Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sire)
    Really? I think I would have no problem with smacking my own children if I ever have any. But take my situation for example. My partner has a son aged 7 (8 in a few weeks) and he still lives with his father, but is often staying with us on weekends and for a few hours after school. The boy is a right little **** who refuses to do as he is told, calls his parents everything under the sun, hates the words 'no' and chucks a right tantrum if someone doesn't do what he wants etc. In short he is a little turd. No I've never struck him. Why? Because he simply isn't my child. But GOD DAMN I wish my partner or his father would. All they can do is tell him not to do something and hope for the best. As is always the case, he does as he damn well pleases and his parents try to be a little more forceful with a raised voice or even explain why he isn't allowed to do some things or can't have some things. This just brings about a 7yr olds potty mouth (I learnt a few new words off him) as he throws a tantrum for his parents. This behaviour is unacceptable and is already beginning to effect him at school as he finds the same things work better with teachers. A good smack across the arse each time he stepped too far out of line would benefit all concerned.

    Does anyone disagree with this point?
    Hmmm I hate spoilt little shits, I would certainly smack my kid if he/she was naughty but I would not hit then over the knuckles like my dad did as I think that its too much. I understand what you mean about kids like that, they really get me angry as I just want to slap them across the back of the legs and teach them a lesson. My friend had a little brother who was a bugger like that and to teach him a lesson we put him in an empty bean bag case and hung the case from a peg on the back of a door. It was so funny at the time as we were only 15 but now I look back it was a bit nasty. I say a slap across the bum or legs is valuable both to the child and to the adult he/she becomes.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I saw some people talking about this on latenight BBC one last night and I a women made a point that I really agree with. Smacking happens when a parent looses control, I think this is true. I have never met a parent who plans to smack their child it usually happens on the spur of the moment. I don't think it is ever necissary to resort to physical violence with a child.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Young children don't know the difference between right and wrong.
    It's simple.
    If you're about to put your hand in a fire and you get smacked then you know not to do it again.
    Offline

    13
    ReputationRep:
    Smacking, well, in my opinion that would depend on what exactly is meant by spanking.


    Talking is the best way, if that fails, maybe a samll slap on the hand?

    Smaking a child is just not human!
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by piggysqueak)
    Young children don't know the difference between right and wrong.
    It's simple.
    If you're about to put your hand in a fire and you get smacked then you know not to do it again.
    You can have exactly the same effect by sending them to their room or giving them a time out. Violence doesn't have to be resorted to.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    I am surprised the amount of parents who think they can bring up their children and resort to violence in the way they do. Just because you are physically able to bring up children, doesn't mean you are going to be good at it.

    May be we should change the education system accordingly to try and deal with this?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Investmentboy)
    Hmmm I hate spoilt little shits, I would certainly smack my kid if he/she was naughty but I would not hit then over the knuckles like my dad did as I think that its too much. I understand what you mean about kids like that, they really get me angry as I just want to slap them across the back of the legs and teach them a lesson. My friend had a little brother who was a bugger like that and to teach him a lesson we put him in an empty bean bag case and hung the case from a peg on the back of a door. It was so funny at the time as we were only 15 but now I look back it was a bit nasty. I say a slap across the bum or legs is valuable both to the child and to the adult he/she becomes.
    I couldn't agree more, a good slap across the arse. Nothing more than that mind, there are limits after all.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Dude)
    I agree with you. My parents smacked me when i was child, but only if i did something really really bad (like when i found a tin of paint and painted the car. It was funny at the time.)
    Brilliant, just brilliant
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    i think kids SHOULD stilll get slapped - i was slapped by my parents when i was younger if i did something wrong - and i sure as heck knew not to do it again! mind you, i would still rather get slapped by my mum than face her 'hairdryer' treatment - i swear, she is scarier than alex ferguson - all my friends will attest to this, im sure! (misbah - back me up on this!)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    in the modern lifestyle that we all live, children dont regard having their playstation took off them for a week or being sent to their room for 4 hours as a punishment.

    Temporarily removing childrens posessions doesnt enforce a rule as they know that posession will be given back to them and the rule is their to be broekn again.

    Smacking is the only way.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    IMO Smacking children is neither right, nor wrong, depends on the circumstances. Of course then it becomes inevitable that to understand it, we need to look at the circumstances in which smacking occurs, what it does and whether that achieves the aim of 'discipline'.

    I'll just remind every1 that discipline has nothing to do with punishment, it is to lead by example. The disciplinary effect of smacking is to teach that parents can smack children and thus that is acceptable behaviour. Smacking has other effects of course, which people often confuse as being directly disciplinary. It associates actions with pain and in doing so leads to avoidance, that is in no way directly disciplinary, but superficially appears so.

    In what circumstances is it appropriate to smack a child? As people have suggested, when all reasonable means have been exhausted. We obviously ignore the meaning or application of reasonable and are led to assume this is a reasonable parent. 'Smacking helps to reinforce the message that the behaviour shown is wrong and will not be tolerated'. However, the actual message must almost invariably be communicated by word - or you'll in essence be conditioning your children as effectively as you could a fly. So then, a logical question would be, if the message is understood and accepted by word, what value is the reinforcement?

    In reality, smacking usually precedes the 'message', as smacking is (as someone said) mostly a parent losing control, trying to exercise authority, and almost instinctively using force. Then after calming down a little, the message gets communicated verbally. This shows a situation in which the only useful function of smacking would be to halt an immediately threatening behaviour (like running into a road), but usually in those situations there are many other possibilities (e.g. pick up the child).

    Now, if the verbal message was the disciplinary part of the incidence, exactly why was smacking required? This I don't really know, it's probably one of those cyclic things where parents anticipate what they are expected to do and do so. The expectation of course would be a consequence of their own experience as a child and their actions would invariably create the same expectation in their own children.

    Smacking does not have to do harm, but it usually doesn't do good either. Where good is disciplinary effect and harm is residual psychological problems. Those advocating smacking on the basis that they were smacked and 'turned out fine' lack in their arguments, the good that smacking does, but instead focus on the harm it didn't do. To me, this isn't evidence of the value of smacking, but of anticipation and expectation.

    Where smacking goes wrong is where it occurs without the message, with high frequency, or with high severity. The former is a waste of time, the latter dangerous and the middle one, confusing.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    all those saying it doesn't help to smack a child i suggest you go find evidence supporting that point of view.

    it's psychologicaly proven that if a child does something wrong and they get hit for it then they won't do it again, as they associate pain with the thing they did wrong and dont want to experiance it again.

    however beating a child is wrong

    smacking and beating are 2 different things
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Alan)
    all those saying it doesn't help to smack a child i suggest you go find evidence supporting that point of view.

    it's psychologicaly proven that if a child does something wrong and they get hit for it then they won't do it again, as they associate pain with the thing they did wrong and dont want to experiance it again.
    I hope you're not suggesting the second statement paragraph supports your first statement. I think if you ask people, they'd rather their children undertand their actions and why they are wrong, than simply avoid a situation on the basis that it causes pain. That is the limitation of smacking, but doesn't make it wrong. It just makes it useless without actual discipline.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Alan)
    all those saying it doesn't help to smack a child i suggest you go find evidence supporting that point of view.

    it's psychologicaly proven that if a child does something wrong and they get hit for it then they won't do it again, as they associate pain with the thing they did wrong and dont want to experiance it again.

    however beating a child is wrong

    smacking and beating are 2 different things
    here here
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _Alan)
    all those saying it doesn't help to smack a child i suggest you go find evidence supporting that point of view.

    it's psychologicaly proven that if a child does something wrong and they get hit for it then they won't do it again, as they associate pain with the thing they did wrong and dont want to experiance it again.

    however beating a child is wrong

    smacking and beating are 2 different things
    1) The problem with most ''evidence'' (psychological studies, anecdotes etc) which support or do not support smacking is that the cause and effect in these studies may be difficult to establish.
    For example: although some people (on UKL) suggest that children who were not smacked are naughtier than their smacked counterparts their behaviour may be due to other factors, such as the non-smacked children being brought up in non-smacking nurseries in which the children received little attenton and found that being naughty got them attention and little punishment, this could be a reason why the small sample of non-smacked children who are mentioned in this thread may be badly behaved.

    2) Please note that behavioural psychologists like the ones seen on Supernanny etc do not advocate 'negative reinforcement'/ punishment in the form of smacking but emphasise 'positive reinforcement' (praising the child when it behaves in the required way).

    It is commonly accepted (amongst behaviour experts) that this is a more effective method of behaviour modification than punishment in the form of smacking.

    This is because unless you really beat the child into submission the child will still be 'bad' because he/she knows that he/she will only get smacks which are only painful a short while (and there is little incentive for the child to be good because the small amount of pain inflicted is disproportionate to the joy they get out of misbehaving). The only way to counterbalance this pain/gain is to increase the pain inflicted or to remove the joy the child gets out of misbehaving...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mineko)
    1) The problem with most ''evidence'' (psychological studies, anecdotes etc) which support or do not support smacking is that the cause and effect in these studies may be difficult to establish.
    For example: although some people (on UKL) suggest that children who were not smacked are naughtier than their smacked counterparts their behaviour may be due to other factors, such as the non-smacked children being brought up in non-smacking nurseries in which the children received little attenton and found that being naughty got them attention and little punishment, this could be a reason why the small sample of non-smacked children who are mentioned in this thread may be badly behaved.

    2) Please note that behavioural psychologists like the ones seen on Supernanny etc do not advocate 'negative reinforcement'/ punishment in the form of smacking but emphasise 'positive reinforcement' (praising the child when it behaves in the required way).

    It is commonly accepted (amongst behaviour experts) that this is a more effective method of behaviour modification than punishment in the form of smacking.

    This is because unless you really beat the child into submission the child will still be 'bad' because he/she knows that he/she will only get smacks which are only painful a short while (and there is little incentive for the child to be good because the small amount of pain inflicted is disproportionate to the joy they get out of misbehaving). The only way to counterbalance this pain/gain is to increase the pain inflicted or to remove the joy the child gets out of misbehaving...
    yes positive reinforcement is helpful.
    ------------------------------------------------------------------
    also groundings wont work because nowdays most kids have computers in their rooms and so will just sit and play on those, wow what a punishment forced to play on a computer.
 
 
 
Poll
Which accompaniment is best?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.