Grayling defending smacking

[seventiesgirl]

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

Bertie I agree with your post back up a bit about 'defiance' and 'obedience'. i would also add 'naughty' .... It's a whole set of words that I just don't think make sense in a functional relationship.

My children can be thoughtless, stubborn, mean, rebellious etc... (As well as cooperative, kind, thoughtful, compliant...) etc... but I can't think of a time when they have been "naughty" as in getting illicit pleasure from doing something not for its own sake but because it is breaking a rule at home.

amazingmum I didn't read "breaking their will" as meaning turning your children into zombies. But I do think you mean something different by it than the normal run of encouraging, nudging and demonstrating good choices to children and setting boundaries and expectations.

But in the example of the 4 year old who apparently understands that you shouldn't run into the road, they might have a concept of danger as the opposite of safe, and understand "Don't do that it's dangerous". That doesn't mean they understand danger in a practical useful way and have road sense. I don't think anybody is arguing that you don't use the word danger until a child can sensibly judge risk. (That might never happen for some people...).

However, it appears that there can also be a tendency to go too far the other way. "My 4 year old understands me when I say danger therefore he understands danger". They certainly can't be taught to understand danger through smacking.

FlorriesDragons you asked about if people were smacked as children.

I was smacked as a child. I don't really know whether it has 'done me any harm' but I can certainly say that I don't think it helped me or did me any good. It did not model a better way to do things. I was not very confident as a child, and maybe being smacked did not help this. I love my parents dearly and being smacked did not stop that. But that is not an argument for doing it! Even children who are treated very badly by their parents can love them. I love my parents dearly but did not agree with their views on smacking. And I can very much remember being smacked when I had not intended to do anything wrong.

I do think it can harm a relationship with a parent.

I do not agree with smacking children, but I admit when my DD was younger I did sometimes smack her. I gently did it because I was not sure what to do! Maybe I was trying to parent as I was parented!

Anyway, I read some books (like Raising Happy Children, by Jan Parker and Jan Stimpson) and it made great sense, one of the titles inside the book is 'smacking isn't the solution.'

I learnt through parenting courses and reading and just experience that there are other ways to teach, encourage and discipline a child in a positive and affirming way.

Just as I would expect my boss at work, leaders at church, friends or wider family to let me know by actions other than hitting or smacking if I was in the wrong - so I would want always to be able to let any children know if their behaviour was not acceptable in a way that did not involved hitting or smacking.

If you just told them it was dangerous they might not stop.
If you told them it was dangerous they might equally stop.
They might stop because they saw a shiny object that distracted them.
They might stop because they misheard you and thought you said 'would you like a lollipop?'
If you told them to stop without the 'because...' they might also stop.
If you told them to stop because it was hurting the other person or might hurt them, they might stop too.
You can't always tell what element of an instruction has been the decisive one.

And of course, you are always adding to vocabulary and increasing the complexity of sentences as your child develops. Children are learning thousands of words per year from 0-4/5/6 through constant exposure/repetition. Though they are very abstract concepts, the words themselves may have a meaning for them (depends very much on the individual child and their experiences and associations) although a negative association is more likely than an understanding of meaning (adult seemed agitated, adult raised voice, adult swept child away from item that was dangerous or took item away fast) the actual danger (electrocution, blindness) that bothers the adult may not be understandable to the child. The effectiveness of teaching the concept of 'dangerous' to children of 4 needs to be viewed in the context of their tendency to be magical thinkers, to have a difficult time with the concept of permanent change like death or blindness or disfiguration or burning the house down they have no prior experience against which to measure the concept of a disastrous outcome to something 'dangerous' they do. Wishing dead relatives or pets back is characteristic of children of age 4 when dealing with death or disaster. Many develop superhero fantasies where they are the stars.

The impulse control that translates whatever tenuous understanding of meaning of a concept like 'dangerous' they may hold into reliable behaviour isn't there yet, and the ability to translate abstract concepts like right and wrong into restraint of behaviour certainly isn't and won't be for a good while. A child of 3.8 still thinks that what feels right for him is right/ok/a good thing to do and the most effective approach to stopping dangerous behaviour like poking a brother in the eye with a sharp object is not to allow the child to have access to sharp objects and failing that, to concentrate on the empathy for the pain of others element when it comes to what we do with out hands or toys. A child needs empathy to care whether something they do is potentially dangerous for someone else and then needs to care enough to stop doing it.

If it was truly dangerous and very important to stop immediately then attempting to use the occasion to expand vocab would not be a sensible option for the adult.

math because it is a good idea for them to know that they shouldn't do it, plug cover or not.
I can not control everything and nor would I want to.

nobody can.
no matter how much a child is supervised or your house is safety proof, there is just no way you can rely on external control alone or forever!

I don't stick a fork in a plug hole, but it is not that plug cover that stops me., but the fact that I would probably die. I have no will to do it
maybe I had a will to do it, when I was little, but it is gone. and even if I had an urge to do it, I wouldn't actually do it.

Although for now the plugs are covered, I want my kids to get to that point when it is not a plug cover that stops them and even if there's a temptation, they will choose what is safe or right or logical etc.

ultimately you want them to learn and know how to control themselves, because you can't guarantee an environment that is free of temptation or bad influence.
IMO it would be even better if they had no wish/will or urge to do something negative or dangerous.
and yes they might be naturally disinterested in such things or they might be taught to ignore them.
either is better than to not teach them that dangerous or harmful things exist by altering the environment only.

If the environment has been rendered safe then supervision until they are old enough to really get the concept of danger, to have a grasp of reality, and to understand the real consequences of messing with electricity, the odd reminder would probably be enough. Waiting it out and making sure they are safe in the meantime works and there is no need for the anxiety that leads to drastic measures like smacking. I don't see how there might be a need for smacking as a backup if the DCs are basically safe.

for the last time I do not mean "to break their will" as a general thing!

I meant it as a will to do a particular thing that is undesirable.

let me try and illustrate it.

say you have a growing tree (child), but it has some faults or dry branches or whatever (bad behaviour, stubbornness, being willful etc) and these things stopping the tree from growing and developing properly.

I think it is a far kinder option and a better long term plan to trim away or remove these imperfections, and do it sooner than later, then compromising the quality of the tree.

I'm not gardener so this analogy is no way perfect, but I hope you get the gist of it.

so you need to remove the will to run on to the road. you need to remove the will to stick a finger in baby's eyes. or to cut an electric cable with scissors, the list is endless.

we all do these things I just have a phrase for it that sounds odd. (and I think it is because I just don't know how to translate it any better)

I do not mean to break the child's spirit - entirely different thing.

if anyone gets this, say Yee-har!

math stop misunderstanding me on purpose, please.

I did not say smacking was a backup, why do you constantly put words in my mouth?

That 'will to run onto the road' thing only works if you think a child has a will to run onto the road, and that might happen (not a certainty) only if you take your eyes off your business and let it happen. Same goes with scissors and electrical cables -- how is a child with scissors unsupervised to the degree that he gets anywhere near electrical cables? Why are the cables exposed? The list isn't endless; all you have to do is anticipate and supervise properly and make sure there are never idle hands available for experimenting with whatever dangerous stuff you have in your carelessness left lying around.

I would prefer to say 'a child loves to run'. A child perhaps has a park a little distance from the house to run in. A child who can run can wear reins and can be encouraged to hold a hand by judicious use of praise and approval, or failing that can sit strapped into in a buggy until the park is reached. A child may have a whim to run but mostly a child has a deep desire for the approval of the beloved parent and that can be worked with very effectively. If you don't think a child has this desire to please and to have a parent's approval no doubt it all looks like a fight club, with sneering and defiance and disobedience all around.

Amazingmum, I can say hand on heart that I have never seen a sneer on the face of any of my children, and I have never seen any of them deliberately defy. I have not smacked. I have been organised to the nth degree, and I have been firm but without any counting backwards or the threat implied in that sort of tactic. How do you 'break the will' of a child to stick a tongue in an outlet if you do not rely on outlet guards alone? Because 'breaking the will' and 'conditioning' (you state you do both - and you did not qualify the phrase 'breaking the will' with a 'to do X') are not the same things at all. You have neither confirmed nor denied that you smack.

I do not understand how relations can get to the point where a child sneers at a parent. (Like Merymouse 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.) To my way of thinking, something has gone very wrong if a child responds like that, either in the child or in the perception of a parent.

When smacking is part of a parent's arsenal the child knows that is the bottom line, that no situation is truly open ended and they might as well be hung for a sheep as a lamb. A child in a home where smacking is acceptable knows they do not have a choice and so they do not learn to choose good behaviour -- they learn to avoid punishment. Likewise they do not learn to choose responsibility around dangerous things - they learn to choose to avoid wrath.

Amazing I think all the examples you give are solved by a child's brain maturing and actively keeping them out of danger until this process has happened.

However, I am guessing that what you mean is that there are certain situations where you need children to do what they are told purely because they have been told to do so and not because they agree with the reason why. (e.g. respond to the word 'stop', come back when you call and learn the spellings anyway, even though it seems pointless.).

I am assuming you actually wouldn't want a child to loose the trait of stubbornness, as this also translates into being able to stick to a task, or the trait of curiosity, because that would be tragic. However, I can agree that life is pretty difficult if everything is up for debate. I just can't think of a single situation where the best way to impress this upon a child would be by smacking them.

People have given various examples on this thread showing when they think smacking would be a good idea, and there hasn't been a single one where there isn't a better option that doesn't involve smacking. You keep giving examples of things children shouldn't do and then saying that of course you use plug sockets, or of course you wouldn't smack a child in that situation. Great. We all agree then! Don't smack.

(lose trait of stubbornness - clearly I was off sick when we had to learn that spelling...)

I agree re safety,if you are vigilant it cuts down on a huge amount of confrontation need.I personally have never had to punish in any way re safety.However parenting isn't just about safety it's about a shed load of other problems that crop up and sorry but reasoning etc does not always work.

As I said. I have 3 well behaved kids who will still argue and attempt to defy,they are all bright and mummy reasoning just doesn't cut it over a certain age.Kids are designed to defy over a certain age,it is part of development.

My original point was that as a society we are throwing the baby out with the bath water.I don't smack but sometimes do struggle to find alternatives.I read up and try all sorts of things,I am also equipped with knowledge of children etc.Not all children are so lucky and even I am even questioning the way I do things.I look at parents who give a short tap not in anger and compare it to my firm,measured reasoning which gets argued with which then results in reasoned threats which don't bother my dd in particular as she isn't materialistic,which then cranks everything up a gear and a small misdemeanour turns into 3rd world war with a punishment far bigger than the original crime merited.

I think due to lack of ways to discipline parents are reduced to alternatives which quite frankly I think are in some cases more damaging than a measured tap-replacing fear with fear means you still have fear.Understandably frustrated shouting,threatening,taking things away that aren't ours to take,the naughty step(which is now very taboo),punishing with food,ignoring bad behaviour and the worse of the lot doing nothing are all being questioned and have been argued as being damaging.

Soooooo what is needed?Parenting classes imvho for the many parents across the spectrum who feel confused and replace smacking with other forms of discipline which go on far longer and I personally think are more damaging if anger is involved.

Rant and argue all you like but the fact is Grayling in his comments have highlighted a need for kids to be disciplined and parents to have support.

Will the Tories give support- not a chance.I think parents need parenting classes in the early years,at 8 and during the teenage years.All parents,not the few asbo parents but all as in my experience the need for support goes across all classes and is very wide spread. This arrogant perception that damaging/struggling parents are a few lower class single mums who clobber their kids on the way to the pub couldn't be further from the truth.

amazingmum - yes I think I get the gist of what you mean by breaking their will to ...., trimming the branches, nipping it in the bud etc...

I don't think it is just a different way of expressing what all parents do when they stop their children running in the road, get them to put their shoes on, do homework etc...

Where I see normal toddler behaviour (or for that matter teenager...) e.g. lack of impulse control, poor risk awareness, immature empathy etc... to be managed as they grow up, you see a character fault to be corrected.

Kids don't develop impulse control, risk awareness, empathy and moral reasoning through a regime punishment and reward, they learn it by growing up. Fundamentally they are not trees, or dogs.

I do use the behaviourist approach you describe in some limited way to reinforce good habits - but it it ever becomes a battle of wills it is better to give up on the prospect of teaching "a lesson" and just concentrate on keeping them safe, distracting them, avoiding temptation, getting whatever it is that needs doing done etc...without letting them run wild.

The shock value of a very occasional single brief smack when DC are unable to get themselves back under control should not be underestimated.

I also think a lot of these over dramatic posts re short controlled smacks are from a lot of posters fully aware that their parenting is far from perfect but think the phrase " I don't smack" makes it alright,it doesn't.None of us are perfect parents.

"If the environment has been rendered safe then supervision until they are old enough to really get the concept of danger, to have a grasp of reality, and to understand the real consequences of messing with electricity, the odd reminder would probably be enough. Waiting it out and making sure they are safe in the meantime works and there is no need for the anxiety that leads to drastic measures like smacking. I don't see how there might be a need for smacking as a backup if the DCs are basically safe. "

There is no such thing as a safe environment and, even if you created one at home, they would still be exposed to danger when out. There are many societies where children are exposed to serious danger and manage to navigate it from a very early age, far younger than 3.8. I am really not convinced by your assertions about what children can and cannot conceptualise at an early age. My children do understand the concept of "danger" and "dangerous". What exactly is going on in their heads I don't know and I am sure you are right that they do not entirely get the concept of permanence yet. Maybe they do more associate the word with immediate pain but so what? If I say something is dangerous, they know to avoid it and they know the consequences of disobeying are serious (more serious than the smack...).

To me, it is a question of doing a sensible risk assessment as a parent. For instance, having a plastic dinosaur in the bath is, to me, an acceptable risk. In the very unlikely (

I don't buy this 'I only smack him when he runs in the road' argument.If your child has not yet developed the sense to not run on roads, then they need to never ever be put in a position where they can do so.The stakes are just too high to rely on the deterrent affect of a smack.So the smack is then pointless!

IT IS WRONG!!! Would you tell your child to hit their friend if there friend did something wrong. If you would then God help us - if you wouldn't then why would you do that to your child. Surely you teach your child that it is wrong to hit so how can you then hit them?
And to say there is no other way is just being lazy, uneducated and poor parenting. I have 2 DC and have never smacked, hit or threatend to hit them. Sometimes they are naughty. I'm from Sweden and none of my friends or family have ever been hit or hit their children. I was chocked hearing people in England thinking it is ok to smack children. And they won't respect you they will just be scared of you. DH was hit as a child and his relationship with his parents is very poor. Maybe not all due to the hitting but definately payed a part.

Sorry didn't finish sentence in previous post. Was going to say sometimes they might do something naghty or have atantrum etc but there are other very effective ways of dealing with it that are not damaging to them.
Sometimes you especially with younger kids you might have to percist with one strategy for a while before it is successfull but there are other ways to dicipline you child. And have patience.........

"And of course, you are always adding to vocabulary and increasing the complexity of sentences as your child develops. Children are learning thousands of words per year from 0-4/5/6 through constant exposure/repetition. Though they are very abstract concepts, the words themselves may have a meaning for them (depends very much on the individual child and their experiences and associations) although a negative association is more likely than an understanding of meaning (adult seemed agitated, adult raised voice, adult swept child away from item that was dangerous or took item away fast) the actual danger (electrocution, blindness) that bothers the adult may not be understandable to the child. The effectiveness of teaching the concept of 'dangerous' to children of 4 needs to be viewed in the context of their tendency to be magical thinkers, to have a difficult time with the concept of permanent change like death or blindness or disfiguration or burning the house down they have no prior experience against which to measure the concept of a disastrous outcome to something 'dangerous' they do. Wishing dead relatives or pets back is characteristic of children of age 4 when dealing with death or disaster. Many develop superhero fantasies where they are the stars."

Sigh. Yes, of course. None of this changes the fact that you said it was impossible for a child of 3 and a half to understand the word dangerous.
Yet again, thanks for teaching me all of this. I didn't know any of it before even though it is my job to explain this stuff

You're kind of shooting yourself in the foot here, math too. The negative association is the first feeling/meaning attributed to the word dangerous, a sort of prefoundation of semantic meaning if you will. Unfortunately if you take that logic (and don't believe that there is what we might call a "relational frame" developing whereby the word danger/dangerous extends to other elements of the environment in a way mediated by language), then you are actually supporting a position where it would make sense to smack a child to stop them from doing something dangerous e.g. the smack would signal danger/act as an aversive reinforcer or punishment which would be likely to reduce the recurrence of the behaviour in the future.

Adults negotiate the development of meaning through their actions and the language they use. This is part of the reason that it differs from child to child depending on their associations. Experiences and how adults react to and explain them to children create meaning in conjunction with the child's focus at that point in time.

"If it was truly dangerous and very important to stop immediately then attempting to use the occasion to expand vocab would not be a sensible option for the adult."

As for this, ffs. Really!!! Thank God you have informed me of this, there is a lightbulb flashing over my head because I was saying the opposite to this in challenging one sentence of yours, which is that a 3.8 year old couldn't possibly understand the meaning of the words danger/dangerous

The point is that whatever you do children will be making associations. If the word "danger" and "dangerous" are used in any way whether consciously on the part of the adult or not, the child will "bank" this as part of their understanding of this word. That is part of word learning. If you smack while saying "dangerous" and it creates a negative association, that will become part of the meaning of the word. I don't advocate that, but it is a basic tenet of both behavioural and neurodevelopmental accounts of child language learning.

However, feel free to continue expounding on why I am wrong here...

So Elin what are these other ways?

I have never and will never coax,bargain or beg.The naughty step is seen as stigmatising and is now frowned upon,I'd never withhold food,continuously making threats or replacing fear with fear doesn't sit comfortably with me,ditto shouting and taking things that aren't mine to take.

What do you do that doesn't damage if a child is say rude or naughty and doesn't listen to what you have to say,isn't materialistic and can come back with clever answers time after time?

Where is the evidence that the naughty step is stigmatising? I've heard that it shouldn't be called the naughty step, rather the Thinking Step or similar, but not that the whole practice of removing your child from a situation and giving them time to calm down and think about things needs to be scrapped.

All I know is when child minding we were told by county not to use it as it was now frowned upon and I can see why,kind of sends a message that you don't like the child.I remember being sent to my room and feeling so resentful,that nobody was listening or understood and everybody didn't like me.

Should add that question is re my own 8 and above children.I actually bizarrely found pre-schoolers a breeze, ditto my mindees and school kids a doddle(peer pressure,structure,firm class management and school sanctions work a treat).

My kids now 8 and over,whole different ball game-they answer back with clever answers and push the boundaries far more.

PolkadotCircus- From an early age I have tried to explain to my DC why not to do something. My 21 month old does not talk (just words) but he understands a lot. If I ask him not to do somehing he understands he shouldn't do it. Maybe he doesn't understand why which is why it is so important to explain. Obviously at an age appropriate level. And the second thing is that he might understand but decide to ignore me and keep doing what he shouldn't be doing so if my attemps of asking him to stop are unsuccessful I would remove home from the situation or try to distract him with something else. This can have 2 outcomes. A) I am able to distract him on to something else which is usually the case B) He has a tantrum. I leave him to have a tantrum and after him stomping and screaming for a bit I put my arms out to him and asks if he wants a cuddle (which he usually does after a minute or so.) With my DD now 7 this is what I did with her and I don't ususally have any problems with her bahaviour. She knows what is expected from her and what she should or shouldn't do. I have never used reward charts, naughty step etc. If DD has done something or is being naughty I would again explain to her why she shouldn't do it and depending on what she is doing explain how it makes me feel i.e. it is making me upset.. She might question things and that is fine. It is important to talk about things and not just give them a blank NO. Of course all children are different and different strategies might work for different kids but in my opinion smacking can only be wrong. Key is be patient, consistent, explain things and lots of love and attention. That's what works for me anyway