Grayling defending smacking

[seventiesgirl]

Never did him any harm apparently. The tory party are such a bunch of tossers. Whatever next?

I find it bizarre that in any of those situations hitting the child would be considered a reasonable solution, or as amazingmum seems to suggest, the only solution.

My DS is only 3.5 so we haven't come up against the homework one but have successfully managed to deal with all the other ones without recourse to hitting.

Agree noble.

I'm also PMSL at the irony of the username.

"the second is that if you carry on deliberately pissing someone off when that person has already warned you to pack it in more than once, there is a possibility they will hit you."

Hmm, but SGB this can have unintended consequences too. I find it really hard to stick to my boundaries when someone is pushing at them because at the back of my mind is "If I really piss them off, they might hit me". Even when I know this is utterly remote it's still there.

'A tantrum? Maybe they're hungry/tired'

PMSL laughing over this one. Typical of modern parenting - an excuse for everything. I can't even count the number of times I've seen a child having a tantrum while the parent looks on while saying the immortal line - 'he/she's so TIRED!'

I do actually think we've gone too far in considering the child's feelings and bloody over-analysing everything! Sometimes a child just has to do what's been asked, no ifs, buts or explanations. And no frigging reward stickers for doing it.

'It's interesting isn't it, how we have only stopped smacking generally as a society when there are materialistic sanctions available. What lesson are we really teaching? How do families in places where there is absolute poverty replicate this lesson?'

Very, very interesting point rubygates You are right, these are all punishments relating to materialistic things. What DO you do when the tv/ipod/outing is simply not available to start with?

I've never seen a smack transform a tantrumming child into a quiet, well behaved one. From my observations, it just makes them cry more.

In my experience, brought up in a time when smacking was acceptable, the nature of my mother's 'smacking' was never questioned. She would laugh about it herself with other people.

The fact that we question it now means we have come a long way.

I don't know. I guess there are two schools of thought from the anti-smackers - one, in which you should replace smacking with some other unpleasant punishment and use it directly like this. Aside from the problems that exist with smacking (teaching them to hit/expect to be hit, the fact it's physical pain, you might do it too hard, etc) I'm not really sure that any one of these methods is particularly worse than another. You're still relying on the fear of punishment to motivate them to behave in the way that you want them to. And I'm sure that does work for some children, and perhaps some particular families don't feel that the "downsides" are valid or they avoid them in some other way, (and of course time out, removing privileges and so on have downsides too) so I find it hard to be too vehemently anti-smacking, although I wouldn't do it (have come close a couple of times and it's just made me feel massively uncomfortable, plus, I think if I got used to it I'd get lazy with it and slip into using/threatening it all the time which isn't fair)

And then there is the other school of thought which is that you don't need an "ultimate punishment" anyway and so smacking doesn't need to be replaced by any particular thing. I think it's hard to understand if you haven't come across it before, but it does work as well. Maybe different things just work for different parents and different children? It's not that unlikely that this would be the case.

But yes, the second method is based mainly on having age appropriate expectations and then teaching/steering them to the correct way of behaving, but without using punishment unless absolutely necessary (and then trying to make sure it's relevant or has teaching value in some way other than "I shouldn't do X because I'll get into trouble.")

amazingmum:

I did let DS touch the outside of the oven, or a radiator, when he was a baby - it was in no way hot enough to burn him, but hot enough to understand what "hot" meant. I'm sure some people would be aghast at this but I'm more aghast at smacking. Of course if he came up against something which could really hurt him then I just moved him away from it; it didn't take long for him to gain an understanding of "hot" and then I could say "hot" from across a room and he'd back away from what he was going to touch.

Drawing on walls I showed him the paper and reiterated "We ONLY draw on paper." I only got the pens out when he could be supervised anyway. He did once find a pen and draw on the walls - I reminded him that we draw on paper, and he never did it again. I don't think I told him off or anything - he was only about one, so it wouldn't have served any purpose. I just reminded him of the correct behaviour when we got the pens out. When he was about two we got a book from a charity shop and he pointed to the writing in it and said something along the lines of "No writing in books! Draw on paper!" or something, so he clearly knew even though I'd never told him that it was wrong to draw in books.

Snatching toys, I found teaching turn-taking worked well, ie, explaining to snatcher that it's snatchee's turn now and he/she has to wait, and, yes in fact, moving the other child to a safe place where the snatcher isn't bothering them does work in extreme cases and also helps to teach "If someone is annoying you, move away, don't clobber them over the head with said toy". I used to remove the cat to my lap when DS was bothering him!

Homework - if they were school age and NT and having a tantrum about the homework then I'd be concerned that there was something really stressing them out, so I'd send them off to calm down and then we'd have a talk about it. But we haven't got to homework yet, so this is theoretical. But I don't think that homework they're bullied or threatened into doing is going to be an especially helpful educational task somehow.

I was smacked as a child. Whether it did me any harm I don't really know. But what is far more painful to remember is my mother's sheer rage that sometimes went on for hours, I was so scared I'm pretty sure a quick smack would have been less damaging.

I also remember on the odd occasion having a possession removed or not being allowed to watch a tv programme. But it didn't work, it made me hugely angry with my mother and didn't stop me from doing whatever it was again.

Tantrums are developmentally normal. They grow out of them whether you "discourage" them or not - the only reason they would continue is if you encouraged them somehow, or there's a developmental reason e.g. SN or just a very sensitive child. I've never discouraged a tantrum particularly and DS is 4 now and doesn't have them except for very rarely when he's either overtired or overwhelmed by something. It's just that when they're toddlers they can get overwhelmed by things which to us seem inconsequential, mainly because they're a bundle of hormones, and also, because they haven't really experienced many of these emotions before and they literally can't place a value on whether one experience is more frightening or upsetting than another. That's something they learn later.

Stoic sorry. I disagree.

Smacking in anger is wrong ditto shouting in anger.Not all parents that smack do it in anger is the same way that parents who choose not to smack don't all shout in anger.

The utter hysteria and generalisation on this subject is wrong,rather childish and doesn't help anybody.

As a said countless times I don't smack however given how skilled I was re managing challenging behaviour at work without either shouting or smacking if I find parenting and bewildering at times you can bet your bottom dollar an awful lot of others do too.To ignore that is wrong.

I am simply questioning the alternatives and what is given to parents as a tool in the place of smacking which the maj did a generation ago. I have been at the front line in various places with bad behaviour and believe you me being clobbered is not by default the cause-far from it. Buggar all boundaries,shouting and continual empty threats are and imvho far more damaging than a rare controlled tap which I do not do.There is a very thin line with shouting and threatening too imvho and I think some parents struggle to know what is best.

Yes there are a few parents that breeze through parenthood never raising their voice or giving out threats with continual perfectly behaved children.Some of that is down to luck and some circumstances and personality.You clearly are one of those people,lucky old you however you don't speak for all-far from it.

I am a tory ('very' tory, you see, I cover my children's eyes if ever a non-tory is spotted slinking about, and tut-tut ferociously), however, I do not smack my children.
It's wrong to hurt someone who is so much smaller then yourself.
Counting to 3, with a 'dragon-voice' if needed; naughty step and pudding/ television (which is only allowed on Friday evenings) rights removed in severe cases, work around here.

And I agree with see of Bertie said.Is replacing fear with fear right? I don't know.Is continuously giving praise right?I'm not so sure.Only recently research has said over praising causes low self esteem so what to do?There is an awful lot of what not to do given out but not a lot of alternatives.

Are you attempting to discipline the child or are you taking your frustration out on them ?

Roll that all worked when mine were little too,thinkg change when they're old enough to question-everything!

bertie couldn't agree more with your assessment. If you teach your kids not to do things because if they do then they get hurt physically or mentally, or have fun stuff taken away, then where is their own moral compass? When they leave home, who fills the authority gap? If people still respected the police etc. then clearly this would do the job....but people don't.

If you teach your kids not to do things because they can see the bad affects their behaviour has on others and themselves then you are giving them a strong morality that will keep them going through life.

DD (20 mo) had a massive melt down about wanting to buy a ball at the swimming pool. I tried all sorts of far too complex concepts (like 'I already bought you and octopus this trip, wait till next time') which just resulted in screaming, but she accepted 'they belong to someone else so you can't take one' immediately and stopped crying instantly.

Toddlers misbehave because they don't understand the complex rules we force on them. Toys in one environment are fair game (toddler groups etc) and in another are not to be touched (shops). Once they have the relevant concept they don't seem to be bothered. It is the not understanding that makes them mad not the not getting what they want.

I don't think you can rely totally on positive reinforcement without some negative to back it up. The same the opposite way around. I would say it's a minority of parents who punish but never praise, or reward/praise but never reprimand, and they probably don't have control of their children. There needs to be a balance.

As I said above I prefer to try and steer away from positive/negative reinforcement as a tool because I think it's too simplistic (which I know probably makes me sound pompous or something, ok, I'm just trying to explain what works for us in our household where we don't smack or use naughty step or remove privileges.) Of course this doesn't mean I never praise/reward or impose any kind of consequence ever, but mostly it's about getting the child thinking about what we do and why and how to deal with situations for themselves. Which doesn't always mean sitting down and having a cosy chat, of course it doesn't. That might work in some situations but in others it's utterly pointless.

Yes - complexity is definitely a big factor! How funny, I'm actually training to be an ESOL (english as second language) teacher at the moment and this is a big thing - if your instructions/explanation is worded in too complex a way, then you totally lose the learners, because they don't understand, then they get anxious/frustrated that they don't understand and even if you follow it with a simply worded instruction, some of them are already lost and it's too late. And I can definitely see why a toddler would get frustrated because they don't understand why they can't have the ball, and when your explanation is too complicated they're still not understanding why they can't have the ball and they're wondering why are you still talking when you should be listening to what I want?

Apologies to the poster but to pick up the freezer example again from before in the thread. Explaining to a 3 year old that the food will defrost and we'll have to throw it away means nothing to them. Just stating "the freezer needs to stay closed" and then either watching them every time they're in the kitchen and closing it after them, or finding some way to keep it closed like tape or a lock works - the explanation is too complex.

It's balance and a constant learning game which is why I refuse to engage with the anti smacking witch hunt.Those of my friends that do it do it rarely and to be frank are some of the most balanced,calmest parents I know. I feel a bit at times as a short tap must cut down on a shed load of stress and length of punishment.

I think it important to treat my child as I wish him to treat others, so wouldn't 'smack' him, even if I could persuade myself it wasn't violence, or wasn't essentially about my own need to have control. The whole run-into-the-road/ touch-the-oven thing is rubbish - if you can reach to smack, you can reach to simply stop. Children do those things because they don't understand the actual consequences of doing those things, which is a fact of development, not a crime punishable by violence. They need teaching and supervision, which might be slightly more tiresome than creating a false and unpleasant consequence ('I will smack you') but has the effect long term of taking responsibility for themselves, not doing risky things just to test a boundary with you, not delegating their risk assessment to whomsoever they judge more authoritative than them, Tec. Oh, yeah - and it doesn't teach them to assert control by means of force, a damaged perception of the world which many of the 'didn' t do me any harm' brigade/ current govt seem to have.

noblegiraffe I never suggested that hitting would be a solution or the only solution. please don't put words in my mouth!

The utter hysteria and generalisation on this subject is wrong,rather childish and doesn't help anybody.

Who's getting hysterical?

The those that smack beat and do it in anger,can't control themselves etc,etc posts.

bertiebotts that's all well and good for your child having outgrown tantrums but I can assure you many, many children (including my own) still have them older than 4. Then it is not a developmental thing, it's a behaviourial thing.

Polka, mine do question everything...

I have found that talking to them about an issue/behaviour/anything that I don't approve of, always works.

Before you lot fall over clutching your sides with laughter, let me explain.

It would be pointless to try and reason with a child whilst the undesired action/behaviour is happening.

However, I find some quiet time and we just talk, about anything, really;
then approach the topic that causes concern. The children are always very responsive.

I tell a story (make it up as I go along) where the particular undesired behaviour occurs and show the ghastly consequences. Then ask their opinions about the actions of the characters in the story.

It might sound daft but works for us.