The smacking debate

[SpontaneousOrder]

I can prevent him putting the screwdriver in the socket without smacking him though. The smack is the signal that "mummy is very cross" - the 'shock' to reinforce the message that you must not stick screwdrivers in sockets, or kittens in microwaves, or ten pound notes down the toilet. The more I use it, the less effective it becomes, but that's my judgement, not the states, isn't it? There are already assault laws to protect children when excessive force is used.

I very much doubt that ZeroLiability is suggesting that it is the business of the state. He's just saying that it's a poor way to raise a child into a mentally healthy adult, and that it's also horribly immoral.

[SpontaneousOrder]

You're referring to an intervention to stop the child from bringing harm to itself. In that scenario, using force to prevent it from doing so is perfectly justifiable. That's the basis I am differentiating on.

Presumably you're not equating restraint to smacking. It sounds as though that's what mudskipper is suggest you are doing.

[SpontaneousOrder]

It's not about parents getting exasperated or at the end of their tether imho, its about state interference in every nook and cranny of our lives.
That and the sanctimonious do-gooders who like to feel superior and want to tell us how to live our lives according to their standards and expectations.


As CS Lewis said (and BGG)
'Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience'

Bringing the state into this is a straw man. Smacking your kids is either right/wrong, good parenting/bad parenting (i separate the two here because regardless of the morality in the moment, smacking children damages their ability to be the most functional adults they could be). Whether the state knows or not, or agrees or disagrees, changes nothing.

[SpontaneousOrder]

baaaa



the herbivores are out in force today.

I can just see them in

1440- 'Burn the heretic'
1540 - 'the earth is flat'
1640 -'burn the witch'
1740 -'a floating kettle, ha ha'
1840 -'spare the rod and spoil the child'
1940 -'mein fuhrer'
2013 -'baaaa'



dedicated followers of fashion, with not an original thought in their tiny little swedes

The irony is strong in this one.

[suityou01]

I decided to try and respect my kids. Treat them well, include them in decision making. Treat them like small people.

It works. They after all are only trying to express themselves, put across their ideas, thoughts and feelings.

Sometimes they don't show me or SY02 the same respect, get lippy and answer back. After a couple of polite warnings, I find if this still isn't working a "clip round the earole" restores the status quo.

Edit : haven't had to do the earole thing in years. Long memories.

[Zero Liability]

Presumably you're not equating restraint to smacking. It sounds as though that's what mudskipper is suggest you are doing.

I'm not, no, and restraint is pretty much a special case where the parent is intervening because the child has still not yet developed its cognitive faculties (unlike adults or cognitively impaired individuals) to the point that it can identify clear dangers to itself. I'm not at all suggesting the government has any business in telling parents how to rear or educate their kids as I don't believe it has, and it would in all likelihood just raise them to fit its own agenda.

That is separate to whether someone close to the child, who suspects abuse or neglect, being able to challenge the parent's custodial rights in court or the child, later in life, being able to sue the parents for damages if it can prove abuse or neglect did occur, in contravention of the parent's duty to ensure they are acting in the child's best interests, which it is very difficult to argue that e.g. spanking a child out of frustration constitutes.

[SpontaneousOrder]

It works. They after all are only trying to express themselves, put across their ideas, thoughts and feelings.

Exactly - they're learning. They're learning about themselves and their place in the world around them. They're learning that their actions have consequences, and in an ideal world by the time they are released into the wide world to fend for themselves they have learned enough to make their way.

One problem with smacking children is that in most occasions it replaces a natural consequence, which they might face in the real world, with an artificial one.
If your child breaks his toy the natural consequence is that he loses the use of his property and must work/save to replace it, or go without. Lesson learned.
If instead though you take that natural consequence onto yourself by replacing the toy, and instead give the child an unnatural consequence (in this case a smack), typically described as 'for your own good' then that child has not learned the lesson that he should have and consequently will make the same mistake when he's making his own way, may be confused due to the artificial consequences of his actions which are supposed to be for his own good (somehow 'for my own good' always equals something bad), and may even resent their parents for it.

Lets suppose the transgression is instead that they disrespected you. The natural consequence in the real world (very generally speaking) is that they lose out by being socially ostracised according to the extent of their disrespect - people who show mutual respect mutually cooperate and prosper. When you replace that consequence with an artificial one by smacking the child, they are learning the wrong lesson, and that respect is something to be demanded by force, rather than mutually observed when deserved. That child is hit to extract the respect that you demand, yet at school the child gets in trouble for doing the exact same thing to other kids.

I'm not trying to judge you for the very rare clip around the ear in a particular situation (it's normal for people to snap and do things, even *if* they do believe it to be bad). I'm just very certain that the same ends can be achieved more effectively and with less damage using non-violent communication techniques and choice to allow kids to experience those natural consequences rather than the artificial ones (if you get disrespected by your child then presumably he/she'll understand why you are then less interested in having all of the fun times with them that you normally have, for a while).
One way is a battle between parent and child. The other way is a process of realising the potentially negative consequences of their actions.

include them in decision making. Treat them like small people

I like this - i was trying to convince someone (casually) about this recently. Simple things like dinner choices - you have a weeks worth of meals in the fridge, so why not include the kid in the vote on which of those meals they fancy today? I would never dream (all things being equal) of telling my other half what she's having for dinner today without giving her the option of saying whether she might feel like something else instead - so why not afford the kids the same simple courtesy? Ok, its your job to make sure they eat well; but that doesn't mean that they can't express a preference on the order in which they would like to eat those meals. "Because I said so" is not the way to train kids to reason.

People understandably get angry when I tell them that smacking children is bad parenting, because its a sensitive topic. But 99% of them have never given the topic more than a few hours of study.

[suityou01]

Interesting and well reasoned argument. Are you sure you're cut out for CUK?

In life, if you show someone disrespect, getting a punch in the gob is a real prospect. How would I convey this to a child in a non synthetic / natural response?

[SpontaneousOrder]

Interesting and well reasoned argument. Are you sure you're cut out for CUK?

In life, if you show someone disrespect, getting a punch in the gob is a real prospect. How would I convey this to a child in a non synthetic / natural response?

Yes, I agree that it is a very real prospect. But presumably the more you put respect and violence hand in hand, the more likely it is your kid will end up in those exact social circles where he's about to get in an unnecessary fight because he 'disrespected' someone or something, as opposed to the more civilised circles where tossers just end up lonely.

Life's not perfect, but you can try to make it the best you can.

[EternalOptimist]

A smack is there for the occasions when there is no time for a reasoned debate. No time to discuss the finer points of a well reasoned and balanced discussion.

And if you think that you are equipping your kids well by ignoring the scum and the chavs and the riff raff, and prepare them only for the rarified circles that you believe you exist in, then God help them,
because you certainly have not