Minister defends parents' right to smack

reply to post by Evil_Santa


agreed, that is abuse, not at all like a small smack with a hand on a clothed bottom.

Originally posted by lacrimaererum

Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
Total bollocks,

Tell me, how many children have you raised? I am curious to know.

This is the kind of language you use on a public website while talking about disciplining children?It says a lot about you.

Why would i divulge to someone like you how many kids i have raised.

Like i said already bullies hit their children. They are people who don't have the necessary skill set to deal with problems that raising kids brings with it and have to resort to physical abuse.

For goodness sake grow up! I have seen real 'language' on this and other forums so don't be so naive.

How quick you are to judge on the basis of one use of 'bollocks' and the fact that I agree with a small smack as a last resort.
Tell me just what do you mean by 'It says a lot about you' and 'to someone like you'. Just what are you inferring by those statements? You have absolutely no idea what kind of a person I am nor how good a mother I am, yet quick as a flash you have branded and pigeon holed me on the basis of two posts which don't agree with your view.
I think that says more about you than it does of me.

A light smack after many warnings does not constitute a bully and if that is what you truly believe then you have a lot of waking up to the real world to do.

I asked how many children you had raised because I suspect you have no actual experience in raising children.

Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I stepped over the line a few times as a kid/teenager and I got a few slaps out of it. Looking back at it I totally deserved it and after a while all that was needed was a raised hand and I knew I was approaching the border again

No harm done, I'm alive, I got put in my place is all. Happens.

reply to post by CthulhuMythos


Nailed it.

I have noticed a decline in children's bahaviour in schools over the years, oddly enough it started when the use of the belt in school was removed and teachers were not allowed to discipline children for bad behaviour. When I was at school, even the 'hard nut' kids had some respect for their teachers and certainly for the headmaster, that is something that seems all but gone in schools today (having worked in one I know from first hand experience).

My first year teaching, I refused to paddle my students. Those children were horribly behaved, but despite the advice from my principal and fellow teachers, I just wouldn't do it. Had a terrible year.

Second year, I changed my mind. One kid was punching others. I tried other avenues first, time-out, removed privileges, etc. talked to his parents, they said spank him.

So one day I had enough. Told him to get the paddle and meet me in the hall.

Know what? That was the best behaved class I ever had. Never had to use the paddle again.

Now I teach in an area where corporal punishment is not allowed. Very different environment.

My parents popped me when I deserved it. And I think I turned out fine.

My old man had a piece of conveyor-belt rubber about 3cm wide x 40cm long. It and I had a run-in a few times. I copped it when ever I mis-spoke to Mum, was impolite or back-chatted.

I was also a quick learner, so I can count on one hand the amount of times it was used.

My old man is a good bloke, his philosophy is simply - you get one warning, thereafter the strap.

I have a 7 year old boy & 9 year old daughter. I have smacked them once only, thus far. Fortunately, I have a deep and very loud voice (which even frightens some adults!!) and so I do not have to do much more than raise my voice assertively for a few seconds to get command of the situation.

Fear and Repetition - that is my method for teaching my kids right from wrong.

Huge amounts of love - issued multiple times a day, ensures I do not have to unleash the Kraken!

In the UK in my dad's generation if you needed disciplining at home you got a 'clip around the ear'...if you misbehaved or caused a nuisance in the street's there was a policeman to give you a 'clip around the ear'....if you misbehaved at school you got the paddle or the cane.

I'm 41 and in my generation growing up policemen on the beat where already in decline....but if you caused a nuisance on the streets then there were a number of neighbour's who would give you a clip around the ear....and up until the middle of my high school year's corporal punishment was still in place in school's.

Then society supposedly turned for the better and all of the above was frowned on

I know that most of my dad's generation didn't feel it was abuse in this context and most of my peer's I still talk to today didn't feel it was abuse and I don't also.
What it did was taught kid's some respect.....which I can absolutely see is lacking today!

Apparently we became a more civilised society...whilst we brought up a generation of children who seem to have become the wild one's who have nothing to fear in the way of real consequence's. Of course I'm not saying this stand's for all of the youth of today but I don't see how anyone can argue that youth in general today have the same kind of respect they had a couple of generation's ago.

I don't know what the answer is.....but removing the fear of a "clip around the ear " as a consequence to unacceptable behaviour doesn't appear to have made us a more civilised society in my opinion......

My mom used to slap me around and my dad had this almost heat seeking whiskey bottle he could throw, I turned out fine.

Tis a sad day in ATS history.

Originally posted by SilentKoala
Tis a sad day in ATS history.

In otherwords, the posts of some do not agree with your worldview so you project that onto ATS as a whole. Elaborate or keep quiet...

Positive reinforcement has been shown to be more effective than negative reinforcement time and time again. This has been known since the 1940s.

The problem with today's kids is not that parent's aren't smacking them enough, it's that they give positive reinforcements at the wrong times. A kid will whine and whine, and a parent will just give them something to shut them up. They are reinforcing negative behaviors.

One of my degrees is in Psychology. I know what I'm talking about here. Spanking is poor parenting. I'm not talking about whether it's right or wrong to do so, I'm talking about the effectiveness of parenting based on scientific criteria. If you have to resort to violence you're doing something wrong.

I can't believe how many people are talking out their asses in this thread.

Originally posted by Ghost375

One of my degrees is in Psychology. I know what I'm talking about here. Spanking is poor parenting. I'm not talking about whether it's right or wrong to do so, I'm talking about the effectiveness of parenting based on scientific criteria. If you have to resort to violence you're doing something wrong.

I can't believe how many people are talking out their asses in this thread.

Where are these studies you speak of?

I have read quite a few studies in my time (although admittedly not in psychology). What I suspect is that the conclusion is generally set in the researchers mind before any research is carried out.

Originally posted by Ghost375

Positive reinforcement has been shown to be more effective than negative reinforcement time and time again. This has been known since the 1940s.

Your 3 year old child has just ran onto the road and narrowly avoided being run over. How can a parent positively reinforce in such a circumstance?

Originally posted by Ghost375
Positive reinforcement has been shown to be more effective than negative reinforcement time and time again. This has been known since the 1940s.

The problem with today's kids is not that parent's aren't smacking them enough, it's that they give positive reinforcements at the wrong times. A kid will whine and whine, and a parent will just give them something to shut them up. They are reinforcing negative behaviors.

One of my degrees is in Psychology. I know what I'm talking about here. Spanking is poor parenting. I'm not talking about whether it's right or wrong to do so, I'm talking about the effectiveness of parenting based on scientific criteria. If you have to resort to violence you're doing something wrong.

I can't believe how many people are talking out their asses in this thread.

There is no scientific criteria in child raising. There is simply a lot of hot air by people with an agenda who have no or little experience raising children. Science is never capable of measuring what happens in a family. They do not have the primary tool necessary. They do not have a love meter.

At work I witnessed a conversation between a social worker and a mum. It went like this.

SC I have never hit my children and it is illegal to do so. You have been seen hitting your children with a weapon.
Mum It was not a bloody weapon, it was a wooden spoon. Listen bitch, I know you! You had three girls. One is a single mum who earns a living as a hooker in Hindly street, the second one is a pole dancer and the third is in drug rehab. You didn't hit your children because you were never home to hit them. I want my children to have a few more options.
SC You ever say that again and I will make your life a misery, how would you like to be sued.
Mum Make my day bitch, the local rag would just love the story of the Government Social Worker telling mums how to raise kids after doing such an appalling job herself.

I have seen many research papers trying to measure things in family settings. In reality they are simply a series of questions written by one person with a degree and answered by a person with experience.

It never works

P

Originally posted by lacrimaererum
parents who hit their kids only do so because they cant control their temper.

bullies.

these parents generally stop hitting their kids when the kids grow big enough to defend themselves,

Whilst that may be true in some cases, it isn't the rule. I often threaten physical repercussions with my kids and not out of anger either, rather as a last resort, but I can't actually remember the last time I actually did it. The threat of punishment is often enough to reign them in. I always keep them on their toes as well with outlandish and often crazy threats of punishment, such as if they don't get ready for bed, they'd be sleeping in the garden or I'd stick them in the oven.. They know full well what they can and can't get away with when I am around, consequently I rarely find myself punishing them at all.

Only on Saturday on the way back from the match, with the two older ones being somewhat mischievous on the bus as they were in high spirits after the victory, I told them if they continued playing up they'd get a clipped ear. Not only did they start behaving, but the old dear on the bus next to me actually said in comparison to her own grandchildren, who apparently did not get the discipline I dished out, mine were Angels.....

That said, I find taking their 3DS/PS3/Computer/Wii time away is far more effective but that only works with the two older ones.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
There is quite a large amount of episodes of the show Nanny 911 and Super Nanny on HULU.

The only reason super nanny is ever seen to actually work is that any kid, no matter where, will automatically behave better and do as they are told if a stranger does it, especially younger ones. Just send your kids round a mates house for the day, I bet they will come back and your friend will say

"Oh, they were good as gold"... The moment you get through the front door is when they play up.

Try Super Nannies tactics yourself without a gigantic, over-bearing lard-arse breathing down your neck and her methods are not that effective.

My missus used to swear by her, but her son was a little turd using only her methods. The naughty step/zone is the most pointless exercise ever performed in the history of humanity.

Originally posted by CthulhuMythos
For goodness sake grow up! I have seen real 'language' on this and other forums so don't be so naive.

A light smack after many warnings does not constitute a bully and if that is what you truly believe then you have a lot of waking up to the real world to do.

I asked how many children you had raised because I suspect you have no actual experience in raising children.

So you justify your use of gutter language because other people on the site use it?

You dismissed all my comments with that one offensive comment. That was your response.

Just like you are unable to express yourself properly without resorting to foul language you also are incapable of raising your children without resorting to slapping them. Lacking in certain skills possibly?

I have raised children. Your suspicions are completely wrong.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by ollncasino

 

So, if you care about what the BEST ways to raise your children are.... youll admit that hitting them isnt it.

If you care about rationalizing the abuse of children then youll cling to phsyicall abuse as a method of parenting.

Surely, the best way is they way that has worked for thousands of years?

Only when we started restricting the actions of parents and teachers did kids start to become a problem like they are now.

reply to post by Wertdagf


I'm sorry, you clearly don't understand how to raise children. The threat isn't the go-to option, but the option of last resort if all else fails. If you do a good job, you shouldn't need to threaten them with any punishment. I find with my daughter that I haven't told her off in years, she simply does what she is told because at a young age she learnt that is what is expected of her.

The other older one, my partners boy, was raised on a strict diet of Super Nanny parenting and it failed miserably.

I have wonderful, loving, caring parents, they are always there for me to bail me out of tight spots, there is always presents at Christmas (and dinner), presents on birthdays, and at 32 year old, I don't ask for these things, but get regardless, and they are always there for me when I am down.

As a child, if I swore, caused mischief or was just a general pain in the arse, I got smacked, I soon learned not to do it again!

Now, I know my parents love me, and would probably sacrifice themselves for me or my brothers, so did smacking us make them bad parents?? Not at all, I could have grew up to be a nasty waste of space given the area(s) we lived in, like so many of the other low lives that live round here.

I own a successful IT support business, my middle brother owns his own pub, my younger brother is trying (emphasis on, lol) to become an artist.

I thank my parents discipline, love, support and the occasional smacking for that.

reply to post by woogleuk


Indeed

I used to get an "attitude adjustment" (my dads term for a good whack) quite frequently and I have turned out alright, I have a decent career, kids of my own and a nice stable, happy life. I also look up to my Dad and realsie it was all to keep me on the straigfht and narrow..

Now, my younger brother (9 years my junior) didn't get that treatment, owing to his medical problems (kidney failure from birth) and was spoilt. He went off the rails at 16, is now the father of two kids by two different women, he has no job and has done time at Her Majesties pleasure....

The only difference between us the way we were brought up....

I have 4 kids. Each one is completely different. Discipline has to be individualized. My oldest was a defiant headstrong turd from about 1 year old to about 3. I tried every approach and read every book. I had already had developmental psychology in college a few years before, so I knew that at that early stage a child in trust v. mistrust has to have a lot of love, reassurance, and a feeling of security. He got lots of it, but was determined to do it all his way.
Then I read a book by Dr. Dobson "Raising a strong willed child." He posits that with strong willed children especially boys, you have to earn the right to be the boss. So at times that means a show of force. It's just like women not being attracted to weak, pasty men. Some children have no confidence and feel no security in a weak parent. I started giving him 1 warning, after that a pop on the diaper, and a time out. It took about 3 months of all out war. He is 13 now and I can count on 1 hand the number of times he has been in trouble since. He is at a later stage of development now and has good reasoning skills so corporal punishment is no longer needed or used. His 3 siblings have never needed corporal punishment and it has never been used with them.
As far as negative reinforcement being useless; that's bollocks nature gave us more pain receptors than any other kind. Positive reinforcement should be the mainstay, but to conclude negative reinforcement as useless, or ineffective is just not true. If that we're the case we would all be dead from unavoided trauma because we never avoided injury because there was no immediate bad consequence for touching the stove or cutting a finger.
I believe in natural and logical consequences. If your behavior is maladaptive, you're gonna have a bad time. Parents should instill that lesson with mild consequences like a smack on the behind, before it's a real life consequence like 30yrs behind bars or a big pissed of guy with a crowbar.coddling kids is as much a disservice to them as abuse, and should be considered abuse. I love my kids too much, and they are too smart, and have too much potential to let them face life unprepared or with a false sense of entitlement.
My kids love to strive to achieve. Not to please me they know dad's love is not contingent on anything. It is because they already know life is a challenge, and good things come to the prepared. So if spanking is all that works to get their attention and pull them out of the turd phase, so be it. Better than watching him get strapped into old sparky for continuing to think his actions have no consequences. If reasoning works that is much preferable, but sometimes you have to get their attention, and make them respect you enough to listen. You can't reason when they don't listen, and you haven't earned respect. Earned through much love, and a bit of fear.
Why fear? Because that 3 year old is looking for a protector and provider first, and if he figured he has you whooped, how much confidence do you think he has you can protect him from something bigger, and badder than he is? Strong willed kids are born thinking they're pretty hot stuff. That isn't bad, but it has to have direction. My oldest is still strong willed, stubborn even, but he is also smart, kind, and compassionate. Protective of his sibling to a fault, and an anti-bully He uses his inner strength to build the weak, he's not selfish and overbearing. Had I coddled him, and gave him his way, which at the time he considered a stalemate winning, and timeout alone was a stalemate to him. He would have never listened enough to get to the point where reasoning worked.