Did you get hit by your parents?

prinz

grindelwald wrote: »

Some kids should be taught they cant have everything they want and if someone is playing with something quite happily they should not take it off them or demand it be shared with them.

Way to miss the point.

Benicetomonty

I hit all of your ma's

moco

Millicent wrote: »

That wasn't sharing though. That was one child being a greedy bully and your mam giving in (no offence) for an easy life. Sharing doesn't mean you have to end up worse out of the deal. My nephew tries to take my partner's son's toys home with him every time he's here and he gets told they're not his to take. He's still allowed to play with the toys though and is shared with.

Yea, it was my auntie that used to go on at us that we had to share and make us feel bad.

But really this 'sharing' among children usually means they spot something another kid has and want it for themselves. They have no nore interest in 'sharing' than the first kid.

DUBGUY2011

Hitting is a no go.Talking and understanding why? your child is bold is the way.

07438991

I am a fan of physical punishment being used to discipline people. :eek: For example, I still demand that the Mrs. puts a mansize nappy on me and chastises me..., she victimises me good and proper, and calls me a 'dirty little stink boy', It's great

Would highly recommend this.., any takers...?

stovelid

Why does every discussion on smacking kids have to end up full of accounts of golf clubs being broken over backs and child abuse?

Millicent

moco wrote: »

Yea, it was my auntie that used to go on at us that we had to share and make us feel bad.

But really this 'sharing' among children usually means they spot something another kid has and want it for themselves. They have no nore interest in 'sharing' than the first kid.

That bugs me too, but the point is, it's not sharing. Sounds like your auntie maybe browbeat your mam a little and you all had to give in to one spoiled cousin. I had family that used to pull the same crap and it's annoying. As long as you distinguish between the two, teaching a child to share is only ever a good thing.

stovelid

grindelwald wrote: »

TBH I hate the sharing is caring lark, there is a point the child should not have to share. I recall my daughter going to creche and other kids would come up take the toys off her and say caring is sharing and she was left with no toys to play with.

Still peddling your whackjob passive-aggressive parenting "theories" to others, I see.

Millicent

stovelid wrote: »

Why does every discussion on smacking kids have to end up full of accounts of golf clubs being broken over backs and child abuse?

IMO, it's because not everyone has the same "line" as you might. To some, a light smack on the bum is too much. For others, regular spankings, a belt, a wooden spoon or slipper might be the norm. I agree that the broken golf clubs are an extreme but they are still on the spectrum of using physical force to discipline a child so have a place in the conversation.

prinz

stovelid wrote: »

Why does every discussion on smacking kids have to end up full of accounts of golf clubs being broken over backs and child abuse?

Because some people either can't tell the difference, or deliberately enjoy equating everything in an attempt to convince themselves how right they are about spanking in general.

moco

Millicent wrote: »

That bugs me too, but the point is, it's not sharing. Sounds like your auntie maybe browbeat your mam a little and you all had to give in to one spoiled cousin. I had family that used to pull the same crap and it's annoying. As long as you distinguish between the two, teaching a child to share is only ever a good thing.

Yea, my auntie is quer bossy, it wasn't worth the hassle for my mother to argue.

prinz

Millicent wrote: »

IMO, it's because not everyone has the same "line" as you might. To some, a light smack on the bum is too much. For others, regular spankings, a belt, a wooden spoon or slipper might be the norm. I agree that the broken golf clubs are an extreme but they are still on the spectrum of using physical force to discipline a child so have a place in the conversation.

They don't when people use the same words to describe the parent who gives a light smack on the bum and the parent who breaks a golf club over a child... or for that matter regular spankings or using any sort of implement.

Millicent

moco wrote: »

Yea, my auntie is quer bossy, it wasn't worth the hassle for my mother to argue.

Thought as much. No one should give in to a spoiled child for the sake of keeping the peace in those situations as that's not teaching sharing -- that's teaching subservience to people who are asserting their dominance in all the wrong ways.

o1s1n

When you hit your child, you're pretty much telling them they can solve problems with violence.

'Don't be such a hippy! A smack didn't do me any harm'

- yes it did. It made you come to the conclusion that smacking children is an okay thing to do.

'My child throws temper tantrums in shops to the point where they need a smack'

Says more to me about your parenting than anything else. Maybe if you didn't spoil your child rotten he wouldn't think he could get whatever he wants whenever he wants by throwing a fit.

Seriously, any time I see a parent losing the head and smacking their child it's because they've run out of ways to deal with the situation. You can see it on their face. They are frustrated. If they are in public, they are embarassed too. They want an easy, quick way out.

My parents smacked us when we were kids and I was of the opinion it was fine too. Until I really thought about the situation. And you know what? It's not. Thinking back, it didn't solve anything with us. All it did was give my parents a way to vent their frustration and not being able to solve a situation.

I didn't get beat around with a whip or anything like that by the way. The wooden spoon was more of a threat than actually touching my arse. But on the occasions it did, it was just lazy parenting.

Millicent

prinz wrote: »

They don't when people use the same words to describe the parent who gives a light smack on the bum and the parent who breaks a golf club over a child... or for that matter regular spankings or using any sort of implement.

Fair enough. I'd agree that the distinction is important. The OP's question though was "Did you ever get hit by your parents?" and those that answered with examples of being seriously abused aren't in the wrong for doing so. If this was a straight topic of "Is smacking right or wrong?", I'd agree that abuse stories have no place in it.

stovelid

Millicent wrote: »

IMO, it's because not everyone has the same "line" as you might. To some, a light smack on the bum is too much. For others, regular spankings, a belt, a wooden spoon or slipper might be the norm. I agree that the broken golf clubs are an extreme but they are still on the spectrum of using physical force to discipline a child so have a place in the conversation.

So by that token, a child shopflifting should be strenously equated with armed robbery?

Let's face it: these threads are just a riot of personal testimonies and amidst the paucity of emperical conclusions, the best way to "win" is to escalate the negative personal testimonies to the most porniographic examples - something that the more humdrum - but no less true - positive testimonies cannot hope to compete with.

Millicent

stovelid wrote: »

So a child shopflifting should be strenously located on the spectrum with armed robbery?

Let's face it: these threads are a riot of personal testimonies and amidst the paucity of emperical conclusions, the best way to "win" is to escalate the negative personal testomonies to the most porniographic examples - something that the more humdrum - but no less true - positive testimonies cannot compete with.

No, you're right with the shoplifting point, so I concede your point there, but the question was "Did you get hit by your parents?" Those people did get hit with instruments like golf clubs and the like. This isn't in the first instance a thread on the merits or demerits of smacking; this is a thread posting an open question (albeit with a judgement attached) and inviting personal experiences.

As I said, I think those sorts of negative experience would have no place in a "Is smacking wrong?" thread.

prinz

o1s1n wrote: »

When you hit your child, you're pretty much telling them they can solve problems with violence.....

Christ on a bike here we go again.. why is that a message I never picked up on I wonder..

Chuck Stone

stovelid wrote: »

Still peddling your whackjob passive-aggressive parenting "theories" to others, I see.

It is interesting though.

We were talking about children sharing and we all agree that sharing is a good thing for kids to learn. The question that arises though is whether forcing a child to share is a good message to give him.

Isn't forcing a child to share just telling them that they can be deprived of something they own by force?

Sky King

What if your kid said "I want to do ay poo at PAUL's house!" ?

prinz

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Isn't forcing a child to share just telling them that they can be deprived of something they own by force?

That's how the world works. Why do you pay taxes? It's money you earned right?... and here it is being taken off you by somebody else.

Is it because of the threat of force/fines/convictions etc if you don't pay taxes?

stovelid

Millicent wrote: »

No, you're right with the shoplifting point, so I concede your point there, but the question was "Did you get hit by your parents?" Those people did get hit with instruments like golf clubs and the like. This isn't in the first instance a thread on the merits or demerits of smacking; this is a thread posting an open question (albeit with a judgement attached) and inviting personal experiences.

As I said, I think those sorts of negative experience would have no place in a "Is smacking wrong?" thread.

Still - as with most smacking threads - the gratutious tales are basically being conflated with smacking and are clouding the fact that we have a number of people testifying that smacking affected them (or their relationship with their parents) and an seemingly equal number of people testifying that it didn't affect either at all.

That's not to discount the tales which are quite harrowing.

Cork24

When i was young i got a few slaps made me a better person i dont see anything wrong in Correcting your Child in this Manner once its within the Limits of the Slap. not go out and start kicking the child...

I remember being out in Kids Xmas party and this guys kid was rounding around the place hit off the table and the guys drink went flying the guy gave his kid a hell of a punch to the face..Now that kind of Manner is Wrong...

if the child wont do wat you ask it to do or keeps fighting with his bro/sis then a slap wont do no harm

stovelid

Chuck Stone wrote: »

It is interesting though.

We were talking about children sharing and we all agree that sharing is a good thing for kids to learn. The question that arises though is whether forcing a child to share is a good message to give him.

Isn't forcing a child to share just telling them that they can be deprived of something they own by force?

As with everything, there is context.

You watch the situation and act accordingly. If you child is hogging his toys - as very young kids can be wont to do - you tell them to share. If some other kid is sauntering up and hogging toys, you don't necessarily make your child relinquish a toy.

You also have the tricky social aspect of being in another person's house and your kid is playing with another kid's toys. Sometimes you have to be polite.

Like I say, you strike a balance between teaching to share and not letting your chld be walked on.

Chuck Stone

prinz wrote: »

That's how the world works. Why do you pay taxes? It's money you earned right?... and here it is being taken off you by somebody else.

Is it because of the threat of force/fines/convictions etc if you don't pay taxes?

Well I guess that's true. I do get a tangible return for taxation though in the form of roads, policing, fire service, hospitals etc.

I guess there's a difference between teaching and showing a child that sharing is good rather than forcing them.

Sky King

stovelid wrote: »

You also have the tricky social aspect of being in another person's house and your kid is playing with another kid's toys. Sometimes you have to be polite.

Well, if it's Paul's house you're in, you could let your little sh!t factory go upstairs and crimp off a few brownies in their bowl.

That'll teach em.

stovelid

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I guess there's a difference between teaching and showing a child that sharing is good rather than forcing them.

Parenting by its very definition surely involves "forcing" children to understand that they can't always act on their own whims at the expense of others. Similarly it also means that they don't always have to be subject to the whims of others either.

stovelid

Sky King wrote: »

Well, if it's Paul's house you're in, you could let your little sh!t factory go upstairs and crimp off a few brownies in their bowl.

That'll teach em.

There is actually something quite creepy about those ads. or is it just me.

The kid is a bit Damien, let's face it.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Da Shins Kelly wrote: »

I didn't say it was the only way. I said it was a last resort. Discipline should take place in the home, by the parents. It's not the responsibility of youth club co-ordinators or what have you to discipline someone else's child. I've worked with other people's children, and in those situations if a child is being unruly and disrupting the enjoyment of other children, they're excluded from the activity and the parents are informed later. How the parents decide to deal with that is up to them. In my experience anyway, children are much more likely to push the boundaries with their parents than with strangers.

If you can deal with the child's beahvior via exclusion then why not do that? Obviously their are other ways. My experience is exactly the opposite - kids try it on more with other adults than their parents. The can tell that some adults are strict and some aren't and a new adult is always going to be tested.

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I'll be honest - I'm getting out of my depth here so I might sound stupid but what came to mind about the above is should the child be forced to share his toy if it is indeed his toy?

I don't know.

I'd say no, but strongly encourage him to do so. The trick is that if he still won't share, start playing with the other child, so the child who doesn't want to share suddenly feels out of the loop. Of course, he's welcome to come back in if he shares.

His choice, his decision and, more importantly, he'll be the one who suffers or gains from the consequences.

prinz

stovelid wrote: »

There is actually something quite creepy about those ads. or is it just me.
The kid is a bit Damien, let's face it.

It's not just you, had a housemate once who used to say the husband was going to come home one day to find the mother head first into the toilet bowl drowned, the kid standing at the door saying 'She should have let me go to Paul's'....

missvirgo

I got a wallop of the wooden spoon from my mother, but it broke so i just turned around laughing and ran off

There is no need to hit anyone. Ever.

And to all those people who said 'It never did me any harm'... have a little think for yourselves

prinz

missvirgo wrote: »

And to all those people who said 'It never did me any harm'... have a little think for yourselves

About what exactly?

philologos

As far as I see it. It is one of many tools that parents have to discipline their children. The reason parents tend to discipline their children is to teach them something about what is the right thing to do, and what is the wrong thing to do, on occasion possibly even to stop them getting themselves into danger.

I think it's fine amongst other means of discipline which ultimately lead to parents encouraging their children to know what is good / right, and evil / wrong depending on what terminology you want to use.

I don't understand how people get so hysterical about this subject to be honest with you.

missvirgo

prinz wrote: »

About what exactly?

About whether or not being hit by your parents really never did any harm... because i can't see how it could possibly not do harm.

That's all.

prinz

missvirgo wrote: »

About whether or not being hit by your parents really never did any harm... because i can't see how it could possibly not do harm. That's all.

Good for you. People with decades of experience in researching early childhood and parenting styles disagree with you but off you go and tell people how they should feel all the same. Another case of projecting issues it seems.

missvirgo

prinz wrote: »

Good for you. People with decades of experience in researching early childhood and parenting styles disagree with you but off you go and tell people how they should feel all the same.

I didnt tell anyone how they should feel.

prinz

missvirgo wrote: »

I didnt tell anyone how they should feel.

Well you are saying that people need to reconsider their position that a bit of spanking did them no harm because you think they are either lying, or deluded. So yeah, I think you are telling people how they should feel about it.

missvirgo

prinz wrote: »

Well you are saying that people need to reconsider their position that a bit of spanking did them no harm because you think they are either lying, or deluded. So yeah, I think you are telling people how they should feel about it.

I just think if your parent hits you, it's bound to have some negative effects.

prinz

missvirgo wrote: »

I just think if your parent hits you, it's bound to have some negative effects.

Exactly.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

philologos wrote: »

As far as I see it. It is one of many tools that parents have to discipline their children. The reason parents tend to discipline their children is to teach them something about what is the right thing to do, and what is the wrong thing to do, on occasion possibly even to stop them getting themselves into danger.

Hitting people being the wrong thing to do presumably?

prinz

Bit pointless at this stage, people are going to ignore the personal experiences of other posters along with the opinions of clinical and developmental psychologists, because they know better.

philologos

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Hitting people being the wrong thing to do presumably?

As a means of disciplining ones child, giving them a light smack to learn a lesson is well within the liberty of any parent.

I would only argue that it should be used in appropriate circumstances after all other means of discipline have been exercised, but it is nonetheless a tool to be used by parents.

It's nothing more than hysteria to object to a light smack for the purposes of discipline as far as I see it. Actually, it would be a failing not to discipline a child adequately at all.

stovelid

The contradiction of smacking to punish hitting is being brought up a lot. I guess it has a certain semantic validity or maybe it's just a clever sounding analogy.

My parents smacked me yet I was brought up to think striking somebody else (unless in self defence) is wrong and still do.

I assume that this analogy extends into other areas too. My son has often had tantrums and yelled at me. Is to hypocrithal lo ever raise my voice to him when chastising him?

And implying that people's own personal testimonies about their childhood or parents are wrong or lies is disrespectful and fanatical.

prinz

Another bit of reading..

Neither the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) nor the American Psychological Association (APA) has come out fully against the practice. In 1998 the former issued a statement that said, in part, "Spanking is only effective when used in selective, infrequent situations." An APA statement permits similar wiggle room: "There is difference of opinion within the psychology community about spanking. But there is general concern that if and when spanking might lead to more severe forms of corporal punishment, parents should avoid [it]."
Plenty of experts believe that spanking is not always wrong. John Rosemond, executive director of the Center for Affirmative Parenting in Gastonia, N.C., and author of several books on discipline, notes that 50 years ago almost all children were spanked. Yet by all accounts, children are more aggressive and prone to violence today, and at earlier ages, than they were back then. Rosemond isn't advising parents to break out the whip. He simply points out that existing research on spanking is unpersuasive. "There is no evidence gathered by anyone who doesn't have an ideological ax to grind that suggests spanking per se is psychologically harmful," he says...........
In a longitudinal study of 168 white, middle-class families, Diana Baumrind and Elizabeth Owens, psychologists at the University of California, Berkeley, found that occasional mild spanking does not harm a child's social and emotional development.
Similarly, after reviewing 38 studies of spanking, Robert Larzelere, a psychologist at the University of Nebraska Medical Center, concluded that in children under 7, nonabusive spanking reduced misbehavior without harmful effects. Not only does spanking work, Larzelere says, but it also reinforces milder forms of discipline, so that children are more apt to respond without spanking the next time.
In fact, parents often spank out of fear, not anger. Kristy Hagar, a child neuropsychologist at the Children's Medical Center in Dallas, has spanked her daughters occasionally, when, for example, her toddler charged into oncoming traffic. Direct defiance is also seen as a valid reason for physical discipline. But there are limits on spankable offenses: spanking should never be used to punish petty misbehavior or as a result of a parent's anger.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1191825-3,00.html

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

philologos wrote: »

As a means of disciplining ones child, giving them a light smack to learn a lesson is well within the liberty of any parent.

I would only argue that it should be used in appropriate circumstances after all other means of discipline have been exercised, but it is nonetheless a tool to be used by parents.

It's nothing more than hysteria to object to a light smack for the purposes of discipline as far as I see it. Actually, it would be a failing not to discipline a child adequately at all.

There isn't really any "hysteria", all it is is a difference of opinoin. No one has claimed that smasking is automatically child abuse. For me, the issue is that no one sees this as communication! "It did me no harm" - it's supposed to something other than just not do harm.

The thing about a light slap is that I know what it is, you know what it is, but does the child know what it is and how do you communicate that riasing your hand to another person you disagree with is wrong while doing just that to the child.

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

No one has claimed that smasking is automatically child abuse.

Actually they have.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The thing about a light slap is that I know what it is, you know what it is, but does the child know what it is and how do you communicate that riasing your hand to another person you disagree with is wrong while doing just that to the child.

Yes the child knows what it is, when it is explained to them why it happened... and you communicate that raising your hand to another person you disagree with is wrong while doing just that the same why you teach them countless numbers of things could be/are wrong outside of the parent/child relationship. It's not unique in that regard.

As an example, my da used to take me to swimming lessons when I was a young lad, and afterwards we'd often shower in the same stall, and he'd make sure I shampooed/washed behind the ears etc. Did I also know that it wasn't as appropriate to shower naked with other grown men? Or strangers? Yes I did. So there he was doing something with me which I wasn't to do with other people. My head exploded. Oh wait, no it didn't.

philologos

I don't believe there is anything wrong with it, and it can be a useful tool for parents to have. There's zero harm involved in such a disciplining strategy, in fact it's served many well over the years It seems odd to me that people would react so strongly in opposition to a light smack, that's why I see it as hysterical.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

prinz wrote: »

Actually they have.

ell it wasn't me and it wasn't the majority. Who was it, purely out of interest?

Yes the child knows what it is, when it is explained to them why it happened... and you communicate that raising your hand to another person you disagree with is wrong while doing just that the same why you teach them countless numbers of things could be/are wrong outside of the parent/child relationship. It's not unique in that regard.

As an example, my da used to take me to swimming lessons when I was a young lad, and afterwards we'd often shower in the same stall, and he'd make sure I shampooed/washed behind the ears etc. Did I also know that it wasn't as appropriate to shower naked with other grown men? Or strangers? Yes I did. So there he was doing something with me which I wasn't to do with other people. My head exploded. Oh wait, no it didn't.[/QUOTE]

So if you can communicate with someone with out hitting them, why hit them...?

Don't get the relevance of that second point: I shower in swimming pools all the time and there are naked people of all ages around...? Why's it inappropraite? Unless it was your father who told you to never shower around other men while he was with you, it makes no sense.

missvirgo

How has any human being the right to hit another? Really? How?

prinz

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Well it wasn't me and it wasn't the majority. Who was it, purely out of interest?

This was one of the more outright expressions..

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=75963958&postcount=437

..but there have been others, such as if you slap a child the child is going to turn out violent etc.

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

Don't get the relevance of that second point: I shower in swimming pools all the time and there are naked people of all ages around...?Why's it inappropraite?

Good for you. I was referring to a child. Or do you think it would be appropriate for a grown man to invite a strange young boy into a private shower stall with him?