Clobbering kids

robindch

There's a slightly scary thread going on in the Other Forum about whether or not it's appropriate to use a "rod" on kids (read physical contact of some kind, with intent to cause pain) when they step out of line. The dominant opinion appears to be that it's fine, and sanctioned by the bible.

I'm inclined to think that opinions would be different on this side of the fence, but perhaps they're not.

Thoughts? And say whether or not you have kids, since I think this might influence opinion.

kiffer

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

I would prefer not to hit kids... I don't think it's needed and really does more to releave tension for the adult then it does to control the child...

How ever I have no children of my own and so don't have much experience controlling children. Maybe a light rap to get their attention might be needed... But the message shouldn't be 'driven home' with violence...

I know I was never hit as a child, actually I was hit once and my mother tells me I looked at her with such a look of betrayal in my eyes that she never did it again. I was always confused, shocked or embarressed when I saw other children get a smack... Also it never seemed to stop them for long.

I was a quiet child and never really warranted much in the way of punishment and stern talking to or maybe a shout would allways bring me back in line...

Ghost Buster

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

robindch wrote: »

There's a slightly scary thread going on in the Other Forum about whether or not it's appropriate to use a "rod" on kids (read physical contact of some kind, with intent to cause pain) when they step out of line. The dominant opinion appears to be that it's fine, and sanctioned by the bible.

I'm inclined to think that opinions would be different on this side of the fence, but perhaps they're not.

Thoughts? And say whether or not you have kids, since I think this might influence opinion.

I've glanced at that topic and it does seem to have some extreme but the magic book says its ok, justifications alright. I will study it in more detail.

As a Father of a really well behaved 4 year old I must abmit to once only giving him a smack on the ass and feeling terrible after it and i think my wife has done the same. Both times were in a high stress, "Im tired and cranky, the kid is tired and cranky" and hey presto, a smacked bum. I felt guilty after it because , in my case it was unneccessary and a cop out. I felt like I had failed.
I honestly dont know how it goes with badly behaved kids but for me its not something I needed to do or something I will need to do again.
If a cross face from daddy is all thats needed 90% of the time and a raised voice/naughty step is what passes for bringing out the big guns then where do you go with regular smacking when the big guns are needed?

sonicthebadger*

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

I don't have kids. I have seen kids in schools where I teach being total assholes, that type of kid is split pretty evenly between "My little darling can do no wrong!" and "little darling" gets the living sh1t bet out of him/her every day of the week. Consistent rules, fairly applied and discussed when appropriate seem to lead to the most thoughtful well balanced mature children. You don't need to hit kids, no matter how young, to get them to do what they feel is right. Just being in a class room with a good teacher can show anyone that.

Saruman

I have no kids but as a child I was smacked often enough and to be honest I deserved it. I knew it then and I know it now. I turned out very well balanced I think and they way my parents brought me up, even the smacking is part of what made me (and my brother and sister) what we are today.

Apart from a spanking on the backside, A wooden spoon and even a specially made American style spanking paddle was used on me.

It's funny though, eventually I grew big enough to not even notice when I was getting a spanking so there would be no tears so at that point the punishment was no longer effective but it was also around that time I grew up, stopped acting like a sh!t, stopped hanging around with scumbags and became a quieter and more pleasant young lad.

Oh and in case anyone is wondering, my family was quite religious of the non Catholic persuasion. Some denominations we went to were Baptist, Brethren and Evangelical which are all very similar in their interpretation of Christianity.

These days I am of the view of most people who read this forum
Like I said, I grew up

As to my opinion of spanking kids these days? Personally I would say if the situation warrants it then yes I would but there is a difference between beating (any part of the body) and a spanking that pretty much does no physical damage except a sore area of fatty tissue around the behind.

Perhaps we turned out so well because for the odd time we were physically punished (when it was deserved, trust me) we were surrounded by loving parents for 99% of the time.

The Mad Hatter

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

As far as I know, every study done on the subject says that it's counter-produtive and causes children to become more violent. But of course parents who do smack their kids always wave this away by saying that those kids were violent in the purpose, even when the studies correct for violent behaviour.

Personally, I neither have nor want kids, but I do teach them, and I find the idea of physically hitting them absolutely abhorrent. It's nothing more than an extremely big person bullying someone far too small to defend themself.

I'd make one very rare exception, and that's if a very young kid did something extremely dangerous - say a three-year-old running at an open slurry pit. I still wouldn't hit them hard, but just enough to shock them and warn them.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I had the wooden spoon used on me, didn't do any lasting damage that I can see but it wasn't that effective a deterrent seeing as how I got it on a semi regular basis for a few years.
at the time it seemed like I was being belted full force with it across the arse, but looking back it was probably a light enough smack and I was a wuss.

stimpson

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

As far as I'm concerned, if you hit your kids you are doing it wrong. I've never felt the need to hit my son (maybe I'm just lucky or maybe it's good parenting).

When my sister started watching Supernanny she stopped smacking. Now when her son is bold he's sent to the naughty step and you'd swear he's just been told that there is no Santa.

It's clear to me that it's far easier to make your point by taking a time out to defuse the situation and explaining what the problem is than using the wooden spoon like my mother did with me. I'm still amazed how well young children respond to a little reasoning.

Galvasean

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

My experience of parents smacking kids is absed on what I see when at teh shops. Generally speaking it doesn't appear to work at all. In most acses it just makes the kids wail even louder. Another thing I have noticed a lot in such cases is some (even very small kids) raise their hand to their parents when smacked and try to smack back. That's all well and good when it's an easily brushed aside two year old, but what happens when they get older and bigger and start throwing digs at their parents? To me, it looks like teaching kids that if you want someone to do something you can just resort to physicality. Not a very good long term solution for childhood brattery IMO.

edit: Heck, I remember as a kid I would get the odd smack if I was acting the maggit. It never made me see the error of my ways, just made me resent my parents for the rest of the day. Generally speaking, alternative punishments like no football, no TV, no sweets for a week etc. worked a lot better. When these happened I actually sat down and thought about why this happened as opposed to just liking my wounds (figuratively speaking) and getting in a huff.

Ghost Buster

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

stimpson wrote: »

As far as I'm concerned, if you hit your kids you are doing it wrong. I've never felt the need to hit my son (maybe I'm just lucky or maybe it's good parenting).

When my sister started watching Supernanny she stopped smacking. Now when her son is bold he's sent to the naughty step and you'd swear he's just been told that there is no Santa.

It's clear to me that it's far easier to make your point by taking a time out to defuse the situation and explaining what the problem is than using the wooden spoon like my mother did with me. I'm still amazed how well young children respond to a little reasoning.

WHAT!!! NO SANTA! The next thing youll be saying is that theres no God:eek:
I have to agree with you. If youre doing it right it feels a little like you have a super power. The ability to stop a sulk with a word and a glance!

stimpson

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

Ghost Buster wrote: »

WHAT!!! NO SANTA!

Oops - I meant Satan

Flamed Diving

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

Only the weak hit children.

JimiTime

'Clobbering', 'Bullying', 'Abusing'. All terrible things to do to a child. A slap on the wrist, is none of the above.

One of my biggest issues with folk who are against slapping a child is their use of perjorative terms. There is a HUGE difference between someone who beats their child with every syllabel uttered, and someone who motivated by love for their child uses a slap as a method of correction. There may be better ways, but there is no one size fits all IMO. Every child is different, and will respond to different things. I think it is a great injustice to lump loving parents into the same pot as abusive ones.

A poster mentioned earlier that consistancy is key. I wholeheartedly agree. Whatever reasonable disciplinary method you employ, you must be consistant. A child who catches daddy in a good mood and decides to throw their brocolli at their sibling and is met with a smiling, 'Now, now', is going to be rightly confused when he's met with a racous 'Get onto the naughty step for 10 minutes!', when he does the same thing the next day to a more grumpy daddy.

First child on the way in August btw, so maybe in 4 years I'll be back telling you all that baseball bats are the way forward:)

Rev Hellfire

Religious, have kids, would not hit a kid.

There's never an excuse to hit your child, especially if you have a cupboard under the stairs.

Petrovia

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

I don't have any children nor do I intend to have them in the future.

I think that it's ok to tap very young (too young to be reasoned with) children's hands or similar, just with your own hand, directly after the event occurred. But only *directly* after the event, in much the same way they tell you (or at least they told me) to do that with pets. NOT to the extent that bruising might be a possibility, though, just a little tap that 'hurts' for maybe two seconds.

When they're at the age where you can reason with them, however, I don't see any need for that anymore, and I never, at any age, see any reason for hitting them in such a way that it will hurt for a longer period of time/bruise. As far as I can see, it would teach them that 'violence works' (which it does in a direct way, but it doesn't exactly get you anywhere in society at large) and also could possibly make them afraid of their parents. That doesn't mean I think authority as such is bad, but fear?

stimpson

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

JimiTime wrote: »

A poster mentioned earlier that consistancy is key. I wholeheartedly agree. Whatever reasonable disciplinary method you employ, you must be consistant. A child who catches daddy in a good mood and decides to throw their brocolli at their sibling and is met with a smiling, 'Now, now', is going to be rightly confused when he's met with a racous 'Get onto the naughty step for 10 minutes!', when he does the same thing the next day to a more grumpy daddy.

We're not talking about abuse, but a slap as a disciplinary tool. I think it's worse than useless. It doesn't work long term. What do you do then? Slap harder??

Consistency is the key. One warning than the naughty step. One minute for each year of age. Always keep your cool and explain why they are being placed there. When the time is up, look for an apology and finish with a hug and a kiss.

First child on the way in August btw, so maybe in 4 years I'll be back telling you all that baseball bats are the way forward:)

Best of luck. It's not that hard if you put the research in ahead of time. Not hard at all!

Dades

My kids* are aren't old enough to be worth a slap, though I'd be against it in principle. That said, I'd be the first to say never say never.


* #2 arrived last week!

JimiTime wrote: »

First child on the way in August btw, so maybe in 4 years I'll be back telling you all that baseball bats are the way forward:)

Congratulations!

JimiTime

Dades wrote: »

Congratulations!

And congrats to yourself sir.

Flamed Diving

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

Pumpin' them out, wha!

checkyabadself

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

I don't have any children, but I can say I wouldn't hit them or anyone else for that matter. I agree with Flamed Diving, I think that people who hit their children just aren't smart enough to get their point across and fuelled with that frustration lash out.
I received physical punishment as a child but even back then I could tell that my parents didn't seem able to express their feelings past a certain point and resulted in them lashing out. It was always the threat of violence thatkept me in line, bun I can't help thinking now that I've grown up and moved away, that they could have handled it better.

I do put a lot of it down to them being punished the same way and knowing no different.

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

I don't have children, but I think I wouldn't hit them (except situations like their hand heading for stove etc). I think the main problem is if it's done out of frustration or angry reaction. That just teaches the child to lash out in anger or frustration.
I think if you DO hit(hopefully as a last resort), it should be calmly and with a clear explanation of why.

Never say never, but I think I'd prefer the supernanny approach like the naughty step and anything else I could think of first before I could think of a slap.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

There's a slightly scary thread going on in the Other Forum about whether or not it's appropriate to use a "rod" on kids (read physical contact of some kind, with intent to cause pain) when they step out of line. The dominant opinion appears to be that it's fine, and sanctioned by the bible.

I'm inclined to think that opinions would be different on this side of the fence, but perhaps they're not.

Thoughts? And say whether or not you have kids, since I think this might influence opinion.

If Augustine was around now he'd surely come up with a "Just Slap" argument not just a "Just War" argument!

strobe

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

Ghost Buster wrote: »

it was unneccessary and a cop out.

This sums up my opinion on the subject. I think ultimately it teaches children to fear pain and punishment rather than know the difference between right and wrong. I also believe it is unnescesary. I've watched my mother run a playschool for years, and was in a relationship with a girl for a year who worked as a child minder. I've also a couple of friends that work in an after school group in my area. None of them that I know of ever hit a kid and any time I see any of these people around kids, their own or other peoples, they never have to hit or threaten them to get them to behave. I watched my ex stop a child in a supermarket throwing an absolute screaming tantrum in about 30 seconds flat without hitting her when the childs mother's only response before that was to smack the kid a couple of times.

Anybody that works with children, can stop them from misbehaving without ever having to hit them. Because they know what they are doing. If you as a parent learn how to do it properly you won't have to hit your kids either.


(I went a bit overboard in the other thread, I think I threw the word scumbags out there at one point, which was stupid, so I'm not going to post in this thread again either. It gets me too riled up. Someone causing pain to either children or animals really pushes my buttons. Just like when I see people trying to train dogs by hitting them, knowing it is lazy and completely unnescesary having trained many in my time, hitting kids is also lazy unnescesary and ultimately counter-productive.)

toiletduck

No kids (that I know of :pac: ) and I would be against hitting children. My parents never did it and I can't see any benefit. I don't want my kids to fear me.

CerebralCortex

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

I was physically disciplined or just plain hit as a child! Speaking from experience it's an indication of both poor parenting and a poor parent child relationship. I don't ever want kids.

ItisintheSTARS

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

As far as I know, every study done on the subject says that it's counter-produtive and causes children to become more violent. But of course parents who do smack their kids always wave this away by saying that those kids were violent in the purpose, even when the studies correct for violent behaviour.

Personally, I neither have nor want kids, but I do teach them, and I find the idea of physically hitting them absolutely abhorrent. It's nothing more than an extremely big person bullying someone far too small to defend themself.

I'd make one very rare exception, and that's if a very young kid did something extremely dangerous - say a three-year-old running at an open slurry pit. I still wouldn't hit them hard, but just enough to shock them and warn them.

Pie in the sky.
Children are born with personalities,temperaments.
I come from a good but very fiery energetic family,and my son married a very fiery Latino.
Butter would not melt in her mouth look grandaughter
is very strong for her 5 years,and she hits me for fun, until the last time.
After days of tapping me ,she thumped me with her strong hands ,which caused to me to cry out ,and soon I had a huge painful lump on my hand. This time I smacked her back on the bottom ,just once ,but meaning it.
She had her lesson,and she wanted me to 'draw the line 'and show that I was solid.These overly weak parents harm their children ,making them insecure.
Never unless there is a good reason however.You are their wall of solidity.If you are like a soft jelly you are NO use to your child.

ItisintheSTARS

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

ItisintheSTARS wrote: »

Pie in the sky.
Children are born with personalities,temperaments.
I come from a good but very fiery energetic family,and my son married a very fiery Latino.
Butter would not melt in her mouth look grandaughter
is very strong for her 5 years,and she hits me for fun, until the last time.
After days of tapping me ,she thumped me with her strong hands ,which caused to me to cry out ,and soon I had a huge painful lump on my hand. This time I smacked her back on the bottom ,just once ,but meaning it.
She had her lesson,and she wanted me to 'draw the line 'and show that I was solid.These overly weak parents harm their children ,making them insecure.
Never unless there is a good reason however.You are their wall of solidity.If you are like a soft jelly you are NO use to your child.

What else did you try before hitting her?

strobe

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

bluewolf wrote: »

What else did you try before hitting her?

Probably cleansed her aura and waited for jupiter to come into allignment...

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Cuddlytroll

bluewolf wrote: »

I don't have children, but I think I wouldn't hit them (except situations like their hand heading for stove etc). I think the main problem is if it's done out of frustration or angry reaction. That just teaches the child to lash out in anger or frustration.

The Mad Hatter wrote: »

As far as I know, every study done on the subject says that it's counter-produtive and causes children to become more violent. But of course parents who do smack their kids always wave this away by saying that those kids were violent in the purpose, even when the studies correct for violent behaviour.

Personally, I neither have nor want kids, but I do teach them, and I find the idea of physically hitting them absolutely abhorrent. It's nothing more than an extremely big person bullying someone far too small to defend themself.

I'd make one very rare exception, and that's if a very young kid did something extremely dangerous - say a three-year-old running at an open slurry pit. I still wouldn't hit them hard, but just enough to shock them and warn them.

These two posts would sum up my own views on the subject. I don't have any kids myself and don't plan to for another while. I would have always been dead against it under any circumstances, until recently when I saw a small child run straight across a road in front of a bus and come within inches of being killed instantly. I can remember feeling sick with worry, and thinking how much worse it would feel to be the parent of that child. I'd still be hugely against it in principle, but I can now understand how some people could justify it.

Ickle Magoo

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

We have two kids & we don't hit them. I wasn't hit, my other-half got one smack he can remember. It involved his father hitting him while chanting "You shall not hit your brother"...talk about mixed messages. As I said on the "slapping debate" thread on the parenting forum, my child would only have the opportunity to run across a road or touch naked flame because of my lax parenting, why would I physically hurt my child because of a situation only arising from my parental negligence? Makes no sense.

I think there are thousands of techniques available to parents to teach children how to behave, resorting to using brute strength or some kind of pain conditioning is just lazy parenting. Our kids are polite and usually very well behaved and yet we regularly witness badly behaved kids getting a wallop - it clearly doesn't work, I think it just makes the exasperated parents feel better.

jill_valentine

I got a very occasional slap when I was a kid, but only once in a blue moon, when I did something very bould. It was by no means excessive, I don't think, and to be honest knowing that I'd been bad enough to warrant it was more of a deterrent than the sting of it or anything. I don't think it had a detrimental effect.

That said: I've worked in a toy shop, and when I was there, I saw people treat their children very badly altogether. We contacted the guards on more than one occasion. I don't see how you could allow a reasonable, effective use of physical discipline, while preventing that kind of thing going on. So, IMHO, better safe than sorry.

Gregor Samsa

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

I was never hit as a child. My dad was never hit either by is parents (probably unusual for his generation, he's in his 70s now). My mother was hit by her mother for the slightest transgression, and resented it and her for the rest of her life - as a consequence she was emphatic that we not be hit at all. We never got into any (serious) trouble at home or in school, and were happy and balanced kids.

Now I have a daughter just gone one. She's not going to be physically disciplined by either myself or my wife. That said, my Dad didn't stand for any gruff from us growing up - he knew how to firmly draw the line without laying finger on us, so the plan is my child won't end up a brat with no discipline at all.

Kids will test the limits of behavior - it's their nature. It's up to adults to define those limits, explain the reasons for them, and the consequences of breaking them. There's absolutely no reason any form of physical punishment needs to be a part of that.

Basically, my philosophy boils down to this: If I don't hit the idiots I encounter on a daily basis, I'm not going to hit my own child.

the_syco

robindch wrote: »

The dominant opinion appears to be that it's fine, and sanctioned by the bible.

Offensive rant edited out.

All slagging aside, kids need something to fear, and it should be the state. Up until you're 18 kids can do anything, and know they can get away with it. They can form in gangs, terrorize people, bully the weak (old people, young people, anyone else), vandalize property, and the police will do nothing. They know that the kid only has to do the sob story of having a hard life, that they are sorry, and they'll be out on the streets in no time. Put repeat reoffenders into chain gangs sweeping the streets, imo. And before you say that'll put people out of work: there are parts of every city that are left to rot as the scum destroy it: put the child chaingangs to those sections, and get them to sweep the same street, every day.

Otherwise... you'll read about the little bas*ards in the paper, when they've done some serious damage, and their list of previous offences will be as long as your arm. Remember: in Ireland, those who do the crime have more rights than the victims.

I'll read more of the thread later, and rant more.

Truley

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

Completely 100% against using any violence on children. I work with some of the most challenging special needs children you will ever come across, and if I can take care of them eight hours a day, five days a week, keeping them safe, happy and disciplined without using violence, than what more proof that it can be done do you need?

I think the big mistake pro-slapping people seem to make is that the alternative to physical punishment = no discipline at all. It always amuses me when people harp on about children running wild and blaming every social problem on kids not being smacked enough. I have worked with teenagers in the past with terrible psychological and social issues and believe me, their problems did not stem from 'not getting a good smack', quite the opposite in fact, about 99% of the time.

I can recall a poster on another forum, when discussing the case of the two boys in Yorkshire that tortured two other young boys; they believed that the crime wouldn't have happened if the perpetrators had been smacked more when they were younger- don't make me laugh! :eek:

I have first hand experience of the difference between children who are raised with physical punishment and those who are not, the difference is substantial. I know my views on the subject are in a minority, which I think is a huge shame, but I will always try to educate and inform people from my own experience that it can bedone.

I have to say the contrast of opinion on the subject between the two forums is interesting...

the_syco

Truley wrote: »

I think the big mistake pro-slapping people seem to make is that the alternative to physical punishment = no discipline at all.

About that... up until recently, this is how people were bought up. To suddenly be not allowed to smack their kids, people seem to be clueless.

Me, if I ever have kids, will goto some sort of child rearing course, to see how to rear them. IMO, every new parent should, as "ways of old" are now outlawed. For me, the threat of a smack with "the wooden spoon" kept me in line when I was a child. Now, no such threat exists. Been clueless on a punishment that doesn't include violence, it seems people don't punish their kids.

Waking-Dreams

Slavery was also sanctioned by the bible.

What do those people have to say about that?

I have no kids but my friend works in a secondary school and says kids these days are not the same like in times before (meaning, they're worse now).

I recommend you all have a read of The Spoilt Generation, regardless whether you have kids, because unless you live in an isolated area, you're going to encounter other people's children and it's no harm knowing what they're being brought up with; values, etc.

Lots of parent don't want to have to be the "parent" and just want to be best friends with their children - but it doesn't work that way. Now, we have kids growing up who feel entitled, and have learned how to manipulate others into getting what they want. Parents work 40 hours weeks and feel guilty enough, that the easy option is to give the kid what they want if it makes them settle down. Short-term solution; long-term problem.

A slap on the arse isn't the same as clobbering kids though. I had my fair share of backside smacks. I know lots of people say "talk to your kids, reason with them", only a young child going through their developmental stage doesn't understand reason and logic so well, it's a more primitive urge, "I want, I want!"

read that book.

robindch

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

the_syco wrote: »

I'll read more of the thread later, and rant more.

Contribute - yes, illiterate rant - no.

ChocolateSauce

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

No children.

I'm of the opinion that if it is illegal to hit an adult, it should be illegal to hit a child. Now, I think a slap on the wrist is okay, but that doesn't hurt at all; it's more a way of letting the young child know you're cross. By age 6 or 7 I'd say the child is old enough that other punishments like revocation of privileges is more likely to get results, making the slap obsolete.

sonicthebadger*

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

Lots of people here are saying a slap on the wrist is ok if the child is too young to reason with. Remember that you are the most important human in that child's world, you are the source of all attention. Simply withdrawing your attention from a small child will let them know pretty damn quick that what they're doing won't get them what they want.

As for slapping a child for doing something dangerous. I don't know if any of you have ever heard that terrified shriek that eminates from a human parent moments before their child gets burned or something else potentially fatal but I've seen toddlers stop like they've hit a wall and plop onto their asses in floods of tears at the sound of it. Kids can feel your emotions better than you think.

stimpson

Not religious, have kids, would hit a kid

Waking-Dreams wrote: »

A slap on the arse isn't the same as clobbering kids though. I had my fair share of backside smacks. I know lots of people say "talk to your kids, reason with them", only a young child going through their developmental stage doesn't understand reason and logic so well, it's a more primitive urge, "I want, I want!"

read that book.

Sorry - but this is nonsense. I've read studies that maintain that children try to manipulate their parents from as young as 4 months. The way they develop is that they try something and see what happens, then change their behaviour based on what has happened. If throwing a tantrum gets them what they want then they realise it very quickly and that's what they will do.

You don't even need to talk to them - actions speak louder than words. My son started throwing tantrums soon after starting in creche (before the age of one). The solution was to put him down in a safe place where he couldn't hurt himself and walk away and do something else. When he realised that it didn't get him anywhere he modified his behaviour and the tantrums stopped very quickly. Slapping would jut have raised the temperature and have been counter-productive.

When they realise that there are other ways to get what they want then they will use those ways. As someone said before, it's just like training a dog - positive reinforcement is by far the easiest way to do either.

krudler

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

If you raise your kids right you wont have to smack them.

Wacker

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

JimiTime wrote: »

First child on the way in August

Dades wrote: »

* #2 arrived last week!

Donegalfella wrote: »

I have a baby daughter.

phutyle wrote: »

Now I have a daughter just gone one

Congrats all round.

Now, can someone please tell me this: what on earth is the Naughty Step?

Wacker

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

Wacker wrote: »

Congrats all round.

Now, can someone please tell me this: what on earth is the Naughty Step?

Supernanny tends to pick a step on a stairs and tell the child they're to sit there if they're naughty, 1 minute for each year of their age
Or a chair in a room or whatever

Dades

krudler wrote: »

If you raise your kids right you wont have to smack them.

If the implication is that if you raise your kids right they will turn out fine, I'd say that's wishful thinking.

No matter what you do some kids are going to be little gurriers.

Dades

Wacker wrote: »

Now, can someone please tell me this: what on earth is the Naughty Step?

According to Christians, it's where atheists go when they die.

Wacker

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

Does that same 'minutes per year' thing Bluewolf mentioned still apply? I could easily do that time

Daftendirekt

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

No kids, and don't particularly want any either.

I'm definitely on the anti-smacking side though. It isn't acceptable to use violence against adults, so it certainly shouldn't be acceptable to use it on a child.

Plowman

This post has been deleted.

ColmDawson

Not religious, no kids, would hit any future kids

Plowman wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I don't like the sound of that — the child can infer that the parent considers physical punishment appropriate.

Xluna

It worries me when people turn to myth for guidance on science,politics and child rearing-it really does.