Smacking children

Fortheloveofguitar

My old man used to keep a snooker cue in my wardrobe and I used to get a going over with that if I stepped out of line.

That or the slipper was the usual and he once threw a knife at me.

I was a hyper active child and a bit cheeky but nothing more than that.

Suffice to say it didn't get him anywhere apart from me resenting him more and more the older I got.

I will never smack my own son

PolarityMan

maidenfan said:

ICBM said:

maidenfan said:

Fundamentally against smacking. Use of physical violence to prove a point?, It is abusive behaviour IMO. An earlier poster differentiated between the flat of ones hand and a fist, again, in my opinion there is no difference, it is still striking another human being. All this does is show that you are unwilling or unable to have a conversation, illustrate something verbally, or that the other human being has done something which warrants physical aggression.

Have you ever tried to have a conversation with a three-year-old who is in a full-blown screaming, hyperventilating, throwing themself against things, kicking scratching and biting when restrained, tantrum?

Reason just doesn't work. A sharp physical shock can do.

ICBM said:

maidenfan said:

Fundamentally against smacking. Use of physical violence to prove a point?, It is abusive behaviour IMO. An earlier poster differentiated between the flat of ones hand and a fist, again, in my opinion there is no difference, it is still striking another human being. All this does is show that you are unwilling or unable to have a conversation, illustrate something verbally, or that the other human being has done something which warrants physical aggression.

Have you ever tried to have a conversation with a three-year-old who is in a full-blown screaming, hyperventilating, throwing themself against things, kicking scratching and biting when restrained, tantrum?

Reason just doesn't work. A sharp physical shock can do.

And it's nothing whatever to do with abuse, aggression or physical violence to prove a point.

There is a huge difference between a flat hand used like that and a fist - not just a difference in scale, a complete difference in concept, and it's utterly ridiculous to equate the two.

No, they are both still forms of assault.

In my opinion.

I do understand your point, however having spent 4 years working in child and adolescent psychiatry and two years working in local authority child social care, there are more effective ways of managing behaviour. Any 'acting out' behaviour is a communication, something that cannot be verbalised. This is something that the child / young person is not able to contain, it is the parent / caregivers role to safely contain this, both for them, the young person and others. Holding / physical restraint is necessary sometimes, use of time-out, all being done with us thinking and talking with them. An attempt to 'detoxify' the emotion and help them to understand or be able to start thinking about it.

I do wonder if that sort of attitude is really just training children to be manipulative.

Phil_aka_Pip

Fortheloveofguitar said:

My old man used to keep a snooker cue in my wardrobe and I used to get a going over with that if I stepped out of line.

That or the slipper was the usual and he once threw a knife at me.

I was a hyper active child and a bit cheeky but nothing more than that.

Suffice to say it didn't get him anywhere apart from me resenting him more and more the older I got.

I will never smack my own son

Your old man wasn't smacking you. He was using violence. As has been said before, there is a big difference (although I grant you some people don't recognise it).

Evilmags

I found threatening to flush her head down the big worked. Never had to actually do it.

Snap

I have never, and would never smack my kids. Its unneccessary and only serves to relieve your own anger and frustration.

I have daughters, and how on earth could I hit them FFS? Its wrong and brutal. I think it sends out the wrong message too: violence is an accetable consequence of supposed wrongdoing. Its not.

I was twatted all over the place as a kid by my Dad and sometimes my Mum. WIth all sorts of things. It just made me resentful and angry. DIdn't stop me doing anything. All it did was lead me to respect them less. In fact, it probably made me worse.
Its made me resent and hate violence for sure.

Its a sign of weakness in the parent - you cant control your kids, or bring them up well enough, without hitting them to reinforce the point. total weakness and bullying.

You teach your kids right and wrong, of course, but reinforcing those lessons with slaps, smacks (aka beatings) IMO is totally contrary to that. SOciety doesn't tolerate emphasisng points with violence, so I don't see why its a good idea to insert threat of pain and violence as a consequence of (what the parent deems to be) unacceptable behaviour.

apart from that, yeah, all for it.

ICBM

Once again, you are confusing smacking with violence and beating. They are - or should be - completely different things. (I accept there may be parents who do both.)

It is not a sign of weakness, it does not involve anger, frustration or loss of control, and it's not about *hitting* them. It should never be used in any way that could cause an injury - that's why it is not the same as punching or beating with an object. It's not about punishment or respect. It's a way of quickly getting through to a child who has lost control of themselves and can't be reasoned with.

Sadly that might be because your parents didn't understand the difference, and I feel very sorry for both you and Fortheloveofguitar that you had parents who could do that to a child.

I'm not "in favour" of smacking children, by the way. But I think that not being able to draw a distinction between a smack and a violent beating is completely wrong.

I would never under any circumstances harm one of my children - quite the opposite, on the three or four occasions (and it is only that many) I have needed to do it, it was to prevent them harming themselves and it being necessary to hurt them more to restrain them.

Snap

what's the difference? Really. You are using physical force to enforce behaviour.

IMO, it is ALL about weakness and anger and frustration. you don't need to hit a kid to punish behaviour, you really don't. Its bad parenting.

Smacking is physical violence - why isn't it? Its not a violent beating, but it is violence.Its using physical force against another person.

If I smacked (not punched, a slap, but it wouldn't be on the arse cos I am manly) a bloke I could foreseeably get done for a public order offence, its unlikely but by letter of the law, possible.

If I smacked my wife to make a point, I could get done.

Why is it different in the case of hitting a child? Where's this line that makes it OK?

You say its about gettting through to a child who's lost control: I'd say that is the case in less than 5% of events of smacking a child. My youngest used to have massive fits,  proper bennies. Never got smacked. We;d take her out of the situation, somewhere totally different, til she calmed down (usually locked her in the boot of the car, did the job every time, lol)

seriously though, I cant' judge everyone in every event, but I think that IMO its an unneccesary thing. Its an easy option, whatever the intention. We're not simple animals, we don't need to cuff our kids to get a point across or remedy a situation.

ICBM

Snap said:

what's the difference?

The difference is between using a sharp physical shock which does not cause any injury, and using violent force which does (or could). It is NOT about weakness anger and frustration, and it's not about punishment either. Punishment is something applied after the event.

An adult can be reasoned with, so is a totally different case. In fact a child over the age where they can be reasoned with shouldn't be smacked either.

I would also never lock a child alone in a confined space to control them. To me that is abuse.

Hootsmon

I thought title read SMOKIN' children........why if I ever caught a child of mine smokin' they'd get the thrashin' of their lives

Phil_aka_Pip

hootsmon said:

I thought title read SMOKIN' children........if I ever caught a child of mine smokin' they'd get the thrashin' of their lives

You'd need more then King Size Rizlas to smoke a child. Unless you were going to hang them up like bacon ...

Hootsmon

^ muhahaha

Hootsmon

Pip, you not cold in that room with just a simmet on? 

Jalapeno

thisisguitar said:

Sorted it:

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2015/feb/06/barber-disciplines-kids-old-man-haircut

Utter genius !!!!!!!

I can't ever recall getting smacked by my folks.

Got strapped at school (across the hand hurt like hell), but didn't bother me at all (a sociopathic little f*cker had shoved a sharpened pencil in my arse and I was going to stick a compass in his come what may - teacher walked in and strapped us both  for larking around in science labs - I never did get my revenge, main feeling was of being hard done by ).  Got a few other arbitary wallops for fights and debaggings, but I was generally a right little swot.  Nuns ... very into physical violence as is well documented - the most shocking thing I saw was a public strapping across the buttocks (clothes on thankfully) for a 3rd former who beat up a 1st year within a few weeks of starting.  Very unnerving.

Snap

ICBM said:

Snap said:

what's the difference?

The difference is between using a sharp physical shock which does not cause any injury, and using violent force which does (or could). It is NOT about weakness anger and frustration, and it's not about punishment either. Punishment is something applied after the event.

An adult can be reasoned with, so is a totally different case. In fact a child over the age where they can be reasoned with shouldn't be smacked either.

I would also never lock a child alone in a confined space to control them. To me that is abuse.

nah, your explanation of the difference is apologist/excusing for hitting a kid. Don't buy it on iota.

you're an adult, you should be able to outdo a kid and sort them out without resorting to hitting them to get through. You can excuse it all you like, justify it even, but its unecessary.

Oh, the car boot thing: that was a joke.


Jal - I went to a school run by nuns. I agree, they were brutal. Always beating us with rulers, canes, sticks. Nasty gets. Sister Joseph Mary - she used to laugh as she hit us with a ruler across the knuckles. That's normal isn't it? Twat.

ROOG

I did smack my kids, and I feel bad about it now.

I treated mine in a similar way that parents treated me.

 

ICBM

Snap said:

nah, your explanation of the difference is apologist/excusing for hitting a kid. Don't buy it on iota.

Your lack of understanding that there is a difference, and attempt to label other people's actions or their motivation as "weakness", "anger" etc, I can understand if you've been subjected to abuse by a violent parent who didn't know the difference either, but is still wrong.

If your locking a child in a car boot was a joke, sadly it's close enough to the reality of what many people who are opposed to smacking under any circumstances see as a way to control a child. There are more ways to harm a child psychologically than by a physical shock.

I don't feel "good" about smacking my child either - quite the opposite - but I would do it again in the same circumstances for the same reasons if I had to. I would prefer not to have done but in my opinion the alternative of allowing the *child's* violent behaviour to continue was worse.

Snap

ICBM - i do understand what you are saying, genuinely, and I think you do believe that what you say is correct. But I argue it isn't. You simply do not need to hit a child to get through to them, even when they are "going for it" or in a situation that requires quick remedy (like the plug socket.

And saying that many people who don't smack their children, resort to cruel and abusive psychology instead, is frankly offensive and probably as ignorant as what you are inferring I am, when arguing my point against smacking.

Its all about balance, and personal choice, and I don't agree with government imposed bans on smacking either, I think that's a step too far.

I understand what drives people hit their kids, but it is a weakness IMO, and it is unnecessary. It sends all the wrong messages out: what you are saying when you hit a child, is that under certain circumstances, violence (and it is violence) is acceptable. That draws a line out - you define a behaviour that is acceptable, because you, the parent have now stepped over the line whereby physical painful actions become an acceptable armament in disciplining your children. That resonates with the child, and becomes part of their world view, that certain things lead to getting hit.

Violence - emotive word, but using physical force, on someone else, with pain involved, is violence.

Phil_aka_Pip

Snap said:

Violence - emotive word, but using physical force, on someone else, with pain involved, is violence.

Not a sufficient definition for violence. Otherwise your dentist couldn't extract a tooth.

EricTheWeary

Phil_aka_Pip;515031" said:

Snap said:

Violence - emotive word, but using physical force, on someone else, with pain involved, is violence.










Not a sufficient definition for violence. Otherwise your dentist couldn't extract a tooth.

I think you could add something like ' without their consent.'

Hootsmon

change of mind