Corporal punishment of children

mikemac

Thread may work in humanities
It's been in parenting forum at lenght but non parents should get their say too.

Last night I was in the chipper, yeah I'm feeling guilty

Young lad, no more then 5 or 6 was kicking the football around and annoying customers.
So his father grabbed him by the collar and hit him a few belts and the usual "I'll fooking kill you when we get home"

I was glad he stopped kicking the ball around but on the other hand was pretty taken aback at the hits the child got.
And yes, I didn't step in, I'm minded my own business before you ask why I didn't stop the father

Is corporal punishment on children acceptable?
And if so do you make a distinction on if you do it in the privacy of your own home or in a public place?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

The issue I have with this is that it gives the kids the idea that aggression is a good way to solve conflicts with other people.

How do you deal with kid in chipper? Take the ball away. Job done.

PeterIanStaker

Keep feeding the kid fast food until he's too obese to kick football. Problem solved.

talla10

A little clip around the ear never hurt anybody so to speak!!I see too many parents who never discpline their child if somebody else calls them bold the parents square up and start fights then kids grow up to be scum!all in moderation i got a few clips when i was a kid and it never did any harm

Truley

talla10 wrote: »

I see too many parents who never discpline their child if somebody else calls them bold the parents square up and start fights then kids grow up to be scum!

If a study was carried out on stereotypically 'scummy' people (lets say prisoners for example,) with the aim of discovering how many of them experienced violence as children, I would wager the opposite would be the case.

In my years working with some of the most challenging children you could ever, ever come across I have not once felt the need to slap/smack or hit as a way of communicating with them.

Children, especially young children, learn primarily through imitation and example. If you strike a child you are teaching that child that violence is ok.

It really is that simple.

stovelid

Really hitting children hard (as it sounds like in the OP) is very very wrong.

Resorting to a light smack (on the bottom) as the only method of parenting is wrong,

Although I respect the opinions of others on the matter, I do reserve the right to use the latter if I wish, even if don't end up doing it or do it rarely.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

talla10 wrote: »

A little clip around the ear never hurt anybody so to speak!!I see too many parents who never discpline their child if somebody else calls them bold the parents square up and start fights then kids grow up to be scum!all in moderation i got a few clips when i was a kid and it never did any harm

Not giving your kids a clip around the ear does NOT AUTOMATICALLY mean never disciplining them.

stovelid

stovelid wrote: »

Resorting to a light smack (on the bottom) as the only method of parenting is wrong,

Agreed, and yet as part of a series of different methods used at the same time, its a valuable tool. There's no requirement to batter children around the place or take the belt to them, but sometimes children do need a slap to show them a definite "no" to something.

The thing I find interesting is this belief that hitting children will teach them that such behavior is common, and that they will turn into little beasts as a result of it. Its only recently (last decade) that corporal punishment has become a "no, no", and we've seen the attitude of children change dramatically.

It puts me in mind of all the "little emperors" I saw in China when I was teaching there. They got everything they wanted and ran roughshod over their parents. Most parents were confused as to how to manage them since they were so used to giving in immediately.

And since I've come back to Ireland, I've seen the same behavior here. Since corporal punishment has gone out the window, it seems like parents don't know how to manage their children. My two own nieces are wonderful little creatures (aged 2 & 4) but they know how to control the adults in any situation to get what they want. And they've learned rather quickly that they can throw heavy tantrums and eventually beat down the resistance of their parents, ultimately getting a reward to stop the tantrum.

When I was a child, I would have gotten a slap for such behavior. After one or two incidents, I got the message, and didn't try it again.

In moderation and used in the right circumstances, corporal punishment is an important tool for managing children. But as with anything it can be used excessively and cause the wrong results. But that doesn't mean it should be removed entirely.

Macha

The only reason I would hit my child would be smacking it out of harms way is if it were in danger of pulling down an iron cord or something similar.

We respect the rights of adults not to be smacked/hit by other people. I don't see what's so different for those under 18, in fact especially for those under 18 who are almost always smaller and weaker than the person smacking/hitting them.

If a person's method of communicating boundaries to their children involves physical violence, I think that person needs to go on a parenting course or read some parenting books.

Rev Hellfire

feelingstressed wrote: »

Is corporal punishment on children acceptable?

Yes but it depends on the severity and frequency of the punishment doled out.

feelingstressed wrote: »

And if so do you make a distinction on if you do it in the privacy of your own home or in a public place?

If you can justify it at home it should be applicable in public.

The only issue I have with corporal punishment is when the parent has clearly lost control and is simply lashing out, then its wrong. But that would be true of any punishment given out.

strobe

taconnol wrote: »

If a person's method of communicating boundaries to their children involves physical violence, I think that person needs to go on a parenting course or read some parenting books.

This would some up my thoughts on the subject aswell. If you learn how to raise a child properly from the beginning you will never have to resort to hitting them, ever. If you don't know how to raise a child without hitting them then learn how to be a proper parent when you find out you are going to have them. There are plenty of resources out there these days. The only explanation for corporal punishment is laziness and/or ignorance on the parents part in my opinion. Other methods of discipline and correction work just as well or better so why any parent would choose violence over that is completely beyond my comprehension.

dvpower

feelingstressed wrote: »

Is corporal punishment on children acceptable?

Probably not. The only times I've been tempted to give my kids a belt is when I've lost my cool. Its a lazy approach to dicipline, imo.

talla10 wrote: »

A little clip around the ear never hurt anybody so to speak!!I see too many parents who never discpline their child if somebody else calls them bold the parents square up and start fights then kids grow up to be scum!all in moderation

If a parent has got to the point that they need to hit their children to prevent them growing up to be scum, then they've failed on a much more fundemental level.

talla10 wrote: »

i got a few clips when i was a kid and it never did any harm

Except that it seems to have convinced you that hitting children is sometimes OK.;)

GreeBo

I surprised everyone is ignoring Klaz's post. It sums up my opinion pretty well.
I dont for one minute believe that smacking children turns them into people who resolve everything with violence. If that were true anyone who went to a religious school in the last 50 years would be a maniac.

I for one can only see that the behaviour of children in the last 15 years has gone rapidly downhill and think that there are more anti-social people now than there were before. Can this be tied purely to the lack of corporal punishment? Probably not, is it a factor, I think so.

You cannot reason with a 2 year old, you give in to them. You can logically explain to them the problems or cause/effect of what they are doing.

I dont think anyone believes that you should physically abuse a child, but a scolding slap/smack is not abuse. Children do worse to each other everyday at school/playing.

<edit>
Also if someone approached me while I was reprimanding my child I would ignore them. No one has any right to interfere with my family and how they are brought up. Unless the well-being of the child is in danger, butt out.

Macha

GreeBo wrote: »

I surprised everyone is ignoring Klaz's post. It sums up my opinion pretty well.
I dont for one minute believe that smacking children turns them into people who resolve everything with violence. If that were true anyone who went to a religious school in the last 50 years would be a maniac.

I for one can only see that the behaviour of children in the last 15 years has gone rapidly downhill and think that there are more anti-social people now than there were before. Can this be tied purely to the lack of corporal punishment? Probably not, is it a factor, I think so.

You cannot reason with a 2 year old, you give in to them. You can logically explain to them the problems or cause/effect of what they are doing.

I dont think anyone believes that you should physically abuse a child, but a scolding slap/smack is not abuse. Children do worse to each other everyday at school/playing.

<edit>
Also if someone approached me while I was reprimanding my child I would ignore them. No one has any right to interfere with my family and how they are brought up. Unless the well-being of the child is in danger, butt out.

The argument isn't that by smacking a child that you are necessarily turning them into a violent person - it's a bit of a strawman you have created. Instead, what you are doing is sending a message to that child that:

a) violence is an acceptable method of communicating with other people
b) violence is acceptable against children. In other words, the respect, dignity and personal integrity of children is not as important as that of adults.

Having said that, there are many people alive today who experienced significant violence at the hands of parents/teachers and who still live with the consequences. I have family members who were belted around by their father, who in turn ended up with a history of domestic violence. To try to suggest that there is no link is just not backed up by the evidence.

Are there actually more anti-social people today? Where are the statistics? And where is the evidence that parents hitting their children is the most effective way to reduce "anti-social" behaviour, whatever that actually means? Is it a factor?

Finally, the idea that no one has the right to "interfere" with a family unless a parent deems them to be "in danger" is a cultural factor in the serious levels of abuse that have been tolerated and hidden in Irish society. Personally, I find this attitude sickening. Rights come with responsibility and if a parent is found lacking in the responsibility department, they give up some of those rights. This "my house and family are my kingdom" nonsense is reminiscent of 19th century Victorian England.

We as adults expect a certain level of respect and bodily safety and the family home should be the one place that we feel safe. I fail to understand why we have somehow decided that children should be exempt from this. In Ireland, children are the only citizens who can legally be hit. Children are the smallest and weakest in society and therefore need more protection, not less than adults. It is truly a perverse situation.

If your 2-year old is not understanding the situation, it is because you are not explaining it properly. If they persist, ignore them, put them in their room, remove rewards, remove toys etc. At no point is physical contact necessary.

Fuinseog

feelingstressed wrote: »

Thread may work in humanities
It's been in parenting forum at lenght but non parents should get their say too.

Last night I was in the chipper, yeah I'm feeling guilty

Young lad, no more then 5 or 6 was kicking the football around and annoying customers.
So his father grabbed him by the collar and hit him a few belts and the usual "I'll fooking kill you when we get home"

I was glad he stopped kicking the ball around but on the other hand was pretty taken aback at the hits the child got.
And yes, I didn't step in, I'm minded my own business before you ask why I didn't stop the father

Is corporal punishment on children acceptable?
And if so do you make a distinction on if you do it in the privacy of your own home or in a public place?

many kids have no respect for anyone or anything, partially because they know their actions have no consequences.
if thez smash a car window, thez have nothing to fear, especiallz if under 16.
hitting your child a slap does not necessarily scar them emotionally for life. eating them to within an inch of their life is another matter.

Fuinseog

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The issue I have with this is that it gives the kids the idea that aggression is a good way to solve conflicts with other people.

How do you deal with kid in chipper? Take the ball away. Job done.

yeah and he will tell you to f**k off, give you a dig and call you a paedo.

Fuinseog

talla10 wrote: »

A little clip around the ear never hurt anybody so to speak!!I see too many parents who never discpline their child if somebody else calls them bold the parents square up and start fights then kids grow up to be scum!all in moderation i got a few clips when i was a kid and it never did any harm

hear hear parents these days are complete pushovers. they have no idea how to control their own children.many parents are influenced by america ie grounding, which does not always work in an irish context.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

GreeBo wrote: »

I surprised everyone is ignoring Klaz's post. It sums up my opinion pretty well.
I dont for one minute believe that smacking children turns them into people who resolve everything with violence. If that were true anyone who went to a religious school in the last 50 years would be a maniac.

I for one can only see that the behaviour of children in the last 15 years has gone rapidly downhill and think that there are more anti-social people now than there were before. Can this be tied purely to the lack of corporal punishment? Probably not, is it a factor, I think so.

You cannot reason with a 2 year old, you give in to them. You can logically explain to them the problems or cause/effect of what they are doing.

I dont think anyone believes that you should physically abuse a child, but a scolding slap/smack is not abuse. Children do worse to each other everyday at school/playing.

<edit>
Also if someone approached me while I was reprimanding my child I would ignore them. No one has any right to interfere with my family and how they are brought up. Unless the well-being of the child is in danger, butt out.

See my responce to talla10. one slight error though: YOU cannot reason with a 2 year old. I know plenty of parents who can and without hitting them.

Fuinseog wrote: »

yeah and he will tell you to f**k off, give you a dig and call you a paedo.

Would he? I don't know this particualr 7 year old, but if he's used to gettign hit, sounds like it's not working.

Fuinseog wrote: »

hear hear parents these days are complete pushovers. they have no idea how to control their own children.many parents are influenced by america ie grounding, which does not always work in an irish context.

Again, see my responce to talla10 above.

Eliot Rosewater

Fuinseog wrote: »

hitting your child a slap does not necessarily scar them emotionally for life. eating them to within an inch of their life is another matter.

Indeed. The more important thing to remember, though, is that eating them is only a once-off punishment. I generally find that once I've eaten a child it's no longer around for me to eat it again.

Ikky Poo2

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

See my responce to talla10. one slight error though: YOU cannot reason with a 2 year old. I know plenty of parents who can and without hitting them.

Part of the problem is that you are trying to reason all the time with them. There seems to be this idea that we must treat children like little adults, and through talk & logic/reasoning then they will understand right from wrong. And that they will care. The problem though is that for small children they're still learning the boundaries in the world, and frankly they don't understand enough to care (as would an adult). Adults have learned that there are consequences (often rather harsh ones) to actions of stupidity or aggression. Children haven't, and to constantly shelter them from that sets them up for the fall.

A small smack for attacking (and i do mean attacking) their sister is a rather good introduction to those boundaries. An explanation & telling them how disappointed you are in them only goes so far. Basically it rests on how much they value your opinion of them. And yet you have to also remember that for small children time is relative. They fully expect others to forget if they have done something wrong ten minutes ago, simply because they do themselves. Therefore, the odd time, something more than a harsh word is needed.

Would he? I don't know this particualr 7 year old, but if he's used to gettign hit, sounds like it's not working.

There are good ways to use corporal punishment and bad ways. If done immediately after a child does something wrong, then it creates a buffer against it happening again. However if it is left for 5 minutes or later that evening when Dad gets home, the lesson loses meaning. Then its "just" a beating with no real relationship to the action. The child will already have lost the real memory of the incident and can attribute the punishment to just about anything under the sun.

As I said earlier there are times when corporal punishment are useful. Its a tool. A very effective tool if used correctly. But anyone can take the most perfect tool or device and screw it up if they don't think before using it. Corporal punishment should never be done in anger and always with a firm reason made clear to everyone involved.

Let me draw an example. I worked in a private school in China, and was farmed (hired) out to government public schools at different stages for extra money. The private school was where parents with money sent their kids in the evening after public school to get extra tuition in English. Public schools are free and can be attended by anyone. The private school students were treated like kings both by parents and teachers alike. We sucked up to them, because that was how their parents wanted it, and it showed in the behavior of most of the students. Some were lovely, but most were little ****s. The public school students on the other hand weren't allowed any amount of leeway in behavior. I've seen a female teacher hit open palm across the face of two students looking at their phones in class. The school supported the teacher as did the parents. The students were perfect in their behavior for the most part, and extremely respectful after school.

I'm not saying either way is better. A mix of the two would be a better set up. Children should be encouraged to grow, but as adults we should be there to step in when they're doing something foolish, or dangerous. And sometimes a slap is what is needed.

RedXIV

strobe wrote: »

This would some up my thoughts on the subject aswell. If you learn how to raise a child properly from the beginning you will never have to resort to hitting them, ever. If you don't know how to raise a child without hitting them then learn how to be a proper parent when you find out you are going to have them. There are plenty of resources out there these days. The only explanation for corporal punishment is laziness and/or ignorance on the parents part in my opinion. Other methods of discipline and correction work just as well or better so why any parent would choose violence over that is completely beyond my comprehension.

I'm sorry but this really offends me. My parents would slap me or my siblings if we needed it. It would always be justified by some of our trying behaviour and I'd like to think that the 3 of us became fine examples of adults. You suggesting that because my parents would have slapped me on occasion makes the lazy or ignorant parents is simply disgusting. I love my parents, I've a fantastic relationship with them. I bear no grudges whatsoever and I think they were amazing parents. You may not agree with it, but don't say parents who believe in a slap are bad parents.

Truley

GreeBo wrote: »

I for one can only see that the behaviour of children in the last 15 years has gone rapidly downhill and think that there are more anti-social people now than there were before. Can this be tied purely to the lack of corporal punishment? Probably not, is it a factor, I think so.

From my observations there are an array of factors that have lead to different (in your opinion worse) levels of behaviour in children. There are too many variables to take into account so it's virtually impossible to put it down to lack of violence.

Poor, high - sugar diet

Lack of physical activity

Heavy media influence such as computer games, television

Changing family structure. Higher instance of single and 'broken' families and the subsequent problems that arise

Imitation of parents' undisciplined/unsociable behaviour

Changing society and attitudes. Succeeding in the modern workforce requires a greater level of creativity, flexability and assertiveness than would have been required in the past. Children raised with a 'put up and shut up' outlook wont go very far; though assertiveness in children can often be mistaken for lack of discipline by older generations.

Lack of purpose or direction. And what I mean by this, in my parents' time and before children had clear roles in the household structure, they were expected to pitch in with chores, help take care of siblings, learn important skills for the adult world etc. Nowadays children dont seem to have a role in society beyond being entertained by grown ups and having money spent on them. I often hear the phrase 'let kids be kids' but what exactly is being a kid?

And of course I agree wholeheartedly, lack of consistant discipline, violent or otherwise. People may not resort to violence as much as before, but at the same time have failed to find effective alternatives. This doesn't mean effective alternatives don't exist however.

As you can see, it's impossible to judge whether lack of physical discipline is directly related to poorer behaviour. I will never buy 'the ends justify the means' argument. I think it is wrong to teach children that violence is ok. I would feel that way whether they grew up to be nobel prize winners or serial killers.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

The argument isn't that by smacking a child that you are necessarily turning them into a violent person - it's a bit of a strawman you have created.

Actually, if you look at the posts before my first one, they do suggest such a thing.

Instead, what you are doing is sending a message to that child that:

a) violence is an acceptable method of communicating with other people
b) violence is acceptable against children. In other words, the respect, dignity and personal integrity of children is not as important as that of adults.

I disagree. You're throwing an adult level of logic against the impressions of a child. Basically, you're going overboard on the analysis. The violence isn't what matter. Its the behavior shown by the parents. If the parents behavior supports the reason why they hit the child, then the child will see this. If the parents hit the child for doing something, and then do something similar themselves, then its obvious the way any child will see how things are.

Having said that, there are many people alive today who experienced significant violence at the hands of parents/teachers and who still live with the consequences. I have family members who were belted around by their father, who in turn ended up with a history of domestic violence. To try to suggest that there is no link is just not backed up by the evidence.

My parents were teachers, and applied a level of discipline at home similar to that they provided in school. They didn't batter me around. They made object lessons very clear. If I hit my brother, I got a slap. If I played hurling in the back garden and broke a window after they warned me, I got a slap.
The slaps weren't particularly hard, it was the message that accompanied the slap that was important.

Whereas my Uncle regularly took off his belt to discipline his sons for minor infractions to a rather comprehensive set of rules. The continued to break them, continued to get hit, and when they left home they became perfect citizens.

It is not the punishment that turns people. It is everything that goes with it.

Are there actually more anti-social people today? Where are the statistics?

Rising crime rates particularly from young people targeting old people... Serious crime has also seen a dramatic rise over the last twenty years, and it can't be laid at the feet of foreigners. What has changed during that time? Parenting techniques, the removal of corporal punishment in schools, rising costs for parents so they can't provide as much supervision for their children, etc etc etc

I don't need statistics. ALL I have to do is walk down the street at 11 pm during a school week and see groups of 14 year olds hanging on corners smoking and checking everyone that goes by. When I was 14, I had a curfew at 8pm.

And where is the evidence that parents hitting their children is the most effective way to reduce "anti-social" behaviour, whatever that actually means? Is it a factor?

How about you show otherwise? We've pointed out the things that have changed since corporal punishment has gone.... While we're not saying its the only reason for the changes, it is a major factor in peoples attitudes.

Finally, the idea that no one has the right to "interfere" with a family unless a parent deems them to be "in danger" is a cultural factor in the serious levels of abuse that have been tolerated and hidden in Irish society. Personally, I find this attitude sickening. Rights come with responsibility and if a parent is found lacking in the responsibility department, they give up some of those rights. This "my house and family are my kingdom" nonsense is reminiscent of 19th century Victorian England.

Sure, if the person interfering is qualified to make such a intervention. There are too many busybodies in this country looking to forget their own problems by sticking their noses into other peoples. I'm "all for" proper organisations having the power to intervene.

We as adults expect a certain level of respect and bodily safety and the family home should be the one place that we feel safe. I fail to understand why we have somehow decided that children should be exempt from this. In Ireland, children are the only citizens who can legally be hit. Children are the smallest and weakest in society and therefore need more protection, not less than adults. It is truly a perverse situation.

Rubbish. I deserve the right to be perfectly safe walking home at 10pm and not meet a group of 16 year old's whose sole mission is to beat up random strangers for the "thrill" of it. Or the twats that drive around the streets of certain towns looking for easy marks to attack. Not to steal or anything. Just to beat up. And that kind of behavior started in the last 10 - 15 years.

I also have the right not to be more afraid of children and teens than other adults. Because children/teens are special. And if they hit me, then I can't hit them back. If they spit on me, I can't discipline them. If they bash my car, I can't wade into the group of them to get at the one that did the damage.

Children have responsibilities too. To be Children. Not to be dangerous little ****s. And frankly, I blame lack of parental control, lack of school discipline, and an elevation of children to the "untouchable" pedestal. Is it any wonder they're abusing the system when they have no real boundaries short of prison.

If your 2-year old is not understanding the situation, it is because you are not explaining it properly. If they persist, ignore them, put them in their room, remove rewards, remove toys etc. At no point is physical contact necessary.

You do realise that isolation is, for some children, more painful than physical contact. The trauma of what you suggest above can have just as much damage to a child to that of a physical punishment.

I think people have to understand that there is no perfect way to manage children. Every one of them is different, requiring different methods to manage them. Every tool in the parenting box is needed. And that includes physical punishment. And personally, its often a lot better for the child than all the Psych games people pick up and try on them.

strobe

Mary Hairy wrote: »

The statistics are there ion the streets. Teenage drunkeness is so pervasive as to be normal to say nothing of drug abuse and unprotected sex. All this from a generation who are the most spoilt in Irish history.
When I was growingup, canes were sold in the local Post Office, along with instructions as to use and advice on a suitable type of cane. It was very common to go into a house and see the cane prominently displayed. There were no girls rolling around the streets drunk or drugged. They came home on time sober, or they wouldn't sit down for a week.
There have been studies done showing that corporal punishment does no harm when it is consistent and fair.
The problem nowadays when someone does something wrong, no matter how heinous or trivial, there is always someone there to look for an excuse. Corporal punishment has been made that excuse for far too long.

When you were growing up in this country young girls were being given into what was basically a life of slavery in places like the Magdalene Laundries. Young boys were being raped and beaten to within an inch of their lives in Christian Brothers schools and industrial schools while adults the country over turned a blind eye. The kids took what was done to them and never complained because adults were always in the right and children were always in the wrong and if they disagreed or objected they were beaten with canes purchased in the local post office.

Forgive us if we don't all look back on the good old days that you grew up in with smiles on our faces and a twinkle in our eyes and pray every day that things could go back to the way they once were.






Honestly, I just can't even tell if people are being serious or not on this website anymore.

Fuinseog

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Indeed. The more important thing to remember, though, is that eating them is only a once-off punishment. I generally find that once I've eaten a child it's no longer around for me to eat it again.

sorry, the letter B is always working on my computer or y for that matter.

Truley

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't need statistics. ALL I have to do is walk down the street at 11 pm during a school week and see groups of 14 year olds hanging on corners smoking and checking everyone that goes by. When I was 14, I had a curfew at 8pm.

Hold up if the problem is teenagers hanging out late then surely the solution is to impose a curfew? Why the need to slap? How do you know the teenagers you see out haven't been slapped as children?

Teenagers smoked in the sixties too, infact they did it much much more back then. I could argue that less physical violence in childhood = lower instance of smoking.

Macha

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually, if you look at the posts before my first one, they do suggest such a thing.

Who is "they"?

Deleted User wrote: »

I disagree. You're throwing an adult level of logic against the impressions of a child. Basically, you're going overboard on the analysis. The violence isn't what matter. Its the behavior shown by the parents. If the parents behavior supports the reason why they hit the child, then the child will see this. If the parents hit the child for doing something, and then do something similar themselves, then its obvious the way any child will see how things are.

I couldn't disagree more. You think kids are clever enough to think "ah, yes I can see why violence would be justified in this particular instance because I'm being naughty". No, psychologists will tell you that the message getting through is "violence = valid method of communication". You haven't proven at all that I'm "going overboard" on the analysis and I'm not even sure what that means in this context.

Deleted User wrote: »

My parents were teachers, and applied a level of discipline at home similar to that they provided in school. They didn't batter me around. They made object lessons very clear. If I hit my brother, I got a slap. If I played hurling in the back garden and broke a window after they warned me, I got a slap.
The slaps weren't particularly hard, it was the message that accompanied the slap that was important.

So why slap?

Deleted User wrote: »

Whereas my Uncle regularly took off his belt to discipline his sons for minor infractions to a rather comprehensive set of rules. The continued to break them, continued to get hit, and when they left home they became perfect citizens.

Firstly no one is a perfect citizen. Secondly you have no idea what influence that had on your cousins and how that influences their interactions with others. I was bulimic for years and no one had a clue, least of all my extended family. My parents weren't evil but my dad's controlling personality had a significant impact. You simply cannot claim that it didn't have an impact because you cannot know.

Deleted User wrote: »

It is not the punishment that turns people. It is everything that goes with it.

I don't know what this means.

Deleted User wrote: »

Rising crime rates particularly from young people targeting old people... Serious crime has also seen a dramatic rise over the last twenty years, and it can't be laid at the feet of foreigners. What has changed during that time? Parenting techniques, the removal of corporal punishment in schools, rising costs for parents so they can't provide as much supervision for their children, etc etc etc

I don't need statistics. ALL I have to do is walk down the street at 11 pm during a school week and see groups of 14 year olds hanging on corners smoking and checking everyone that goes by. When I was 14, I had a curfew at 8pm.

Show me some data. You don't "need" statistics? Come off it. You've been around here long enough to know that doesn't cut it. People go on and on about "broken society" blah blah. Either back it up or withdraw it. I walk around the streets all the time and I have no problems whatsoever.

Deleted User wrote: »

How about you show otherwise? We've pointed out the things that have changed since corporal punishment has gone.... While we're not saying its the only reason for the changes, it is a major factor in peoples attitudes.

No you haven't you've made some vague claims based on personal anecdotes and then said that you don't "need" statistics. I'm not the one making a claim about how society has gone downhill - that would be you. The "oh so you don't you back up YOUR side" is as old as the hills around here and is regularly trotted out by those who can't/not bothered to actually find out if their own preconceived ideas are actually true or not.

Deleted User wrote: »

Sure, if the person interfering is qualified to make such a intervention. There are too many busybodies in this country looking to forget their own problems by sticking their noses into other peoples. I'm "all for" proper organisations having the power to intervene.

It's all a matter of degree but if I saw someone belting the crap out of their kid, I would want to say something. I can't say I've noticed this "busybodies" trend either...

Deleted User wrote: »

Rubbish. I deserve the right to be perfectly safe walking home at 10pm and not meet a group of 16 year old's whose sole mission is to beat up random strangers for the "thrill" of it. Or the twats that drive around the streets of certain towns looking for easy marks to attack. Not to steal or anything. Just to beat up. And that kind of behavior started in the last 10 - 15 years.

I also have the right not to be more afraid of children and teens than other adults. Because children/teens are special. And if they hit me, then I can't hit them back. If they spit on me, I can't discipline them. If they bash my car, I can't wade into the group of them to get at the one that did the damage.

Children have responsibilities too. To be Children. Not to be dangerous little ****s. And frankly, I blame lack of parental control, lack of school discipline, and an elevation of children to the "untouchable" pedestal. Is it any wonder they're abusing the system when they have no real boundaries short of prison.

This is just a vague rant about the "bad elements" of society, which you claim are on the rise, claim you don't need any statistics to prove, and now are blaming for being the way they are because nobody hit them when they were children?

This has to be one of the weirdest lines of thought I have ever encountered on Boards.

You do realise that isolation is, for some children, more painful than physical contact. The trauma of what you suggest above can have just as much damage to a child to that of a physical punishment.

Sorry this is actually hilarious. You are actually trying to claim that it is better to hit a child than send it to it's room to teach it's boundaries because of the psychological damage of being sent to their room? NO psychologist would agree with this line of thought it is a completely transparant twisting of theory to suit your defence of hitting children. Sorry but you've just lost complete credibility in this argument. I am done.

I think people have to understand that there is no perfect way to manage children. Every one of them is different, requiring different methods to manage them. Every tool in the parenting box is needed. And that includes physical punishment. And personally, its often a lot better for the child than all the Psych games people pick up and try on them.

You haven't proven this at all!

strobe

strobe wrote: »

When you were growing up in this country young girls were being given into what was basically a life of slavery in places like the Magdalene Laundries. Young boys were being raped and beaten to within an inch of their lives in Christian Brothers schools and industrial schools while adults the country over turned a blind eye. The kids took what was done to them and never complained because adults were always in the right and children were always in the wrong and if they disagreed or objected they were beaten with canes purchased in the local post office.

Great... go back 30-40 years, and talk about the worst offenses? Why not go back 100 years to compare?

I don't really understand why you have to point out the extremes when talking about this sort of thing. Why not talk about the thousands of households where the mother smacked the bottom of their child with a wooden spoon for offenses, and then up to their bedroom for the rest of the evening? I'm always amazed that posters point to the extremes rather than talk about the mainstream.

Forgive us if we don't all look back on the good old days that you grew up in with smiles on our faces and a twinkle in our eyes and pray every day that things could go back to the way they once were.

I'm 33 years old. When I went to school (Marist Brothers), physical punishment was frowned upon. Still allowed but gone were the canes. Gone were the beatings. A quick rap on the head, a clutching of the ear, etc. And frankly I wish that schools would go back to that, instead of now where teachers are afraid of their students.

Honestly, I just can't even tell if people are being serious or not on this website anymore.

I just assume they are. If they're not, they'll respond asking why i didn't pick up on their sarcasm.

Truley

Truley wrote: »

Hold up if the problem is teenagers hanging out late then surely the solution is to impose a curfew? Why the need to slap? How do you know the teenagers you see out haven't been slapped as children?

Teenagers smoked in the sixties too, infact they did it much much more back then. I could argue that less physical violence in childhood = lower instance of smoking.

You're missing the point. Its about discipline. I made the point that this is not just about corporal punishment. Its about parental supervision, and a host of other factors.

taconnol

taconnol wrote: »

Who is "they"?

Ahh, my bad. Not they. Just Truley's post.

I couldn't disagree more. You think kids are clever enough to think "ah, yes I can see why violence would be justified in this particular instance because I'm being naughty". No, psychologists will tell you that the message getting through is "violence = valid method of communication". You haven't proven at all that I'm "going overboard" on the analysis and I'm not even sure what that means in this context.

Why do i need to prove it. I gave my opinion on what you wrote, just as you are doing with mine. You haven't provided any proof either.

I haven't proposed that what I've written is Gospel. In every part, its been my opinion. I thought that was obvious from the way I wrote it.

So why slap?

Reinforcement. The slap created a physical sensation to attach to the message being made.

Firstly no one is a perfect citizen. Secondly you have no idea what influence that had on your cousins and how that influences their interactions with others. I was bulimic for years and no one had a clue, least of all my extended family. My parents weren't evil but my dad's controlling personality had a significant impact. You simply cannot claim that it didn't have an impact because you cannot know.

I know through conversations with my cousins, and by living with them for extended periods. Somehow, I have to wonder why I have no idea, but you seem to have a better term of reference to judge.

I don't know what this means.

Its is the message that goes with the punishment. Is there a learning process for the rules and accepted practices in the household, and is it applicable to everyone or just this particular kid.

Show me some data. You don't "need" statistics? Come off it. You've been around here long enough to know that doesn't cut it. People go on and on about "broken society" blah blah. Either back it up or withdraw it. I walk around the streets all the time and I have no problems whatsoever.

Grand, I withdraw it. Can't be bothered with a statistics war.

No you haven't you've made some vague claims based on personal anecdotes and then said that you don't "need" statistics.

Yup. No disagreement there.

I'm not the one making a claim about how society has gone downhill - that would be you. The "oh so you don't you back up YOUR side" is as old as the hills around here and is regularly trotted out by those who can't/not bothered to actually find out if their own preconceived ideas are actually true or not.

So you don't believe that Ireland has changed for the worse over the last 15 years? okie dokie.

It's all a matter of degree but if I saw someone belting the crap out of their kid, I would want to say something. I can't say I've noticed this "busybodies" trend either...

Whatever. Its amazing that when I agree with you, you still seek to disagree with me.

This is just a vague rant about the "bad elements" of society, which you claim are on the rise, claim you don't need any statistics to prove, and now are blaming for being the way they are because nobody hit them when they were children?

Nope. I said a number of factors were involved. Obviously, you're hellbent on focusing on my agreement of useful application of hitting a child, and turning it into the overall factor for every problem in Irish society.

Sorry this is actually hilarious. You are actually trying to claim that it is better to hit a child than send it to it's room to teach it's boundaries because of the psychological damage of being sent to their room? NO psychologist would agree with this line of thought it is a completely transparant twisting of theory to suit your defence of hitting children. Sorry but you've just lost complete credibility in this argument. I am done.

Whatever. You're simply unwilling to see anything beyond someone agreeing that some corporal punishment is useful. Instead you've jumped in and sought to discredit my opinion. You, yourself, despite your demands for evidence and statistics have not provided anything of substance. Just another opinion.

You haven't proven this at all!

Did I say I had? Amazing. Simply amazing. :rolleyes:

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

Part of the problem is that you are trying to reason all the time with them. There seems to be this idea that we must treat children like little adults, and through talk & logic/reasoning then they will understand right from wrong. And that they will care. The problem though is that for small children they're still learning the boundaries in the world, and frankly they don't understand enough to care (as would an adult). Adults have learned that there are consequences (often rather harsh ones) to actions of stupidity or aggression. Children haven't, and to constantly shelter them from that sets them up for the fall.

A small smack for attacking (and i do mean attacking) their sister is a rather good introduction to those boundaries. An explanation & telling them how disappointed you are in them only goes so far. Basically it rests on how much they value your opinion of them. And yet you have to also remember that for small children time is relative. They fully expect others to forget if they have done something wrong ten minutes ago, simply because they do themselves. Therefore, the odd time, something more than a harsh word is needed.



There are good ways to use corporal punishment and bad ways. If done immediately after a child does something wrong, then it creates a buffer against it happening again. However if it is left for 5 minutes or later that evening when Dad gets home, the lesson loses meaning. Then its "just" a beating with no real relationship to the action. The child will already have lost the real memory of the incident and can attribute the punishment to just about anything under the sun.

As I said earlier there are times when corporal punishment are useful. Its a tool. A very effective tool if used correctly. But anyone can take the most perfect tool or device and screw it up if they don't think before using it. Corporal punishment should never be done in anger and always with a firm reason made clear to everyone involved.

Let me draw an example. I worked in a private school in China, and was farmed (hired) out to government public schools at different stages for extra money. The private school was where parents with money sent their kids in the evening after public school to get extra tuition in English. Public schools are free and can be attended by anyone. The private school students were treated like kings both by parents and teachers alike. We sucked up to them, because that was how their parents wanted it, and it showed in the behavior of most of the students. Some were lovely, but most were little ****s. The public school students on the other hand weren't allowed any amount of leeway in behavior. I've seen a female teacher hit open palm across the face of two students looking at their phones in class. The school supported the teacher as did the parents. The students were perfect in their behavior for the most part, and extremely respectful after school.

I'm not saying either way is better. A mix of the two would be a better set up. Children should be encouraged to grow, but as adults we should be there to step in when they're doing something foolish, or dangerous. And sometimes a slap is what is needed.

How do you difine "trying to reason with them all of the time"? I'm not a parent of a 2 year old, but as I said, I know plenty of them who are well able to communicate and reason with their two year old and two year old know EXACTLY where the boundaries are and what is and is not expecte of them. Consequently, I know some very confused two year olds who get smacked and have no idea whay hlaf of the time.

Also, as I said earlier, you seem to think non-corporal punishment means a quck no and moving on. Kid is smacking other kids? Weredid he learn that i wonder? Remove kid from situation and isolate. Simple. And yes you can explain to them why and tell them what you expect from them. A slap is never "needed" - as I have pointed out, it is possible to raise kids without slapping. In Scandanavia yo u can be fined for it, and yet... they don't have confused kids! I winder why?

Mary Hairy

strobe wrote: »

When you were growing up in this country young girls were being given into what was basically a life of slavery in places like the Magdalene Laundries. Young boys were being raped and beaten to within an inch of their lives in Christian Brothers schools and industrial schools while adults the country over turned a blind eye. The kids took what was done to them and never complained because adults were always in the right and children were always in the wrong and if they disagreed or objected they were beaten with canes purchased in the local post office.

Forgive us if we don't all look back on the good old days that you grew up in with smiles on our faces and a twinkle in our eyes and pray every day that things could go back to the way they once were.






Honestly, I just can't even tell if people are being serious or not on this website anymore.

Young and not so young women went into Magdalene Homes voluntarily. They knew their prescence would not be tolerated in society. Not one resident of a Magdalene home ever brought a habeus corpus application. They went into the Magdalene home for sanctuary, discipline and rehabilitation.
As for the Industrial Schools, they are an early example of how light touch regulation failed. Most of the inmates were there had committed crimes and the fact that children could be sent away acted as a deterrent to others. The fact that some crimes were allegedly commited by persons in charge does not justify the proposition that children should not be subject to proper discipline and control.
parents knwe that if they didn't discipline their children properly they would be sent to the nuns and brothers who would do it instead. parents knew that giving a few strokes of the cane at home would save the child from a much more severe regime in an industrial school.

strobe

Mary Hairy wrote: »

Young and not so young women went into Magdalene Homes voluntarily. They knew their prescence would not be tolerated in society. Not one resident of a Magdalene home ever brought a habeus corpus application. They went into the Magdalene home for sanctuary, discipline and rehabilitation.
As for the Industrial Schools, they are an early example of how light touch regulation failed. Most of the inmates were there had committed crimes and the fact that children could be sent away acted as a deterrent to others. The fact that some crimes were allegedly commited by persons in charge does not justify the proposition that children should not be subject to proper discipline and control.
parents knwe that if they didn't discipline their children properly they would be sent to the nuns and brothers who would do it instead. parents knew that giving a few strokes of the cane at home would save the child from a much more severe regime in an industrial school.

I'm speechless. So bring back the laundries in your opinion? I've no interest in discussing this with you any further so. In my opinion society is in a constant state of progression. I believe that things were better 100 years ago than they were 400 years ago, and were better 50 years ago than they were 100 years ago. If you disagree with that then in my opinion you are so completely divorced from reality I would be wasting my time. Have fun treating your children like they are your property.

strobe

Deleted User wrote: »

Great... go back 30-40 years, and talk about the worst offenses? Why not go back 100 years to compare?

Yes, why not go back 100 years to compare? Or 400 years. Mary was longing for the good old days. Are you really one of these people as well that believes things were so much better back 33 years ago or 100 years ago or 400 years ago? Or did you completely miss the point of both Mary's post and mine?

Eliot Rosewater

To be honest, I think taconnal has won me over. I was on the fence on this issue, thinking that a few smacks here and there weren't that bad, but his/her arguments about children not being in receipt of the same respect adults are, really rang true for me. Corporal punishment doesn't send the best message to a child. If, for example, they are caught fighting with other children, how can you legitimately discipline them by basically repeating what they have been at?

The best course of action, it would seem, is to be such a parent that physical discipline will never be needed.

strobe wrote: »

In my opinion society is in a constant state of progression. I believe that things were better 100 years ago than they were 400 years ago, and were better 50 years ago than they were 100 years ago.

Well, that isn't universally true: things were better in Greece during the classical era than the dark ages that followed. In places like Africa it's questionable to talk of progress. But in terms of Europe now, that would seem to be the case, if you take certain criteria. (Liberty for the individual is something you can't really say is improving, for example.) It will be interesting, a thousand years down the line, to see if this holds.

Truley

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

Well, that isn't universally true: things were better in Greece during the classical era than the dark ages that followed. In places like Africa it's questionable to talk of progress. But in terms of Europe now, that would seem to be the case, if you take certain criteria. (Liberty for the individual is something you can't really say is improving, for example.) It will be interesting, a thousand years down the line, to see if this holds.

I agree, human society changes all the time but I don't necessarily think it is progressive. For all the knoweldge and understanding we gain we lose or forget just as much. I think we follow a more cyclical pattern really.

Fuinseog

Deleted User wrote: »

You're missing the point. Its about discipline. I made the point that this is not just about corporal punishment. Its about parental supervision, and a host of other factors.

on the suject of parental supervsion. what kind of parents let their 12 year old daughter go out by herself at midnight?

Fuinseog

Goesague wrote: »

Corporal punishment was abolished in state (free education) schools in 1982. If you are 33 years old canes were not allowed when you were at school. Even raps on the head, clutching of the ear was not allowed. I know two former lay teachers in a Marist school who were charged with assault.

in the eighties some kids lived in fear and clips were still given. these days teachers live in fear. in some schools it would not be unusual for little johnny to take a swipe at the teacher. he has little to fear, maybe a one day suspension. many teachers would rather get a broken nose than fend off a blow as by trying to defend yourself would be deemed as an assault on the pupil.

at the moment the worst possible jobs to have must be a tecaher or priest. phyisacl contact of any kind is taboo.a gratulatory pat on the back is a sexual assault, a handsake physical assault, rasing your voice a verbal assault.

Fuinseog

[.
As for the Industrial Schools, they are an early example of how light touch regulation failed. Most of the inmates were there had committed crimes and the fact that children could be sent away acted as a deterrent to others. The fact that some crimes were allegedly commited by persons in charge does not justify the proposition that children should not be subject to proper discipline and control.
parents knwe that if they didn't discipline their children properly they would be sent to the nuns and brothers who would do it instead. parents knew that giving a few strokes of the cane at home would save the child from a much more severe regime in an industrial school.[/QUOTE]

in the eighties parents threatened their children with Letterfrack en lieu of hitting them. it may not be PC to say it, but many of those in such schools were gurriers. the difference between then and now is that the gurrier today gets away with a lot more.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Fuinseog wrote: »

in the eighties some kids lived in fear and clips were still given. these days teachers live in fear. in some schools it would not be unusual for little johnny to take a swipe at the teacher. he has little to fear, maybe a one day suspension. many teachers would rather get a broken nose than fend off a blow as by trying to defend yourself would be deemed as an assault on the pupil.

at the moment the worst possible jobs to have must be a tecaher or priest. phyisacl contact of any kind is taboo.a gratulatory pat on the back is a sexual assault, a handsake physical assault, rasing your voice a verbal assault.

While true, this is nthing to do with the debate at hand as it's more a reult of media overreaction. Also, if you're a teacher and you hit a kid, guarantee you'll be facing a civil case even if the kid is used to phzsical discipline at home.

If little Johnny takes a swipe at his teacher, I'm willing to guess he learnt it at home.

Fuinseog wrote: »

in the eighties parents threatened their children with Letterfrack en lieu of hitting them. it may not be PC to say it, but many of those in such schools were gurriers. the difference between then and now is that the gurrier today gets away with a lot more.

It might not be PC to say this either, but many of these guerriers are probably used to being struck at home.

I'm sorry, but your arguement only holds up if you can prove that these kids were NOT subjected to corporal punishment at home and completly collapses if they were.

Goesague

Goesague wrote: »

Corporal punishment was abolished in state (free education) schools in 1982. If you are 33 years old canes were not allowed when you were at school. Even raps on the head, clutching of the ear was not allowed. I know two former lay teachers in a Marist school who were charged with assault.

There's a big difference between what is made law and what is enforced. As with anything that has gone on for so long, it continued past the point of the law being introduced. As I said, the beatings were gone, it was lesser forms of corporal punishment (which didn't leave marks).

strobe wrote: »

I'm speechless. So bring back the laundries in your opinion? I've no interest in discussing this with you any further so. In my opinion society is in a constant state of progression. I believe that things were better 100 years ago than they were 400 years ago, and were better 50 years ago than they were 100 years ago. If you disagree with that then in my opinion you are so completely divorced from reality I would be wasting my time. Have fun treating your children like they are your property.

That's not what she said and you know it. She said that just because it was taken to extremes in some schools/organisations that the whole method should not be removed. She also said that parents sent their children to these schools because they expected their children to receive a discipline & education that went beyond that of the state schools, not that they expected them to be abused... And the reputation of many of these schools reinforced such a belief. My Mother went to a convent boarding school in Carlow and told me the type of life they had. Harsh, but as she said it, very common to the time. Parents sent their children to school environments similar to what they themselves had received, and believed the discipline received was worth it.

I never want to go back to those days. I wouldn't have liked to gone to such schools, and neither would I want any children to go to them.

strobe wrote: »

Yes, why not go back 100 years to compare? Or 400 years. Mary was longing for the good old days. Are you really one of these people as well that believes things were so much better back 33 years ago or 100 years ago or 400 years ago? Or did you completely miss the point of both Mary's post and mine?

You've obviously misread what I wrote. I said I would prefer things to go back to when I was in school. The limited form of corporal punishment which we received was enough. I haven't said anything about going back to using canes or such.

And I did get what you both wrote, but I don't see why the extreme must be used.

Fuinseog wrote: »

on the suject of parental supervsion. what kind of parents let their 12 year old daughter go out by herself at midnight?

Bad ones? I certainly would think so. And I would apply that to any child (male or female) under 16 to be allowed past 10pm.

Interesting that the age has dropped between postings....

miec

Whilst I would agree that there is an increase in social delinquency amongst children and teenagers, I am against smacking / corporeal punishment. I believe it causes more harm than good. When smacking or beating your kids was socially acceptable it was a bad thing but equally the pendulum has swung too far the other way which is equally bad for children, they now have no boundaries.

Hitting children in my opinion makes them either aggressive, overly passive and fearful, lose their confidence and the pattern repeats itself.

Children who receive little or no punishment eg: grounding, removal of privileges etc feel unloved, abandoned and insignificant, as well causing anti social behaviour and aggressiveness.

The key to disciplining children is balance and it has to be age appropriate. It is true you cannot reason with a 2 year old but you don't need to resort to smacking. A parent has to be firm and consistent, their no must mean no. Clear boundaries have to be established, for example if a 2 year old won't eat their food, then remove the plate and give them nothing else until the next meal time.

If a ten year old gives cheek a parent needs to challenge it and tell them its not acceptable. For instance I would remove privileges such as game time playing or write lines or do chores. What I have learned is consistency, now I wasn't always consistent but when I realised that it worked I became a better parent and my child felt both safer and happier.

Children will always try to push the boundaries to test if they are safe, it is part of being a kid, it is essential for parents to maintain them. I agree it is wrong for young children to out late at night, I don't allow it. A parent does not need to physically assault their child to get them to behave and to me it should be a crime to do hit or smack your child.

I think sometimes people get confused with smacking and discipline, they are not the same thing. One is assault, the other is ensuring the safety of the child and society in general.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

jenny jinks wrote: »

I thinks my parents were too soft on me. After I left home I was in a houseshare. I kept going as I had at home, being messy and so on. One day my flatmates held me down on my bed and beat my bum with a hairbrush for being such a slob. I soon got my act together. My mother always went around picking up after me. When I got mediocre results at school she would say I was great and wasn't school very hard nowadays. If my mother had given me a few spankings for being lazy at school I am sure I would have done much better.

BDSM forum --->

Goesague

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

BDSM forum --->

Thats the problem with this topic. Anyone who believes in corporal punishment is albelled asa deviant. I had to buy a new cane recently as my eldest daughter will be 14 shortly, and the only place I could buy one was in a sex shop. If anybody who knew me saw me copming or going from the sex shop they would have assumed I was going in for the DVDs or so called "sex toys".

metrovelvet

Eliot Rosewater wrote: »

To be honest, I think taconnal has won me over. I was on the fence on this issue, thinking that a few smacks here and there weren't that bad, but his/her arguments about children not being in receipt of the same respect adults are, really rang true for me. Corporal punishment doesn't send the best message to a child. If, for example, they are caught fighting with other children, how can you legitimately discipline them by basically repeating what they have been at?

The best course of action, it would seem, is to be such a parent that physical discipline will never be needed.



Well, that isn't universally true: things were better in Greece during the classical era than the dark ages that followed. In places like Africa it's questionable to talk of progress. But in terms of Europe now, that would seem to be the case, if you take certain criteria. (Liberty for the individual is something you can't really say is improving, for example.) It will be interesting, a thousand years down the line, to see if this holds.

I've been on the NYC subway where I've seen kids getting a good wollopping from their mother. I've seen it on meath street too. I don't think violence actually raises polite, kind, decent people. I think if they do end up decent and kind, its despite the beatings, not because of them.

My father went to a very reputable Irish boarding school. He often said the molestations were better than the beatings. Interesting eh?

What I have noticed with my own son is this. That if I scold him too hard, ive lost. People like to backseat parent and say why don't you just tell him sternly to "___________' or "___________" when he does x or y, and its usually from people who don't have kids or know nothing about them. He is only three now, but it is the same now as it was at two. If my reaction causes him to cry, whether through severity or tone, he cant hear me. He cant actually hear why what he did was wrong or dangerous and then what was the point? How will he learn.

As for school - they teachers have no recourse because nothing has been subsituted for the corporal punishment. I had no corporal punishment but there was no fear of students or anything like that.

And if a teacher ever hit my child, I would quite gladly give him or her a belt right back.

Nevyn

Goesague wrote: »

Thats the problem with this topic. Anyone who believes in corporal punishment is albelled asa deviant. I had to buy a new cane recently as my eldest daughter will be 14 shortly, and the only place I could buy one was in a sex shop. If anybody who knew me saw me copming or going from the sex shop they would have assumed I was going in for the DVDs or so called "sex toys".

There is nothing wrong with buying sextoys or porn DvDs.

I do think those who believe in corporal punishment are deviants, and lack imagination as they think it is the best and only way to discipline children.
It is lazy parenting

Goesague you repeatedly posted in the parenting forum about beating your children with a solid can and beating your daughter on the bare soles of her feet as to not to mark her. You are beating and terrifying your children, that is child abuse.

I consider that a lot more abhorrent then what two consenting adults choose to do to each other.

Goesague

Thaedydal wrote: »

Goesague you repeatedly posted in the parenting forum about beating your children with a solid can and beating your daughter on the bare soles of her feet as to not to mark her.

No, I did not. I have never beaten my daughter on the bare soles of her feet.

RedXIV

metrovelvet wrote: »

If my reaction causes him to cry, whether through severity or tone, he cant hear me. He cant actually hear why what he did was wrong or dangerous and then what was the point? How will he learn.

Same way as most normal people learn, nobody likes to be shouted out so you don't do what caused people to shout again. This is a very simple and effective lesson.

And if a teacher ever hit my child, I would quite gladly give him or her a belt right back.

And how is this not teaching your child about violence?

Thaedydal wrote: »

I do think those who believe in corporal punishment are deviants, and lack imagination as they think it is the best and only way to discipline children.
It is lazy parenting

Usually I agree with you on most things but I genuinely think that children are better behaved when they get the odd smack for intolerable behaviour. I don't believe with Goesague's extremes, but I do think the shock of a child getting physically reprimanded will fully reinforce the lesson. As I stated on another post, when we were asked in a classroom one day who got smacked as a child, myself a only a few others raised their hands. And we were the good kids, the ones who did what they were told and were respectful. the rest of the class didn't and a good percentage of them would not have been as respectful as young RedXIV

I'd like to reiterate again my previous post that just because you don't agree with the concept does it make my parents who did, bad parents, lazy parents or "deviants". I honestly can't fault their parenting and I do feel privileged with the childhood I received in their care

Thaedydal

Thaedydal wrote: »

I do think those who believe in corporal punishment are deviants, and lack imagination as they think it is the best and only way to discipline children. It is lazy parenting

And if they believe in other forms to work in conjunction with the corporal punishment?

Also I have to wonder why posts like this lump all advocates of corporal punishment into the same category... I don't have any approval of Goesague's form of corporal punishment. Its too much. But I do believe in a small amount depending on the situation.

Nevyn

there is a difference in physical chastisement, ie a slap on the hand or bum when they are under 5, the lashing out in anger and hitting a child and ritual corporal punishment in which
The submits to be beaten with a hand or implement.

RedXIV

Thaedydal wrote: »

there is a difference in physical chastisement, ie a slap on the hand or bum when they are under 5, the lashing out in anger and hitting a child and ritual corporal punishment in which
The submits to be beaten with a hand or implement.

I don't think anyone is disputing the differences. I wouldn't condone an actual beating of a child, instead we are talking about the idea of a slap on the wrist/bottom to amplify a point