Disciplining Children AKA Back in my day they behaved.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

That there's no communication. Same with the wifi rule (which, again, I didn't bring up).
Can you (you generally, not you specifically) communicate to the child what the child has done wrong, yes or no?
If yes - then why do you need to slap at all?
If no - then how is slapping (or any punishment) supposed to teach right from wrong?

Also, rule by fear is will not work when the child is no longer scared. What do you do then?

I didnt "miss" that there is no communication, you are assuming there is no communication.
My mother communicated with me after slapping me explaining why I got the slap.

You can communicate to the child that they have done wrong, but often you need to give them a reason not to do it again, a reason more than "it will make mommy sad".


Your argument seems to be that there should be no punishment of *any* type given to children when they misbehave.
Do you honestly believe that you can just talk *all* children into good behaviour and that repercussions of any type are *never* required?

In my personal experience, thats what leads to little **** young adults who have no respect for anything.

joey100 wrote: »

Any examples of where a lack of corporal punishment led to an adult being in fear of a child's behaviour and how you know this was the result of the lack of corporal punishment?

kildare lad wrote: »

My sons friend is an absolute nightmare, no manners ,spoilt rotten he has no bother screaming at his parents anywhere, and he's only 10.. Ive watched his parents try and stop his tantrums by the nicey nicey approach and its laughable. They end up having to bribe him with match attack stickers or chocolate to make him stop. He was with my son the other day, and i asked him " did you win your match at the weekend" which he replied to me " mind your own buisness" i was gobsmacked. If i said that as a child to an adult, why dad would make sure i never said it again, and rightly so in my opinion.

^

LirW wrote: »

I got my portion of smacks too, did it do me any good? No, I was a pretty sensitive child and I'm terrified to this day of any motions with arms and hands to close to my head. So bad that I have a reflex to hide behind my arms. I didn't understand why my mother would want to hurt me.
Would you accept your partner giving you a smack when you behave like a little sh1t? I'm pretty sure you wouldn't, so why is it any different with kids?

I dont see this in any way as being tied to smacking.
If your mother was striking you in the head then she was abusing you...again, no one is condoning abuse of children.

GreeBo wrote: »

Thats handy that you can discount an argument without giving any facts to back up your point!

Its frankly ridiculous that you can discount thousands of years of corporal punishment based on a couple of years without it.

And your single experience is irrelevant to this argument Im afraid, I can find plenty of examples where lack of corporal punishment has lead to adults who are afraid of their kids behaviour.

You're not exactly long on evidence or facts yourself.

Just because corporal punishment was an accepted norm means nothing other than it was an accepted norm. No positive or negative consequences can be drawn from it's mere existence.

What are the positive consequences to this 'thousands of years of corporal punishment' as you see them?

Lads fought to the death with swords to solve their disputes for thousands of years too. I presume we were being a big bunch of ninnys seeking to eradicate such activities. And sure aren't we all still here so that must be evidence of death matches being a good thing... I think.

Hitting and shouting are the lazy man’s parenting tools. It creates an expectation that hitting and shouting are appropriate ways to treat others and it creates the expectations that they will be shouted at or hit when they do something wrong.

It sidesteps development of moral understanding in favour of “might makes right”. Very lazy but it can be effective in the short term.

lawred2 wrote: »

but someone would have been likely to say the same about settling disputes to the death with swords no?

Possibly, and who are we to say that this was wrong?

In 100 years time society could be looking back at us and calling us ignorant for not using physical discipline since "it clearly doesnt work".

We dont have any metrics or any ability to ascertain whether or not one approach is better or worse than another. The only firm reality is that corporal punishment has existed for far longer than the new age approach and we made it this far, for good or for bad.

LirW wrote: »

And if that was the case, how's a child able to tell apart abuse or the occasional smack? Certainly not every child is geared for physical discipline.

I think there is an obvious different between abuse and a smack, if you or an observer cant tell then difference then you are abusing the child.

Equally I could say not every child is geared towards the softly, softly approach. What makes one right and the other wrong then?

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Hitting and shouting are the lazy man’s parenting tools. It creates an expectation that hitting and shouting are appropriate ways to treat others and it creates the expectations that they will be shouted at or hit when they do something wrong.

It sidesteps development of moral understanding in favour of “might makes right”. Very lazy but it can be effective in the short term.

Your post is the lazy mans argument.

You are wrongly assuming that a parent who slaps their child has no other interactions with their child regarding the incident in question.

Substitute a smack on the arse with taking away the X-Box and leave all the other parameters the same, otherwise your point is in fact pointless.

GreeBo wrote: »

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Hitting and shouting are the lazy man’s parenting tools. It creates an expectation that hitting and shouting are appropriate ways to treat others and it creates the expectations that they will be shouted at or hit when they do something wrong.

It sidesteps development of moral understanding in favour of “might makes right”. Very lazy but it can be effective in the short term.

Your post is the lazy mans argument.

You are wrongly assuming that a parent who slaps their child has no other interactions with their child regarding the incident in question.

Substitute a smack on the arse with taking away the X-Box and leave all the other parameters the same, otherwise your point is in fact pointless.

Eh no. I don’t assume the parent has no other interaction on the incident. I have no idea why that would be your assumption.

Hitting and shouting are still the lazy man’s parenting tool if they are combined with other interaction on the issue.

Hitting and shouting are a fairly poor method of communication. Let alone the fact that you teach the child that they can win a situation by hitting or shouting. “Might makes right” is a really poor message to teach a child. Very lazy parenting.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

I'm also of the opinion that the only thing kids learn from physical punishment is not to get caught.

And clattering those smaller and/or weaker than you is ok.

PictureFrame wrote: »

I'm a Child Psychologist by trade and would be absolutely appauled at the thoughts of using physical violence to discipline a child, it doesn't work and is a really bad sign if adults cannot use their common sense and a bit of tact to teach their children right from wrong and instead have to use violence, no matter what form it takes.

From a personal sense I grew up with a parent who would utilise slapping as a way of discipline, i've seen first hand how it can lead to a huge amount of fear and anxiety in children, and needless to say, we have no relationship anymore.

Use your common sense, your intellect and stay calm if your kids are driving you spare, don't be instilling fear in your child- it really is quite a horrible thing for any child to experience.

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.

Neyite wrote: »

If your colleague boss or partner slapped you across the arse because you did something wrong, it's legally assault and they could be prosecuted for it. Since 2015 when the clause of 'reasonable chastisement' was removed from law as a defence for hitting children, it's effectively a ban on slapping children. You slapping your (hypothetical) child IS legally assault, it IS a crime and can be treated and prosecuted as such.

You're comparing two completely different circumstances there really. Also the removal of the defence of reasonable chastisement only applies in a case where a parent is actually charged with a crime and appears in Court. They cannot argue in their defence that their actions constituted reasonable chastisement. The removal of a defence doesn't imply that it illegal or unlawful for a parent to physically discipline their own children.

What will be interesting though is how the new laws regarding domestic violence will be applied, now that they include psychological treatment of children. Turning off the Wi-Fi could land you in front of a Judge :pac:

Unlikely of course, just as equally unlikely that for any parent smacking their children will land them in front of a Judge.

eviltwin wrote: »

I was hit as a child to the point of hospitalisation at times. I always said I'd never hit my kids and never have. Been tempted loads of times but usually when I was very stressed or tired. Never did though and my kids are fine, decent people. Kids don't need physical discipline.

You're bucking the whole trend here of people who argue that physical discipline of children teaches them that hitting other adults is acceptable behaviour. 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.

However, having said all that - I don't agree with the OP either. I think there are many influences in childhood that lead to various outcomes as adults and I don't imagine any one method of discipline can be empirically or scientifically proven to be any less, or more effective than another. I think trying to pin outcomes on one particular and single aspect of a persons childhood ignores the vast body of evidence to the contrary, which suggests to me at least that for lobbyists against parents smacking their children, it isn't about children's welfare at all, but for those people it appears to me to be about attempting to control the parents behaviour.

The same people who advocate reasoning with children, don't appear to be very effective in trying to use the same methods with adults whom they disagree with. I'm given to thinking that's likely because those people arguing that people can be reasoned with, really aren't all that good at practicing what they preach. It's easier to control and manipulate children. Adults? Not so much.

eviltwin wrote: »

Just out of interest, why not

They are a Psychologist who is also a Child, that's why

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that a child psychologist who doesn't even have a relationship with their own parents is hardly someone I would be willing to take advice from regarding my own relationship with my own child.

I wouldn't write off their ability to do their job just because they don't have a relationship with their parents. Cutting off a toxic parent is actually a positive step forward for a lot of people.

eviltwin wrote: »

I wouldn't write off their ability to do their job just because they don't have a relationship with their parents. Cutting off a toxic parent is actually a positive step forward for a lot of people.

I would, and I hope it doesn't come across like I'm attacking that poster personally. 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.

I won't argue with you that cutting off a toxic parent is a positive step forward for a lot of people, but to apply that in the context of my reply to that poster, that would imply that I should be seen as the toxic parent, and a child psychologist basing their opinion of a parent on their own personal experience of their own childhood would not for me at least, be someone I would trust to be able to remain objective in advising me on my parenting in relation to my own child.

Claiming to be a child psychologist doesn't necessarily mean they're actually any good at what they do, and I've met no shortage of child psychologists who should never be let within 100 feet of any child, because they too are unable to leave their own personal biases outside the room.

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I would, and I hope it doesn't come across like I'm attacking that poster personally. 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.

I won't argue with you that cutting off a toxic parent is a positive step forward for a lot of people, but to apply that in the context of my reply to that poster, that would imply that I should be seen as the toxic parent, and a child psychologist basing their opinion of a parent on their own personal experience of their own childhood would not for me at least, be someone I would trust to be able to remain objective in advising me on my parenting in relation to my own child.

Claiming to be a child psychologist doesn't necessarily mean they're actually any good at what they do, and I've met no shortage of child psychologists who should never be let within 100 feet of any child, because they too are unable to leave their own personal biases outside the room.

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?

It's sad really talking about the WiFi passwords etc. In my opinion kids should have very little access to stuff, that enables them to sit on their arses all day and set the foundations of obesity. They should be outside or playing sports as much as they can. It sickens me when people say take away the internet or ipads etc instead of a smack. No kid should be addicted to internet and all that stuff.

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Does not exist anymore really.

I think we need to bring back parental physical discipline of children. I don't mean beatings but "hidings" could be in. This is as nature intended to keep the sprogs in check.

We have moved away from that and the result is not good. Children with zero discipline, respect and no direction.

Only going to get worse.

Time to take control. The politically correct world is on it's last legs. People want common sense. This is part of restoring the balance.

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?