Grayling defending smacking

[seventiesgirl]

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

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.

A child can associate meaning with a word but it will not necessarily be the meaning the adult thinks the child understands. The context of what I said about understanding the word 'dangerous' was LarryGrylls telling us he had explained what dangerous meant and then mentioning seeing his DS go right ahead and do something dangerous (and getting smacked for it despite the fact that LG knew there were risks attached to allowing him the particular toy he was using) and also Reallyyummy's bald assertion wrt 'dangerous'. 3.8 is just too young to have arrived at a working understanding of the word dangerous that will act as a constraint on behaviour every time danger (as perceived by an adult) is present.

You can scaffold all you like but you cannot assume a child of that age would understand the concept. At that age if you are going to smack as punishment for failing to remember something is dangerous you are being very unfair. A smack as a way to introduce a negative association with the word is wrong too (imo) but it is fairer from a developmental pov. .

Further to what Xenia said -- if a parent 'casually' lost it, gave a smack, and then apologised and discussed things with the child it might actually do some good. It could show the child that everyone has feelings, everyone loses their temper sometimes, but that we also recognise when we have been wrong and have hurt someone and then apologise. A good example of how a child could behave when temper flares.

However, in the end, the parent/child relationship is unashamedly a one way power structure and children need to do what they are told to have a happy life.

I disagree that it's a power structure. That sort of thinking leads to the fear that results in smacking. I disagree that doing what they are told leads to a happy life. I think the most important thing I taught all my children now that I see the oldest three as adults was to say no, to communicate respectfully, and above all to think for themselves. As the mother of girls, I believe it is really important to teach them above all else to be true to themselves, to think for themselves and that not doing what you are told is often a very good idea.

I also disagree that providing an environment that is not as safe as could be is good for children, and I especially disagree that providing a child with a toy that could blind another (the rationale for your smack being the possibility of blinding the little brother, iirc) is a fair risk to take. It is not fair to assume a child understands what he must not do and why not, go ahead and give him a dangerous toy, and then smack him when he very predictably pokes his brother with it. You were setting him up for failure and punishment, and setting up the younger brother for serious risk of injury. Why take a risk that is that serious?

Anyway lt us hope the anti smackers prevail - they certainly are. Very very little physical discipline of children is lawful in the UK and the more that is communicated to UK fundamentalist Muslim religious teaching classes, religious sects as well as into homes the better.

It is unlawful to leave a mark. It is unlawful to use an implement. I would rather smacking a child were in law the same in England as smacking a wife so let us hope either the law moves that way or parental views move to that position.

I think the law will change in time. Attitudes to hitting children have moved a long way in the last thirty years.

So many people who hit their kids do so in an embarrassed 'I have hit my child twice but I try not to' way that it feels inevitable to me that it will get less prevalent not more.

Math, you don't flash professional qualifications but you seem to me to LECTURE instead of discuss, which is what I find distasteful. In the discussion here, you have been at pains to try and refute the idea that children understand the word danger at a certain age for no apparent reason other than ensuring you still sound like you are all knowing about child development. At no point have I suggested that children's understanding is the same as an adults.. I originally made the point because I know that sometimes people avoid using words like these and just shout e.g. no because they are avoiding this because they feel it will be too hard a concept. That is fine at 18 month or 2, but this logic at 3.8 can be unhelpful in the long run.

You, in giving an extended lecture about your understanding of child development in an authoritative tone, invited me to clarify my position because you were effectively telling me I was wrong to even comment on the idea that a child can not possibly understand the word or concept 'danger'. I know I am not and I think it is unhelpful to suggest I am. As I have said from the start it is about securing the environment AND using age appropriate language and actions to develop understanding of meaning. If you never use the word in context, you never develop that understanding which will become more and more important as time goes on.

Also, where are YOU on this thread, if you are so unhappy with professionalised postings? I have shared my own challenges and said even though I know all this I get my language use wrong in moments of stress and I have shared my history. Your posts read like informational handouts from the children's centre, yet you think I am the one flashing my qualifications???

Math,

"A child can associate meaning with a word but it will not necessarily be the meaning the adult thinks the child understands. The context of what I said about understanding the word 'dangerous' was LarryGrylls telling us he had explained what dangerous meant and then mentioning seeing his DS go right ahead and do something dangerous (and getting smacked for it despite the fact that LG knew there were risks attached to allowing him the particular toy he was using) and also Reallyyummy's bald assertion wrt 'dangerous'. 3.8 is just too young to have arrived at a working understanding of the word dangerous that will act as a constraint on behaviour every time danger (as perceived by an adult) is present."

What does anyone associate with an abstract word like "danger" or "dangerous". I am sure most adults would hang a particular material consequence on the word. As far as I can see (as a simple person) the problem with the concept of danger is that it is probabilistic. If you do something dangerous, you are not guaranteed a bad outcome but the possible bad outcome is very bad. That is why I want them to associate the word danger with a guaranteed bad outcome if they disobey (a smack).

For example, when they are in the bath, I explain what drowning is and that is why you don't mess around in the bath. They have both fallen under the water in the past and they know it is scary. We discuss this by me asking open questions of them about why you shouldn't mess around in the bath and what could happen. I also tell them that if they do push one another they will get a smack (this consequence does not actually happen to the 2 year old as he does not get it but he still gets the explanation, so it seems fair). However, I also tell them the smack is not why they should not be doing it. And when I ask my older son why he shouldn't mess around in the bath he tells me it is "because it is dangerous" and "you can drown". What he does not tell me is that you will get a smack. So, he does get it.

Ditto, when we are near cars, I tell them they have to hold my hand. I have explained that if a car should hit them they will end up in hospital. They know what a a hospital is, both through reading copious children's books with hospitals in them and through knowing of sick people in hospitals. They know that if they run they will get a smack. But, again, they know there is a worse possible consequence than the smack. And I know this because we have lots of chats as we are holding hands about danger, cars, hospitals etc.

So, they do understand danger on two levels. Firstly, their Daddy using the word means they will get smacked if they disobey (not a negative consequence I use for anything except danger and hurting people). Secondly, there is potentially a much worse consequence. Due to this, I can take them both out on my own without a buggy. That is a strong positive gain for them. They are both fit and we can have fun as a threesome without the need for one of them to be strapped in and pushed like a baby.

And, once again, Math, I would love to know where you get your child development ideas from? And what the variation in understanding of 3.8 year olds is? I may not have any qualifications in child developments but I am logical and I feel I can deduce from discussions with my children what they "get" and what they don't.

You smack because you can

"I also disagree that providing an environment that is not as safe as could be is good for children"

Your above statement is considered incorrect by virtually all experts in the field. Please see the link below for one article on risk:

www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/supporting-young-children-to-engage-with-risk-and-challenge-2089

Quoting from the above:

Why do children need to experience risk and challenge?

Everyday life always involves a degree of risk and children need to learn how to cope with this. They need to understand that the world can be a dangerous place and that care needs to be taken when negotiating their way round it. Inevitably the most powerful learning comes from not understanding or misjudging the degree of risk. Similarly the toddler who ignores the warning, ?Don?t touch, it?s hot?, and feels what ?hot? means, is not likely to make the same mistake again. Being told about possible dangers is not enough ? children need to see or experience the consequences of not taking care.

If we observe young children, we can see that, from an early age, they are motivated to take risks ? they want to learn to walk, climb, ride a tricycle ? and are not put off by the inevitable spills and tumbles they experience as they are developing coordination and control. In early years settings children find their own, often quite ingenious, physical challenges and, in doing so, learn about their own strengths and limitations.

"Children who are sheltered from risk and challenge when young will not be able to make judgments about their own capabilities and will not be well equipped to resist peer pressure in their later years. Jennie Lindon warns that: ?Adults who analyse every situation in terms of what could go wrong, risk creating anxiety in some children and recklessness in others.? (Lindon, 1999 p10)
Children who learn in their early years to make their own reasoned decisions rather than simply doing what they are told to by others will be in a stronger position to resist the pressures they will inevitably face as they reach their teenage years. In contrast, overprotected children may well make reckless decisions which put them in physical or moral danger."

There are many many studies which link sensible risk taking with better long term psychological and physical outcomes for children. What is important is to conduct a reasonable risk assessment. To go back to my two with a toy dinosaur in the bath, my risk assessment would be that it is a TOY designed for 3+ children, it is thus not that sharp. I will be there all the time (as my wife or I always are when they are in the bath). In the very unlikely event one puts it near the other one's eyes, the reflex of closing one's eyes will protect the eye. Secondly, I will intervene very quickly if I see it about to happen (as I did). If they sit on the dinosaur there may (and I think it unlikely) be a miniscule risk of muscular damage or bruising. This will not last long and they will heal quickly. That was my risk assessment. As to the positives, they know that sharp things can hurt them already, they know that falling underwater is scary and dangerous, they are already mapping meaning on to the word danger and are able to negotiate themselves through "risky" situations. That is modelling real behaviour in the real world.

I'm amazed Xenia is so anti-smacking

That seems a strange comment.
I may not agree with some of her views, but she is a successful woman and smacking is an expression of failure.
I can understand someone doing it when stressed but they should then apologise to the child.
You are not allowed to hit anyone else so it seems bizarre that it is only the small and weak-as soon as the child was big and strong enough to hit you back, so that it hurts, people stop!
At one time it was OK to hit women or the socially inferior-probably with the same arguments!
Teachers manage 30+ children without hitting them, so I don't understand why a parent has to resort to it.

I haven't clicked on the link because I think it is what I have seen before.If it is what I think, then that is not smacking.That is beating .
I am anti smacking but even I can see a huge difference between a hand across a trousered bum, and what is happening in that video.
That just muddies the water of debate.Any smacker looking at that, knows that they would do nothing like it, and so doesn't take on board what anti smackers are saying because they think we are talking about beating!

DD (13, and largely un-smacked in case it's relevant) said "And he's a Tory now ?! - enough said" To be fair she did add "which ones are those BYW Mum ?"

• but she could see it was a good line !

Exotic,

"Teachers manage 30+ children without hitting them, so I don't understand why a parent has to resort to it. "

Well, actually they don't. Most smacking is done pre school. There is one study which shows that children who were smacked aged 2-6 outperformed their peers later on:

www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6926823/Smacked-children-more-successful-later-in-life-study-finds.html

I hesitate to quote this article as I am aware there are probably more studies which go the other way. However, what it does show is that this is still a controversial field and that a lot of the studies which are anti smacking make no distinction between children who are smacked occasionally and those who are beaten.

And, in addition, having observed in a few classrooms recently "managed" is an optimistic word for some teachers! They were there and the children were there and no-one actually got injured. I guess you could call that managing (I did also see some very good teaching, before I get slated for damning the whole profession).

What I think is unequivocally true is that smacking children much above 6 is unnecessary and counterproductive.

And, as for Xenia's views, would you ask someone who saw her pre school children for possibly a few golden hours per week, when the nanny brought them down bathed and in their pjs for a story or a goodnight kiss for advice on child rearing. I think it is actually quite cheeky for her to lecture others on the subject. I would prefer to read her views on her real job, which she is clearly an expert on, though very secretive about what it is.

And, pre-school, ratios are more like 3:1 than 30:1

Threatening to rehome a child's pet is a very very cruel thing

Socharlottet, your post exemplifies what is wrong with this whole discussion. The rehoming comment was mentioned as one that the poster regretted and did thoughtlessly in frustration. When you read discussions on MN you would think there were hundreds of parents who speak and act like parenting textbooks at all times, perhaps even like latter day saints. I just don't buy it. Whatever our knowledge, experience, qualifications etc parenting is unpredictable, difficult and everyone will have ugly and thoughtless moments because they are human. Condemning people as though you have all the answers or 'evidence' is silly. Every situation truly is different. I don't choose to discipline as larrygrylls does but I do know that using smacking as he does really doesn't seem abusive and there are decades of learning theory to suggest paired use of aversives like smacking with instructions/explanations will reduce future occurrences of the behaviour. It isn't for me but I am not going to judge that sort of decision as abusive.

Thunks,

I actually did an "experiment" on my child (not a cruel one!) re smacking.

Once, when he had hurt his brother, I told him he was going to have a punishment but he could choose either a smack or no chocolate for a day (hardly awful...although he does love chocolate). He thought and went for neither (optimistically). I explained that that was not fair and he had to choose one. He then asked for a "not hard" smack. I said it had to be hard enough to hurt otherwise it was not a punishment at all and would he prefer no chocolate. He still opted for the smack and held out his hand. He was smacked and was upset for about 30 seconds. Later I asked him if he was pleased that he chose the smack and he said yes, as he could have chocolate tomorrow.

If smacking is so awful and abusive, why would a child choose it over no chocolate for one day?

Really?

larrygrylls, that link says that children who are smacked get involved in more fights.

larry I really hope you didn't do that 'experiment' and that you invented it to support your argument otherwise you need to take a long hard look at how you are parenting that child

Merry,

You are not reading it carefully. That only applied to children who were smacked aged 7-11. In that study, those smacked 2-6 performed better on almost all positive and negative measures.

I agree with Ste if you can't differentiate between beating and a tap I find that worrying as clearing you wouldn't be able to differentiate between shouting and verbal abuse or reasoning and pandering.

Re the pet re-homing do tell oh parenting expert what one should have done as to be frank the options re disciplining get slimmer and slimmer-let's just give our blessing to rudeness and naughty behaviour and be done with it.

Re Xenia I'm not being funny but this is the woman who thinks mothers should hand ones babies over to a nanny the minute the umbilical cord is cut as she did.I prefer to take my parenting advice from those who have been in the frontline and done the disciplining day after day.

And, as for Xenia's views, would you ask someone who saw her pre school children for possibly a few golden hours per week, when the nanny brought them down bathed and in their pjs for a story or a goodnight kiss for advice on child rearing. I think it is actually quite cheeky for her to lecture others on the subject. I would prefer to read her views on her real job, which she is clearly an expert on, though very secretive about what it is.
Larry way upthread you berated someone for referring to views you'd expressed on other threads. Pot, kettle, black? You seem to be presenting some sort of composite picture of Xenia from things she may have posted on numerous other threads. So why is it okay for you to do that?

Oh I see, you were only referring to the children who were smacked from 2-6.

Anyway I don't find the study (as reported in the article) convincing either way because all the data (whether they were smacked/when they were last smacked/whether they had gone to take drugs/have early sexual activity etc.) appears to have been provided by the 179 teenagers themselves (from a range of social backgrounds? From the same school? the article doesn't say).

You too, Polkadot. It's not on.

Errr because it's kind of relevant.