Clobber a child? Pope Frank says "Yes"

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.

Cabaal

wally79 wrote: »

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

We basically do,
They are called institutions and/or prisons.

Unless of course you think its ok to beat the crap out of an adult who doesn't have the mental capacity of an adult?

Pretty sure HSE guidelines and regulations don't allow the beating of people with underdeveloped mental capacity

iguana

iguana wrote: »

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, 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 cause 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.

So let the child get burned or kicked by the horse?
I learned that fire was not a toy, not by being burned but by the reaction of my parents. Got told off and they explained that fire is dangerous first time, still thought it was fun.
got a slap the second time, no more fire for me

hallo dare

robindch wrote: »

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

Bit of an exaggeration from the OP stating "wallop somebody" compared to if you were to "spank" according to the artical.

jungleman

Cabaal wrote: »

We basically do,
They are called institutions and/or prisons.

Unless of course you think its ok to beat the crap out of an adult who doesn't have the mental capacity of an adult?

Pretty sure HSE guidelines and regulations don't allow the beating of people with underdeveloped mental capacity

I'm pretty sure he wasn't advocating that.

seamus

jungleman wrote: »

I think the child was 4 years old. She just had a totally blank expression, she didn't understand a thing.

That's funny, because my two-year-old understands when you explain it to her in simple language.

What you see as a blank expression, the parent can likely see understanding or stubbornness in the child. A four year old isn't capable of the most complex of thought, but they're not stupid. They're well capable of being reasoned with.

Why go to the bother of explaining it to a child instead of just instantly punishing them? Because they're capable of extrapolation and rational thought. When a child understands why X is wrong, then they also begin to reason and extrapolate in their mind and they then understand/realise that lots of scenarios which are similar to X or which are derivatives of X are also wrong.

If you hit them, all they understand is that if they do X, they get hit. They don't really extrapolate on that and consider all of the other scenarios which will result in a smack.

For example - your child smacks a dog. You hit the child and say, "Don't do that!". The child may not smack the dog again, but they might go and smack the cat instead. Because they don't realise that smacking the cat gets the same reaction from you.

If you explain to them why you don't hit the dog, then they're unlikely to go and hit the cat because the same reasoning will apply to the cat as applies to the dog.

Naz_st

jungleman wrote: »

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 ...

This is sort of the point though: Yes, up to a certain age they don't have the same mental or emotional capacity as adults, as in they aren't aware of consequences of actions, fairness, right/wrong, forethought, etc - they're impulsive and irrational and do things for no reasons or reasons they can't explain or articulate. So why hit them for doing so? How is it achieving anything?

... speaking to them like they ARE an adult is ridiculous.

What's ridiculous is this: child A hits child B, which is wrong, how do imagine a corporal punishment approach to this situation playing out? Parent A hits child A while at the same time saying "don't hit people, it's not right!" ??

seamus

Cabaal wrote: »

Pretty sure HSE guidelines and regulations don't allow the beating of people with underdeveloped mental capacity

Wasn't there just a national scandal about mentally disabled adults being treated harshly in care homes?

And yet the treatment they were receiving wasn't that bad*, they were being treated like children. And yet, if they were actually children and their parents were treating them like that, so many people would turn a blind eye.

*It was primarily roughhandling and humiliation, rather than being tortured or beaten or being massively ill-treated

iguana

Deleted User wrote: »

So let the child get burned or kicked by the horse?

No. I'm pointing out that hurting a child as a "lesson" has a totally different outcome to a child getting hurt as a natural consequence of their actions. Slapping a child when they do something dangerous is just a bloody lazy way of making yourself feel better.

Deleted User wrote: »

I learned that fire was not a toy, not by being burned but by the reaction of my parents. Got told off and they explained that fire is dangerous first time, still thought it was fun.
got a slap the second time, no more fire for me

You must have been a very, very unusual child then. The logical lesson a child will learn from that is: Don't go at the fire when my parents are there, wait until they leave the room.

jungleman

seamus wrote: »

Wasn't there just a national scandal about mentally disabled adults being treated harshly in care homes?

And yet the treatment they were receiving wasn't that bad*, they were being treated like children. And yet, if they were actually children and their parents were treating them like that, so many people would turn a blind eye.

*It was primarily roughhandling and humiliation, rather than being tortured or beaten or being massively ill-treated

This is ridiculous. The OP was about the pope saying it's okay for children to be smacked by their own parents. Which was then turned into "clobber a child". Next of all, this had turned into "assaulting defenseless children".

Now the thread has completely gotten off topic and you're going on about disabled adults in care homes? Being honest, the thread should just be closed at this stage, it's gotten way off topic and is bordering on idiocy.

silverharp

seamus wrote: »

Wasn't there just a national scandal about mentally disabled adults being treated harshly in care homes?

And yet the treatment they were receiving wasn't that bad*, they were being treated like children. And yet, if they were actually children and their parents were treating them like that, so many people would turn a blind eye.

*It was primarily roughhandling and humiliation, rather than being tortured or beaten or being massively ill-treated

That's more like psychological abuse. If someone was doing that to kids most people would have an issue with it. Think of a parent that's very controlling and very passive aggressive , they might never even slap the kid but would still be a very poor parent