Parents smacking children to be banned in Scotland .....

LordSutch

To be honest I thought smacking had been banned everywhere many years ago, so this story kind of took me by surprise!

"Campaigners say it is time to introduce a ban on smacking in the rest of the UK after the Scottish government said it is prohibiting physical punishment.

Nicola Sturgeon's administration confirmed it would back a bill put forward by Green MSP John Finnie to provide equal protection from assault for children in Scotland."

Full story here > http://news.sky.com/story/call-for-scottish-smacking-ban-to-be-extended-to-england-11087954

Were you smacked as a child? and would you as a parent smack your own children, or are there other ways to control naughty behaviour?

Akrasia

We only banned it here a few years ago, but it has been culturally unacceptable for a lot longer

The same arguments used to oppose the ban on smacking children was also used to oppose corporal punishment in schools.

It is now unthinkable that a teacher would lay a hand on a child (never mind beat them with a stick)

I have 3 kids, would never dream of smacking any of them. If the child is too young to be reasoned with, they're too young to understand why they're being smacked.

If they're old enough to be reasoned with, then there is absolutely no justification for physical violence as 'discipline'

suicide_circus

Any time I got a smack I knew exactly why I was getting it. I never got a smack for a mistake or an accident, only when I had knowingly and wilfully transgressed.

Grayson

Does this mean mammies can't wave a wooden spoon even if they have no intention of using it.

It's the end of an era. Why would people even need wooden spoons now. The wooden spoon industry is dead.

nozzferrahhtoo

LordSutch wrote: »

Were you smacked as a child? and would you as a parent smack your own children, or are there other ways to control naughty behaviour?

There was a whole thread on using violence to control children in the classroom over here recently. 76% or more the boards populace decided it should never be allowed.

I see no reason ever have to use violence against my own children. Least of all to, as many do, use it to make up for my own inadequacies as a parent.

The questions and points I used for one user before he basically upped and ran away from the thread are relevant here too I feel.

1) There is no evidence on offer that the approach affords any benefit.

2) Where allowing it, due to the vagaries of relative sizes and strengths and vulnerabilities between both the adults administering the violence and the children receiving it.... it would be nigh impossible to police or set standards for how much force should be used to ensure A) the welfare of the recipient and the efficacy of the process.

3) There is little or no methods by which we can evaluate what level of force WAS used in a given case either. Even cameras in every class room or home would likely not help with this.

4) It would result in teaching children that violence is a valid recourse to dispute resolution, rather than role model peaceful and intellectual dispute resolution to them as we should be doing.

5) In a society where in general violence is reducing and we WANT violence to be reducing, it is a reintroduction of violence in an institutionalized fashion. That buzz word some people are so fond of of "normalizing" it to the degree of acceptance.

6) There exists studies, which I can cite and link on request, showing a negative effect of violence and fear of violence on learning.

7) There are genuine concerns around children receiving violence from adults in a position of trust who might later be therefore unwilling to approach that person with genuine problems (emotional, educational, or other) at a later time due to fear or grudge etc.

8) Use of violence to stem the behavior of a child the behavior of whom may be symptomatic of actual genuine issues..... risks us missing those actual genuine issues.

9) Giving a tool like violence to a teacher or parent to over come their own short comings AS a teacher or parent to control their children takes the wrong direction when we should in fact be addressing those short comings and resolving them.

There were other points of course, but that was the main body of them. For me I think with few exceptions, recourse to violence is indicative of a failure on behalf of the person using it to resolve the situation in a peaceful and intellectual manner.

King George VI

LordSutch wrote: »

Were you smacked as a child? and would you as a parent smack your own children, or are there other ways to control naughty behaviour?

Yep, I was and rightly so because I was a little bollocks child and didn't listen to my parents when they had said "Your Majesty why did you hit your sister/throw a rock at that window etc... that was very wrong you shouldn't have done that". I didn't care. I was always of a "better to take the punishment now than to ask for forgiveness later" mindset. And it sorted me out, I didn't do bad things after I got smacked and I turned out pretty well.

Now, it was hardly a heavy beating with a set of jumper cables I got. A hard whollop on the bum or slap on the hand was the regular but it did the job.

I'll be doing the same for my children but only if and after I fail at talking to them and trying to make them understand their transgressions.

thomasm

You probably wouldn't slap an adult for naughty behaviour only for fear he/she would hit you back. You only slap a child because you do not have this fear

nozzferrahhtoo

King George VI wrote: »

I'll be doing the same for my children but only if and after I fail at talking to them and trying to make them understand their transgressions.

It is good that you see it as you violently taking YOUR failure out on them though. There are those I have seen that entirely lack that level of introspection. So that at least has to be commended.

bucketybuck

And of course it is a complete co-incidence that there are huge numbers of kids who have no respect for anyone or anything in todays society. Who have no concept whatsoever of the word "consequence".

A complete co-incidence, I assure you.

branie2

Good idea too.

nozzferrahhtoo

bucketybuck wrote: »

And of course it is a complete co-incidence that there are huge numbers of kids who have no respect for anyone or anything in todays society.

There we can only point you in the direction of the phrase "correlation is not causation".

There is little utility in arbitrarily picking something from society (in this case delinquent kids) and then arbitrarily picking something else you want to be the cause.

You know software piracy has gone up in recent years. Why not link that to the cause? The prevalence of reality TV has gone up too. Why not that? The difficulty of the junior and senior cycle curriculum has, in the view of some, gone down over the years. Maybe that is the cause? The perpetuation of smart phones and social media. Could that not be a factor?

There are any number of correlations one can grasp at like straws, it does not link them.

In all likelihood any increase (assuming real and not merely perceived as is possible here) in the delinquency of such youths is linked to a complex set of socio-economic factors. Not the least of which the amount of time and energy parents these days have to employ discipline and guidance, by violent OR non violent methodologies, has been curtailed in a stressful and economically volatile modern world.

seamus

bucketybuck wrote: »

And of course it is a complete co-incidence that there are huge numbers of kids who have no respect for anyone or anything in todays society. Who have no concept whatsoever of the word "consequence".

Are there?

Can you show me the data on this? What proportion of kids "have no respect" and how does that compare to the datasets from times gone by? What proportion of children in the 1960's had "no respect"?

You appear pretty certain, so no doubt you have a load of statistical tables from the CSO about childhood behaviour that you can point us to?

Zebra3

Why would some people deem it acceptable to punish a child with violence and not an adult?

nozzferrahhtoo

Zebra3 wrote: »

Why would some people deem it acceptable to punish a child with violence and not an adult?

Perhaps they deem both acceptable. They can just get away with it from a target who can not fight back or press charges, so thats the only place they actually implement it?

bucketybuck

Hey, I said it was a co-incidence, what do you want from me?

A complete and utter co-incidence, thats what I said.

HalloweenJack

I heard a very good argument against physical violence before. Essentially, by responding to children's misbehaviour with physical violence, you are telling them that it's ok to respond with violence if someone does something wrong or something you don't like and they'll carry this belief with them into adulthood.

So this will no longer be a thing of fear for children growing up?

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Deleted User wrote: »

So this will no longer be a thing of fear for children growing up?

I will never look at a fuitcake the same way *shudders*

seamus

bucketybuck wrote: »

Hey, I said it was a co-incidence, what do you want from me?

A complete and utter co-incidence

What is? What are the two things that have coincided?

King George VI wrote: »

Yep, I was and rightly so because I was a little bollocks child and didn't listen to my parents

The funny thing is that people who defend smacking children on the basis that "it did me no harm" sound exactly like domestic abuse victims. "Yes, I got hit, but I deserved it."

nozzferrahhtoo

seamus wrote: »

The funny thing is that people who defend smacking children on the basis that "it did me no harm" sound exactly like domestic abuse victims. "Yes, I got hit, but I deserved it."

Yeah I have always had this weird image in my mind of some people coming out of a crowd, into which the police have just indiscriminately fired a spread of bullets, claiming "Well look at me, I am ok, it did me no harm".

There are many things that do anecdotal individuals no harm. The question better answered by looking at people AS A WHOLE and determine the benefits, harms, and therefore net effect of the practice.

I got a smack when I deserved it as a child and I'd have no issue doing the same if I have kids in the future. No harm at all and an awful of little s*its now a days could do with a good smack.

c68zapdsm5i1ru

I don't agree with smacking kids (unless it's a quick tap on the arm or hand to stop them from doing something). But I do agree that there seems to be far more rude, spoilt kids around nowadays who don't seem to understand that bad behaviour has consequences.

But I think that's down to a general attitude in society nowadays that our 'rights' take precedence over everything else, even if those 'rights' are infringing on others needs.

nozzferrahhtoo

Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »

I got a smack when I deserved it as a child and I'd have no issue doing the same if I have kids in the future.

I think however that it is quite possible for 100% of people to agree that children should be hit when they deserve it.

The point of disagreement is that in almost no situation (any??) does a child ACTUALLY "deserve" it. So it should never be done.

It is the parents / guardians role to lead children to correct and moral behaviors. If they fail in that role, then why would a child "deserve" to suffer for the adults failure?

The OP asks "are there other ways to control naughty behavior?" and the answer is there are MANY methodologies to do so without requiring any level of violence. And while many people argue how some are "better" than others, I think they are all pretty much equally effective depending on the individual application and execution of the methods.

For example the Super Nanny Method I have seen work brilliantly. I have also seen people employ it ENTIRELY differently to how Super Nanny recommends it. And it does not work. So they think the method does not work, rather than seeing their implementation of it was entirely wrong.

whisky_galore

The problem with allowing a 'clip around the ear' is that some parents don't know where to draw the line.
A 'clip' turns into 'smack' or a 'box' or an outright hammering.

It only teaches kids that might is right.

I think it's telling when the folks that say 'ah shur it didn't do me any harm', wouldn't dream of hitting their dog...but think hitting their kids is OK.

A Little Pony

Seeing the way children behave nowadays, the entitlement culture they deserve a smack when they do wrong and disrespect the household rules. My house my rules. Nicola Sturgeon the tyrant should be told to go shove it.

GLaDOS

Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »

I got a smack when I deserved it as a child and I'd have no issue doing the same if I have kids in the future. No harm at all and an awful of little s*its now a days could do with a good smack.

Yes, teaching them that violence is the best way to solve problems sounds foolproof.

LordSutch

Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »

I got a smack when I deserved it as a child and I'd have no issue doing the same if I have kids in the future. No harm at all and an awful of little s*its now a days could do with a good smack.

Gosh, I couldn't disagree more.

The very thought of hitting/smacking my kids is totally alien to my way of parenting. It just beggars belief that anyone would dish out corporal punishment to their children in this day & age.

But that's just my opinion.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »

I got a smack when I deserved it as a child and I'd have no issue doing the same if I have kids in the future. No harm at all and an awful of little s*its now a days could do with a good smack.

Probably the worst-timed post I've ever seen, considering the two before yours...

weldoninhio

Isn't it just a form of aversion therapy. Bold=smack. Good=no smack. Its behavior forming and also teaches children about actions and consequences. Once you aren't beating the child senseless, a smack when they misbehave is not a big deal.

riffmongous

And yet there are countries where smacking isn't allowed either and yet they aren't overrun with disrespectful out of control feral children

Crea

We weren't slapped as children. We were never afraid physically of our patents. My mother would loose the cool and scream and throw things. She put shoes through a few windows but that ended up being very expensive but plates were broken. It was this liss of control that frightened us and I think the same goes for slapping. It is usually done when the parent is at the end of their tether and then control can be lost.

wakka12

Smacking never did me any harm. It was never very hard..like just a slap on the bum. It wasnt painful or anything but made you step back in line because of the shock. Thats how I remember it as a little kid
I dont see anything wrong with it really. It does make some children who just wont listen behave

Personally I think its extremely poor parenting method though. there are so many better ways to make children listen to you without resorting to physically hitting them. Using firm words and tone of voice will garner much better long term respect from a child.

shaunr68

I'm not fond of children but have none of our own so don't really have an opinion about whether it is acceptable for other people to beat theirs. Back in the early 80s I was being my usual little bastard and my mother broke her toe on a door frame while trying to kick me up the arse! Her toe is still a funny shape. Goes to show that violence begets violence

wakka12

Maximilian Lively Sharkskin wrote: »

I got a smack when I deserved it as a child and I'd have no issue doing the same if I have kids in the future. No harm at all and an awful of little s*its now a days could do with a good smack.

Yeh tbh ..Generally Im against parents hitting children but honestly seeing some of the entitled selfish insolent disrespectful little brats out in public is terrible..just thinking about how obnoixous their generation is going to be when grown up. Id rather violence in the household than adults with that self indulgent mentality ruling society:eek:

seamus

weldoninhio wrote: »

Isn't it just a form of aversion therapy. Bold=smack. Good=no smack. Its behavior forming and also teaches children about actions and consequences.

It's not really like aversion therapy because the "aversion" bit comes after the event, not during it. It also only works on a simple/specific level rather than for complex concepts like good/bad.

Aversion therapy is more like, "hot thing=get burned".

In terms of it being behaviour forming, if a child gets a smack for (e.g.) jumping on the couch, then the child only learns that jumping on the couch = get a smack. You're not teaching the child right/wrong/good/bad, you're not teaching them why they shouldn't jump on furniture, but rather that a specific activity results in a smack.

So when the child starts jumping on the chairs in the back garden, you'll be flabbergasted that they didn't learn their lesson from the couch. Except that you didn't teach them that jumping on chairs was a bad thing in general, just that they weren't allowed jump on the couch specifically.

Positive reinforcement has generally been proven to be a more effective way of teaching not only children but mammals in general. Our mammalian brain is wired to prioritise rewards. Thus rewarding good behaviour and not rewarding bad behaviour is far more effective than punishing bad behaviour and not punishing good.

In the latter case, the person will still pursue bad behaviour if there's a potential reward, even at risk of punishment.

But if you instead teach them that bad behaviour doesn't yield rewards, they're less likely to take the risk for it.

Of course that doesn't mean bad behaviour should never have consequences. You want to teach them that not only is it not rewarding, but it's also detrimental, such that it's never worth the risk.

McTigs

My ma was the Peter Stringer of the wooden spoon.... you'd duck and dodge and just as you thought you were away past you'd get this stinging whack on the back of the calve... aaaaargh!

branie2

I was at the receiving end of the wooden spoon as well

GritBiscuit

I wasn't smacked growing up...I don't smack my kids.

As a kid I remember seeing a man holding his small child with their arm aloft and smacking them so hard their feet lifted off the ground while chanting "Do NOT hit your brother - we do not use violence" and looking up at my dad completely confused.

There are plenty of ways of imposing consequences without assaulting someone a fraction of your strength and size and trying to coerce them out of fear. Lazy parenting imo...

AnneFrank

People giving out about bold kids, should remember, it's monkey see, monkey do.
Scream and have hissy fits, and your child will do the same.
It's all about parenting, not smacking or screaming.

Hector Bellend

If anyone ever needed a good crack on the arse then its bonny johnny from Scotland.

A nation should reserve the right to give its kids a good crack on the arse.

It should be in the constitution and sh1t.

McTigs

AnneFrank wrote: »

People giving out about bold kids, should remember, it's monkey see, monkey do.
Scream and have hissy fits, and your child will do the same.
It's all about parenting, not smacking or screaming.

not entirely true... one of my kids, while she is not bold per se, can absolutely lose her **** in spectacular fashion, i'm talking supernova.... neither me nor my wife have ever given her this example

nozzferrahhtoo

weldoninhio wrote: »

Isn't it just a form of aversion therapy. Bold=smack. Good=no smack. Its behavior forming and also teaches children about actions and consequences.

Sure, so you are teaching them that the consequence of not resolving a dispute is violence. Not really a lesson to be teaching them. We all want to teach children about consequences. We are agreed there. It is WHICH consequences that is what the debate would be about.

I will take (as I remember it) the post from another user some time ago on boards.ie about how he dealt with teeth brushing with his kids. It was on a thread a parent started that their child would not brush their teeth right.

One resolution of that is smack your child upside the head as hard as it takes until the child consents to brush properly. Sure that is "consequences" but what is it teaching the child to do? To do the right thing for fear of violence? What about teaching them to do the right thing because it IS the right thing to do?

The other resolution as the user I am paraphrasing offered it was that he stood with his children brushing with them and if they refused to do it right he basically kept gently admonishing them until brushing time was over. Then he let it go without a fuss or direct discipline or repercussions.

The next day however they asked for sweets and stuff and he basically said "I would like to give you sweets but as you are refusing to deal with teeth brushing correctly, I can not in good conscience give you any as it would be the wrong thing for me to do knowing the harm it will cause your teeth". So it was a kind of Tom Cruise "Help me! To help you!" speech.

The children went off sadly without sweets and pondered this. Damn sure they then stepped up their game at the next teeth brushing.

So they learned consequences too. But they learned that to get what they want from others they must cooperate and offer the same in return. They learned the concept of doing what is right BECAUSE it is right (the father was refusing them sweets because the protection of their teeth was the right thing to do) and the situation was ultimately resolved.

AnneFrank

McTigs wrote: »

not entirely true... one of my kids, while she is not bold per se, can absolutely lose her **** in spectacular fashion, i'm talking supernova.... neither me nor my wife have ever given her this example

haha you have my sympathy !
I'm sure not all cases, such as yours, but a fairly high %, from what i've seen anyway.

Ms Doubtfire1

Were you smacked as a child? and would you as a parent smack your own children, or are there other ways to control naughty behaviour?

yep and I deserved it and I fully understood why. The whole ' you can't smack your child' attitude is the softie softie approach the current psychologist force on parent. with as a result that many youngsters I encounter are such spoilt brats that expect everything and do nothing. Demanding and deserving. Lazy in many cases and disrespectful. And the next time some little punk is disrespectful to me I shall transgress and give him a smack around his or her ears.There is a HUGE difference between giving your child a slap around their ears for a very obvious transgression and being abusive.

Ms Doubtfire1

Were you smacked as a child? and would you as a parent smack your own children, or are there other ways to control naughty behaviour?

yep and I deserved it and I fully understood why. The whole ' you can't smack your child' attitude is the softie softie approach the current psychologist force on parent. with as a result that many youngsters I encounter are such spoilt brats that expect everything and do nothing. Demanding and deserving. Lazy in many cases and disrespectful. And the next time some little punk is disrespectful to me I shall transgress and give him a smack around his or her ears.There is a HUGE difference between giving your child a slap around their ears for a very obvious transgression and being abusive.

cbyrd

Akrasia wrote:

We only banned it here a few years ago, but it has been culturally unacceptable for a lot longer

We only made it illegal to smack a child in the home on December 12th last year :O

Zebra3

The amount of scumbags on here promoting violence against children is disgusting.

Minderbinder

The amount of people on here referring to a slap as violence is hilarious.

DEFTLEFTHAND

How do you enforce such a law?

PandaPoo

I was hit twice, once by my mam and once by my dad. They both felt horrible after and hugged me and apologised. My dad had just lost his temper and lashed out. It was really out of character, my mam was a shouter so I was used to her being the disciplinarian but my dad was so gentle it completely shocked me.

I won't be ever hitting my kids, I really think it has no place in society today.

DEFTLEFTHAND

Grayson wrote: »

Does this mean mammies can't wave a wooden spoon even if they have no intention of using it.

It's the end of an era. Why would people even need wooden spoons now. The wooden spoon industry is dead.

You're lucky your mam didn't use it.

I can still feel it when I think about it. My mother beat the living hell out of my brother and me. Wooden spoons, belts, fist, doors into the face.