Grayling defending smacking

[seventiesgirl]

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

The whole post is typical of your de haut en bas style; wordy, assumptive and condescending.

LOL, Larry, and what do you call, de haut en bas then? Cos I would be tempted to call it wordy, assumptive and condescending (if I wanted to use three longish words where one would suffice)...

You could not possibly have taught your 3.8 year old what 'danger' or 'dangerous' mean, Larry -- they are completely abstract concepts and therefore inaccessible to someone that age. You may have mixed up talking to your child about those words with transmitting some sort of meaningful understanding to him, much as you could talk about the word 'hot' to a child until you were blue in the face, but unless you touched a child's hand to a reasonably hot item the child would not really understand what 'hot' was. What 'dangerous' means to your child is the danger of your response. He could not at age 3.8 understand the ramifications to another child of having a triceratops' spiky bit poked into an eye, or the danger of playing with a lighter or a box of matches, or the danger of setting a kitten into a river to swim, etc.

I do allow them to play with things which are (a little) dangerous and I explain to them how to use them. Yes, I accept that I am taking some risks but I feel that the gains are worth it. They have a good perception of what is and isn't dangerous and are sensible around dangerous things. I heard a paediatrician the other day saying the reason they were seeing so many more injuries in older children is that parents are over protective of younger children and they these same children then see themselves as inviolate and take too many risks when they are older. Your idea of safety over everything else personifies this modern (and dangerous attitude). They also receive a psychological boost of making intelligent decisions about things with real consequences.

What blather you spout, Larry.
As the saying goes, it's all right until someone loses an eye.
Hope nothing horrible happens to your children, but I also hope they will be happy to accept your wordy, assumptive and ridiculous explanations in later life if they have reason to ask you how come you decided to take the risks you took. Are you going to be there when the older brother falls apart from guilt over an injury inflicted on his younger brother?

Just because an A&E doctor is constrained from spanking you doesn't mean they wouldn't want to belt you one if you brought in a child with a serious and completely avoidable eye injury, especially if you started quoting pediatricians at them.

Recall, Mouse, Raisin - could not agree more with what you have written. But for me am just giving up on thread as it is beyond obvious that those who think hurting their child/ren hitting their DC's are not remotely open to debate, and very clearly, definitely not even listening to any of the logical; factual; humane (as in, HTF*ck CAN you even want to or think of hurting your own child? And/or think it will never have any consequences?) other points well made by so very many people here. Ergo is pointless.

The greatest irony is the comment made to me above - made simply as I was clear I did NOT hit my DS's (other than on the one occasion where I utterly lost it and lashed out at a then 15yr old DS in fury) - was the best riposte that individual could come up with. As yep, of course the fact I don't smack/'tap'/hurt my children as 'discipline' de facto does of course mean I am 'lucky' and that I 'breeze/d through parenthood'. For me, that really is the ultimate reason why no point at all in engaging in debate here... as if you loathe idea of smacking but HAVE successfully raised decent, well-behaved & considerate children; the only 'argument' lobbed at you is that you were 'lucky. Just a joke of an 'argued' point, albeit a horrible tragic joke.....

I think this sums it up, from Mathanxiety:

"It's not about how well we tell or train children to be careful and responsible around them. It's about taking complete responsibility ourselves as adults, and not potentially placing the burden of a horrible and unintended outcome on a child, be that the death of a father or the blinding or disfigurement of a brother"

I teach my son how to use scissors, knives, etc but only when I can help him out. He's only just turned 3. The rest of the time they're out of reach and we discuss why.

We work on empathy and listening skills, not "rules" necessarily. Yes, I only have one child, but I am the youngest of 7, have 17 nieces and nephews I have babysat over the years, and was a nanny to triplets. I didn't hit any of them, by the way.

If you actually bothered to read my posts properly you'd realize I did not mean "breaking a child's will" in a general sense, like he would loose the will to live or end up like dependent zombie with a vacant expression!!
you guys really are picking words out of context!

breaking a child's will or urge to do something dangerous or damaging is a good thing. and it is done correctly it will not damage his spirit the slightest!

think about a child biting another child - that is a will or a want or an urge that has to be stopped/eliminated/broken, whatever words you want to use, feel free to substitute.

do you not agree with that?
and if the urge/temptation/will/want is too great at least you would want to stop them from acting upon them again

I would stop undesirable behaviour and would nip it in the bud - but I never said what my particular method would be, as every child is different as are the circumstances.

and yes, you can stop them from sticking them their tongue in the electric socket, but it is better if you "break their will" to do it entirely, so they would never entertain a thought like that..

the fact that you are unable to imagine a wide variety of methods to use for modifying or correcting behaviour and can only assume it would be done by violent beating says more about you, then me.

I really can't explain it any better.

and as to raisinboys catty remarks - I don't know why you think I owe you an explanation about why and how I spend my time, but thanks for the interest.

Children generally do not have an innate will to do things that are dangerous or damaging. In certain circumstances they are capable of doing things that are damaging or dangerous, but that wasn't what you were talking about when you talked about defiance and used the term breaking a child's will. No child has an innate will to stick their tongue in a socket. They might have a whim to do it. When you talk of 'will' you are talking about something innate, some force or instinct -- like the will to live.

The term as you used it wasn't qualified by '..to decorate the bathroom with toothpaste', so it was read as it is commonly understood, which isn't 'to cause someone to lose the will to live' or 'to turn them into an automaton'.

You have tied yourself up in knots somewhat.

Your post illustrates something I have suspected about spanking -- that it is often done out of fear.

I don't like smacking. I think it's a nasty, common thing to do.

Why should smacking be anything to do with your political point of view?

I think hitting kids is a lot to do with your view of children, human rights, state vs. family privacy etc, so it is a political issue.

I talk to them and this works for us Well good for you

Something that always strikes me about these threads (and articles etc which advise smacking/spanking) is the use of the words "defiance" and "disobedience" as almost always being the things that smacking should always be used for.

I can see the advantages as a parent of having obedient, compliant children, but when I think of the adult(s) I want my DC to become, neither obedient nor compliant is anywhere near what I want them to be. Polite, respectful, helpful, and able to make good judgements - yes. So surely if you're parenting in a way which expects obedience and compliance, then it gets to a point where you have to undo all of that teaching, and start again teaching them these skills, since obedience and compliance aren't really valued skills or traits in adults. (Compliance in particular but I'd argue against blind obedience too). And sometimes early conditioning can be really hard to undo.

Something funny - typical parent/child situation here which has been happening for decades.

Child does something stupid, say, dropping a can of paint out of a second floor window. Parent/teacher is livid with child and asks them why they did it.
"I dunno," replies the child, "Michael told me to!"
Teacher/parent replies in an incredulous way "Well if Michael told you to jump off a cliff, would you do it? Of course not! Why on Earth didn't you think??"

However, if the same child is asked to tidy their room, but thought this was a batshit crazy suggestion since it will only get messy again anyway and anyway they LIKE it messy - they would still be expected to obey, comply, whatever, with the parent's request that they do so and would presumably get into trouble if they refused.

Two totally different sets of expectations!

As an aside I wanted to highlight amazingmum's shoe-putting-on example, which is an example of obedience - amazingmum the way you describe this sounds exactly the same as the way I have taught DS that we need to put shoes on - modelling the correct example, removing distractions, reasoning, allowing more time, not having as much time for things if he's taking a long time, even down to offering that he can walk in his socks when it's raining (he's never taken me up on this ) but I don't see this as teaching obedience at all.

Teaching obedience would be, to me, more like what Larry describes. The above is just teaching a child to put on his shoes. And apply to drinking juice without spilling it/using toothpaste correctly/being safe around household objects, whatever.

I would also argue that you can't stop a child's urge to do something. You can redirect it of course. If their urge is to bite when they are fearful or angry, then teaching them to manage that fear or anger means that the biting problem goes away without any conflict. If their urge to bite is just because biting feels nice, then you redirect them to something that it IS okay to bite.

If you just punish them for biting then the urge to biting hasn't gone away, they've just learnt that it's not a good idea to express/indulge that urge in that way, but without giving them an outlet for it you risk them choosing another inappropriate one (e.g. the drawing on the bedroom wall incident) or internalising it which I know sounds like hippy bollocks, but I think there's a lot in it.

And of course they might work out for themselves an acceptable way of addressing their biting/climbing/whatever urge, or you might help them to find an outlet in addition to the punishment. But I think it's wrong to argue that the urge just magically goes away.

But amazingmumof6, when you referred to 'breaking a child's will', you were talking about a child being deliberately defiant and laughing in your face.

I can't imagine a situation that had got to the point of a child acting like this that wouldn't have been preceded either by both parties being in the wrong and the situation becoming totally out of hand; or a young child simply being overtired/loosing their temper/in an environment they couldn't handle. In either situation the solution is to move one or both parties from the situation until they calm down, and carry on from there - not to smack anybody.

This does not mean that you don't set boundaries, just that you remain calm and stable in the face of your child's anger/frustration.

I don't understand when you are suggesting that smacking would be appropriate.

I can't believe ANYONE still thinks it is okay to hit someone else in this day and age. (can't believe I just said day and age either, but never mind...)

It's kind of up there with people beng up in arms about the prospect of marraige for people of same sex. It's like the last 30 years just didn't happen.

Bertie well maybe that is the biggest problem - definitions!

I hear countless examples of people saying(shouting/screaming) " just do as you are told!" I call it "obey".

to me it means the same thing, to others it doesn't

I think hitting and smacking are not the same - others think they are.

I call it "breaking their will" others call it - well, not sure, as I know what I mean by it, but because it sounds horrible, people will not get what I describe.

I think my terminology sounds way worse than what actually goes on - and the other side of the coin is that some fluffy pink descriptions are probably don't measure up to the reality either.

I hope that makes sense, coz I really can not explain myself any better.

but I'm resolved to study a variety of subjects, regarding this whole issue, so I may be able to express myself clearer in the future.

apologies for any upset, and fear not, our children are very happy, healthy, smart, creative, funny and utterly gorgeous, and I do not harm them! yes they are naughty and stubborn and can even be vile at times, but they are safe and sound and loved very much.

I hope that makes people feel better!

Bertie - the words you use to describe what you want your children to be are "Polite, respectful, helpful, and able to make good judgements". How can you expect your children to be these things when you are none of these things (at least online)? Recently, the rudest and most obnoxious people I have met have been those who are vehemently anti-smacking.

If you had never thought about it discipline actually means teaching in Greek. To talk about discipline and teaching together is entirely normal.

Math Children the age of LarryGrylls can understand the concept of dangerous. Mine clearly does. He is also able to understand the concept of right and wrong and also has started to empathise. This is why when he is doing something naughty I don't feel guilty about giving him a smack.

A lot of what is posted about people smacking their children on here is actually abusive. If you really believe that someone is violently abusing their child then surely they should be reported to social services.

If you believe I am abusing my child by smacking then please feel free to ask me for my details via personal message and report me to the appropriate authorities otherwise please do not use that language. It is smacking and it is still legal and therefore it is not abuse.

Waiting for reply.

Quite often we attach adult meaning to childish behaviour too where there is none.

One of the saddest things I have ever read was a woman who I used to know online, she was doing some kind of controlled crying on her baby, I can't remember how old she was, but she was at that age where they learn to pull themselves up on the cot and then can't get down. Anyway she'd left her crying for a few minutes and when she went in to check on her the baby laughed - she took this as a sign of cheekiness or defiance or something and walked straight out!

I just couldn't bear to think of this little girl who was probably so proud and happy about what she'd managed, and finally Mummy comes to see what she's done and when she laughed because she was happy to see her she walked straight out again :(

With older children too sometimes they laugh because they don't know what the appropriate reaction should be, or because they're nervous (I'm terrible for laughing when nervous even as an adult!) or because they do think it's funny - it doesn't matter to them that the carpet is sticky, it's just a joke! Juice on the floor! How silly! etc.

I'm not saying you shouldn't tell them it isn't funny etc but I think often parents perceive that their child is "laughing in their face" when it's not a spiteful action by the child at all. You hear it loads about babies - "She knows it's wrong because she looks as us and smiles while she's doing it!" - she's probably smiling because she's having a great day or she thinks what she's doing is fun or she thinks you approve or she's proud of herself. It's not because she's having soooo much fun defying you!

That's an odd argument.

If it's legal, it's therefore not abuse.

A century ago, it was legal to beat your wife. Until a few years ago, it was legal to rape her.

So er, it wasn't abuse?

Really?

Erm okay reallyyummymummy, I think you are being quite rude in your post (especially "Waiting for reply" - I'm not stalking the thread waiting for someone to insult me!) - I don't think I've been rude at all. If anyone is offended by any of my posts I would be glad if they let me know so that I can clarify and/or apologise, but really I'm just stating an opinion, and I don't believe I've been offensive.

I have stated many times on these boards that discipline = to teach, I also believe that there is far, far more to discipline than rewards and punishments, indeed, these may be such a small part that if you sufficiently manage the other parts, it's possible to cut these out altogether.

I don't believe smacking is abusive. I wouldn't do it and I think there are far better ways and I am having a debate but you are free to discipline your children in any legal and non-abusive way that you wish.

Okay let me rephrase - I don't believe ALL smacking is abusive.

I don't think children do understand danger when they are 3. They understand the oven is 'hot, hot, hot', and they might translate 'dangerous' as 'don't touch' but that isn't the same as understanding the long term effect of an action and taking a calculated risk.

Point of order mathanxiety: danger/dangerous are perfectly accessible concepts to many three and a half year olds.

YY amazing I think terminology and semantics has a lot to blame for the arguments :)

FWIW I still don't expect DS to do as he's told just because I've said so... which doesn't mean he can do what he wants, and I just have to hope that in the times he doesn't respect my decision, at least he still respects my judgement/authority overall. But I'm open to discussion and reasoned debate, when it's reasonable. I want him to know his voice is important too.