Not smacking children = Lawless rioters

[cherryburton]

Saw this doing the rounds of FB this morning:

"I have to laugh at people who are against smacking. My parents smacked me when I was naughty.. . I didn't hate them.. I didn't have trust issues with them because of it... I didn't fear them... But I damn sure respected them! And I learned what my boundaries were, and knew what would happen if I? broke them. I wasn't abused - I was disciplined....SINCE WE TOOK THIS SOFT APPROACH LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO OUR COUNTRY & YOUNGSTERS *Re-post if you got your arse smacked and survived!!"

and I actually had to reply to it. What a load of bollocks, I'm guessing the people out looting last week weren't the children of liberal non-smacking lefties, I'd hazard a guess they were all from homes where good hidings get dished out.

AIBU to think that smacking is nothing to do with the state of "OUR COUNTRY & YOUNGSTERS?"

It's not about smacking it's about boundaries, socially acceptable boundaries

the problem is that many, not all, of these rioters are 2nd possibly 3rd generation anti-authority

gang members aren't bothered by the police / judicial system they know how it goes and there are minimum sanctions - but it starts earlier it starts in many cases with family / friends already being gang members

I can't see a way out of it - the poverty stricken areas of our country have horrendous burdens - children are growing up illiterate, inumerate and with no hope - their parents are little better in many cases

will smacking make a difference? no I don't think so - I think boundaries and cohesive society and hope will though

yes I know it's not about gang members in the main but that's what I know about

I was saying this just the other day - in the last two or three decades we've seen a huge sea change in what is seen as acceptable parenting. We've gone from a place where it was totally normal to hit your kids to discipline them (and you were probably seen as a bit weird if you never did) and normal for a police officer or a neighbour or whoever to give kids a clip round the ear if they caught them doing something naughty, to a point where hitting kids is seen generally by the majority of people as something they want to avoid, and by a large minority if not a majority as something to be abhorred. I personally agree with that change because I don't think hitting is ever going to be the only answer - negative reinforcement works just as well with other things they hate like removal of privileges, time out from the room, etc (if it starts young and is consistent).

However...many, many parents, from all sorts of backgrounds, I don't think got the message of what to put in place when hitting was removed as an acceptable punishment. Things like using time out and the back to bed routine and giving warnings and natural consequences and all that make total sense when you've had them explained to you, but if you've never really come across them before, there's no reason why it would be common sense. This is why Jo Frost is still on TV - she's working with many parents who literally can't work out how to parent their kids without physical punishment. I think there are probably many parents today who were part of a middle generation where smacking was dying out and sort of half-acceptable, half-not, but those parents who were kids then still weren't sure who would see fit to hit you and who wouldn't (i.e. your dad might not but your teacher could still clout you one) so they still behaved well through fear of getting caught and the consequences.

The reason why hitting on its own works is because it teaches a child to fear the consequences. They don't want to behave badly because if they get caught they'll get punished. But you need to have explanations in place for why doing X is a bad idea, otherwise you have these kids who you've heard on the news rioting, many saying, "We're showing people we can do what we like," without any concept that others aren't doing it not because they fear reprisal, but because they know it's a bad thing to do, in that it hurts others.

Phew. Diatribe over!

Clear and consistent discipline would help a lot.

Remembering the root of the word "discipline" is the same as "disciple" ie one who learns, would also help a lot.

The smack/no smack debate is a side issue, which will generate heat, not illumination.

I was smacked sparingly and I don't think it did me much harm: other forms of discipline (or lack of it) my parents indulged in did me far more harm. On the other hand it seems way too simple just to say that if there were more smacking we'd have better behaved kids and teenagers. Like others I think its about loving, stable families, consistency and boundaries. And that include smacking as long as its not battering but doesn't have to. There's a lot of people trying to draw bullshit correlations here and a lot of them don't work. For every kid who was smacked and it helped there are probably three whose parents were utter bastards.

The issue with "the youth of today" is definately about respect and responsibility. You would never catch a child gobbing off at a teacher or police officer 20 years ago. Kids were taught to respect and even fear authority. There is no getting away from the fact this is not the case now.

We have a history of harsh corporal in schools etc. It seemed to die a natural death forall sorts of reasons.

Don't need to go to facebook to see those sort of arguments They are right here on MN. ' Children don't have enough respect for their parents' and 'It's good for children to fear the parents'

'You would never catch a child gobbing off at a teacher or police officer 20 years ago'; er, my Indian mother was racially harrassed out of the school where she taught, over 20 years ago. By the pupils - white morons who certainly didn't fear a 'paki'. They were not scared of her. They forced her out. Even in that enduringly white corner of the UK, I do not think they could have got away with that today.

Smacking in combination with swearing, belittling, shouting, verbally abusing, smacking for the sake of it, all signs of seriously disturbed and disfunction al family, very damaging="rioting tugs".
Well administered quick, sharp smack on the bottom or leg, without swearing, shouting, threatening, will achieve very good results, used only as a last measure=Balanced, well rounded, young adult with strong sense of right and wrong, respectful to himself and to others.
So in moderation within strong and loving, supportive home environment, can be beneficial.
Two should not be confused as the same thing.

Have just googled "riots" and I don't think a return to anything is particularly what we should be after. Plenty of riots in most decades, not to mention centuries, before our own, and many of them a lot bloodier and more destructive than the present ones. A New Departure would be nice.

As for the olden respect for teachers, even a sentimental literary take on the old system like Goodbye Mr Chips includes a (doubtless perfectly realistic) description of a teacher hounded into a breakdown by his privileged pupils: the attitude of the author seems to be that he deserved it for not being tough enough.

I was not smacked by my parents. I'm an upstanding pillar of the community, me.

I've often thought that I have too much of a respect for authority. I would like to have less of a one.

Whichever way one decides(within reason) to discipline, at least one is showing vital signs of responsibility, to community, hence to the society.
To do nothing, to bring new human being into this word, and do nothing in equipping him/her for life, not instilling anything, of any value in any way, to think clothing it and feeding is enough= generations of very confused and troublesome young people, who is to blame?
Smacking vs not smacking, one size doesn't suit all.

It's the usual confusion of smacking and discipline, as if the absence of the former means there is none of the latter.

I never hit my children (they were born in the 80's, and I was in the minority then). But my parenting was not laissez-faire. My children were allowed a fair amount of freedom in some respects, they were allowed to put their view point, things were discussed, but actions had consequences related to that action.

From the very start with both of them, I explained why certain things were wrong, because they hurt others and made them feel unhappy, we talked a lot about the way other people feel and how our behaviour should be considerate. They've both grown up into very thoughtful, caring adults. IMO You don't teach people to behave well by treating them badly.

Smacking is lazy parenting-you can bring up DCs to be responsible adults without hitting. All smacking tells you is that force and fear gets your own way-something looters have found out and are doing!

Oh KurriKurri I do so agree I Have always from an early age taught that 'other people matter' That the child is important too and everyone deserves to be treated with kindness and respect.

Children need to have clear boundaries and consequenses. They need to know what is acceptable and to be praised for good behaviour. If you are a considerate person; Chances are they will pick up on it. If you are kind and good mannered;They will learn from you.

Smacking a child is more about the parent than teaching the child discipline, All it teaches is that It's okay to hit someone smaller than yourself. I really believe violence breeds violence.

I also know many considerate law abiding young people who were never smacked, If ir worked you wouldn't have to do it more than once

it isnt always the parents! some kids and i know alot of them grew up very well, and just dont care.

some people dont, thats life