Clobber a child? Pope Frank says "Yes"

robindch

So, fresh from saying that it's ok to wallop somebody if they make a joke about your mother, or if they insult any religion, Pope Frank now says that it's ok to wallop children too.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/06/pope-francis-parents-ok-smack-children-dignity

The Guardian wrote:

Francis outlined the traits of a good father: one who forgives but is able to “correct with firmness” while not discouraging the child.

“One time, I heard a father in a meeting with married couples say ‘I sometimes have to smack my children a bit, but never in the face so as to not humiliate them’,” Francis said. “How beautiful.” he added. “He knows the sense of dignity! He has to punish them but does it justly and moves on.”

So, do atheists and agnostics agree? OK to wallop children, whether or not "one protects their dignity"? And what violence is Frank going
to excuse next?

kylith

So the pope says it's ok to hit kids as long as you don't leave a mark anyone can see?

I've said it before and I'll say it again: the Catholic Church has vastly misinterpreted the phrase 'suffer the little children'.

Yet the majority of parents will state (in an anonymous poll) that a small slap on the wrist is fine.

It's a belief that many people hold but are afraid to air, for fear of being called abusers.

lazygal

I firmly believe smacking or hitting or physical punishment is wrong and ineffective. I believed this before I had children and I believe it still. It did not work on me as a child. Rather than feeling remorse or regretting for a wrongdoing, when I was smacked I simply resented my parents for it and even as a child I swore if I ever had children I would never hit them. I wouldn't be allowed to physically assault an adult to get a point across or address wrongdoing. Would anyone allow someone else to physically punish their child by smacking them? I doubt it. So why would it ever be ok to do it to your own children?
And if people really do think its ok, why aren't they able to state that publicly? Maybe its because they know deep down it isn't ok, but they go down the old 'never did me any harm' road to square the circle internally.

equivariant

You gotta love pope Frank. He is turning out to be a secularist's dream - keep 'em coming Franky boy.

I wonder if he agrees that it's OK for us menfolk to occasionally 'discipline' our women too? As long as dignity is preserved of course.:p

lazygal

equivariant wrote: »

You gotta love pope Frank - he is turning out to be a secularist's dream - keep 'em coming Franky boy.

I wonder if he agrees that it's OK for us menfolk to occasionally 'discipline' our women too? As long as dignity is preserved of course.:p

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/

A whole lot of WTF.

Dades

equivariant wrote: »

You gotta love pope Frank. He is turning out to be a secularist's dream - keep 'em coming Franky boy.

I think he's been the opposite, tbh. Far more a lefty than the last one and a lot harder to dislike. I don't hold either of the above statements attributed to him against him, tbh.

The punch in the nose thing is barely a level above banter, and the smacking of children thing cannot be reduced to being either right or wrong as everyone has a different opinion on it. (And is muddied when people use words like "clobber" which implies real violence).

equivariant wrote: »

I wonder if he agrees that it's OK for us menfolk to occasionally 'discipline' our women too? As long as dignity is preserved of course.:p

Really?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

phater phagan

There is absolutely no occasion for which it is acceptable to slap, spank or hit a child - and people who think that it's Ok to do so are creating a culture where violence is to be given credit as a means to an end. Many children who have experienced violence by the hand of parents, relatives etc go on to become violent adults, and the courts are full of cases of assault. My parents never chastised me with violence but a disapproving look or remark from them got through to me and I responded to it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

And is muddied when people use words like "clobber" which implies real violence.

Not really, or at least not for me. I'm using "clobber" an "wallop" as they're both ambiguous. A more disjunctive term is "assault" which certainly implies the intention to cause hurt.

"Clobber" and "wallop" could conceivably mean anything upwards from friendly prodding, pulled punches to the arms, mild slaps on the posterior, and the kind of thing that's fairly normal in most human relationships - actions which can be read (but need not be read) as the possibility to inflict greater damage, but also the restraint not to.

I've simply no idea what Frank meant by what he said in any of his comments, though his resort to the concept of dignity implies, to me at least, that he's happy to support inflicting a higher level of pain than I think most people here would be.

Daith

Dades wrote: »

and the smacking of children thing cannot be reduced to being either right or wrong as everyone has a different opinion on it. (And is muddied when people use words like "clobber" which implies real violence).

It's also muddled when he's ok with smacking a child as long as it's not the face.

It just reeks of "as long as there's no visible evidence" it's ok.

Surely if you support the idea it shouldn't matter where you smack a child?

Tombo2001

I think you really have to take the 'ignore and move on' approach with this.

The man has never raised a kid. What would he know.

fisgon

lazygal wrote: »

http://www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/

A whole lot of WTF.

Maybe not quite on topic, but that site is hilarious, chilling and, in the end, pretty dangerous. It's a wife-beaters' haven, God's support for battering your spouse. Very very disturbing.

Cookie_Dough

I don't think it is ever acceptable to hit a child. I'm not a parent (funnily enough either is Francis!) however I am sure there are other, more effective, ways of discipling a child.

Also, I can't understand how you could actually hit a child and do it "respectfully" / "preserving dignity" as stated. I would think it is very degrading and disrespectful to assault a defenceless child or any other human being for that matter. Bizarre statement yet many blind Catholics with refer to this as justification or absolution for hitting their child.

silverharp

Slapping and clobbering sound like 2 very different things . very few would defend anything that could be classed as a beating. I have slapped my son once from memory he was about 4 and ran out into traffic. If I had a logic at the time it was to treat it like touching a hot coal moment , not a punishment. My wife has slapped junior on a few occasions when "negotiations"had broken down and time was an issue.
From observations in public playgrounds i have noticed that some kids from poorer backgrounds get shouted at dragged around and slapped on a very casual basis and I would describe that as poor parenting which might undermine a kids sense of wellbeing.

eviltwin

I'm not a perfect parent but I've managed to get one to adulthood without the need for a slap. I get frustrated with people saying that you need to do it sometimes. You don't need to do anything of the sort. Most parents just won't look at alternatives.

robindch

In terms of intention to hurt, here's how I see the verbs stacking up:

clobber < slap < wallop < smack < hit < punch < assault

And I'm assuming that Frank was speaking in Spanish, where a different set of verbs, and I suppose intentions + meanings, will apply.

lazygal

eviltwin wrote: »

I'm not a perfect parent but I've managed to get one to adulthood with the need for a slap. I get frustrated with people saying that you need to do it sometimes. You don't need to do anything of the sort. Most parents just won't look at alternatives.

Yes, me too. I have seen it on other parenting forums. That the child 'only' got a smack on the hand because he was about to do something or she 'only' got a tap on the leg because she was in danger. I remember even as a very small child (I can't have been more than three or four) being smacked for something and feeling humiliated, rather than that I had learned a lesson. It is lazy and reactive to hit a child, especially when most of us manage to restrain ourselves from hitting an adult no matter how hot coal-esque the situation may be.

_Brian

Deleted User wrote: »

Yet the majority of parents will state (in an anonymous poll) that a small slap on the wrist is fine.

It's a belief that many people hold but are afraid to air, for fear of being called abusers.

There's a poll running over on the journal.ie and 45% of about 6,000 people are agreeing that a little smack is appropriate. Seems the Pope isn't the only person carrying this antiquated notion..

Now, I think its a case that he didn't condemn slapping rather than he said slapping a child is ok, either way it was a poor call.

Teaching a child that problems are solved by hitting people is not on !

I will add that my parents both slapped us as children, looking back I think it was unnecessary but I think no less of my parents because it happened.

Dades

I guess it's all a matter of degrees. It's a bit vague what the Pope means, tbh, so it can be taken to mean anything from a "symbolic" tap on the wrist to a good caning.

I have slapped my son once from memory he was about 4 and ran out into traffic.

Similarly my son very nearly got flattened by a car last year and I remember grabbing him very roughly back from the road. Instinct, fear and trying to ensure the gravity of the lesson take over.

Is grabbing a child roughly in such a scenario akin to a slap that hurts no more than being thrown playfully onto a couch? I just think it's too black and white for people say never ever raise a finger to a child. I don't need to do it at home - my kids are good. But some kids are monsters, lets face it.

I got the odd slap at home and the leather in school, and frankly if you grow up in an loving environment traumatised by that then the issue is elsewhere.

lazygal

Dades wrote: »

I guess it's all a matter of degrees. It's a bit vague what the Pope means, tbh, so it can be taken to mean anything from a "symbolic" tap on the wrist to a good caning.

Similarly my son very nearly got flattened by a car last year and I remember grabbing him very roughly back from the road. Instinct, fear and trying to ensure the gravity of the lesson take over.

Is grabbing a child roughly in such a scenario akin to a slap that hurts no more than being thrown playfully onto a couch? I just think it's too black and white for people say never ever raise a finger to a child. I don't need to do it at home - my kids are good. But some kids are monsters, lets face it.

I got the odd slap at home and the leather in school, and frankly if you grow up in an loving environment traumatised by that then the issue is elsewhere.

Would I grab a friend if they were about to cross a busy road without looking? Absolutely. Would I push my husband to the ground to get him out of danger from a falling object? Definitely. Would I hit either of them to get a point across or as a reaction to the fright they gave me? No way. There is something very odd about the mindset that actually hitting, smacking, or slapping - whatever you call it - it ok when it is done by a parent to his or her child. Suppose you collected a child from a friend's house and the parents told you they had to give your child a smack on the leg to get him to stop doing something? I think most parents would think that was wildly out of line.
I in no way consider myself traumatised and I know most parents do their best, mine included, but I have memories of being smacked and as I have said even at the time I considered it a humiliating thing to do and vowed never to hit my children.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

Would I grab a friend if they were about to cross a busy road without looking? Absolutely. Would I push my husband to the ground to get him out of danger from a falling object? Definitely. Would I hit either of them to get a point across or as a reaction to the fright they gave me? No way. There is something very odd about the mindset that actually hitting, smacking, or slapping - whatever you call it - it ok when it is done by a parent to his or her child. Suppose you collected a child from a friend's house and the parents told you they had to give your child a smack on the leg to get him to stop doing something? I think most parents would think that was wildly out of line.
I in no way consider myself traumatised and I know most parents do their best, mine included, but I have memories of being smacked and as I have said even at the time I considered it a humiliating thing to do and vowed never to hit my children.

You have the problem here however that an adult will appreciate the danger that they were in.
Would a child? If they don't appreciate that danger are they likely to do it again without understanding the consequences?

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

You have the problem here however that an adult will appreciate the danger that they were in.
Would a child? If they don't appreciate that danger are they likely to do it again without understanding the consequences?

Is the only way to communicate that message a slap though? That's the point.

You have to tell a child when they do something that is unacceptable, no one is arguing that. Its how you tell them. I don't think physical punishment is the best way. Its not a child's fault they don't understand how the world works, they shouldn't be hurt for that.

Kids aren't stupid, even a young child can learn by more positive means if people would just bother to try them.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

lazygal

Deleted User wrote: »

You have the problem here however that an adult will appreciate the danger that they were in.
Would a child? If they don't appreciate that danger are they likely to do it again without understanding the consequences?

I again repeat that smacking me didn't make me appreciate the consequences of my behaviour. It just made me feel bad and resent my parents, and decide to not inflict this on my own children.
Positive reinforcement works far better. Imagine your boss thinking you weren't able to understand some work related danger because you were new to a job, and that smacking you on the hand would get the message across better than explaining something? Even a very small child can understand positive reinforcement.

lazygal

lazygal wrote: »

I again repeat that smacking me didn't make me appreciate the consequences of my behaviour. It just made me feel bad and resent my parents, and decide to not inflict this on my own children.
Positive reinforcement works far better. Imagine your boss thinking you weren't able to understand some work related danger because you were new to a job, and that smacking you on the hand would get the message across better than explaining something? Even a very small child can understand positive reinforcement.

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, I honestly don't know. BUT I can see that scenario as something that would make me question it. I remember doing something quite similar and being too young to understand the possibility of what COULD have happened and did it again another time. The second time I got a slap and then I had a message of what WOULD happen.

So there was the abstract potential of danger that I did not comprehend versus the very real actual slap that I would get.
It was the knowledge of the actual slap that made me stop. So I was not slapped out of anger (although I imagine they were angry), I was slapped after being told of potential consequences did not work and I needed a deterrent that I could understand.

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not saying if it's right or wrong, I honestly don't know. BUT I can see that scenario as something that would make me question it. I remember doing something quite similar and being too young to understand the possibility of what COULD have happened and did it again another time. The second time I got a slap and then I had a message of what WOULD happen.

So there was the abstract potential of danger that I did not comprehend versus the very real actual slap that I would get.
It was the knowledge of the actual slap that made me stop

Isn't it better that a child not do something the second time because they know its wrong and know why its wrong rather than they don't do it because they are scared of being hit?

I guess part of the message was given because I could count on one hand, the amount of times it happened, and still have fingers to spare.

It was a shock tactic that worked on me

eviltwin

eviltwin wrote: »

Isn't it better that a child not do something the second time because they know its wrong and know why its wrong rather than they don't do it because they are scared of being hit?

If you read the post at all you would see that I was too young to understand an "invisible" danger.
It had been explained to me but I did not take it on board and I DID do it a second time

SpaceTime

Given the Church's track record with child beating in institutions, I don't think I'll be taking any child rearing advice from them!

MayoAreMagic

One thing I have just realised, maybe it is wrong, but Id be interested to hear opinions.

Atheists believe in science, and science states that we are mammals, the same as any other animal on the earth. Well other animals physically discipline their young. So why are we different in this particular scenario?

For the record, Im not really in either camp, as I don't know which is right.

Also, for people who say you shouldn't discipline a child with a smack (not 'clobber' in all fairness), what do you do when a child is acting like a complete brat and your reasoning simply does not work? At that point where they know you are only going to tell them to stop so continue on anyway. how do you resolve it?

eviltwin

Deleted User wrote: »

If you read the post at all you would see that I was too young to understand an "invisible" danger.
It had been explained to me but I did not take it on board and I DID do it a second time

You have to take it in context of the time. Your parents did what every parent did. That was the norm. I doubt they had the knowledge of how to use less physical methods.

I've been through this with my two, my youngest is slightly different in that he is mildly autistic so he can't understand the way another child might but even with that I've never had to use discipline. In fact I bet if I did I would be pilloried for it, imagine hitting a kid with special needs. But even with his difficulty understanding I've been able to teach him to be safe without ever having to slap or tap him. Peoplel talk about slapping like its the only option, its not.

lazygal

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

One thing I have just realised, maybe it is wrong, but Id be interested to hear opinions.

Atheists believe in science, and science states that we are mammals, the same as any other animal on the earth. Well other animals physically discipline their young. So why are we different in this particular scenario?

For the record, Im not really in either camp, as I don't know which is right.

Also, for people who say you shouldn't discipline a child with a smack (not 'clobber' in all fairness), what do you do when a child is acting like a complete brat and your reasoning simply does not work? At that point where they know you are only going to tell them to stop so continue on anyway. how do you resolve it?

My children are young, but we have learned to head things off at the pass. So we don't let them get hungry or tired and act accordingly. Children aren't bratty for no reason. Better to understand why your child is acting a certain way and develop tools to prevent it if possible and deal with it when necessary, than simply resort to physical punishment that certainly wasn't effective for me in terms of behaviour management.

jungleman

Ah here, have a listen to yourselves. "Assaulting defenseless children" ffs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving your own child a slap. I used to get a slap on the arse if I did something bold or dangerous when I was a child, and surprise surprise it hasn't left me with any hideous mental scars or psychological trauma. I'm pretty sure the pope wasn't advocating beating a child into submission, but rather a smack on the arse for bold behaviour.

There is nothing wrong with it. I've seen family members do the whole sit-the-child-down-and-explain-what-they-did-was-wrong thing. It's a load of BS. They're talking to a bloody child. Young children don't have the mental or emotional capacity as adults, speaking to them like they ARE an adult is ridiculous. The kids just look at them like "what the hell are you on about?". So before this is twisted into a "if you hit your child you are evil" debate, understand that there is a huge difference between a slap on the arse and going further than that. Slapping your own child, for the good of the child, is not assault.

eviltwin

jungleman wrote: »

Ah here, have a listen to yourselves. "Assaulting defenseless children" ffs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving your own child a slap. I used to get a slap on the arse if I did something bold or dangerous when I was a child, and surprise surprise it hasn't left me with any hideous mental scars or psychological trauma. I'm pretty sure the pope wasn't advocating beating a child into submission, but rather a smack on the arse for bold behaviour.

There is nothing wrong with it. I've seen family members do the whole sit-the-child-down-and-explain-what-they-did-was-wrong thing. It's a load of BS. They're talking to a bloody child. Young children don't have the mental or emotional capacity as adults, speaking to them like they ARE an adult is ridiculous. The kids just look at them like "what the hell are you on about?". So before this is twisted into a "if you hit your child you are evil" debate, understand that there is a huge difference between a slap on the arse and going further than that. Slapping your own child, for the good of the child, is not assault.

I didn't say it was assault but it doesn't have to be assault for me not to like it. The idea of hitting a child just doesn't sit right with me at all.

As I said in my first post my eldest is 18 and has never been slapped. She's turned out fine. My youngest is 5 and never been slapped and he's grand. They act the maggot, they test my patience, they drive me mad sometimes but positive reinforcement has always worked fine. Why would I slap my kids when I have found other methods work better.

MayoAreMagic

lazygal wrote: »

My children are young, but we have learned to head things off at the pass. So we don't let them get hungry or tired and act accordingly. Children aren't bratty for no reason. Better to understand why your child is acting a certain way and develop tools to prevent it if possible and deal with it when necessary, than simply resort to physical punishment that certainly wasn't effective for me in terms of behaviour management.

Ok. But you never really answered my question though. The thing is, I have seen kids in shops etc, completely act out just because they weren't getting what they wanted, that was the reason behind it, they weren't getting their way, Im sure Im not the only one. They might pick something up, and scream and cry relentlessly, refuse to get up off the ground, refuse to let the object go, refuse to let go of their parent, refuse to continue on with their parent. Scream at the parent when they are told no, or indeed told anything. So what then?

lazygal

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Ok. But you never really answered my question though. The thing is, I have seen kids in shops etc, completely act out just because they weren't getting what they wanted, that was the reason behind it, they weren't getting their way, Im sure Im not the only one. They might pick something up, and scream and cry relentlessly, refuse to get up off the ground, refuse to let the object go, refuse to let go of their parent, refuse to continue on with their parent. Scream at the parent when they are told no, or indeed told anything. So what then?

Well how would you deal with an adult who was behaving that way? Maybe people need some help with parenting, not the belief that hitting a child is acceptable. Would you hit a mentally challenged adult who was lashing out in the same way, an adult who didn't understand what was going on?

When my children kick off in public we tend to scoop and run or ignore the behaviour depending on the situation. But we try to avoid getting to such a position in the first place by understanding why children act the way they do.

jungleman

eviltwin wrote: »

I didn't say it was assault but it doesn't have to be assault for me not to like it. The idea of hitting a child just doesn't sit right with me at all.

As I said in my first post my eldest is 18 and has never been slapped. She's turned out fine. My youngest is 5 and never been slapped and he's grand. They act the maggot, they test my patience, they drive me mad sometimes but positive reinforcement has always worked fine. Why would I slap my kids when I have found other methods work better.

Yeah I completely understand that. Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that slapping a child is the only way to raise a child. Or I'm not campaigning FOR the slapping of children. Just as your children have turned out fine without the need for a smack, myself and my siblings have turned out fine too (with the help of the odd childhood slap!).

All I'm saying is a slap doesn't do any lasting damage to a child. And I'm pretty sure that's what the pope was saying too.

MayoAreMagic

jungleman wrote: »

Ah here, have a listen to yourselves. "Assaulting defenseless children" ffs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving your own child a slap. I used to get a slap on the arse if I did something bold or dangerous when I was a child, and surprise surprise it hasn't left me with any hideous mental scars or psychological trauma. I'm pretty sure the pope wasn't advocating beating a child into submission, but rather a smack on the arse for bold behaviour.

There is nothing wrong with it. I've seen family members do the whole sit-the-child-down-and-explain-what-they-did-was-wrong thing. It's a load of BS. They're talking to a bloody child. Young children don't have the mental or emotional capacity as adults, speaking to them like they ARE an adult is ridiculous. The kids just look at them like "what the hell are you on about?". So before this is twisted into a "if you hit your child you are evil" debate, understand that there is a huge difference between a slap on the arse and going further than that. Slapping your own child, for the good of the child, is not assault.

I have to say, I understand what you are saying here. I might not smack a child - I don't have any so Im not sure, but I get what you are saying about the whole 'sit-a-child-down' thing. It is the equivalent of trying to teach integration to high infants, they don't have the capacity to fully understand it. I wonder if it is a ego thing, 'Im the type of parent who reasons with my child, and my child is so precocious he/she understands'. Then the child does the same thing again the next day... The question is are they actually doing the right thing by the child at all, or what they want to be seen to be doing?

lazygal

jungleman wrote: »

Ah here, have a listen to yourselves. "Assaulting defenseless children" ffs. There is absolutely nothing wrong with giving your own child a slap. I used to get a slap on the arse if I did something bold or dangerous when I was a child, and surprise surprise it hasn't left me with any hideous mental scars or psychological trauma. I'm pretty sure the pope wasn't advocating beating a child into submission, but rather a smack on the arse for bold behaviour.

There is nothing wrong with it. I've seen family members do the whole sit-the-child-down-and-explain-what-they-did-was-wrong thing. It's a load of BS. They're talking to a bloody child. Young children don't have the mental or emotional capacity as adults, speaking to them like they ARE an adult is ridiculous. The kids just look at them like "what the hell are you on about?". So before this is twisted into a "if you hit your child you are evil" debate, understand that there is a huge difference between a slap on the arse and going further than that. Slapping your own child, for the good of the child, is not assault.

I had a family member who needed to be in a secure unit for her own protection. Would you think it'd be ok to hit her when she had challenging behaviour? She didn't have the mental or emotional capacity of an adult and frequently exhibited the behaviours you mention. Would smacking her for her own good be assault?

eviltwin

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

Ok. But you never really answered my question though. The thing is, I have seen kids in shops etc, completely act out just because they weren't getting what they wanted, that was the reason behind it, they weren't getting their way, Im sure Im not the only one. They might pick something up, and scream and cry relentlessly, refuse to get up off the ground, refuse to let the object go, refuse to let go of their parent, refuse to continue on with their parent. Scream at the parent when they are told no, or indeed told anything. So what then?

If I've ever had to deal with this I have just removed them. Most of the time there is a reason as Lazygal says, hunger, tiredness, illness. You can preempt a lot of these things too, if you know your child always wants chocolate don't bring them to the chocolate aisle, bring a toy to keep them busy, make a game out of it. I can only bring my son shopping if he is involved in the process otherwise he goes mental so I don't go shopping with him or if I do, I make sure I'm well prepared.

seamus

lazygal wrote: »

I firmly believe smacking or hitting or physical punishment is wrong and ineffective. I believed this before I had children and I believe it still. It did not work on me as a child. Rather than feeling remorse or regretting for a wrongdoing, when I was smacked I simply resented my parents for it and even as a child I swore if I ever had children I would never hit them. I wouldn't be allowed to physically assault an adult to get a point across or address wrongdoing. Would anyone allow someone else to physically punish their child by smacking them? I doubt it. So why would it ever be ok to do it to your own children?
And if people really do think its ok, why aren't they able to state that publicly? Maybe its because they know deep down it isn't ok, but they go down the old 'never did me any harm' road to square the circle internally.

Pretty much this. Eviltwin basically said what I was going to say;

eviltwin wrote: »

Isn't it better that a child not do something the second time because they know its wrong and know why its wrong rather than they don't do it because they are scared of being hit?

So many people talk about, "I got smacked loads and it never did me any harm". But they basically never remember why they got smacked. In other words, they remember the punishment more than the lesson.

Which means the purpose of the punishment has failed. If a punishment has been applied correctly, the person will remember the fact that they were punished, but the lesson is what will stick with them - they will remember what they did wrong, and why it was wrong.

It's been proven in recent years that physical punishment is not the best way to train a dog. Respectable dog trainers no longer use any kind of physical punishments (smacks, choke chains, whatever) to correct dogs, instead the focus is on reward-based training, which is far more effective at getting results faster and bringing up more relaxed dogs.

So if you can correctly raise a dog - an animal which doesn't understand notions of right and wrong - without once hitting it, it's seems utterly bizarre that one would think you need to hit a human - an intelligent animal capable of reason and consideration - in order to teach them correct behaviours from incorrect ones.

Cabaal

Tombo2001 wrote: »

I think you really have to take the 'ignore and move on' approach with this.

The man has never raised a kid. What would he know.

By that logic we should take the "ignore and move on" approach with all things said by the catholic church.

After all vast majority of priests have never been in a relationship, had sex, been married etc and yet they are full of rules and viewpoints on all these things.

Infact they also want to influence our governments policy on these things to. So frankly its silly to ignore things things....sure they are idiotic comments, but they are also a real danger that people will blindly follow them

jungleman

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I have to say, I understand what you are saying here. I might not smack a child - I don't have any so Im not sure, but I get what you are saying about the whole 'sit-a-child-down' thing. It is the equivalent of trying to teach integration to high infants, they don't have the capacity to fully understand it. I wonder if it is a ego thing, 'Im the type of parent who reasons with my child, and my child is so precocious he/she understands'. Then the child does the same thing again the next day... The question is are they actually doing the right thing by the child at all, or what they want to be seen to be doing?

I've seen it with my own two eyes. I saw Child A hit Child B, immediately before any action could be taken, Child A just brought herself to the "naughty step" and gave herself a "time-out". The time-out wasn't even a punishment for her, she didn't care.

At another house I saw a child was caught up in a ridiculous lie she was trying to spin, deliberately to get another child into trouble. It was actually funny enough, how the hell can children be so inventive when they are lying I'll never know. Anyway, 20 years ago I would have gotten a slap on the arse in front of everyone and cried for a minute, but this child's mother insisted on sitting her down and explaining step-by-step how what she did was wrong. I think the child was 4 years old. She just had a totally blank expression, she didn't understand a thing.

eviltwin

MayoAreMagic wrote: »

I have to say, I understand what you are saying here. I might not smack a child - I don't have any so Im not sure, but I get what you are saying about the whole 'sit-a-child-down' thing. It is the equivalent of trying to teach integration to high infants, they don't have the capacity to fully understand it. I wonder if it is a ego thing, 'Im the type of parent who reasons with my child, and my child is so precocious he/she understands'. Then the child does the same thing again the next day... The question is are they actually doing the right thing by the child at all, or what they want to be seen to be doing?

With all due respect if you don't have children how do you know what you will do?

Its got nothing to do with ego. I was physically abused as a child to the point I was often in hospital. I swore that I would never be the mother that mine was. My kids were born at a time when alternatives were out there, there were books and courses I could do to learn other ways. I decided to try them, they worked so I kept doing them.

My kids were and are no better than anyone else's, they both have special needs so they are actually more challenging than a "normal" child might be but its not their fault so why would I hurt them? I don't want them to have that memory of me.

If you like it and it works, why would you change it? If I get to the stage where things aren't working and my kids are a nightmare I'll reexamine my approach but for now it works great.

jungleman

lazygal wrote: »

I had a family member who needed to be in a secure unit for her own protection. Would you think it'd be ok to hit her when she had challenging behaviour? She didn't have the mental or emotional capacity of an adult and frequently exhibited the behaviours you mention. Would smacking her for her own good be assault?

Well being honest I don't know anything about you or your family member or that family member's mental condition, so I'd prefer not to comment.

mikhail

I really don't like the hysteria that generally surrounds this topic: there's emotive language muddying the waters everywhere. I doubt I'd get much dissent were I to propose that a child should never be struck in anger, or forcefully enough to cause physical harm. But instead of talking about the remaining questions - whether or not moderate physical disipline is harmful and/or effective, and indeed whether rational discipline is in fact sufficient in all situations - we get ridiculous slippery slope arguments, and words like "assault", "wallop" and "clobber".

mada82

Getting slapped as a child never did me any harm.

wally79

lazygal wrote: »

I had a family member who needed to be in a secure unit for her own protection. Would you think it'd be ok to hit her when she had challenging behaviour? She didn't have the mental or emotional capacity of an adult and frequently exhibited the behaviours you mention. Would smacking her for her own good be assault?

It's not the same.

With children, discipline in whatever form is a way of helping them develop mental and emotional maturity on their way to adulthood.

Where someone is incapable of developing this maturity the discipline would not help. Punishment be it physical or otherwise will have little or no effect.

Would you send an adult lacking the mental or emotional capacity of an adult to the naughty step?

iguana

Deleted User wrote: »

You have the problem here however that an adult will appreciate the danger that they were in.
Would a child? If they don't appreciate that danger are they likely to do it again without understanding the consequences?

A child will only understand the consequences as long as they can follow the logic. Over Christmas my 2 year old fell in the hot ash of a fire at a relatives house and burned his hand, it wasn't medically bad but it clearly hurt like hell. And now even though he isn't the most verbal child anytime he sees a fire, smoke or a photo of the room he got burned in, he makes a point of telling everyone in the vicinity about how fire is sore and if you touch it you will be crying. And he won't go near a lit fire. I never said a word to him in the aftermath about how fires hurt, I didn't need to he worked it out by himself because A led to B.

A few months beforehand we were visiting a friend who has horses and he slipped through a gap in the fence and ran at one of the horses. I ran after him, caught him before he reached it and as I pulled him back I slipped in the mud and we both fell. He got a huge fright but more than that he was furious with me. Furious with me for taking him away from the horse so jarringly, furious with me for causing him to get a fright when we fell and furious with me because I'm the one he turns to when he is upset but in his eyes I had caused the upset so he couldn't find the comfort he wanted from me. To this day he doesn't think horses can be dangerous but he does think it's worth trying to give me the slip if he wants to get at a horse. Which is the exact opposite of the lesson I want him to learn about horses. It would be similar if I hadn't slipped but had instead slapped him in an attempt to teach him caution. The only caution he'd have learned is to do what he wants out of my sight.