i believe that parents should have to right to discipline their kids within a certain limit. i would get slapped all the time cause i was always doing stupid stuff. Slapping n stuff is ok, but not beating...
I think it's every parents duty to hit their child if he/she acts like a complete tosser. Maybe if more parents did... the world would be better place. I've also heard that if the child is a different race to the parent, the parent can be charged with racial hatred offenses - crazy!
I approve of beating (or "spanking" for the word sensitive) your kids. Where I live it is common to beat your kids when they misbehave. This may just consist of grabbing them by one arm, spanking them on the but a good couple times and then sending them about their way. Hell, we even got beat in school (edge of a ruler to the knuckles sucks). This is how kids were raised long ago and it works and tough good discipline. I find that parents these days are becoming too lenient and soft and now look at all the problems we are having with our young generations.
When nothing else works, the child has to know you are in control and that there are consiquences to their actions. You are not doing the kid any good if they grow up thinking they are untouchable.
I agree completly. I don't think parents should phyically harmed. Why is it that older people don't get physically hurt when they break the law but children should get physically hurt when they do something hardly as bad as breaking the law?
i dont agree with that "none of my business thing"...if a child is misbehaving and is being smacked around by a parent, you have a moral obligation to step in...and help the parent
A slap is nothing!! When I was a kid, the BELT lived on me!!! I was naughty!!! The belt did nothing to make me stop being naughty!! I had to grow out of being naughty, which finally occured when I was about 16!!
You can tell how much of the belt you have taken going by your avatar!! Ummm...Ever heard of Rodney King by any chance??
I am totally in shock to see how many people here that think its ok to hit kids, call it slapping or what ever. I hope I will never meet you! I would slap you right away. Damn.
Put it this way. The world is in a great mess and so is the society we live in. There is nothing wrong with discipline for God knows we all need it from time to time. Col
That the world is in a mess is no excuse to hit kids. Discipline and hitting are two very different things. If you dont have the ability to raise your kids without hitting them you failed as a parent.
Listen, some people need to understand that children are children. I may not be a parent or even close, but I've dealt with children and I know how it feels to just want to hit them, but you have to learn to control your anger and punch a pillow in private instead (an idea). I used to get beat when I was younger and all that brought was hatred towards my parents. Even though it may not show, you are only pushing your children away by doing it. It may not seem like it now but it does happen. Teaching obedience is one thing, abuse is another.
Looking at how kids are today through lack of discipline proves my point. So, what is the difference in slapping your kids to pull them in line in public or at home? The only difference that I can see is you don't others to see you slapping your kids. Therefore, kids usually work out they can get away with stuff out in public. Failing as a parent? Now, that's another ballpark my friend. I see hundreds of young parents not disciplining their kids out in public and the kids terrorizing the neighbourhood and out of control not really caring about what they do or who they do it to. Col
The kids lack discipline yes. And why ? Because they did not learn discipline at home. You are putting it the way that without hitting there can not be any discipline. Of course there can be discipline without hitting, in public or home. And you have to understand that when the kid get hit, it learns to hit.
You are taking things out of context here. I never said to "only discipline by hitting/slapping". What I am saying is sometimes it is necessary. Of course other forms of discipline should be used and slapping is a last resort. Well, killing them would be the last resort. But one would have to be greatly pained to go that far me thinks! Some do! Col
I categorically do not believe hitting is proper. It is violence on a child, pure and simple, and teaches nothing except that when one can't find a solution, break out into violence. It is a more difficult road to find more creative means to parent, but in my household, it's the only way. And if I see a parent hitting their kid, damn right, I get in their business, in short order, to stop the violence, then absolutely, I report them to authorities. The child may be hit again - but will always remember that at least one person said, and said publically, it is wrong. I wholeheartedly agree with login, Duality, and others of like mind. Yes, I was hit as a kid, and this has marked me with a mindset my entire life: it is everyone's business, and a child needs protection, not violence - in any form, rationalized under any guise.
Ooooh. A polarized set of views in this thread! One camp thinks it's fine to smack children as discipline and the other camp is opposed to smacking entirely. Personally, I am of the view that a smack (note the singular) may at times be used. Never heavy enough to leave a mark and never delivered in anger. I was brought up with the leather belt - both at home and at school - I have to say I'm glad those days are gone! Getting to the original poster's question - kids like to push you as far as they can and often do so when they think you won't be able to do anything about it - i.e. shopping. My own stance would be not to intervene unless it was clearly excessive.
Friend, my problem is I that don't know anyone sainted enough to do just that. When your child is screaming that he wants THAT TOY!!!!!!, I know of no one able to cooly deliver the smack as a loving, passionless "tool." I disagree entirely with it, as I've said, but beyond, I have never witnessed it (and I have witnessed it, too much), done without being loaded with anger.
Now you do - really. It isn't 'sainted'. I had a rule of never smacking while angry and I never deviated from it. The point to me was to deliver a lesson. 999 times out of 1000, I could successfully employ the '1-2-3 rule' without ever getting to '3' - if I ever got to '3' then they got a light smack (lots of two and three-quarters and a bit, however ). The process of 'getting ready to smack' was always much, much worse than the actual punishment itself. Getting a leather belt across my backside (or tawse on the hands or back of the legs at school) taught me it wasn't something I wished to inflict on my own children but it also taught me that a deliberate process was almost as bad as the eventual outcome. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'passionless' but as I've said, never in anger - even if I had to 'let it go'. I accept and respect your position. Clearly, we have different perspectives. I certainly do not agree with smacks (or worse) being dished out left and right since that is all about anger, as you have personally experienced. Are there other ways to deal with children who misbehave? Absolutely.
We'll have to agree to disagree, then. I tell you in absolute honesty I have never witnessed a child receiving corporal "correction" when it wasn't done in anger. Not once. Not in my life, and not in the lives of the children where I've (regretfully) witnessed it. I agree with the deliberate process aspect. Our son clearly knows the benefits of proper, respectful behavior, and the clear consequences of misbehavior. He also knows his body is not something to be struck - by anyone, for any purpose. It is his body, it is to be respected, and to strike him, to strike any child, for any reason, is an abject humiliation no child should bear; and it teaches that violence on another is a good and proper way to secure compliance with one's wishes. A wholly improper life's lesson, in my opinion. My opinion with respect to this, in brief, is that we are in the 21st century. Respectfully, I think it is an anachronism, and it's time we evolved.