Jewely - child rearing is "honey and stick". One generally catches more flies with honey than a stick but if honey isn't working, stick usually will.

In other words effective parents will explain, encourage, set examples and reward compliance and this "honey" usually works. When it doesn't some sort of "stick", the unpleasant consequence, comes out.

One without the other won't work. I stated that spanking or a smack should be an uncommon event if parenting is effective. Effective means the parent has established and exercises reasonable control, the child has learned basic manners, social skills and can be taken into public areas or onto private property with expectation that he/she will not unduly disturb the peace, privacy or property of others.

If you think you can achieve this effectiveness without the use of "pain", unpleasant consequence of some type, when behavioural codes are breached I suggest you are kidding yourself. If you are lucky enough to have an 'easy' child and been fair and firm from day dot, these occasions may well be rare. However ALL children at some time need discipline.

My experience is 'non-smacked' kids are often not only more unruly but more agressive towards peers. A cousin was very anti-smacking and his first child a pushing, hitting biting horror - until my Aunt told him to pull her grandson into line before she did! A few smacks when needed worked rapid positive change. His 5 subsequent kids got a few smacks too and all are well adjusted LIKEABLE young people. The most dramatic example I've seen but not an isolated case.

If others have managed well without the backup of a smack or threat of, that's great but I'd like the opinion of your childs teachers some friends and rellies to back the claims. Parents who believe their obnoxious offspring are perfectly angelic are not hard to find either.

BTW - when I say "pain" as an unpleasant consequence of bad behaviour I don't necessarily mean the physical type. It should be an undeniable parental option but I can't recall either of us hitting any of our children past about age 7. By then their level of reasoning and understanding made other forms of discipline - like extra chores, groundings, losing access to favourite pastimes or toys and so on, more meaningful and effective.

I recall my only daughter, the more challenging of our 3 children and about 10 at the time, asking for a spanking as punishment rather than being barred from a friends party. I was so taken aback by the request and her anguish about the grounding that we negotiated another penalty with understanding that if she broke the agreement both punishments would stand. No further problem - and that's the way it should work. Nuf said ....

People who smack their children should be beaten into submission, handcuffed and locked in a cage for a very long time -to teach them that violence is not a solution!

Its always a hot topic. The problem is that people's individual experiences and situations vary so widely that it is almost impossible to say what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

I guess I see even a distinction between smacking and spanking. Smacking designed to hurt ego not physically, and aimed at younger children - particularly more so those for whom rationale does not work.

Both my children have been smacked when relevant, usually not out of anger, normally when reasoning was not sufficient to get the message across (eg dont stick a fork in the powerpoint).

However, my eldest is only 6. I dont really see a role for smacking once she is past the age of say 8 - at this stage she should be sufficiently aware that danger is not an immediate threat (eg watch for cars and dont run off in car parks), and interested in enough other things that the threat of priveledges being cut off should do the same job. I am already noticing a difference eg "please pick up those toys", "no", "well if you dont and I have to pick them up, I'll give them away to someone else" = toys get picked up. Pocket money for helping out with things that she hasnt done before is now also making a difference.

Its also about picking a punishment that suits the individual child. I smacked my daughter more than my son, but thats because she was (and is) more stubborn. My son is 3 and only just starting the tanty phase. He actually is more afraid of being left behind, so that tends to be more effective in getting co-operation than being physical if he plays-up.

Tut, tut. The author has strayed into the wilderness of non-political-correctness.

A timely smack is the most effective way of correcting bad behaviour in a child.

Not smacking children is as irrational as sending women to fight in the front line.

I wonder if there is any correlation, statistically speaking, between those who advocate beating their children as a disciplinary measure, and those who advocate torture for suspected terrorists.

The question occurred to me when reading divine_msn's sneer...

>>Too much 'New Age' parenting is ineffectual BS and make fools of parents... PC brigade will say both cases parent stood firm and child failed to win, physical force was unnecessary, just brutality to a poor defenceless child<<

That nicely sticks a convenient label on the non-smackers, as "new age" and "PC". Which is of course the accusation levelled at those wimps who think that treating suspected terrorists with kid gloves (just locking them in solitary confinement for a few years) is a pathetic cop-out.

The arguments in favour of torture are as compelling as divine_msn's for beating children for misbehaving.

"Torture is a very quick way to gain information in comparison to regular examination, and so would ideally help address any imminent threat"

Hmmm. Sounds an awful lot like:

>>The reason being that the child quickly learns the parent means business when a directive is given and obeys<<

Violence. The time-saving, short cut to compliance. Tasty.

More thoughts from the advocates of torture:

"[with] the threat of torture, adversaries will be less likely to both, commit attacks and aid those doing so"

Echoes of:

>>"If I run from Mum when she says stop it's gonna hurt" will likely stay in that childs head<<

Pre-emptive pain. Another fine example of our society's determination to avoid the label "Politically Correct" at all costs.

Even when it is merely a handy taunt from people who prefer to act rather than think.

(Pro-torture quotes taken from http://www.debatewise.com/debates/807-torture-should-be-allowed-against-terror-suspects)