far?
:
Some parents include inappropriate methods (e.g. burning or excessive physical force) and apply them incorrectly (e.g. arbitrarily or too frequently).
Such excessive or incorrect application of physical pain is damaging to the development of a child
Therefore all use of physical pain in the rearing of a child should be absolutely illegal.
:
Is that right?

 

[1984Softy]

Surfinjo do you have children? If so how do you teach your children that their actions and decisions have consequences?

If parents or guardians are not allowed to spank children how should children learn the consequences?

 

[Surfinjo]

We can argue the issue down to semantics.

I've made my position quite clear. If others wish to disagree then that is their choice.

The law is changing. whatever the law is, we will all be bound by it equally. All children will equally benefit or suffer, depending upon your view.

In a discussion on the future of Russia, or anywhere else, even on a political issue affecting the British Isles, it's ultimately little more than an intellectual pass time.

I feel uncomfortable treating the welfare of children as an intellectual pass time.

Good luck with you in whatever approach you choose.

 

[Puppie]

Corporal violence is not discipline. Psychologist have determined it is very harmful for development, and warps us as adults.

UK and France should join the 21st century...

Discipline does not imply violence.

 

[ZXdunny]

Oh dear. There's obviously some non-parents in here! And all talking about things they know nothing about - or may have been abused themselves and are confusing that with discipline.

Let's get one thing straight - you are not a parent in order to have a small friend around you. When you have a child you enter into a social contract with the society within which you live to produce a useful member of that society. You literally take on a job that takes 20 years minimum to complete if you're going to do it properly.

When a child is very small, they're easy to look after - you just have to ensure that they're fed, watered and clean. When they start to walk then they have an enormous potential for getting themselves into danger - from animals, some types of plant (nettle stings at one end of the scale, poisons at the other) and other dangers around their home environment. It is your job to ensure they survive this period. The problem is that they don't communicate well so you cannot simply say "don't do that darling, it's hot" to a 2 year old, there's no way you can ensure they understand the risks. So instead, when a 2 year old reaches for that pan of boiling water (which you do your damndest to ensure is nowhere near the child but somehow the child ends up too close) you can shout - a short, unpleasant audible shock - and if there's no response then a sharp smack on the back of the hand is usually administered; after a very few incidents the child associates this with the action he or she intended. Job done, the child is safe and will continue to be so until it is old enough to learn why it's unsafe and handle these things themselves.

Note that deferred corporal punishment is completely pointless - it has to be delivered as the naughty act is executed or there will be no learning or psychological connection between the punishment and the act itself. "Waiting until father gets home" for a spanking achieves nothing.

When the child is older then discussion about consequences and other issues with their behaviour can be commenced as an alternative to corporal punishment.

My first child is now 21 years old - he had the occasional smack up to age 3, and after that neither myself nor my partner have raised a hand to him or spoken a harsh word. We now have a 3 year old boy who has been treated similarly - although there are much better ways of teaching a child to behave (and by that we mean surviving in a potentially dangerous environment, not displaying behaviour of which we approve) than smacking.

But you need to be able to reinforce lessons at a very early age in a way they understand - and at that age you can't talk to them, much less reason with them. Taking away toys for bad behaviour isn't going to work; they can't make the connection between their behaviour and your punishment.

My final point is that removing corporal punishment is all very well, but parents must be educated as to alternatives they can use. Without giving them those tools, we end up with unruly children with aggressive behaviour which are a danger to themselves or others. Parenting is not something you have to do as a consequence of getting your leg over - it's something you choose to do with forethought and planning. Unfortunately all too often this isn't the case and then we get governments stepping in to control the parents, which is very sad indeed.

And yes, I do have training in this area - it's part of all medical professional training in the UK.

D.

 

[Arithon]

The politicians (most without children) wade in and get it wrong.

A smack is not a beating. Most parents while condoning a beating of any kind, would admit when children are too small to be reasoned with a simple smack on the hand will discourage them from doing themselves harm. I'd rather see a child smack than put their hands in fire or shut their fingers in a door.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I had to smack my two sons, because I only ever did it when everything else had failed. The "naughty step" might work with a five year old, but not with a one year old.

The same people who step in to interfere with good parenting are the same people who can't keep sexual predators behind bars because of their "human rights" and turn a blind eye to child prostitution (Rochdale) and still manage to sleep at night.

 

[Puppie]

There is no manual, what works with one child, doesnt neccessarily mean it works on another.

There are guide lines, most of which, to be honest, were written by morons.

For the record, I have 4 kids, 3 boys and a girl, youngest is 19 and 3 grandchildren.

 

[AndyC77]

I won't quote any studies, since most are bunk anyway.

The reason violence of any kind is unacceptable in all human relationships is because it creates a relationship based upon fear and dominance.

It seems perverse and rather suspicious that anyone could want a child to fear them.

But it becomes capricious when a child's unconditional love is a reason to inflict pain and impose fear

I must say that I agree with this. I don't think hitting children is right at all but I do think today's problems with some unruly kids comes down to them not being shown enough love. Instead of bringing back physical punishment how about showing children how much we love them to inspire youngsters to love other humans.

 

[Puppie]

I must say that I agree with this. I don't think hitting children is right at all but I do think today's problems with some unruly kids comes down to them not being shown enough love. Instead of bringing back physical punishment how about showing children how much we love them to inspire youngsters to love other humans.

It is this thinking that has caused the issues we see nowdays ( in my opinion ) and the assumption that discipline implies violence, it does not.

Respect is far more influential than fear with children. If the child respects you and your opinion of them, they will 'behave' to keep that.

The problem lies in how to get that respect, however, as i have said, what works with one child does not work with another.

The assumption of all the 'Do Gooders' is that there is one solution to the problem, wherein lies the problem, as they create their 'advice and guidance' based on that assumption.

 

[Surfinjo]

The assumption of all the 'Do Gooders' is that

Why this thread has become pointless.

 

[QziQza]

Bah I was canned and slippered at school when I was a kid and it never did me any harm. Taught me a firm lesson in life - Never steal flowers from a church graveyard for art class especially when the vicar is watching. I also became a much better poker player at the back of the class.

yup, at my school we had the michael caine (not a lot of people know that) the belt, the strap, and with 1 teacher - the plymsole. there was never any abuse of the punishment in the years i was there, and there was never an occasion that the punishment wasnt warranted.. it teaches you several things, there is always a cost to your actions, and if you arnt prepared to pay those costs you dont commit to the action. the main advantage was nobody gave any disrespect to the teachers.. ever! as someone who loves to learn there is nothing worse than a room full of people talking over or talking back at the teachers. now in saying that, i got the strap a bit over 3 years, why? because i was a smoker and that was against the rules, i was aware of the consequences of getting caught, and paid the price for it, my choice! not the teachers. it also meant i got a lot of early morning runs as i was always on monitors punishment.. now that may not be the strap, or come under the classification of corporal punishment, but at least the strap was over and done quick, 5 days of monitors was a damn site more annoying. there is practically no control in schools any more, depression and paid time off for sickness has become a serious issue with teachers in the secondary school system. the problem with corporal punishment wasnt the system itself, it was the possibility of missuse and exploitation.. but that exists in any system and can be protected against. at my school, the punishment was always given in front of your peer group, and for several reasons.. to start with, it was damn embarassing and acted as a pretty good deterrant for other students, but, the main reason was, metering the punishment in the open, was the easiest way to show the punishment was warranted, it stood because you broke a rule, not because the teacher just wanted to rough you up. also, we were never given corporal punishment as a 1st offence for the breaking of any rule.

children really do need clearly defined boundries to work within. there will always be a need for a consistant, metered method, of maintaining those boundries. that is no different to the work place, or adult life in general. everyone needs to learn and understand that there are always going to be consequences for their actions, and that they will have to live with those consequences. if we dont instill this early on, then we end up with what is so prevailant now. dont get me wrong, we shouldnt need corporal punishment to achieve this. boundaries, repsect; cause and effect, these are the things that should be instilled at home. these ideologies come from good, consistant parenting, but good parenting is often seriously lacking, and it isnt just down to bad parents, we now live in a socierty where technology has become a surrogate parent, it is easy to see why, and understand the effect that is having, we have so many single parents struggling to mearly exist, and all too often the situation where both parents need to be out working. modern society and the system that governs it, is failing the family unit as a whole, it is easy to see why so many children are just floating downstream in rudderless boats, and no ammount of "just show them love" ideology will fix that. this means that in many cases, school is the only real consistant, adult controlled, enviroment many children find themsleves in, the school should be no different to the workplace in terms of being able maintaining discipline or controll for the benefit of the workplace as a whole, a teacher doesnt have the time to focus all their time on just 2 or 3 students out of the 30-40 in a class that "just need love".. well, for a start, thats not really something a teacher should be doing anyway, respect and understanding, deffinately! but thats a two way street. school, unlike the workplace, doesnt have the option of a threat to earnings or employability to leverage a status quo in their enviroment, so what are the other options? at present, there are none.

neither of my children can actually remember getting a slapped hand or leg, ive never threatened a punishment i wouldnt follow through on, or tried to bribe them to behave, and ive always been very consistant that way. ive never lied to them, always repsected their opinion, and allowed them to properly argue and discuss any point they want to make, but then, ive always had the luxury of time to do that.. many parents dont. i have always demanded, that my children, no matter what, will treat their teachers with repsect and courtesy, regardless of if they think they are in the right or in the wrong, mantaining control of a class full of kids is not easy, not easy in the slightest. if my 2 ever have any problems with a teacher, they talk to me about it, and if needs be.. i'll take it up directly with the teacher, in the same vein all their teachers know that if thay have a problem with either of my children they can contact me directly for the same reason.

 

[Puppie]

Why this thread has become pointless.

Agreed. No point having discussions with those that make statements and do not expand with any points or information that backs up their statements.

 

[AndyC77]

It is this thinking that has caused the issues we see nowdays ( in my opinion ) and the assumption that discipline implies violence, it does not.

Respect is far more influential than fear with children. If the child respects you and your opinion of them, they will 'behave' to keep that.

The problem lies in how to get that respect, however, as i have said, what works with one child does not work with another.

The assumption of all the 'Do Gooders' is that there is one solution to the problem, wherein lies the problem, as they create their 'advice and guidance' based on that assumption.

Not sure if your implying that I'm a do gooder but I agree that everyone is unique and so respond to different treatment. I don't pretend to have all the answers but what I see around me is neglected children that are undernourished in terms of loving family. You make good points and mostly I agree with you.

 

[Jank]

I would wonder what makes people think that the application of violence to gain obedience does not result in adverse effects on the child? How the F would you know what your child would have grown up to be like if you hadn't physically punished them? How would you know that YOU weren't adversely affected by violence when you were a kid? Nobody knows what they would have been... and people are F'd up all over... wonder why?
.
Me personally, I don't inflict physical pain on my child. She'll have plenty of that in life without me starting it and violating the trust a child implicitly has in a parent. If she is disobedient, I remove her from the situation, I don't pummel her or inflict "minor tortures" to teach her to be a good slave.

 

[Gracey Field]

The politicians (most without children) wade in and get it wrong.

A smack is not a beating. Most parents while condoning a beating of any kind, would admit when children are too small to be reasoned with a simple smack on the hand will discourage them from doing themselves harm. I'd rather see a child smack than put their hands in fire or shut their fingers in a door.

I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of times I had to smack my two sons, because I only ever did it when everything else had failed. The "naughty step" might work with a five year old, but not with a one year old.

The same people who step in to interfere with good parenting are the same people who can't keep sexual predators behind bars because of their "human rights" and turn a blind eye to child prostitution (Rochdale) and still manage to sleep at night.

Hear, hear.

 

[firmicute]

Surfinjo do you have children? If so how do you teach your children that their actions and decisions have consequences?

If parents or guardians are not allowed to spank children how should children learn the consequences?

Easy?

My parents never beat or spanked me. But I still very much learned onsequences, because my parents were consequent.

When I was making the TV loud, they asked to make it more silent, I didnt hear. They said: If you dont tone it down, you wont have tv for a week.
And they enforced this. This meant putting the TV away, locking it. (yeah, consequence is never easy, for parents too) And dont discuss about stuff.

My parents would one time, when I wasnt ready, just go to work and let me go to school myself, without neat clothes. A few remarks of classmade hekped me not be lazy at the morning. My parents, when I was old enough never brought me to school when I overslept or just was too lazy- I had to go myself, I had to talk to my teachers myself.

When I broke something, I had to pay it from the little money I got per week. If i wanted something, i had to earn a bit- to learn that nothing just falls inside your open hand.
They taught me how to use knives and scissors- And would i´ve been unable to use them proplerly, and be it out of spite, they would have taken them from me until I was ready.
One time I threw a tantrum in the market- my parents went on and then hid- but in a way that they had me in vision all the time, but were hidden. I was up very fast, didnt cry anymore, so they came back.
If this happened at the car, they would say: If you cant be quiet, we will have to go home and I wont take you with me. And they did, it worked.
Also, they tried to accomodate me-so if the cartime was really boring, they´d give me books or played little games.
If I would play too much with my food, they would take it away from me after one warning and I had to eat alone in the kitchen. One tuime they did this before the full house. This works pretty much-and If I made a mess, I would have to clean that too.

So i pretty much learned: 1. My parents do what they say. I can trust them. 2. they are not unreasonable and the rules are clear and dont change from now to then. The stuff I had to do in the household was fixed, the same went for my father and mother- everybody had their part. Sometimes you could choose or trade one task against one other.
3. Usually the consequences are related to the behaviour. If I could not beave in situation A, I got taken out. They asked me for Input, whether i wanted to one place or not, I had the liberty of not being forced to endure situations that werent child-proof.
4. My parents talked to each other and had each other back, but they were open for talking to me. They were consistent in rules (not okay: being very loud, letting stuff fly around in communal space, forgetting the dog etc) so not like its okay to play in the room when person A is happy but if that person is angry that plaing is forbidden (such people exist and they are really scary)

So, you dont need violence and I am sure that I would hated my parents if they would have hit me. I hate being touched anyway, so that would be a deep reakting of trust. I have seen some peoplein my class getting beaten or knew they got beaten and I saw how that worked on them. They were a lot ore instable, some hated their parents with a fervor..
My SO had that in his childhood and it had a big part in his problems today. Because his dad wasnt the responsible type, so violence and the wrong type of person met and broke a person.


you know, often people use violence as an easy way. And it is, just beat whatever and the person instinctevely fears you, that person shows power over you, it signals that you wish for painfree-ness and personal boundaries dont matter. It just wants you do be small and do what it wants and beating is just the easy way out.

standing against a child that screams or is aggressive, being reserved, maybe even stoic but consequent (like bringing the child in he room until its cooled down, no screaming, no cussing, no "i hate you because you are loud", just "you seem to be angry and not able to handle being around me/us-therefor you will go into your room and cool down. If you feel more calm, you can come back and we can play a bit or bake something nice. If you stay angry, you wont be able to meet yu friend, because i wont drive ypou if you attack me and belittle me.")
if the child gets out, you do it again and again and again. It might need 20 or even 50 tries.

It worked for me.

My mom hit me one time-and she was sorry afterwards. It wasnt necessary, I mean if you argue with each other in a toxic way, you wanna hurt the other, but if you are part of a healthy family, you usually dont really want to hurt that person very much- so you talk and apologize. After I cooled down, i saw what an ass I was- and she saw that her way of arguing tended to fuel it. So we both apologized, talked abot it and then went our ways.

you dont beat people into understanding, you best them into compliance and submission.