Disciplining Children AKA Back in my day they behaved.

Billy86

facehugger99 wrote: »

The only people you see nowadays physically hitting their kids are the tracksuited scummer-knack brigade and in fairness their kids are models of good behaviour.

Definitely not true in the least.

neonsofa

eviltwin wrote: »

Ah no I think you are wrong there. I don't have a relationship with my parents either, now I'm no psychologist, but I hope, in fact I know, if one of my clients looked for advice on dealing with either their parents or their child I'd be able to set my own stuff aside and look at their issue on its own merits.

Would you see a divorced relationship counsellor?

Exactly. Professionals attend regular supervision to ensure it doesn't happen. A competent practitioner will not allow their own experience to infringe upon their practice and if they felt it was- through supervision or reflection etc.- they will refer the person elsewhere. A bad therapist obviously wouldn't know to do any of the above,but they're just a bad therapist in that case, it's not their experience (and resulting bias) that makes them such, it's their lack of professionalism and inability to engage in the necessary processes listed above.

El_Duderino 09

GreeBo wrote: »

If you are assuming all the other interactions are the same, then I cant understand how you say its lazy parenting.

How is a slap any lazier than changing wifi password?

As a means of communication, hitting is really lazy. It takes time and effort to make yourself understood to a child. Hitting is quick but it carries meanings. It means “do this and I’ll make you feel pain” and it means “hitting is an effective method of communication” which is a pretty bad lesson to teach a child.

It’s lazy because it might be effective in the moment but it teaches a terrible lesson alongside.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

Exactly. Professionals attend regular supervision to ensure it doesn't happen. A competent practitioner will not allow their own experience to infringe upon their practice and if they felt it was- through supervision or reflection etc.- they will refer the person elsewhere. A bad therapist obviously wouldn't know to do any of the above,but they're just a bad therapist in that case, it's not their experience (and resulting bias) that makes them such, it's their lack of professionalism and inability to engage in the necessary processes listed above.

If they're basing their opinion of a completely separate case upon their own personal experience, then of course that in itself is indicative of the fact that they are lacking in professionalism and incompetent in their job, and are therefore unable to provide an objective perspective.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

If they're basing their opinion of a completely separate case upon their own personal experience, then of course that in itself is indicative of the fact that they are lacking in professionalism and incompetent in their job, and are therefore unable to provide an objective perspective.

But you're assuming all practitioners would do that by assuming that a divorced practitioner would always compare their professional cases to their own experience with separation. In that case grief counsellors should never have buried a relative, crisis pregnancy counsellors should never have experienced a pregnancy- crisis or otherwise, addiction counsellors should never have known an alcoholic etc.. every practitioner has their own experiences in all aspects of life, from the huge events like above examples, to the most mundane experiences and that's always going to be their frame of reference, but their own personal experience is not what determines their suitability, their ability to remain objective despite that is. And professionals go through years of training to develop that skill.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

But you're assuming all practitioners would do that by assuming that a divorced practitioner would always compare their professional cases to their own experience with separation.

No I'm not? I even clarified that with eviltwin that I would have no issue with seeing a relationship counsellor who was divorced themselves. It's not whether they're divorced or not would influence my judgement that they could or couldn't be objective, it's whether they could leave their experience outside the room.

In that case grief counsellors should never have buried a relative, crisis pregnancy counsellors should never have experienced a pregnancy- crisis or otherwise, addiction counsellors should never have known an alcoholic etc.. every practitioner has their own experiences in all aspects of life, from the huge events like above examples, to the most mundane experiences and that's always going to be their frame of reference, but their own personal experience is not what determines their suitability, their ability to remain objective despite that is. And professionals go through years of training to develop that skill.

Not if they're actually any good at their job it isn't, because providing someone else with advice and counselling services isn't about themselves, it's about their clients.

That's why their own personal experience is particularly relevant in judging their competency, because if they introduce it, they're incompetent, whereas if they keep their experience to themselves, and focus on their clients issues, that's a demonstration of their ability to remain objective, or not, as in the case of that poster who not only introduced plenty upon which to make a determination as to their competency and suitability, and exactly why I said that respectfully, I (personally, speaking only for myself), would never wish to avail of their services.

It really doesn't take years to develop what isn't actually a skill, and would be obvious to most people, particularly to people who are in the business of offering advice to other people. I don't form any opinion one way or the other of people based upon what they do for a living, but if they want to base their opinion on their training, qualifications and personal experience, then of course I'm going to form an opinion as to their competency in what they do for a living on that basis.

Realt Dearg Sec

Hitting your children is an admission that you don't have a clue how to communicate with your child. It provides a terrible model of behaviour (same as using your phone in the car or smoking around them).

I don't hit my daughter because there is absolutely no reason to do so. She can be taught proper behaviour through all sorts of methods that don't involve violence. And she's a great kid.

Now, there isn't a shred of evidence for this claim the pro-hitting posters keep making that kids these days have no respect and are more unruly than in the past. And even if there were, there's no evidence for the further claim that this is caused by the decline of parents willing to violently assault their children. But since we're in an evidence-free thread where personal experience is the same as data...

When I was a kid my parents never hit me. I would say it was true of most people I knew actually (and this was in the 80s, which seem to be a hallowed glory day of parental violence for some posters). And we grew up to get good jobs, to be respectful of others, and all of that lovely stuff. But I knew a lot of people in my school whose parents did hit them, as part of their regular disciplinary methods. So many of those people grew up to be trouble makers and thugs I couldn't even count.

Now you might point out this is at best anecdotal evidence. You might also note that there is no necessary causal link between those things (most people whose parents hit them were also from poorer backgrounds for instance, which may better explain their outcomes - but at the same time it probably explains the increased likelihood of them having parents who hit them in the first place). You'd be right, this is just personal experience, it has no basis in data, or evidence. But funnily enough it's the exact same basis as the OP uses for his point of view, and yet here we are.

What the anti-hitting side do have on their side is the overwhelming weight of scientific study into the question of child behaviour and longer term behavioural outcomes of people who do and don't experience violence as part of their discipline growing up, that people who do experience smacking etc experience increased levels of aggression and anti-social behaviour as they get older. But since when did that bother anyone wanting to blame lefty PC SJW snowflake millenials for something, especially something that is itself very vaguely defined and completely unsubstantiated.

Basically what I'm saying is the OP invented a problem, and invented the cause of that problem, in order to introduce his solution, "hidings". That's salesmanship 101: create a demand for your product.

Sell me this pen.

Tigger

wexford awake wrote: »

Nothing wrong with giving children four to six slaps across the arse or back of legs. Europe and their crap has made it illegal to physically discipline children. Kids were happier in the 70s 80s and 90s because we were simply tougher because we got tough love at home. Moddle coddling is more harmful than a slap.

Your mad for the baiting kids still https://www.boards.ie/search/submit/?user=475402&sort=newest&date_to=&date_from=&query=%2A%3A%2A&forum=251
It’s unnessicary to hit peolple as I’ve said before on here I rescued problem doggies and retrain them through communication and patience
The idea that I would hit a child to communicate an idea to it is beyond repulsive to me

One eyed Jack

Realt Dearg Sec wrote: »

What the anti-hitting side do have on their side is the overwhelming weight of scientific study into the question of child behaviour and longer term behavioural outcomes of people who do and don't experience violence as part of their discipline growing up, that people who do experience smacking etc experience increased levels of aggression and anti-social behaviour as they get older. But since when did that bother anyone wanting to blame lefty PC SJW snowflake millenials for something, especially something that is itself very vaguely defined and completely unsubstantiated.

They most certainly do not, because as you quite rightly point out for one thing the issue is so vaguely defined, and the thing you fail to point out is that the vast majority of studies into the issue of outcomes of smacking children are generally coming from one source in particular (even the meta-studies that were done included studies she had previously conducted herself!) -


What Science Says—and Doesn't—about Spanking

The vast majority of these studies that are done, are loaded with selection bias, they pick candidates which fit the model of their hypothesis, as opposed to any form of actual scientific methodology.

As for holding people responsible for something based upon their political and social views, I wouldn't, because it really doesn't matter one way or the other what their political or social views are in the context of offering an opinion on how parents who are not them, choose to discipline their own children, and the outcomes for those children, who, without meaning to state the obvious here, but who are also, not them.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

No I'm not? I even clarified that with eviltwin that I would have no issue with seeing a relationship counsellor who was divorced themselves. It's not whether they're divorced or not would influence my judgement that they could or couldn't be objective, it's whether they could leave their experience outside the room.

.

I thought you said you wouldn't, apologies.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Not if they're actually any good at their job it isn't, because providing someone else with advice and counselling services isn't about themselves, it's about their clients.

That's why their own personal experience is particularly relevant in judging their competency, because if they introduce it, they're incompetent, whereas if they keep their experience to themselves, and focus on their clients issues, that's a demonstration of their ability to remain objective, or not, as in the case of that poster who not only introduced plenty upon which to make a determination as to their competency and suitability, and exactly why I said that respectfully, I (personally, speaking only for myself), would never wish to avail of their services.

It really doesn't take years to develop what isn't actually a skill, and would be obvious to most people, particularly to people who are in the business of offering advice to other people. I don't form any opinion one way or the other of people based upon what they do for a living, but if they want to base their opinion on their training, qualifications and personal experience, then of course I'm going to form an opinion as to their competency in what they do for a living on that basis.

That's exactly my point. They don't "introduce" their experience into their practice at all. No human being can ignore their own thoughts, feelings, based on their own frame of reference, even the most professional therapist has to work at it- hence professional supervision and need to engage in their own therapy. They actively work at not allowing it interfere with their practice on an emotional/cognitive level. The fact you don't think that is a skill they develop in training is bizarre to me. There is a reason people learn about transference and countertransference and attend their own therapy and supervision. It's something that needs to be developed over time.

Or are you referring to someone actually discussing their own experience in a professional capacity? If so then it's no wonder you would deem them incompetent! I'm talking about their own internal processes, not their interaction with clients. If they are self disclosing and making reference to their own experience then they're absolutely incompetent but that's not what I was talking about.

One eyed Jack

neonsofa wrote: »

That's exactly my point. They don't "introduce" their experience into their practice at all. No human being can ignore their own thoughts, feelings, based on their own frame of reference, even the most professional therapist has to work at it- hence professional supervision and need to engage in their own therapy. They actively work at not allowing it interfere with their practice on an emotional/cognitive level. The fact you don't think that is a skill they develop in training is bizarre to me. There is a reason people learn about transference and countertransference and attend their own therapy and supervision. It's something that needs to be developed over time.

They can, if they want to. Plenty of people do it all the time and it's really not that unusual, and that's why I'm suggesting it's not a particular skill that can be learned, but rather it's a personal attribute that either a person is capable of doing, or they aren't. I'm aware of the training that is provided to professionals in overcoming their own biases, and in processing their own issues and endeavouring to help them to maintain their objectivity, but unfortunately, like any form of training, the person can simply ignore their training when they aren't being observed themselves.

Your use of terms like transference and counter-transference reminds me of the time I was having a conversation with a social worker and I used those terms. She had no idea what I was talking about, and she was only just out of college after having completed her degree in social care. Now that's not to say she wasn't brilliant at what she does, she was, really good. She was able to relate to her clients and was very helpful to a great many of them, so while I may have been sketchy about her qualifications, her personal attributes that she brought to the role as a person, meant she was exemplary at her job.

Or are you referring to someone actually discussing their own experience in a professional capacity? If so then it's no wonder you would deem them incompetent! I'm talking about their own internal processes, not their interaction with clients. If they are self disclosing and making reference to their own experience then they're absolutely incompetent but that's not what I was talking about.

Yes, that's exactly why I questioned why that posters objectivity, because in the same post as they claimed to be a trained child psychologist, they made reference to their own personal experience of their own childhood and their experience of their parents parenting, and the influence it had on them and still has on them as an adult.

neonsofa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

They can, if they want to. Plenty of people do it all the time and it's really not that unusual, and that's why I'm suggesting it's not a particular skill that can be learned, but rather it's a personal attribute that either a person is capable of doing, or they aren't. I'm aware of the training that is provided to professionals in overcoming their own biases, and in processing their own issues and endeavouring to help them to maintain their objectivity, but unfortunately, like any form of training, the person can simply ignore their training when they aren't being observed themselves.

Your use of terms like transference and counter-transference reminds me of the time I was having a conversation with a social worker and I used those terms. She had no idea what I was talking about, and she was only just out of college after having completed her degree in social care. Now that's not to say she wasn't brilliant at what she does, she was, really good. She was able to relate to her clients and was very helpful to a great many of them, so while I may have been sketchy about her qualifications, her personal attributes that she brought to the role as a person, meant she was exemplary at her job.





Yes, that's exactly why I questioned why that posters objectivity, because in the same post as they claimed to be a trained child psychologist, they made reference to their own personal experience of their own childhood and their experience of their parents parenting, and the influence it had on them and still has on them as an adult.

The fact you're saying someone can ignore their own thoughts just shows you're not getting what I'm saying. The very fact that someone chooses to be objective shows that they acknowledge their own thoughts and feelings and choose to discard them. Hence they haven't ignored them. It's basic human nature that if someone refers to let's use divorce as an example, you instantly think of your own meaning of divorce- not getting upset at your awful break up and telling your client how much of a sick your ex Is, but you think of your own frame of reference, no matter how briefly. You don't exist in a vacuum, It's how your brain works. It cannot be ignored. No matter how momentarily It passes in your mind. It can and is put aside, especially by competent professionals but trying to diminish them and pretend they aren't there is exactly what professionals are taught not to do. Again,hence supervision and personal therapy.
Knowing your bias so it can't influence practice. If you're not aware then you actually can't be objective because on an emotional level you may actually be guided by your own feelings on it.

Anyway it's dragging the thread off topic and verging into long posts and multi quote territory which is no fun for anybody to read so I'll leave it there.

John_Rambo

I rarely witness child slapping and hitting nowadays. But when I do, they're normally badly behaved children from lower socio-economic backgrounds in fast-food restaurants, playgrounds etc... These outbursts are often carried out with foul language or innapropiate threats of further violence.

I don't witness it happening with well behaved children in proper restaurants, playgrounds etc...

I also find it fascinating that it's usually childless people that have a child hitting/slapping fetish on online forums.
This lot also seem to think that unruly teenagers from low socio-economic backgrounds should have been slapped and hit when it's most likely that the very teenagers they're talking about were most likely hit and slapped very often.

I've never hit my kids personally. Maybe I'm lucky, but good socialisation along with strong rules and boundaries, good communication and dialogue works well. Modern parents are blessed with excellent back up from easily accessed advice from books and the web. Expert, on hand help from the likes of David Coleman and John Sharry are at our hands.

Hands used for education, good parenting instead of hitting slapping.

GreeBo

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

As a means of communication, hitting is really lazy. It takes time and effort to make yourself understood to a child. Hitting is quick but it carries meanings. It means “do this and I’ll make you feel pain” and it means “hitting is an effective method of communication” which is a pretty bad lesson to teach a child.

It’s lazy because it might be effective in the moment but it teaches a terrible lesson alongside.

Agreed, which is why I have said repeatedly in this very thread that a slap doesn't replace or remove the requirement to follow-up and punishment with an explanation of why it occurred and what behavior is expected.

But sure fire away and ignore that...again.

Peatys wrote: »

Takes effort to change a WiFi password.

Does it? I can do it from my phone without so much as standing up.
To give a slap I have to go find cut child and then exert myself.
Good effort though.

The One Doctor wrote: »

Oh dear, we've moved away from beating our children to make them fit into our world view. What a shame.

BTW, KTF, are you really an Indo or IT journalist as the rumour goes?

Beating our children huh? These strawman arguments are pointless. You aren't arguing against anyone when you use such hyperbole.

SEPT 23 1989

Was slapped as a child because it was all boys and we were little b@stards at times

I wouldn't blame my parents for losing it

Never slapped my daughter because you don't hit girls ever

John_Rambo

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Was slapped as a child because it was all boys and we were little b@stards at times

So was I

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

I wouldn't blame my parents for losing it

Agreed 100% Neither do I. It was the done thing then. Things are different now.

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Never slapped my daughter because you don't hit girls ever

Never slapped my kids, gender aside. But, as I said in my previous post on this thread, we've a lot more knowledge and education at our fingertips now. There's no real need to slap our children.

One eyed Jack

John_Rambo wrote: »

I rarely witness child slapping and hitting nowadays. But when I do, they're normally badly behaved children from lower socio-economic backgrounds in fast-food restaurants, playgrounds etc... These outbursts are often carried out with foul language or innapropiate threats of further violence.

I don't witness it happening with well behaved children in proper restaurants, playgrounds etc...

I also find it fascinating that it's usually childless people that have a child hitting/slapping fetish on online forums.
This lot also seem to think that unruly teenagers from low socio-economic backgrounds should have been slapped and hit when it's most likely that the very teenagers they're talking about were most likely hit and slapped very often.

I've never hit my kids personally. Maybe I'm lucky, but good socialisation along with strong rules and boundaries, good communication and dialogue works well. Modern parents are blessed with excellent back up from easily accessed advice from books and the web. Expert, on hand help from the likes of David Coleman and John Sharry are at our hands.

Hands used for education, good parenting instead of hitting slapping.

I don't agree that the issue of the welfare of children and their outcomes as adults deliniates along such convenient lines. You have no idea what those families are like behind closed doors. You're literally only seeing what you want to see.

I'm not going to attempt to counter your personal experience, because it's rather obvious from your post that you're attuned to seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the vast majority of both social demographics in making your observations.

Personally, I wouldn't even rate David Coleman, and I can't comment on the other chap because I've never heard of him until you mentioned him just now, so to say "expert, on hand help" is at our hands is really exaggerating the influence of the two "experts" you mention.

EDIT: As for your assertion that it's usually childless people that have what you call "a fascination for a child hitting/slapping fetish" on online forums, I think you'd be well wide of the mark on that one too.

Paddy Cow

Would all the people who are happy for parents to smack their child, be happy for other adults to do so? If a child learns in the home that the consequence for bad behaviour is smacking, then how is that child supposed to behave for adults who aren't allowed smack them?

Someone said that corporal punishment has been used for 1000's of years so why write it off? Corporal punishment wasn't confined to children. Should we bring back the stocks so the community can throw rotten veg at "undesirables"? Should we bring back public flogging for misdemeanours?

Society has evolved and become more civilised to give body autonomy to everyone. No adult regardless of who they are, be they a partner, member of the gards, a priest, a nun, anoyone, has the right to put their hands on another adult under any circumstances other than self defence. It's considered assault.

It took a long time to filter down to children but I'm glad it has. Children are too little to stand up for themselves. They can't do that until they reach adulthood. The reason we don't use corporal punishment on them now is the culmination of adults who were mistreated as children saying enough is enough. There are better ways of disciplining children. It has taken Irish society a long time to move away from corporal punishment and apart from a few on this thread bemoaning it's loss, I'm thankful it is something future generations won't have to experience and will read back on and wonder how times like that could exist.

Someone made a facetious argument that psychological punishment ie taking away toys, grounding, changing the wifi password is basically the same thing as corporal punishment, as both are teaching the child consequences. That is complete whataboutery BS. Withholding privileges for bad behaviour is setting a child up for life as an adult. If you "misbehave" as an adult, no one is going to assault you. If you take the p!ss in your job, you face being fired. If you break the law, you face prison.

That is the message we are now sending our children - if you don't behave, you lose things you like. It's not perfect. There are people who overindulge their children and then don't know how to deal with their bad behaviour. This will sort itself out in time. It's only relatively recently that we've stopped hitting kids. As it becomes ingrained in society that you cannot hit your kids and there are other ways of disciplining them, these sorts of threads will die out.

I imagine if boards was around in the 40's and 50's there would be plenty of threads saying you should be allowed to hit your wife if she was out of line. If someone started a thread like that now it would be locked, with the poster banned. I hope that in the not too distant future our attitudes have changed enough that even debating hitting our kids won't be a thing.

SEPT 23 1989

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Would all the people who are happy for parents to smack their child, be happy for other adults to do so? If a child learns in the home that the consequence for bad behaviour is smacking, then how is that child supposed to behave for adults who aren't allowed smack them?

Someone said that corporal punishment has been used for 1000's of years so why write it off? Corporal punishment wasn't confined to children. Should we bring back the stocks so the community can throw rotten veg at "undesirables"? Should we bring back public flogging for misdemeanours?

Society has evolved and become more civilised to give body autonomy to everyone. No adult regardless of who they are, be they a partner, member of the gards, a priest, a nun, anoyone, has the right to put their hands on another adult under any circumstances other than self defence. It's considered assault.

It took a long time to filter down to children but I'm glad it has. Children are too little to stand up for themselves. They can't do that until they reach adulthood. The reason we don't use corporal punishment on them now is the culmination of adults who were mistreated as children saying enough is enough. There are better ways of disciplining children. It has taken Irish society a long time to move away from corporal punishment and apart from a few on this thread bemoaning it's loss, I'm thankful it is something future generations won't have to experience and will read back on and wonder how times like that could exist.

Someone made a facetious argument that psychological punishment ie taking away toys, grounding, changing the wifi password is basically the same thing as corporal punishment, as both are teaching the child consequences. That is complete whataboutery BS. Withholding privileges for bad behaviour is setting a child up for life as an adult. If you "misbehave" as an adult, no one is going to assault you. If you take the p!ss in your job, you face being fired. If you break the law, you face prison.

That is the message we are now sending our children - if you don't behave, you lose things you like. It's not perfect. There are people who overindulge their children and then don't know how to deal with their bad behaviour. This will sort itself out in time. It's only relatively recently that we've stopped hitting kids. As it becomes ingrained in society that you cannot hit your kids and there are other ways of disciplining them, these sorts of threads will die out.

I imagine if boards was around in the 40's and 50's there would be plenty of threads saying you should be allowed to hit your wife if she was out of line. If someone started a thread like that now it would be locked, with the poster banned. I hope that in the not too distant future our attitudes have changed enough that even debating hitting our kids won't be a thing.

No real men hit their wives

We love them and respect them

No matter what century

John_Rambo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't agree that the issue of the welfare of children and their outcomes as adults deliniates along such convenient lines. You have no idea what those families are like behind closed doors. You're literally only seeing what you want to see.

You've every right not to agree that the welfare of kids affects them or have any influence from childhood to adulthood. Naive to the extreme, but stick to it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not going to attempt to counter your personal experience, because it's rather obvious from your post that you're attuned to seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the vast majority of both social demographics in making your observations.

Fair enough, don't attempt to counter, you're unable. I see what I see, I've lived a long life in the East inner city of Dublin and in affluent suburbs. I don't have an agenda, I don't ignore anything and you can't deny it.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Personally, I wouldn't even rate David Coleman, and I can't comment on the other chap because I've never heard of him until you mentioned him just now, so to say "expert, on hand help" is at our hands is really exaggerating the influence of the two "experts" you mention.

Well, they are experts in the field, you don't rate one, why? And you've never heard of the other, again, why?

Edit... I see where you're coming from regarding the welfare of the kids. Some of the least well off parents raised the best kids. I didn't mean to say poor = bad parenting. I take back that inference. But I do think a lack of education and a small social sphere can sometimes be detrimental to the upbringing of a child

One eyed Jack wrote: »

EDIT: As for your assertion that it's usually childless people that have what you call "a fascination for a child hitting/slapping fetish" on online forums, I think you'd be well wide of the mark on that one too.

Edit.. edit!! sorry, I take your valid points, but there's a few on here that don't have kids and always join in on these threads that assume bold kids are bold because they weren't hit or slapped.

One eyed Jack

John_Rambo wrote: »

You've every right not to agree that the welfare of kids affects them or have any influence from childhood to adulthood. Naive to the extreme, but stick to it.

That's nothing like what you originally said, and that's not what I was disagreeing with either.

Fair enough, don't attempt to counter, you're unable. I see what I see, I've lived a long life in the East inner city of Dublin and in affluent suburbs. I don't have an agenda, I don't ignore anything and you can't deny it.

Of course I'm unable to counter your perspective from your own personal experience. I'd want to be fairly arrogant to even attempt to do so, I'd also be an idiot to assume I could attempt to tell you your own personal experience is wrong. I'd be implying you're lying, and I don't imagine for a minute that you are lying. You're simply relating your own personal experience. It's your perspective I'm arguing is limited, given your own account of your personal experience. You absolutely do have an agenda if you're attempting to imply that a lack of education is responsible for children's misbehaviour. There's a reason there are campaigns to introduce 'consent classes' in third-level education. Better educated children doesn't necessarily correlate with better behaved adults, clearly!

Well, they are experts in the field, you don't rate one, why? And you've never heard of the other, again, why?

I simply wouldn't rate him as having read some of his books, attended one or two of his public talks and having read and listened to some of his contributions in the media, he's about as much an expert as Super-nanny. That is to say, his audience is particularly small because parents simply can't relate to his ideas. He is the modern day equivalent of Benjamin Spock - he tells his audience what they want to hear, and it's because that small minority can relate to his opinions that they consider him an expert.

Edit... I see where you're coming from regarding the welfare of the kids. Some of the least well off parents raised the best kids. I didn't mean to say poor = bad parenting. I take back that inference. But I do think a lack of education and a small social sphere can sometimes be detrimental to the upbringing of a child

I don't disagree with you. Of course a lack of education and a small social sphere can sometimes be detrimental to the upbringing of some adults (I have to keep saying adults, because that is the eventual outcome of any childhood). However, there are an infinite number of factors influence the children's outcomes as adults. We know this, as adults ourselves, who were children once. We didn't all go on to third level education, we weren't all social butterflies, and yet the vast majority of us turned out to be contributing members of society with all our various perspectives, influenced by our own personal experiences.

I wouldn't immediately be given to assuming that a person who is poorly educated with a small social circle is the result of poor parenting. I don't make any judgements or assumptions about their parents parenting. I could cite an infinite number of high profile examples of well educated adults who were considered well connected and had large social circles who turned out to be vile human beings and leeches on society. I wouldn't automatically jump to holding their parents responsible for those outcomes though, any more than I would immediately assume that someone who was what I consider to be a mature, healthy adult, is a direct result of their parents influence.

Edit.. edit!! sorry, I take your valid points, but there's a few on here that don't have kids and always join in on these threads that assume bold kids are bold because they weren't hit or slapped.

I've already said I don't agree with the opening poster, as their assumptions are far too simplistic. However, equally simplistic are correlations that smacking children is generally advocated by less well-educated childless (child-free surely? :pac:) people, or that parents who smack their children are terrible parents whose children will develop the DSM of psychological issues as adults.

freedominacup

wexford awake wrote: »

See

See that's the problem, children have become like fragile ornaments. I mention a few smacks and you equate it to torture. No wonder kids Today are spoiled sh**ts.

I honestly doubt you'd match either of my boys, 14 and 16 yrs old, for a day at work. Neither of them ever had a hand laid on them. Both of them would think nothing of turning out before 6 in the morning and putting in a 12 HR shift if the need arose. In fact they'd relish the opportunity to work it up in the hole of a neanderthal like you. There's plenty like them.

GreeBo

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Would all the people who are happy for parents to smack their child, be happy for other adults to do so? If a child learns in the home that the consequence for bad behaviour is smacking, then how is that child supposed to behave for adults who aren't allowed smack them?

Someone said that corporal punishment has been used for 1000's of years so why write it off? Corporal punishment wasn't confined to children. Should we bring back the stocks so the community can throw rotten veg at "undesirables"? Should we bring back public flogging for misdemeanours?

Society has evolved and become more civilised to give body autonomy to everyone. No adult regardless of who they are, be they a partner, member of the gards, a priest, a nun, anoyone, has the right to put their hands on another adult under any circumstances other than self defence. It's considered assault.

It took a long time to filter down to children but I'm glad it has. Children are too little to stand up for themselves. They can't do that until they reach adulthood. The reason we don't use corporal punishment on them now is the culmination of adults who were mistreated as children saying enough is enough. There are better ways of disciplining children. It has taken Irish society a long time to move away from corporal punishment and apart from a few on this thread bemoaning it's loss, I'm thankful it is something future generations won't have to experience and will read back on and wonder how times like that could exist.

Someone made a facetious argument that psychological punishment ie taking away toys, grounding, changing the wifi password is basically the same thing as corporal punishment, as both are teaching the child consequences. That is complete whataboutery BS. Withholding privileges for bad behaviour is setting a child up for life as an adult. If you "misbehave" as an adult, no one is going to assault you. If you take the p!ss in your job, you face being fired. If you break the law, you face prison.

That is the message we are now sending our children - if you don't behave, you lose things you like. It's not perfect. There are people who overindulge their children and then don't know how to deal with their bad behaviour. This will sort itself out in time. It's only relatively recently that we've stopped hitting kids. As it becomes ingrained in society that you cannot hit your kids and there are other ways of disciplining them, these sorts of threads will die out.

I imagine if boards was around in the 40's and 50's there would be plenty of threads saying you should be allowed to hit your wife if she was out of line. If someone started a thread like that now it would be locked, with the poster banned. I hope that in the not too distant future our attitudes have changed enough that even debating hitting our kids won't be a thing.

What about people being locked up for life in prison then...should we just communicate with them more instead of physically restraining them?


Perhaps the naughty step could be rolled out for extreme cases...maybe some time outs?

facehugger99

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Never slapped my daughter because you don't hit girls ever

so if you'd had a son......

One eyed Jack

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Would all the people who are happy for parents to smack their child, be happy for other adults to do so? If a child learns in the home that the consequence for bad behaviour is smacking, then how is that child supposed to behave for adults who aren't allowed smack them?

The literal definition of whataboutery right there. Completely different circumstances. Other adults neither have the authority nor the responsibility for children that their parents do.

Someone said that corporal punishment has been used for 1000's of years so why write it off? Corporal punishment wasn't confined to children. Should we bring back the stocks so the community can throw rotten veg at "undesirables"? Should we bring back public flogging for misdemeanours?

That really isn't the foreign concept you're making it out to be. Quite often in these threads there are posters who advocate violence against parents who smack their children, while arguing that they would never lay a hand on their own children as children who are smacked grow up to be violent thugs. Clearly there's an obvious lack of self-awareness in the expression of their own violent fantasies.

Society has evolved and become more civilised to give body autonomy to everyone. No adult regardless of who they are, be they a partner, member of the gards, a priest, a nun, anoyone, has the right to put their hands on another adult under any circumstances other than self defence. It's considered assault.

You're categorically wrong there. Anyone, depending upon their occupation, have the authority to restrain people by whatever means are necessary, bodily autonomy be damned.

It took a long time to filter down to children but I'm glad it has. Children are too little to stand up for themselves. They can't do that until they reach adulthood. The reason we don't use corporal punishment on them now is the culmination of adults who were mistreated as children saying enough is enough. There are better ways of disciplining children. It has taken Irish society a long time to move away from corporal punishment and apart from a few on this thread bemoaning it's loss, I'm thankful it is something future generations won't have to experience and will read back on and wonder how times like that could exist.

That's wishful thinking, at best, considering that what we're talking about here is parents authority to physically discipline their own children, and the fact is that it's still a disciplinary method practiced by the overwhelming majority of parents, not just in Irish society, not just in Western society, but in every society across the world. It would be ridiculous to suggest that parents smacking their children would ever be completely eliminated in any given society because the fact of the matter is that it's only a tiny minority of adults are actually advocating for parents to be criminalised for disciplining their own children.

Someone made a facetious argument that psychological punishment ie taking away toys, grounding, changing the wifi password is basically the same thing as corporal punishment, as both are teaching the child consequences. That is complete whataboutery BS. Withholding privileges for bad behaviour is setting a child up for life as an adult. If you "misbehave" as an adult, no one is going to assault you. If you take the p!ss in your job, you face being fired. If you break the law, you face prison.

It's not whataboutery at all. The point being made is that such methods of discipline can have equivalent outcomes as physical discipline. In adults we call such behaviour gaslighting, and that's what posters here are suggesting is permissible to do to a child, as long as they're not laying a finger on them, as though gaslighting a child should somehow be an acceptable means of instilling discipline in a child that won't have any adverse outcomes for the child as an adult.

Also, I can cite plenty of examples of adults who were assaulted for their behaviour. I'm sure you can too, so to suggest that nobody is going to assault you if they think you've stepped out of line is just more wishful thinking.

That is the message we are now sending our children - if you don't behave, you lose things you like. It's not perfect. There are people who overindulge their children and then don't know how to deal with their bad behaviour. This will sort itself out in time. It's only relatively recently that we've stopped hitting kids. As it becomes ingrained in society that you cannot hit your kids and there are other ways of disciplining them, these sorts of threads will die out.

Eh? Clearly it's not, as physical discipline is still used by the vast majority of parents. I don't understand how you're actually not aware of this. Your imperfect solution might be the message you're sending to your own children, but I sincerely doubt it's rubbing off on anyone else but your own children. I certainly wouldn't be waiting around for your idea to sort itself out any more than I would wait for my child to sort themselves out without any intervention on my part. I don't expect children will be raising themselves any time soon, which is the logical conclusion of your "hands off" parenting strategy.

I imagine if boards was around in the 40's and 50's there would be plenty of threads saying you should be allowed to hit your wife if she was out of line. If someone started a thread like that now it would be locked, with the poster banned. I hope that in the not too distant future our attitudes have changed enough that even debating hitting our kids won't be a thing.

I wouldn't think Boards would be any more a reflection of Irish society in the 40's and 50's any more than it clearly isn't any sort of a reflection or representation of Irish society as it is today. Your idealism simply doesn't map to reality, it didn't in the 40's and 50's, it doesn't today, and it's incredibly unlikely it will in the future.

wexford awake

freedominacup wrote: »

I honestly doubt you'd match either of my boys, 14 and 16 yrs old, for a day at work. Neither of them ever had a hand laid on them. Both of them would think nothing of turning out before 6 in the morning and putting in a 12 HR shift if the need arose. In fact they'd relish the opportunity to work it up in the hole of a neanderthal like you. There's plenty like them.

So your kids work in HR at 14 and 16?.

Glass fused light

kildare lad wrote: »

The kid in your example will be corrected by the other children, he will soon learn that they don't care if he is off in a corner crying although if he has not figured this out by 10 he may be "special" (and not in a special needs way)

The other kids dont care thought, my son tells me they start laughing at him when he does it. He doesnt really have to many friends because of the way he acts, He wont go out an play because he wants to sit in an play xbox all day even though the estates full of kids. And his parents let him stay in. Hes not a bully or anything hes just super spoilt and always has been. hopefully he changes but i dont think it will, unless the parents start confronting him and start being a bit firmer with him.

That's not just being spoilt thats overall neglect, using the electronics as a babysitter. His parents could beat the head off him with much the same result. Because if they are not explaining the consequences of his actions to him and are letting him avoid it, he will never gain the skill to dealing with people. Worse still he will learn about dealing with people online in a way which will never be accepted in real life.

I've seen some parents who were so layed back as to be called horizontal when it came to discipline, who were firm but for the most part without confrontations or punishments. All just "johnny don't do that because people don't like it when you do that". But to be fair while the childern were little monsters at 5 and 6 (well more than average at that age) by 10 or so they had correctly translated that "because" into "people won't like them" and could self-correct to the relief of all.

Paddy Cow wrote: »

Society has evolved and become more civilised to give body autonomy to everyone. No adult regardless of who they are, be they a partner, member of the gards, a priest, a nun, anoyone, has the right to put their hands on another adult under any circumstances other than self defence. It's considered assault.

...
If you "misbehave" as an adult, no one is going to assault you. ...... If you break the law, you face prison.

Were you aware that 'We the State' could legally kill people up until the 90's. 'We the State' have agreed that not all rights are equal so you can be assaulted and imprisoned by another if they have reason to believe that in doing so they are saving the life of someone other than themselves so it's not just self-defence.

qwerty ui op

Deleted User wrote: »

I think it can be seen in shopping centers, or other public places where in some cases kids are running all over the parents. You can see that combination of helplessness and embarrassment in the faces of the parents, as their kids shout, cry, pull things down, throw tantrums, etc. In an open space, it's fine, and somewhat amusing. In an enclosed space, like a bus/plane, then it's incredibly annoying. (12 hours long flight with children that won't settle down is a nightmare for the whole plane of passengers)

I don't think kids are much worse than before, and honestly, when it comes to kids, it's not really much of an issue. If teens are acting up in a similar manner then that's a different story, but I imagine this thread isn't about teens.

I won't say it doesn't happen but what you're talking is extremely unusual.

I do our household shopping and often take our kids. If we were all to spend an hour shopping you'd have your worst 3/4 mins period within that hour and if you looked back over a year you'd have your worst shopping trip but almost all of the time their fine. This is true for most parents, when you have kids at supermarkets or shopping centers you notice the other families much more.

Can you tell me an actual place or time where i'll see this helplessness/embarrassment in the faces of parents? I've never seen it

Leaving problems associated with disadvantaged areas aside, you do get some couples who are just hopeless and have no natural ability around the area of discipline, I'm talking about people who have done fine in other areas in life, school/work /relationships etc all of a sudden they have kids and they haven't a clue how the do the normal bread and butter stuff. They'll usually end up avoiding public places.

I've seen teenage single moms or au-pairs 1000 times better than a middle aged couple with successful careers, because the couple have no natural ability to parent.

nozzferrahhtoo

One eyed Jack wrote: »

You're a child psychologist who has no relationship with your own parents?

Respectfully, I hope you understand why I would never feel the need to avail of your services.

While I personally see no reason why not based on the tiny amount of information the user has actually offered about their situation past and present. Rather than come to a conclusion more due to a rush to deride someones opinion through ad hominem, I would realise we would need a lot more information to understand whether their own situation has ANY bearing on their ability as a psychologist.

Especially, but not solely, given they are a CHILD psychologist and they themselves are no longer a child. As such their own skill set is not even relevant to the reparation of an adult relationship. Their issue with reconciling an adult relationship between adults is not exactly relevant to their career of reparation of relationships involving a child.

It also seems to be fueled by the mere assumption that resolution of a relationship is the only "success" criteria of a psychologist. Which is also an entirely invalid assumption to make. Quite often reaching a successful, amicable and maybe even permanent cessation of a relationship is the correct and "successful" move to make.

No, I fear you put no thought into this at all. Rather you saw someone you disagree with and you saw a method by which to demean them, their opinion and their abilities as an opening ad hominem volley. So you jumped at the chance.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

Clearly it doesn't, or we would see evidence the vast majority of Irish adults would be pucking the heads off each other as we speak.

That is not a valid assumption at all. The claim that physical violence as a disciplinary method CAN teach violence is a valid conflict resolution methodology in no way requires that the "majority"..... let alone the "vast" majority...... should display that. You have merely invented "majority" as a requirement for evaluation here. It is not, and you yourself explain why this is in your next paragraph when you write "there are many influences in childhood that lead to various outcomes as adults"

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I don't imagine any one method of discipline can be empirically or scientifically proven to be any less, or more effective than another.

Well this is not a surprise given you generally dismiss any science that shows anything to be more or less efficacious than anything else. Such as your dismissal of evidence showing that not only do same sex parenting configurations fare just as well as heterosexual ones..... they sometimes even fare better. You merely dismissed it at the time as being liberal academia with the agenda of validating liberal lifestyles.

But I see absolutely no reason why we can not evaluating exactly this. Nor have you offered any. You merely say you do not imagine it can be so, without suggesting ANY reasons or blocks that you (also likely due to imagination) envision as being in the way of that goal. There are several measures by which we can evaluate the outcomes of differing parenting configurations and approaches. You have merely rubbished them in the past too, such as suggesting that your child not ending up in prison or dependant on drugs is not a valid measure of success of a parenting modality. By your lights it seems no evaluation is even possible. Thankfully pretty much no one in the world of actual research on this topic thinks like you do.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would say the same of anyone who expects their claims that they are a child psychologist who expects their opinion on parenting to be taken seriously, would at the very least have a healthy relationship with their own parents if they're putting the theory into practice.

And as explained that expectation is unwarranted and baseless. Putting the theory into practice in NO WAY demands the outcome you describe. Nor does the resolution point met in one case indicate that the same resolution will be the correct one in another. So extrapolating as you did their ability to mediate YOUR situation based on how they resolved their own.... is an error. So when you write " that would imply that I should be seen as the toxic parent" you have merely invented that implication out of nowhere, because it certainly is not implied at all.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

it's whether they could leave their experience outside the room.

Then you likely understand why your first post has drawn the replies that is has I assume? Because this is EXACTLY what you were not doing in that post. You made no move at all in that post to indicate this is how you would evaluate the situation or the professionalism of the psychologist. You merely declared that their lack of relationship with their parents was enough of a reason not to seek their professional counsel.

Adding caveats here now does come across as back peddling whether you realise it, or care, or not.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

That's why their own personal experience is particularly relevant in judging their competency, because if they introduce it, they're incompetent

This is also not outright true. The mere introduction of ones own personal experience into a scenario is not, in and of itself, a bad thing. It can in fact be the opposite and be a wonderful thing and entirely the right thing to do. It depends on HOW they introduce it, and what implications they derive from it. There are many layers of nuance there that are being lost on your black/white right/wrong thinking on the matter.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

the vast majority of studies into the issue of outcomes of smacking children are generally coming from one source in particular

Firstly I am not sure why that is a problem unless you can show the source in particular is flawed. Data is data, regardless of whether it comes from 1 source or 1000. Unless you can show a single source to be flawed, then the fact it came from a single source is a red herring.

Secondly however when using phrases like "most studies" or "majority of studies" this is a claim very easily validated. It is a simple X/Y statement where Y is the number of studies that were ever carried out and X is the variable you are making assertions about.

Perhaps start by giving us the value Y?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The vast majority of these studies that are done, are loaded with selection bias, they pick candidates which fit the model of their hypothesis, as opposed to any form of actual scientific methodology.

Again what is your value of Y here? And show your workings on how you arrived at the figure X which is, I assume, at least 0.75 * Y?

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm not going to attempt to counter your personal experience, because it's rather obvious from your post that you're attuned to seeing what you want to see, and ignoring the vast majority of both social demographics in making your observations.

Says the user who rubbished even the idea that your child ending up in prison, or dependent on drugs, can be used as a valid measure in outcomes. You have openly ignored and rubbished social demographics in this way, so I do not think you are in a position to deride it in others.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

TThere's a reason there are campaigns to introduce 'consent classes' in third-level education. Better educated children doesn't necessarily correlate with better behaved adults, clearly!

Hang on. Your evaluation of the effect of education on the behaviour of adults is based on the fact we are in the process of educating them? How does that even remotely make sense? If you want to evaluate the effects of education on behaviour you can not base it on data DURING That education. But after it.

That would be like trying to evaluate the effects of alcohol on peoples behaviours by only looking at them WHILE they are sitting in the pub drinking alcohol and ignoring everything they do when they get up and leave.

I think the most we can imply for the existence of consent classes is that our education is failing at some earlier stage. Though not, thankfully, as early as one single nut job recently suggested when he told us that we should be asking babies permission to change their nappies.

nozzferrahhtoo

qwerty ui op wrote: »

How come some people are always looking at the past with rose-tinted glasses.

That was probably a rhetorical question but there is actually an answer for it. It is called Juvenoia. "An exagerated fear of social change in young people".

There is a kind of lay man crash course in it here.

Deleted User wrote: »

I was hit, smacked, belted, and I haven't turned into a violent person.

Deleted User wrote: »

I wonder will they decide that any form of punishment, even "a firm talking to" should be banned simply because it might have lasting negative effects?

This is why anecdote is not evidence. If you put 1000 people in a room and have them all drink poison, at least one of them might end up on a forum somewhere saying "Well I drank poison and it did nothing to me".

We do not examine individuals, we examine trends in larger groupings. And the question should be not whether violence as a disciplinary method turned YOU violent or not.... but whether violence as a disciplinary method shows trends of turning people in general more violent.

So no I would hope no one would be working off "might" here. That level of paranoia, as I assume you are noting yourself, would be ludicrous nonsense. But if one particular methodology shows general negative trends over a population THEN we have warrant to suggest withholding it's use over others that do not.

GreeBo wrote: »

Not physically correcting children is arguably leading to more aggressive and misbehaved young adults...

Great, if it is arguable then argue it. What would be the evidence for this claim?

GreeBo wrote: »

A slap is lazy but changing the Wi-Fi password isn't?
You'll have to run that by me again...

Allow me. I think what such users are getting at is that merely lashing out violently is just a lazy thoughtless act. Whereas if you sit down and think about what you know about the child...... you can invest some time and energy into coming up with strategies that are actually based on something.

Further merely lashing out with violence misses what discipline is actually about. Which is an opportunity to actually teach a child right from wrong. By lashing out with violence in the moment you are more treating the situation as a situation to be resolved and moved past. Rather than a chance to actually teach the child what they did wrong, why it is considered wrong, and what the consequences of being wrong in this way are.

And those consequences should not be "You will get hurt" they should be more along the lines of "You need to respect others, especially those who are every day working to make your life easier and happier by providing you things LIKE wifi..... and if you can not show respect to others for what they do for you..... they will stop doing those things for you. And to example that, I am now withdrawing some of those privileges and freedoms".

So yes I would prefer to see kids taught about mutual respect and actual right and wrong.... rather than the concept that conflict resolution should be done by violence.... or one only has to show respect and morality towards those who are in a position to hurt them rather than those who are not. YMMV.

GreeBo wrote: »

You often cannot reason with a 2 year old, what then?

You seem to be taking your failure to reason with them as an indication they can not be reasoned with. That is an error and alas a common one. I do not believe, or see any reason why I should believe, that anything but a real statistical minority of our species are truly beyond reason. The average 2 year old certainly is not.

GreeBo wrote: »

I can't see how psychological punishment is soo much better, because that's what depriving them of toys, WiFi etc amounts to.

There is some level of physical or psychological in play in any discipline method. The question is not whether we should be using any method at all therefore, but whether some methods are superior to others or show less signs of detriment.

I would not therefore class all "psychological" approaches under the one word "psychological" and then act like they are all on a par of equivalence. There are better and worse approaches to it.

The last time this thread topic came up another user gave an example which stuck with me so I will borrow it here. He spoke of how his kids refused to brush their teeth. Now he had the physical option of hitting them, or grabbing them and forcefully brushing their teeth for them in a way that would make them not want him to do it again.

Might have worked.

He also had the "psychological" approach of in that moment screaming consequences at them about removal of privileges and benefits.

Also might have worked.

What he DID do however was explain to them why they brush their teeth and what happens if they do not. He then told them it was up to them if they wanted to or not. Hardly beleiving their luck they ran off to bed without brushing their teeth.

The next day he sat eating a large bag of sweets. Nice ones. They ran over seeking some of these. And he said "Wow I would love to give you some, because I love making you happy and giving you treats like this. But I can not in good moral conscience do that because I know the harm it causes your teeth. And since you have chosen not to look after them, I can not give you sweets knowing they are hurting you".

They brushed their teeth that night and every night since. Without even being asked to any more.

Put another way the narrative should not be "You do wrong, and you have privileges removed" so much as "When you do right, you earn these privileges". Pedantically you are saying the same thing if you measure only the end effect........... which is that they lose their privileges when they behave badly....... but in terms of the actual message being conveyed it is a much more positive one.

This is a valid approach to discipline. It is not about using your power over them to make them suffer so much as it is demonstrating to them that people in the world respond to you differently depending on how you respond to them and yourself and your own responsibilities. There are rights and privileges and people only feel compelled to grant you your privileges when you show yourself worthy of them. And that is a much better message to teach a child than "The one with the strongest slap is the one who is right". Especially given, for many parents, the child will eventually reach an age where the physical advantages swing the other way. And what do they do then? What does a parent do when a child gets to the point they can slap back?

GreeBo wrote: »

Agreed, which is why I have said repeatedly in this very thread that a slap doesn't replace or remove the requirement to follow-up and punishment with an explanation of why it occurred and what behavior is expected.

But sure fire away and ignore that...again.

I am not sure anyone is ignoring it so much as questioning the utility of it. If you achieve X by doing Y, then why achieve X by doing Y and Z? Why not occams razor it and realise that perhaps Z is superfluous to requirements and therefore not worth ANY of the potential detriment and cost it brings?

And what of the many situations where we try to teach our children not to use violence, while we are happily practising it on them ourselves. Why add complication through hypocrisy to the already complex situation of parenting and guidance?

So yea, so far in your posts I am seeing only negatives and no positives to the violence based approach to parenting. Your posts appear to be failing to down playing the negatives, while not at all demonstrating a single positive to the approach overall.