Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Slapping/Smacking Children:Regional variations in practice and acceptability
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
See there's the thing, most people when they think "violence", will think of a parent beating a child. Giving a child a smack isn't violence, not to my mind anyway, but to your mind it would be, having never experienced violence as I would understand it.
There's a difference between beating a child within an inch of their life, which is violence, and a clip round the ear to shock them into copping on, which is discipline.
But it is violence
Violence is a sliding scale. Beating the living daylights out of a child is obviously hugely different to giving them one smack around the head. Doesn't make the latter right at all.
This is the definition of violence I googled:
"Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
I would say if you're smacking a child to punish them you're intending to hurt them enough so that it sticks in their mind what they did is wrong.
I actually don't get shocked if I see it, and I know parents who do it and friends my age who would've experienced it and it didn't traumatize them for life. I think it would be the rare number of cases that it would affect someone psychologically to get the odd smack at the back of the head.
But even still, I can't see how people think this is an acceptable form of behaviour. You wouldn't go around smacking your work colleagues for messing up, or your mate who you found out cheated on his girlfriend, you don't go and slap him across the face. It's not an acceptable method of teaching a child IMO and it certainly isn't necessary given the amount of people (myself as an example) who were disciplined in other ways that worked. 0 -
jaffacakesyum wrote: »But it is violence
Violence is a sliding scale. Beating the living daylights out of a child is obviously hugely different to giving them one smack around the head. Doesn't make the latter right at all.
This is the definition of violence I googled:
"Behavior involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something."
That's the dictionary definition of violence though. If you also google the dictionary definition of a human being (I did -
a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child), it doesn't tell you much either, because it lacks context.
There will be people that will say there's no difference between a smack and belting a child, they're both as bad as each other. People's individual definitions are based on their own perceptions, which is based on a number of factors, the biggest one being their experience, experience influenced by their own childhood.I would say if you're smacking a child to punish them you're intending to hurt them enough so that it sticks in their mind what they did is wrong.
I've never smacked my child thinking "You'll remember this the next time you think about acting up". I know you referred to it as lazy parenting, but I can only speak for myself when I say that in MY opinion, the lazier parent will find it easier to let the child have their own way. As someone earlier mentioned- some 3 year old children don't do rational debate very well, so rather than spend half an hour debating why they are being unreasonable in expecting that they should be entitled to a chocolate bar, and how throwing a tantrum isn't going to be rewarded, it takes a smack to bring them back to reality so to speak.I actually don't get shocked if I see it, and I know parents who do it and friends my age who would've experienced it and it didn't traumatize them for life. I think it would be the rare number of cases that it would affect someone psychologically to get the odd smack at the back of the head.
But even still, I can't see how people think this is an acceptable form of behaviour. You wouldn't go around smacking your work colleagues for messing up, or your mate who you found out cheated on his girlfriend, you don't go and slap him across the face. It's not an acceptable method of teaching a child IMO and it certainly isn't necessary given the amount of people (myself as an example) who were disciplined in other ways that worked.
No, obviously you're not going to go around smacking adults because adults can be reasoned with (well, to some extent at least
), but you can walk away from an adult. You can't walk away from a child. I should point out that my child is eight now, and I haven't had to smack him in a number of years (can't remember the last time actually), but I don't have to, because he understands by now that when I say no, I'm immune to his manipulation. I don't have to smack him because he doesn't throw tantrums and knows how to behave himself. If he wants something, he earns it, he doesn't just get given it by virtue of his birthright.
Everyone is different obviously, each and every child is different, with personalities of their own, so one child may be more headstrong and stubborn than another generally more placid child. Both children require different methods of discipline because they're different people.0 -
Advertisement
-
That's the dictionary definition of violence though. If you also google the dictionary definition of a human being (I did -
a member of any of the races of Homo sapiens; person; man, woman, or child), it doesn't tell you much either, because it lacks context.
That's the definition of violence. Take it or leave it. I know people have different definitions of things but I don't really get how hitting a child isn't seen as violence.There will be people that will say there's no difference between a smack and belting a child, they're both as bad as each other. People's individual definitions are based on their own perceptions, which is based on a number of factors, the biggest one being their experience, experience influenced by their own childhood.
Who?
There are sliding scales to a lot of crimes. Mass genocide by an individual is obviously a lot more extreme than one murder. A serial rapist would be quite different to a guy in a club who wouldn't say no and kept groping/trying to kiss a girl. Do you see what I mean?I've never smacked my child thinking "You'll remember this the next time you think about acting up".
What were you aiming to achieve by smacking your child then? I thought the whole argument behind it was that it was more effective as a deterrent to children.I know you referred to it as lazy parenting, but I can only speak for myself when I say that in MY opinion, the lazier parent will find it easier to let the child have their own way.
Because those are the only two options? Hit your child vs don't do anything? Absolutely not.As someone earlier mentioned- some 3 year old children don't do rational debate very well, so rather than spend half an hour debating why they are being unreasonable in expecting that they should be entitled to a chocolate bar, and how throwing a tantrum isn't going to be rewarded, it takes a smack to bring them back to reality so to speak.
Wow, really??? :eek: You would smack your child over something as trivial as that?No, obviously you're not going to go around smacking adults because adults can be reasoned with (well, to some extent at least), but you can walk away from an adult. You can't walk away from a child. I should point out that my child is eight now, and I haven't had to smack him in a number of years (can't remember the last time actually), but I don't have to, because he understands by now that when I say no, I'm immune to his manipulation. I don't have to smack him because he doesn't throw tantrums and knows how to behave himself. If he wants something, he earns it, he doesn't just get given it by virtue of his birthright.
Everyone is different obviously, each and every child is different, with personalities of their own, so one child may be more headstrong and stubborn than another generally more placid child. Both children require different methods of discipline because they're different people.
Different methods absolutely. I don't think smacking is ever an appropriate method of discipline. There are tons of other options for you yet you choose the easy way out IMO. That is lazy parenting.
I know I'm going to get lambasted for it on here because I don't have children and "don't understand". I'm sure if/when I have kids I'll be on the end of my tether on many occasions that I would like to take that easy option as well but I'd like to think I'd restrain myself. It's a child, not a stray dog FFS.0
Advertisement