Good old fashioned smacking

[heepie]

I don't believe it did me any harm and I do wonder why the previous generation, ie mine, was so much better behavied than the current, ie my kids. I find the softly softly, ignore bad reward good behaviour does not work with a strong willed child and find myself more and more thinking what was wrong with a good old smack? Peeing on the floor right in front of you with a big smile on the face surely warrants more than the removal of a star on the reward chart? And whacking little brother over the head with a heavy object? Not eating something very nice and edible that I have slaved over in the kitchen? Why must we never tell our children to eat what is in front of them when I wasn't allowed to leave the table until I was finished? I don't have an eating disorder. I think it's time I through all the modern how to bring up children books out of the window and remember how it was done when I was a child? Anyone else feel this way?

sorry heepie what is NMCA?

You will not be locked up for leaving a red mark which quickly fades, although many here would like you to be!

NCMA is National Child Minding Association

see thats what i dont get, as the mark across dds back (from said highchair) could been seen as something else by a stranger and a lot of people on here would want me punished for having a child that marks easily....

thanks

If poor DD is uncomfortable in her highchair, maybe you could get her a cushion. Or social services might come knocking.

not uncomfortable.....just always gets red marks (does it from car seat too and that well paded!!)

From NSPCC boss Mary Marsh:

"Defining acceptable ways to hit children should become a thing of the past.

"It should be just as wrong to hit a child as it is to hit an adult."

Good enough for me.

Greensleeves- had any luck with the poo yet?

i think your all a bit up your own perfect parenting arses TBH.

Sleep, that's true and that's what I suspect will be changed. At the moment if your husband slaps you face, arm or bottom because he's cross and it leaves a red mark which fades be breaks the law but if he does the same to your child he doesn't. That is the gross iniquity currently permitted, but hopefully not for long.

Sounds like some people should take themselves off to courses to learn how to beat lawfully - there is guidance on it and even US web sites on the types of implements to use. It's regarded as a human rights issue and even biblically inspired by some, never mind the Koran but I'm sure God has a pretty dim view of it.

asif to prove my point

"You will not be locked up for leaving a red mark which quickly fades, although many here would like you to be!"

oh what splendid news

off you all go and carefully judge those smacks

I know it comes across that way custy but I really DON'T think I am a fabulous parent at all. It looks that way because we are debating smacking, not all the other crappy things parents do.

oh here we go

you don't like beating up your kids ergo you are smug

you don't like feeding your kids shite ergo you are smug

etc

here we go with inciteful use of english " beat up yer kids"

No more inflammatory than "up your own arses".

Voluptua - are you in Scotland? the tawse was used there.
in England the cane was used. yes, private schools were able to use it for longer,legally. but in my school, the cane was still used until ??1983 or 1984?

I saw a tawse once. Wicked-looking thing

www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/crc.28/FamiliesFirst.pdf

This link (as posted below) is to the Child Rights Information Network.

It uses research and evidence to base its argument pro-smacking, rather than hypothetical drivel based on opinion only. If you have actually read it you will note that it points out several major failings within the Swedish system (who have banned smacking, for those who haven't read this whole thread). It also points out that actually those who do not smack their children ever are more lkely to resort to violence in a one-off occaision and actually harm their child. It also has this really great bit at the end where it says, and i quote...

Physical punishment is least likely to cause negative consequences and most likely to be effective in deterring unacceptable behaviour when administered without guilt,
under controlled circumstances in a measured fashion, where both parent and child
are aware of the reason for its use, when administered in private for wilful defiance
rather than for childish irresponsibility, and not in children younger than 18 months or
subsequent to puberty.

greensleves you aer right as usual, it is indeed no more inciting than my own turn of phrase, but misleading in my opinion.

recent United Nations study on violence towards children

Interesting reading.

"The Study should mark a turning point - an end to adult justification of violence against
children, whether accepted as "tradition" or disguised as "discipline". There can be no compromise in
challenging violence against children. Children's uniqueness - their potential and vulnerability, their
dependence on adults ­ makes it imperative that they have more, not less, protection from violence."

From the UN study linked to above.

"The definition of violence is that of article 19 of the Convention: "all forms of physical or mental violence, injury and abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse". It also draws on the definition in the World Report on Violence and Health (2002): the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against a child, by an individual or group, that either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in actual or potential harm to the child's health, survival, development or dignity."

I hate to point this out but this type of thing is addressed in the CRIN file - these research programs only take into account severe abuse, and ignore any findings pointing to conscientious smacking by parents as being constructive rather than destructive behaviour. Rather like many of you i suspect.

Actually in highlighting the discrepancy between adults' and childrens' rights where violence is concerned the purpose of that study was to call for ALL physical punishment of children to be made illegal - the UN target for complete equality between children's and adults' rights is 2009. The same point is made by Carol Bellamy, Executive Director of the UN Children's Fund in her 2003 report on the UN Convention On The Rights Of The Child.

The UN's position on physical discipline of children is unambiguously negative. Ditto Unicef and the NSPCC. But of course, you know better