The Slapping Debate.

Ludo

SerialComplaint wrote: »

OK, now I get it - slapping is OK for people with poor understanding or low reasoning ability. So if I find myself having difficulty explaining my requirements to a low-earning SPAR staffer, it is OK for me to slap him around to make sure he gets it. And if I am dealing with adults with learning disabilities, it is OK for me to slap them around if they don't understand me - right?

So a mother (or father) who slaps a child on the hand or bum should be criminalised and face jail time? I think not.

This is not a black and white issue. I think everyone agrees that slapping is not ideal and should not be necessary but to say it should be a criminal offence is taking things too far.

By the way, nice insult to spar employees

faceman

Ludo wrote: »

So a mother (or father) who slaps a child on the hand or bum should be criminalised and face jail time? I think not.

Its a criminal offense for an adult to do it to another adult so why different for kids? I reckon there are more adults in the world in need of a good slap than children tbh.

username123

Ludo wrote: »

So a mother (or father) who slaps a child on the hand or bum should be criminalised and face jail time? I think not.

Instead of worrying about the legalities of it I think its more important to focus on what is a morally correct way to behave towards another human being and if enough peoples awareness was raised then perhaps the cultural norm would be that it is unacceptable to slap children.

nesf

Ikky Poo2 wrote: »

The thing is this: no one see's it from the child's point of view. A four year old copies what it sees and if it sees children being hit/slapped/whatever then that's what it will do, bringing about not nessecarily violence, but certainly aggression.

There's a balance, and most would agree that slapping a child for slapping another child is counter-productive at best. On the other hand a light slap can put a stop to behaviour that the child cannot understand as being highly dangerous. You can actually talk to a four year old about not slapping other kids (you can use terms they understand, i.e. pain bad, you're causing pain), explaining a complex danger like electricity to them, when there's no way, short of electrocuting something in front of them, of what the danger actually is, is more problematic. They need to grasp an abstract rule that they should never mess with these objects, if you are lucky the kid will get it, if you're not you've a serious problem on your hands.

There are three separate debates here, first whether slapping is ever ok, second where is the line between acceptable and unacceptable punishment and third in what situations is it justified. The first and second are tightly interlinked but they are separate points. Many who would say that slapping can be ok would be strongly opposed to anything more than a light tap on the back of the hand, for instance. Painting all people who think slapping can be ok as the kind of people who would "slap their children around the place" is both disingenuous and insulting.

TequilaMockingBird

nesf wrote: »

There's a balance, and most would agree that slapping a child for slapping another child is counter-productive at best. On the other hand a light slap can put a stop to behaviour that the child cannot understand as being highly dangerous. You can actually talk to a four year old about not slapping other kids (you can use terms they understand, i.e. pain bad, you're causing pain), explaining a complex danger like electricity to them, when there's no way, short of electrocuting something in front of them, of what the danger actually is, is more problematic. They need to grasp an abstract rule that they should never mess with these objects, if you are lucky the kid will get it, if you're not you've a serious problem on your hands.

"Hot" or "No" could also be used without having to raise your hand to a small child, and would probably be rather more efficient too.

Einstein

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Is it OK for your boss in work to slap you round the face if he reckons you are not up to scratch? Is it OK for me to slap the next shop assistant who doesn't understand my order?

Or perhaps it is just OK to hit little ones?

whats ironic bout this is that i work for myself and I own a shop

anyway, back on topic.
I never said i approved of slapping across the face, or anything of that nature.

You see this is my problem, too many people in this thread think a slap on the wrist is equivalent to slapping across the face or using full strength etc.

I don't agree with that because in a nutshell that's physical child abuse.

But please don't try telling me that a slap on the wrist is the same thing.
My gf's nephew's don't understand the meaning of no. And when they're with her, they don't misbehave because they know that the possibility of getting a slap (not punch) on the leg or the wrist isn't worth it. But as soon as they go home, the parents do NOTHING. So they run absolute riot. It's insane.

nesf

faceman wrote: »

Its a criminal offense for an adult to do it to another adult so why different for kids?

Not necessarily. Say you were suicidal and trying to jump off a bridge and I caught you and brought you to the ground. Say I was having trouble keeping you pinned down so I punched you and knocked you unconscious to stop you from trying to jump again. Do you think that would be a criminal offence?

Extreme example to be sure and I'm not advocating punching children here at all, but you have to cast this in a light of trying to protect someone from themselves. Drawing a straight analogy between an adult and a 2 year old just doesn't work. Two year olds for all their intelligence and ability still don't understand the dangers of the world and if all other means of stopping them from doing something that will hurt them have failed, should not slapping be available as a last resort? I'd be the first person to condemn anyone who slaps as their first means of punishing bad behaviour, I genuinely believe that it's a punishment that should be rarely if ever used.


Most of my opposition to this is that I don't believe the State has a right to legislate in this area in a blanket fashion. We should have agencies that can intervene and remove children from their parents when they are being abusive and we should combat that but I don't think I want a nanny state interfering in how my child is brought up. Seriously, I've never slapped my son and hopefully never will, but legislation within the home should be minimalist and I don't think banning light taps on the hand is an effective way to deal with child abuse. Strengthening the law so an agency can intervene when it thinks it necessary would be far preferable to a blanket ban such as this. Society is changing, and corporal punishment is no where near as acceptable as it used to be which is great, but such change should be driven by societal pressures not Government legislation.

nesf

sueme wrote: »

"Hot" or "No" could also be used without having to raise your hand to a small child, and would probably be rather more efficient too.

The important word there is probably. I agree, and that's the approach we take with our son but what if they don't work? It does happen that verbal warnings fail and they need to be reinforced in some way. Personally I wouldn't raise my hand, I'd put him into his playpen as punishment but I can foresee how a light slap might be needed.


Actually to expand on this. Our guy can understand hot. He's gotten a few surprises from touching hot cups of tea and managed to lightly burn his hand at his grandparents once when he grabbed a hot saucepan handle and such that he understands what the word means and that it's bad. The problem is, electricity ain't so easy to explain, short of me figuring out a way to give him a mild shock to show him what it's like to be electrocuted which isn't exactly an option. "No" doesn't really work all the time, and any parent knows this, shaping it in terms of something they understand helps hugely but something dangers aren't explainable to young children which complicates things.

Ludo

Nesf...please, please, please stop being logical about this discussion. You are making waaaaaayy too much sense for this thread

shrapnel222

i've just realised you could probably jail all footballers as they constantly slap each others arses, but i suppose in their defence, a lot of them would have lower IQs than your average SPAR employee

TequilaMockingBird

Einstein wrote: »

But please don't try telling me that a slap on the wrist is the same thing.
My gf's nephew's don't understand the meaning of no. And when they're with her, they don't misbehave because they know that the possibility of getting a slap (not punch) on the leg or the wrist isn't worth it. But as soon as they go home, the parents do NOTHING. So they run absolute riot. It's insane.

Do the childs parents know that your girlfriend slaps their child? If it was me I would call the Guards.

TequilaMockingBird

nesf wrote: »

The important word there is probably. I agree, and that's the approach we take with our son but what if they don't work? It does happen that verbal warnings fail and they need to be reinforced in some way. Personally I wouldn't raise my hand, I'd put him into his playpen as punishment but I can foresee how a light slap might be needed.


Actually to expand on this. Our guy can understand hot. He's gotten a few surprises from touching hot cups of tea and managed to lightly burn his hand at his grandparents once when he grabbed a hot saucepan handle and such that he understands what the word means and that it's bad. The problem is, electricity ain't so easy to explain, short of me figuring out a way to give him a mild shock to show him what it's like to be electrocuted which isn't exactly an option. "No" doesn't really work all the time, and any parent knows this, shaping it in terms of something they understand helps hugely but something dangers aren't explainable to young children which complicates things.

Well just continue to use the word "hot" as an indicator of danger then. With socket covers, cords secure etc, there is no need to have a child exposed to electricity.

shrapnel222

nesf wrote: »

The important word there is probably. I agree, and that's the approach we take with our son but what if they don't work? It does happen that verbal warnings fail and they need to be reinforced in some way. Personally I wouldn't raise my hand, I'd put him into his playpen as punishment but I can foresee how a light slap might be needed.


Actually to expand on this. Our guy can understand hot. He's gotten a few surprises from touching hot cups of tea and managed to lightly burn his hand at his grandparents once when he grabbed a hot saucepan handle and such that he understands what the word means and that it's bad. The problem is, electricity ain't so easy to explain, short of me figuring out a way to give him a mild shock to show him what it's like to be electrocuted which isn't exactly an option. "No" doesn't really work all the time, and any parent knows this, shaping it in terms of something they understand helps hugely but something dangers aren't explainable to young children which complicates things.

unfortunately, when it comes to raising/teaching our children you can always find a reason for doing things and a reason for not doing them. i have on the very rare occasion smacked my son's bottom while emphasizing NO to him and putting him on his naughty step. it might be wrong and it might not, to be fair i don't think he even feels it, but he certainly understands my displeasure at his behavior, and that he's gone too far this time. It's normal behavior though and he's creating/seeking out boundaries of what he can can't get away with. The slap on the bum is more than usually happens as a reaction, so he then accepts and i believe understands he's gone too far, and we very quickly get to the stage of reconciliation, apologies, and understanding after that.

In your example, you say you put him in his playpen, some might say, and this is to make the point of two sides to every issue (and certainly not whether it's right or wrong), that in time he will associate the playpen as an area of punishment instead of a play area, the same way that some pediatricians advise against sending children to their rooms, because as a punishment, they get to go to the place they like to play in. basically' it's just mixed signals and confuses the child.

With regards to your second point, you're absolutely right, and one of my favorite sayings, quotes is this: "Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement". This is valid from the day we are born till the day we die, and although we will always strive to protect our children from any pain they may incur, the fact that he scolded himself once by eating something a bit too hot, or slipped when his feet were wet on tiles, means that from that day on, he knows of those dangers and looks out for them, because he perfectly understands the consequences.

nesf

sueme wrote: »

Well just continue to use the word "hot" as an indicator of danger then. With socket covers, cords secure etc, there is no need to have a child exposed to electricity.

Using hot doesn't work, he'd just give you a look and touch it to show you it's not hot and say as much. Hot works as a warning because he's learned that disobeying it means pain. If you overuse the word it loses meaning, using a caution like hot for things obviously not hot is playing with fire, excuse the pun. Socket covers and secure cords can be got around and shouldn't be relied on instead of explaining the danger to the child. Our guy can get the covers off and has been able to for ages. Fortunately he seems to accept that a socket either has a cover or a plug stuck in it and will get quite annoyed with uncovered sockets and hunts around for a cover for it if something has been recently unplugged etc. We don't have a problem with electricity and him and he doesn't screw around with it but I could see how it could become a problem if a family had a child that was tenacious in their desire to play with sockets.

username123

nesf wrote: »

If you overuse the word it loses meaning.....

And similiarly if you overuse a slap he/she will stop fearing it, leading in some instances to a parent who will hit harder and harder to get the point across.

nesf

shrapnel222 wrote: »

In your example, you say you put him in his playpen, some might say, and this is to make the point of two sides to every issue (and certainly not whether it's right or wrong), that in time he will associate the playpen as an area of punishment instead of a play area, the same way that some pediatricians advise against sending children to their rooms, because as a punishment, they get to go to the place they like to play in. basically' it's just mixed signals and confuses the child.

I'd agree if his normal playtime in the pen was me dumping him into it but it's not. When he goes in for play we've this long complicated routine where I bring him the stuff he wants to have in the pen with him (he won't want to stay in it otherwise). The punishment is being put in there without getting objects of desire. I agree, it's mixed signals if the behaviour is identical but in this case the location might be the same but the behaviour around it isn't which is the important difference.

That said, I've done it twice and I wouldn't consider it a common option. Normally I'd just hold him up and explain it was wrong and try and distract him with something safer/more appropriate to play with. He'd only get put in the pen if something had spilled or similar where he needed to be put out of the way for a few minutes so I could clean it up.

shrapnel222 wrote: »

With regards to your second point, you're absolutely right, and one of my favorite sayings, quotes is this: "Good judgement comes from experience, experience comes from bad judgement". This is valid from the day we are born till the day we die, and although we will always strive to protect our children from any pain they may incur, the fact that he scolded himself once by eating something a bit too hot, or slipped when his feet were wet on tiles, means that from that day on, he knows of those dangers and looks out for them, because he perfectly understands the consequences.

I definitely agree with you here. A child learns both from rewarding experiences and negative ones. For example, we told him not to touch nettles and he seemed to get it but after being burnt by one it was a completely different story, he now knew why not to touch them. As parents our job is to try and put boundaries on their behaviour that shields them from the worst falls, the worst burns or the most dangerous things in the house but at the end of the day, they will fall, they will get burned and sometime will drink a bottle of bleach. Well, maybe not the last one hopefully.

Consequences reinforce rules. My son responds well to the warning "Hot" because he has been burned before and understands that it's a fair warning. The problem is when the consequences are so dangerous as to make this an impossibility, the bleach and electricity examples stand out but there are plenty of others. You can lock the bleach and other substances away somewhere they they can't get to. You can try and shield them from electricity but it's complicated with very young children simply because it's very hard to explain the abstract consequence of death to one and why they should fear it. Ideally they should never be in a position to be exposed to it but that's very hard to do in practice.

nesf

username123 wrote: »

And similiarly if you overuse a slap he/she will stop fearing it, leading in some instances to a parent who will hit harder and harder to get the point across.

I completely agree. That's why I believe that it should be very rarely used if at all and saved for the most serious and unusual of circumstances. People who slap their kids on a regular or daily basis are idiots imho.

SerialComplaint

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

I actually believe it is in a situation where they may do themselves harm.
And lets face it that's what this is about, the majority of people who reserve the right to slap do so for situation like that.
Its interesting the way those opposed to slapping use emotive language like 'slapping around' because that's what most people like to do to their children. Find me one post from a poster here who supports slapping them around and I'll cede the point.

I don't get the 'do themselves harm' point. If a child is in danger of harm, you remove the harm from the child or the child from the harm. Simple. Slapping is likely to create a panic situation which increases risk of harm, not decreases.

Rev Hellfire wrote: »

ps. nice play with the kripple kard.

Thanks. It is interesting to note that no-one has explained why it is OK to hit a child because they have poor reasoning, but not OK to hit an adult with disabilities, or an elderly parent with Alzheimers?

Ludo wrote: »

So a mother (or father) who slaps a child on the hand or bum should be criminalised and face jail time? I think not.

This is not a black and white issue. I think everyone agrees that slapping is not ideal and should not be necessary but to say it should be a criminal offence is taking things too far.

For the record, I never suggested that slapping should be illegal. We have enough unenforced laws in the country as it is. I'd far rather see positive supports for parenting, like better facilities, better schools, better cultural programmes, better training for parents than useless legislation.

BostonB

SerialComplaint wrote: »

Any property owner is entitled to use reasonable force to remove a trespasser from their property.




OK, now I get it - slapping is OK for people with poor understanding or low reasoning ability. So if I find myself having difficulty explaining my requirements to a low-earning SPAR staffer, it is OK for me to slap him around to make sure he gets it. And if I am dealing with adults with learning disabilities, it is OK for me to slap them around if they don't understand me - right?

What do you mean by "slap them around"?

BostonB

faceman wrote: »

Even if the majority of people in the world were slapped at some point, it doesnt make it right.

Using violence as a disciplinary method doesnt necessarily instill violent behaviour in all children, but it's hardly a positive tool to help with a child's development. After all it could instill a fear in a child that makes the child never want to upset anyone else for fear of reprisal.

I'm not debating the right or wrong of it, but that it didn't have the negatives consquences that are being suggested here for the vast majority of people. On the flip side is there any proof that children brought up with no slapping are any better behaved, or they develop better?

Obviously with any form of discipline some react better or worse to specific types of discipline. Will some grow up with a fear of bottom steps and counting to 10?

BostonB

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I....Thanks. It is interesting to note that no-one has explained why it is OK to hit a child because they have poor reasoning, but not OK to hit an adult with disabilities, or an elderly parent with Alzheimers?....

Where did that question come out of?

What about police (or similar) using force to subdue or restrain someone.

tallaght01

BostonB wrote: »

Why add that your a paediatrician in a behavioural clinic etc. You could be a free living biker for all I know, who collects butterflies. Its the internet. If you've stats and case studies to prove your point thats a much better way to argue your point IMO.

Theres also the case to be made that many alternatives to slapping could be construed as mental torture or bullying. Is there a corrolation in non physical bullying we hear about, like cyber bullying etc.

Some of the most mal adjusted kids/adults I've seen have been those that were never slapped. I don't take that at face value that this is always the outcome of not slapping kids. Probably the vast majoirty of people alive in the world today were slapped at some point. But I'd assume the vast majority of people don't have problems with physical aggression. I don't take that to mean there isn't a better way either.

Just saw this.

Toa ddress your first point regarding my "credentials", I guess there's no way to prove it. But we do know that the American Academy of Paediatrics are real paediatricians.

They say:

1) Spanking children less than 18 months of age increases
the chance of physical injury, and the child is
unlikely to understand the connection between the
behavior and the punishment.

2) Spanking models aggressive behavior as a solution
to conflict and has been associated with increased
aggression in preschool and school children.

3) Spanking and threats of spanking lead to altered
parent–child relationships, making discipline substantially
more difficult when physical punishment
is no longer an option, such as with adolescents.

4)Spanking is no more effective as a long-term strategy
than other approaches, and reliance on
spanking as a discipline approach makes other
discipline strategies less effective to use. Timeout
and positive reinforcement of other behaviors
are more difficult to implement and take longer to
become effective when spanking has previously
been a primary method of discipline.

5) A pattern of spanking may be sustained or increased.
Because spanking may provide the parent
some relief from anger, the likelihood that the
parent will spank the child in the future is increased.

6) Parents who spank their children are more likely
to use other unacceptable forms of corporal punishment.

7) The more children are spanked, the more
anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are
to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital
conflict they experience as adults.

8) Spanking has
been associated with higher rates of physical aggression,
more substance abuse, and increased risk of
crime and violence when used with older children
and adolescents.

They conclude:
Because of the negative consequences of spanking
and because it has been demonstrated to be no more
effective than other approaches for managing undesired
behavior in children, the American Academy of
Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged
and assisted in developing methods other than
spanking in response to undesired behavior

I've copied and pasted alot from their report "Guidance for effective discipline", which is what a lot of paediatricians use. The studies to back up their recommendations are all referenced at the end of the report. It should be accesible at:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/101/4/723



To address the following point that you made:

"Probably the vast majoirty of people alive in the world today were slapped at some point. But I'd assume the vast majority of people don't have problems with physical aggression. I don't take that to mean there isn't a better way either"

I think you've dealth with this in the underlined part. We used to send kids up chimneys to clean them. Most of them came to no harm, but we wouldn't dream of doing it nowadays. Society should progress, not regress. Maybe most people who are smacked come to no harm, but it is a crazy world out there. Smacking isn't responsible for society's evils, but in the world we live in you can't realistically say "smacking can't possibly cause any harm, because there's no violent/maladjusted people in our world".

SerialComplaint

BostonB wrote: »

What do you mean by "slap them around"?

I mean to follow the recommendations of the happy-slappers on this thread - slap them enough to beat reason and understanding into them. If it is OK to do this to kids, then why not adults?

BostonB

tallaght01 wrote: »

....Because of the negative consequences of spanking
and because it has been demonstrated to be no more
effective than other approaches for managing undesired
behavior in children,....

Thats probably the best argument for not slapping. If its no more effective than other methods. TBH I've never read balanced research into the effectiveness of both methods, as usually theres a strong bias on one side of the other and you have to read into the stats and research to see what they are NOT saying as much as what they are saying.

From memory for example (and I could be wrong) I think in Sweden it has shown an incease in child abuse reported since the ban. However show has everywhere, probably because of increase in reporting worldwide. One stat is often used without the other. Theres always a longer tem effect which is unknown and often unexpected at the time.

tallaght01 wrote: »

....
I think you've dealth with this in the underlined part. We used to send kids up chimneys to clean them. Most of them came to no harm, but we wouldn't dream of doing it nowadays. Society should progress, not regress. Maybe most people who are smacked come to no harm, but it is a crazy world out there. Smacking isn't responsible for society's evils, but in the world we live in you can't realistically say "smacking can't possibly cause any harm, because there's no violent/maladjusted people in our world".

We have the liberty of not working kids because we can afford not to have kids working. So more about economics as it is about society.

I agree there isn't a direct corrolation. I think its the slapping debate is difficult because it is obviously effective. Its more a case of overwhleming force, can always dictate the terms,regardless of what the method is. But theres a problem with slapping children and not adults. Or slapping someone to stop them slapping someone else in turn. It just doesn't sit right, and its a flawed logic.

BostonB

SerialComplaint wrote: »

I mean to follow the recommendations of the happy-slappers on this thread - slap them enough to beat reason and understanding into them. If it is OK to do this to kids, then why not adults?

Quote those advocating "Happy Slapping" or beating?

Both of those terms have a completely different meaning.

Its a bit like people advocating mental torture....

Nevyn

SerialComplaint I suggest you pay heed to what the charter had to say about inflamatory posting and about respecting people who have different opinions on parenting.

tallaght01

BostonB wrote: »

Thats probably the best argument for not slapping. If its no more effective than other methods. TBH I've never read balanced research into the effectiveness of both methods, as usually theres a strong bias on one side of the other and you have to read into the stats and research to see what they are NOT saying as much as what they are saying.

Well, let's get that research up here, and have a look at it. Post up some peer reviewed data, and let's look at the biases. I agree it probably exists, but I haven't seen it. I'm as keen to learn more about this area as anyone, so pop up some links and the source of the statistical bias or whatever it is, and we'll discuss it. Will make interesting reading because it's an area that's wide open to biased reporting.

The data i've linked to in the report is of a good standard, both in terms of statistics and methodology, insofar as studies into this area can be. It is important to take data from reliable sources, though. As there's a lot of rubbish studies out there.

BostonB wrote: »

We have the liberty of not working kids because we can afford not to have kids working. So more about economics as it is about society.

.

I don't think this is true at all. There are still people living in shocking poverty. In particular when i worked in glasgow, I saw conditions that I woildn't let a dog live in (and I REALLY hate dogs!). The same can be said for Ireland, although povery is much less common here. Yet society wouldn't tolerate sending those kids up chimneys or whatever. The celtic tiger hasn't bitten the arse of everyone,sadly.

nesf

tallaght01, those guidelines seems to be dealing with spanking as a first line disciplinary method, or the only method. I don't think anyone is actually arguing that this is a good idea in this thread, or at least no one who isn't trolling anyway. For instance, I don't think spanking should be banned yet I'd pretty much agree with those guidelines for the most part. They aren't an argument for never spanking, they're an argument for not relying on spanking to discipline children, which is something I believe we can all agree on.

BostonB

tallaght01 wrote: »

...I don't think this is true at all. There are still people living in shocking poverty. In particular when i worked in glasgow, I saw conditions that I woildn't let a dog live in (and I REALLY hate dogs!). The same can be said for Ireland, although povery is much less common here. Yet society wouldn't tolerate sending those kids up chimneys or whatever. The celtic tiger hasn't bitten the arse of everyone,sadly.

I don't know who you mean by society?

Perhaps I should have been more specific in my reply. In poorer countries, (2nd/3rd world) lots of children work, and often are the main bread winners if theres no welfare payments. Its either that or starve. Probably a lot things in an Irish home have been touched by a child labour at some point.

Lots of our (mine anyway) parents worked as kids, and personally I worked a bit when I was a kid too. It was just expected, if not a economic necessity

tallaght01

nesf wrote: »

tallaght01, those guidelines seems to be dealing with spanking as a first line disciplinary method, or the only method. I don't think anyone is actually arguing that this is a good idea in this thread, or at least no one who isn't trolling anyway. For instance, I don't think spanking should be banned yet I'd pretty much agree with those guidelines for the most part. They aren't an argument for never spanking, they're an argument for not relying on spanking to discipline children, which is something I believe we can all agree on.

No, those guidelines discourage the use of smacking at all. There's nowhere where they say you should smack your child if the above fails.