The Slapping Debate.

Mr. Presentable

Clytus wrote: »

she screamed at "Natalie" to get back over to the table....

Surely you mean "Na..alie"

These women are not called "slappers" for nothing

Nevyn

There are 4 threads on this already

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055129994&highlight=spanking
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2054849351&highlight=spanking
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=300533&highlight=spanking

and this one

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=234210&highlight=spanking

Serach is a helpful tool.

tallaght01

I don't think you can ever justify smacking a child. It teaches them that violence is an effective way to control a situation. It shows that the parent has lost control.

Why can you be jailed for hitting an adult, but not for belting a small child? The young and the eldery are the most vulnerable members of society. Therefore, they shouldn't be disciplined by violence. If parents used other forms of punishment, and actually carried out the threats they made when a child misbehaves (ie witholding treats etc) then smacking shouldn't be neccesary.

However, I'm not really an advocate of putting these parents in jail etc. I do feel sorry for them. I mean, some of these parents are only young themselves, and didn't have good parenting either. It's a generational cycle, and the answer is better education.

I don't think the "it never did me any harm" excuse is good enough in this day and age.

Me, I was never smacked as a child, but was still scared if me parents were angry with me.

senordingdong

I'm a firm believer in the practice.

tweety28

i would have and have on occation gone up to women and men to tell them to stop smacking thier children, i find many are actualy so ashamed

eg. i approached one man who hit his whingeing child hard enough on the hand to 'cause pain', and simply said 'you dont need to hit him he is only a baby' then i see the child around the next isle of tescos with a huge easter egg.

im pretty sure the dad realised it was totaly wrong to to that, im glad i said something it made me feel so much better.

undecided

nipplenuts wrote: »

Surely you mean "Na..alie"

These women are not called "slappers" for nothing

Excuse me but there are alot of decent girls in Tallaght. Don't be steoertypical you are only showing off your ignorance!

senordingdong wrote: »

I'm a firm believer in the practice.

I know you're not the only on who belives in this practise but would love to know why? ie. why not other punishment eg. grounding, no pocket money etc

tweety28 wrote: »

i would have and have on occation gone up to women and men to tell them to stop smacking thier children, i find many are actualy so ashamed

eg. i approached one man who hit his whingeing child hard enough on the hand to 'cause pain', and simply said 'you dont need to hit him he is only a baby' then i see the child around the next isle of tescos with a huge easter egg.

im pretty sure the dad realised it was totaly wrong to to that, im glad i said something it made me feel so much better.

I agree with what you say, but a treat shouldn't be given because of a guilty conscience!

As for me I have two kids 7&4. Im no angel. But will always make a conscious effort not to slap. My fathers answer to everything was a slap and my relationship with him was one of fear not of closeness. I always try other methods my youngest appealing to his better nature works well ie. if he has not been good in school I tell him im diappointed and want to be proud tomorrow and will he try really hard to work hard and be good this works really well. Older child is a bit more challenging the only thing that works with her is grounding/not goin to party or outing

I wont say mine are angels they definately are not! But they have manners and are very considerate and the older one i've only recently realised is starting to develop her own morals. May not be the answer to everyhting but I hope that it is leading them on the right path of life please god.

Deliverance

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't think you can ever justify smacking a child. It teaches them that violence is an effective way to control a situation. It shows that the parent has lost control.

Why can you be jailed for hitting an adult, but not for belting a small child? The young and the eldery are the most vulnerable members of society. Therefore, they shouldn't be disciplined by violence. If parents used other forms of punishment, and actually carried out the threats they made when a child misbehaves (ie witholding treats etc) then smacking shouldn't be neccesary.

However, I'm not really an advocate of putting these parents in jail etc. I do feel sorry for them. I mean, some of these parents are only young themselves, and didn't have good parenting either. It's a generational cycle, and the answer is better education.

I don't think the "it never did me any harm" excuse is good enough in this day and age.

Me, I was never smacked as a child, but was still scared if me parents were angry with me.

I feel that from personal experience that smacking a child to gain control definately does not work. It didn't do me any good thats for sure (I still have nightmares). Getting a humilating beating from a so called father with weaknesses of his own only ever gave me the opinion that such parents are weak, possibly by design or general nature combined with a selfishness which I will never understand.

To me that is no excuse, there will always be folks that are cowards and bullies that is just the way they are. Being a good parent is about facing up and giving over to the responsibility that one has been given. That is what I do and it is who I am. I won't raise a hand to my child as a punishment to shut down her expression or needs, I will attempt to guide her in a more positive way.

As a result thus far: she is happy, any issue she has as a child as a result is formed by constructed argument on her part, something which I am proud of, ie: she has learned to argue her point.

So my opinion is that smacking is wrong and does not do any good whatsoever. It is the tool of the moron, and let's face it there are morons out there.

embee

Deliverance wrote: »

It is the tool of the moron, and let's face it there are morons out there.

I don't think it is particularly fair to say that people who smack their children are morons. My Mam used to (very occasionally) smack us on the bum when were little, and she is in no way a moron. I think personally that your choice on whether or not you should smack your children is a very learned behaviour, i.e. if you're smacked as a child you may be more likely to do it yourself to your own children.

On the other hand, now that I am a parent myself, the idea of slapping my almost 2 year old daughter is not something that sits well with me. I feel uncomfortable with the idea of it, mainly because I can't see that it would achieve anything. Also, she has started to lash out every now and then with slaps and bites and I'm telling her all the time that she mustn't slap, its not nice, say sorry etc., so smacking her after telling her its wrong will only undermine my authority with her. I am, to all intents and purposes, a single parent, and believe me, there are times when the frustration levels start to bubble up in me. Those are the times when I'll go and scream into a cushion.

I am playing it all by ear though - I can't say definitively that I'd never do it, but I would resort to talking to her first.

kelle

I must admit I used to smack my son. I'd always feel so guilty afterwards I'd give him a cuddle, start crying myself and feel like s*&t. As if that was teaching him right from wrong!
I watched Supernanny, but the naughty step just didn't work on him, nor did the "123 magic". I stopped smacking, and just dealt with his bad behaviour as well as I could, but I was in despair as I was certain he was going to turn into a delinquent and the general public looked on me as a bad mother. When he started school, he calmed down a lot. I found the naughty step became effective for his bad behaviour then. Now he's a highly intelligent, adorable, sensitive, considerate 7-year-old who gets excellent school reports. He's not perfect, but then who is!
I have never smacked my 5-year-old daughter (she was an easy child anyway), and know I'll never smack my 1-year-old. I feel I've gained a lot of knowledge over the past few years and will be better equipped to deal with any bad behaviour that's to come without smacking.
At the same time, I don't criticise any parent that uses controlled slapping as a means of discipline for their children. My parents did very rarely, and I'd hate to think they could have been jailed for this! And nearly every slap they gave was justified.

Carrigart Exile

tallaght01 wrote: »

I don't think you can ever justify smacking a child. It teaches them that violence is an effective way to control a situation. It shows that the parent has lost control.

Why can you be jailed for hitting an adult, but not for belting a small child?

Because children are not adults, that's why if a child got hold of a loaded gun and shot someone dead they would not be charged with murder, because society recognises different rules apply with children.

Rev Hellfire

I personally feel that smacking is acceptable but not if it is done habitually.
Sometimes the threat of it is sufficient when instant results in behaviour are required. And when required a slap on the hand is all that should be done.

I agree the other poster who says that children are not mini-adults as some people would have us believe. That said its something that only (IMHO) for older toddlers and young children once you reach the stage of been able to bin toys (personally favourite ) to get results it should be avoided.

That said I did see a mother this week on the train repeatedly slapping her child on the arse, screaming at the them and then proceed to start slapping them across the face which I felt bordered on abuse to say the least.

tallaght01

Carrigart Exile wrote: »

Because children are not adults, that's why if a child got hold of a loaded gun and shot someone dead they would not be charged with murder, because society recognises different rules apply with children.

I absoloutely don't understand this point. Are you saying that because little people can't be held directly responsible for their actions (Though my patients in the horrendous juvenile detention centres would say otherwise) they should be beaten?

Do you think society recognises that we should beat the more vulnerable members of society, but should protect those who can't defend themselves? At what age should you stop using physical violence on a child? Is one smack enough? or 2? can u use a foot instead of a fist?

You've highlighted how children aren't legally responsible for their actions, and have linked it to the fact that it's legal to slap them. But I don't see the bridge that connects the 2.

I think your basic human rights should transcend the age divide.

Rev Hellfire

I love the way those who are opposed to parents been allowed smack their children use emotive language like beat, physically abuse, etc.

But I think most people can distinguish between the emotively charged language used as an attempt to demonise and bully those who reserve the right to use corporal punishment from the reality of what is deemed by most as acceptable in this type of chastisement.

kashi

This is a very sensitive subject at the best of times. I do know that I was smacked occaisionally, and to I think it was the shock of it more than the smack that worked. Having said that, I would much rather not smack my children. There are ways and means around it, especially on the older children.

As for claiming a smack is abuse, is going a little over the top. And there are worse things than a smack. To me I think shouting and screaming can be much worse. I've seen some parents insulting their children basically, and it's much more upsetting to see. I know kids can drive you to distraction, but to be that horrible to your child is awful, and it can be far more damaging to a childs mental state.

Just my 2 cents.

tallaght01

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I love the way those who are opposed to parents been allowed smack their children use emotive language like beat, physically abuse, etc.

But I think most people can distinguish between the emotively charged language used as an attempt to demonise and bully those who reserve the right to use corporal punishment from the reality of what is deemed by most as acceptable in this type of chastisement.

and I love how people who believe in the right to "smack" choose to ignore the fact that if somebody did it to you it would be "beating" and "physical abuse", and instead describe it as emotive language.

I'm not some rabid anti-smacking campaigner. I just don't see why I, as a large 30 year old bloke who can defend myself, have more rights to prevent me from being hit than a small child.

killwill

Slapping a child or even threatening a child with a slap is in my opinion wrong. Using physical force on a weak vulnerable child is nothing less than abusive. Making a child fear you is not good parenting. There is nothing worse than seeing a child flinch in fear when they accidentally do something wrong because they think they are about to get hit.

Carrigart Exile

tallaght01 wrote: »

I absoloutely don't understand this point. Are you saying that because little people can't be held directly responsible for their actions (Though my patients in the horrendous juvenile detention centres would say otherwise) they should be beaten?

Do you think society recognises that we should beat the more vulnerable members of society, but should protect those who can't defend themselves? At what age should you stop using physical violence on a child? Is one smack enough? or 2? can u use a foot instead of a fist?

You've highlighted how children aren't legally responsible for their actions, and have linked it to the fact that it's legal to slap them. But I don't see the bridge that connects the 2.

I think your basic human rights should transcend the age divide.

What utter tosh, where has anyone said anything about 'beating', we are talking about a parents right to give a chastising smack on the hand. We seem determined to give toddlers adult rights with no adult responsibilities.

Carrigart Exile

killwill wrote: »

Slapping a child or even threatening a child with a slap is in my opinion wrong. Using physical force on a weak vulnerable child is nothing less than abusive. Making a child fear you is not good parenting. There is nothing worse than seeing a child flinch in fear when they accidentally do something wrong because they think they are about to get hit.

this is another extreme sledgehammer to crack a nut. Most children in happy loving families are neither weak nor vulnerable and usually run their parents ragged. Children do not fear you because you smacked their hand because they ran out on to the street but they recognise that they did something very wrong.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Smacking a child is violence, pure and simple.

You wouldn't hit an adult for not doing something you wanted him/her to do, so why should it be ok with some people to hit a child?.

OP, I think most of us would be appauled by witnessing this attack and would have reacted the same as you. But I think at a higher level of violence most of us would interven.

arybvtcw0eolkf

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

That said I did see a mother this week on the train repeatedly slapping her child on the arse, screaming at the them and then proceed to start slapping them across the face which I felt bordered on abuse to say the least.

"bordered" on abuse?.. Jeeze would would you then consider abuse?.

(I dread to think)

Rev Hellfire

Mairt wrote: »

"bordered" on abuse?.. Jeeze would would you then consider abuse?.

(I dread to think)

Yes I must be a dreadful person since I condone the right of a parent to lightly discipline their child.

If only I was the sort to write more ‘Letters to the Editor’ and ring Joe Duffy more often. :rolleyes:

As for that particular incident on the train I wouldn't say that was abuse, the willingness of others to apply that word in my view lessens what real abuse is.
That particular woman let her anger rule her and any form of chastisement from a parent in such a state is ineffective.

Endasaurus

Never never never never.


I detest slapping kids round the place, I work in a supermarket and I've seen kids been slapped because they asked a second time if they could get some Skittles. :mad:

Nevyn

There is a difference between abusing children, physically assaulting children, 'slapping children around the place' and using light physical chastisement when a child is to young to be reasoned with or punished other wise.

There does come a time when slapping is sloppy parenting as children can be reasoned with.

Ayla

I am the result of parents who used *extremely* rare spanks as a form of last resort. I think, between my brother, sister and I, there were maybe only a few smacks to the bottom throughout our entire childhood. And, by god, if we got one we knew why!

I do not agree with anyone using brute physical strength against anyone else, regardless of age or situation. However, I think that is completely different than a parent using a smack to the bottom as a last resort to ensure their children take their threats seriously. Children naturally test their limits and limitations, and they have to understand clearly where the boundary between right and wrong is. Obviously, there is a great deal that can be done by the parent to verbally draw this line, but if the child continues to push or does something clearly out of line, I do not see a problem with a quick and diffinitive smack. That does not justify multiple smacks, nor does it a public show of discipline...

There was many a time when my siblings and I would be out and would test our parents' patience, but when they would look at us dead in the eyes, point their finger and say sternly "behave or else" you'd better believe we stepped in line pronto. We knew our parents meant business and we didn't want to misbehave and then have to go home and hear about it.

I think this comes down to good parenting. Of course there are a million ways anyone could go too far and cross the line between positive and negative use of smacks. But I don't think the rare use of a smack to the bottom of a child who knows better can in anyway be construed as abusive.

nesf

Mairt wrote: »

Smacking a child is violence, pure and simple.

How are you defining smacking here? Is any physical admonishment a smack or must there be pain involved or must it hurt a lot etc.

Deliverance

Personally I have to ask: How can smacking and the inducement of pain be a benefit in any way whatsoever as a learning experience in a positive way for any person or child?

I see a child as a person in the making and to hit them and consequently use pain as a way to condition them is just wrong.

Has anyone got empirical proof of the benefits of smacking as a tool that actually proves that smacking and the inducement of pain actually works? I wouldn't think so, it is an old school method which has been proved wrong. Smacking in my view has no benefits whatsoever.

arybvtcw0eolkf

nesf wrote: »

How are you defining smacking here? Is any physical admonishment a smack or must there be pain involved or must it hurt a lot etc.

How the fvck do you define a smack..

Put it this way, you'd know if I smacked you, so a child would too.

Define that.

nesf

Mairt wrote: »

How the fvck do you define a smack..

Put it this way, you'd know if I smacked you, so a child would too.

Define that.

When people talk about smacking children it's a really vague topic. It's an umbrella term that goes from a little tap on the wrist all the way to kids teeth getting knocked out. The "emotive language" issue that Rev Hellfire was getting at is that when smacking is brought up you get two sets of people, one pro and one against both usually talking about opposite extremes. This issue just seems to instantly polarise people. Which is why I'm interested in what you mean exactly, defined one way I agree completely with what you said, defined another I disagree completely.

luckat

Slapping as a means of changing behaviour simply doesn't work. It'll stop the kid for a few minutes, but it won't change the kid's behaviour or teach the kid a graceful and polite way to behave.

Look at the training of animals. At the beginning of the 20th century animal training was often based on intimidating the animals - a man holding a stick would say "My dog/horse does what she's told because she damn well knows she'd better."

Now, virtually all *professional* animal trainers (not dog trainers who teach suburban families to train their pooch, but people who train sniffer dogs, guide dogs, performance horses, etc) use clicker training, which has no element of pain, and relies purely on conditioned reinforcement.

Slapping is a sign of chaotic parenting.

A parent who brings a wired-up kid to a restaurant, then slaps the kid for acting out, is not a parent in control.

embee

luckat wrote: »

Slapping as a means of changing behaviour simply doesn't work. It'll stop the kid for a few minutes, but it won't change the kid's behaviour or teach the kid a graceful and polite way to behave.

Look at the training of animals. At the beginning of the 20th century animal training was often based on intimidating the animals - a man holding a stick would say "My dog/horse does what she's told because she damn well knows she'd better."

Now, virtually all *professional* animal trainers (not dog trainers who teach suburban families to train their pooch, but people who train sniffer dogs, guide dogs, performance horses, etc) use clicker training, which has no element of pain, and relies purely on conditioned reinforcement.

Slapping is a sign of chaotic parenting.

A parent who brings a wired-up kid to a restaurant, then slaps the kid for acting out, is not a parent in control.

Children are not animals, and you can't really apply the same criteria to "training" both.

Also, you mention parents bringing a "wired-up kid" to a restaurant - I've found more often than not that the very occasion of being out and about for a meal is what gets children "wired-up". The vast majority of children aren't inherently naughty or bold, but they get very excited (very young children in particular) when out in a different place with all sorts of new stimuli. I've also found that, nine times out of ten, a child can be reasoned with when they are misbehaving. People seem to have this idea that children are just generally out of control and wild, but that isn't really true.