Grayling defending smacking

[seventiesgirl]

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

A lot of the language used on here by anti-smackers is too strong and it is bandied about far to easily.

Young children, around the age of 4, can understand the concept of danger - DS knows not to run out into the road because he will be hit by a car; he knows the difference between hot and cold and he knows not to jump into water without mummy around.

bertie I do see your point and agree with the nervous or embarrassed laughter.
in fact that is the biggest give away when I catch them lying - very useful, thank you kids!

but I can tell the difference between nervous/uncomfortable/shy giggles and the barefaced challanging look on their face, that sneer when you can actually see them thinking - "and what are you going to do about it if I don't stop?"

when they are literally toeing the line. and I'd add they do it fairly confidently! that is never an accident or a mistake and always happens when a child already knows exactly what they are asked to do or stop doing, but choose to ignore the request.

hence the term deliberately. they freely choose to do the opposite. they are waiting for you to tell them how far they can go. they are asking you a question, so you actually have to react because you need to answer that question!

do you see what I'm describing?

I don't think children understand unnatural dangers when they're 3. There's nothing instinctively dangerous about putting a live, plugged in electric charger in your mouth because nothing exists in nature which is this dangerous.

Cars and busy roads are obvious dangers because of the noise and the speed which the cars pass. Water is dangerous, but most children in our country/society are not brought up with free access to water, so they do not understand the dangers and can easily drown. A friend on facebook is visiting Guatemala currently and she has just posted a picture of a woman doing her washing on a little island in the middle of a river. Across the water from her on a separate little island you can see a baby just sitting there, watching her! Now, there's no way as a parent that you'd ever put your baby in that situation if you thought there was a chance it was dangerous, so she must have absolute trust that her baby, firstly, won't fall/crawl into the water, and secondly, that it would know what to do if it did. There's really fascinating stuff in the book The Continuum concept about very little babies who have grown up in and around water.

Contrast this to my DS at 3 who when told "That's dangerous/you'll break it/you'll fall off" would reply cockily "I won't! See! I didn't!"

You can teach them to respect the dangers of certain stuff by showing or letting them find their own limits but if they're just not mature enough or sensible enough to be trusted yet then you need to step in, be the adult and make sure they're not able to have access to those particular things.

My point was in relation to the assertion these words are entirely abstract and mean nothing to a child of this age. This just isn't true of typical development. Children won't have an adult like understanding of the language or the concept but it is just not accurate to suggest it is not something they can grasp as this implies that it's not even worth discussing. Children need their environment to be secured but they also need to be explicitly taught about dangers. A three and a half year old really should have a better understanding that an oven is dangerous than hot hot hot/don't touch.. that level of understanding of danger is more appropriate to an 18 month to 2 year old.

bertie I actually think it is the funniest picture to imagine that my kids do things just because I said so, every time, without hesitation and with a smile on their faces. if only!

but we are not growing robots here, of course! (though they look so similar, they started to look like a Clone Army!)

we have this deal, that when we are pushed for time and there's no time for discussions they will do their best just to do what we ask, and they have to listen to me (us) , but when we have time I (we) will listen to them. we can talk about anything they want, discuss any problems and try to find solutions.
and it works very well.

so IMO opinion there is a time and place for "blind obedience", where they have to "jump as we whistle", but it is never done in a manner of humiliating them or just for the sake of exercising power.

I know what you mean, and I have seen DS do it - he is 4 now and I don't think it happened when he was any younger really. It's quite often a reaction to show me that he's angry at me, I think. Like I like the doors to be closed to keep the heat in and when he's angry about something he'll deliberately go around and open them all because he knows I like them closed. Try to do the exact and utter opposite of what I ask him, etc. TBH I generally ignore this, or physically prevent the behaviour by removing him or similar, rather than making it into a battle. Because I can see he's just having a strop and engaging with it doesn't help. If he turns his anger physically onto me or he's being destructive (which almost never happens) then I take him to his room to calm down because really it's a safety issue (and often my presence is winding him up anyway!)

"and what are you going to do about it if I don't stop?"

"Well, let's see, I basically control your whole world, so where shall I start? Moohahahahaha!!!!" I think is the appropriate answer.

I realise this - it just seems to be the biggest argument for smacking/behaviourist discipline in general IYSWIM?

And yet we find in the end as usual on these threads that we all want the same from and for our DCs, ultimately, and we just achieve it in different ways.

But what would that level of understanding be thunks?

You'll have to go to hospital?

You will be scarred for life?

Your mobility may be impaired and you won't be able to play the piano?

You won't be able to go to the zoo tomorrow?

I think a 3 year old can get their head around don't do it/it will hurt, but they can't understand long term consequences. (Plenty of teenagers can't even do that).

Smacking is bad behaviour. To correct other bad behaviour with bad behaviour is as pointless and illogical as shouting "Don't fucking swear!" at a cursing child.

I despair at how so many people see parenting as some sort of adversarial contest beween them and their children, who must always lose. I also despair at the language some people use about their kids, as though they are innately bad and need making good. Too many people lack self-awareness and do stuff like what BertieBotts describes in that case of the little girl laughing and her mother seeing it as defiance. Why are people so quick to interpret children's behaviour as naughtiness and defiance, etc.? Are people really so woefully unaware of normal developmental stages that they don't understand what certain behaviours are about (and lying is actually an mportant thing children must test out, btw)? IMHO, many people are using their children as the whipping boy (pun only semi-intended) for their own issues; having a chip on their shoulder about, for example, people taking advantage of them, so unconsciously getting revenge for that by smacking or harshly punishing their own child for behaviour that that very chip makes them wrongly interpret.

Smacking a child always makes an adult the person in the wrong. There is no misdemeanour a child can commit that merits them being physically hurt by the people they love and trust most. And I have come full circle... You model good behaviour, not scare and hurt a child into it. And smacking is not good behaviour.

DS understands that hot things can burn, he probably doesn't know what a burn actually is, but he knows that it REALLY REALLY REALLY hurts because I've told him this.

I don't think 3 year olds are able to process long term consequences no, but "You might get burnt and that would really hurt you a lot" does matter to a 3 year old, because they don't like the concept of things really hurting, plus it's immediate, and you can relate it back to something they remember like the time they fell off their bike.

ive tapped ds bum before when he has biten another child but i dont agree with smacking

Exactly what Bertie said, Merry. It is important to build up verbal understanding of danger though you can't rely on it to keep a child safe. It needs to be reiterated again and again and as above within the context of an environment an adult controls for danger too. Both are important on an on going basis, it's not either/or. Slightly off the topic, I just feel strongly that it is important these concepts are explained albeit in an age appropriate way from the start.

I am wondering why it wouldn't strike Amazingmum to buy and install outlet guards instead of breaking the will of a child to stick a tongue in an outlet. Most home hazards can be childproofed pretty effectively and cheaply.

Thunkshead -- true, 'hot' is something a child much younger could be expected to understand and yes, concepts need to be enlarged upon as children grow and develop, but the concept of injuring an eye or causing blindness is still a very abstract one to a child of 3.8. A child that age is still too young to understand what that might mean. At that age a child is quite possibly used to the idea of something getting hurt and being kissed better. The concept of 'next week' is very hazy and the idea that a booboo arising from 'dangerous' behaviour would still be there next week leaves them with their eyes glazed over.

ReallyYummy I disagree with you completely. In particular, I do not understand how you can assert that teaching right from wrong in the case of 'do not hit' can be accomplished by hitting or whatever you want to call it (this is the bottom line of your argument). There can be a difference between what is legal and what is right, or wrong obviously if an adult finds it difficult to distinguish the difference the child must be very confused indeed.

Children of approximately 4 still hit each other and take each other's toys, still go ahead and do impulsive things despite the glimmerings of appreciation of what is right and what is wrong. They still think it is 'right' to get their own way. As they become aware (through teaching and through their own reasoning and development of empathy) that there are behaviours that are right and behaviours that are wrong they may try to think a little before acting, but can't do this reliably, and their motivation is normally the consequence they associate with making the acceptable choice or making the unacceptable one -- it comes from outside themselves; they crave the approval of important people in their lives, and at this stage catching them being good can accomplish a huge amount in terms of training.

Using their toys, they will sometimes mimic scenarios of children doing unacceptable things and an authority figure weighing in. Then they can turn around and do the exact same thing to another child and feel very aggrieved when the authority figure steps in and they are on the receiving end of the criticism.

They become very conscious of The Rules about age 5-6, which is the golden age of telling tales on other children to the teacher so right and wrong/acceptable and unacceptable/Do and Don't are there as concepts but only in limited forms; the morality of tattling is something beyond their ability to consider. Even up to about age 7 or 8 they are still progressing along the way to understanding the concepts they have a sense of fairness that expresses itself in the question 'what's in this for me?' It is really only after this stage that children begin to feel any personal responsibility to maintain the value system they live in.

But, using the immortal words of Big Cook Ben, isn't that exactly what you are doing when you are teaching a child that an oven is 'hot, hot, hot'.

I'm not arguing that you shouldn't teach a child about danger, just that its stretching it to say that they reliably understand danger. To do this I think you have to be able to predict consequences in a range of situations based on previous experience in similar situations and assess risk. 4 year olds can begin to do this, but I would say that generally if they have an accident, it is the responsibility of the supervising adult.

Smacking doesn't teach a child about danger. I can't think of any situation where its the best way to teach anything.

Except perhaps how to smack. You can teach somebody to give a good smack if you give them plenty of examples of smacking.

ReallyYummy, no child of four can maturely understand that he shouldn't run into the road because it's dangerous and be depended upon never to do it. There is a big difference between understanding the words and having the self control and maturity never to run out after a ball or to run across to greet granny, etc. And at four no child can be relied upon to be that mature all the time.

You can teach a child loads by giving them a smack. You can teach them to smack other people. You can teach them to hate you for hurting them. You can teach them to hate themselves for making you hurt them. You can teach them to ignore their feelings and pretend being hit doesn't hurt or humiliate them. And you can teach them to hit their children when they have them and pretend that they are not hurting their children by hitting them.

Were we all here smacked as children? I know it's the age old argument but mine aren't of this kind of age yet and I honestly do not think being smacked has damaged me one bit. I never hated my parents or myself and I certainly never hit anyone else. Likewise for my brother, my cousins, friends etc. We all stayed on the straight and narrow and showed a lot of respect for our parents which I don't see much reflected in the teens I know now.

math, seriously - do you really think I have no safety plugs in my house with 6 kids?

(Obviously not 100% of the time, we were children after all. )

I asked because it wasn't clear why you were talking about preventing a child from sticking her tongue in an outlet.

OxfordBags very well said.

Math, you said it was not possible to teach the meaning of those words to children of this age range but thanks for the lecture on child development of language. I might just stick with my post grad level specialist training and years of being a speech therapist though... there is no reason to believe that all typically developing children of three and a half cannot understand an instruction to stop doing something because it is dangerous and might hurt someone. This is where it starts. Does that child have an understanding of the specifics of dangers they haven't experienced? No, but that is no reason to say they have no understanding of the word dangerous and can't respond to it in context. Verbal scaffolding is part of that learning.

BTW, socket covers are actually dangerous: www.fatallyflawed.org.uk/