rstuart

"Most of us older ones were after all smacked and did suffer corporal punishment at school. Yet we somehow escaped unharmed."

While most of us older ones did suffer corporal punishment not all of us could be said to have escaped unharmed.

Please remember, I am discussing children from birth to about 7, depending on the individual, beyond that age corporal punishment is un-needed, their minds have developed to the point where other methods are more effective, and their sense of self-identity usually makes it counter-productive.
To those of you who decry corporal punishment as violence, just what do you call playing mind-games with little children who are NOT mentally able to deal with it?
Far more long-term damage is done by words and moods than a mere smack on the fingers with an explanation of why. That is something little minds can understand, “do this means hurties”, whereas long-winded talks and emotional punishment are beyond their intellectual capabilities, all they know is their parents don’t like them, and they don’t know why.
Kids are NOT adults, they do NOT have the ability to understand complex situations, CANNOT think more than a few minutes ahead, they are simple little minds and souls.
Mental torment and confusion, feelings of rejection, loneliness and fear, these are the results of your approach, and are very dangerous in the long term. Far more so than a judicious smack on the fingers. (cont’)

(cont’)
CSteele, if we banned everything that hurt anyone, we’d all be stifled at birth. Life is risk, and there will always be the weak who are damaged by things that don’t bother the majority, that’s life, we’re all different.
Mikk, some of your comments make me wonder if you’ve ever actually had to raise children? Anyone who’s spent significant time with care and control of 2-5yr olds knows they are capable of instantaneous movement, can pass through locked doors and walls, travel at warp nine, open virtually anything, and are guaranteed to scare the life out of you on a regular basis. That is, unless you restrict their lives and environment to such an extent that you stifle any hope of them learning, exploring, testing, and achieving their true potential. Let them be kids, they grow up fast enough, and kids NEED to play and explore, which means risk, we are monkeys after all.
To those of you who say it creates problems, I simply say, look at history, humanity has been using this method to raise it’s young for millenia, and the vast majority of people have been normal, within their context. If your claims had merit, we would never have achieved the intellectual heights and civilization that permits you to live as you do and indulge in this piffle.
.

I understand your POV Maxi.

One of the issues that concerns me is that kids don't get to be kids; playgrounds are padded, they're driven to and from school, what used to be a back yard is now a concrete strip around a McMansion. Where I live, in the ranges, kids still get to climb trees, swing from ropes, build cubby-houses and maybe even break a bone or two - always great for the image at school. No amount of discipline is going to help unless children get to test boundaries for themselves - discover the joys and the dangers (within reason of course).

We can't protect them from life, but we can help them to live it.

CSteele:“While most of us older ones did suffer corporal punishment not all of us could be said to have escaped unharmed.”

By corporal you mean outside the home and in the schools? I think I was in the last year of intermediate school when caning disappeared, but I had never been caned – girls weren’t anyways. All the kids through high school still knew which teacher hit the hardest or had the best aim with the chalk. It was all harmful but to face it means to face our parents and many don’t want to do that now.

Kids were still weary of the physical stuff for years at my school.

Kids now have no fear but where most schools seem to have failed is they didn’t replace fear with anything.

In Ch-CH my children went to a public school with over two and a half thousand students, four principals and one head principal. And my gawd they were strict. Not one allowance for any rule broken. Uniforms perfect. You would get an e-mail immediately if your child did not turn up that morning and everything would hit the fan.

So I think that particular school had it right, discipline/boundaries and rigid reinforcement and certainly every teacher commanded respect.

Examinator, chill baby… just cause some of don’t hit doesn’t mean we use other nasty tactics to enforce control. I save the long winded stuff for the teens and yes they dread it. But I wouldn’t underestimate the under 7’s either, some are incredibly bright and manipulative.

The absence of physical harm does not automatically imply the presence of mental and emotional cruelty.

No matter how many padded surfaces I provide the wee sods always fine that one hard patch to fall on Fractelle.[smile]

Jewely: "You aren’t talking discipline as such you are talking punishment/consequences when they are not displaying self discipline?"

There are two discussions going on here. One is the "right" way to bring up the perfect child. Listening to you girls discuss it is like listening Barista on how to make the perfect cup of coffee. I have no doubt he does prepare a very good cup of coffee, but you could vary it a fair bit and still end up with something drinkable.

The other discussion is more along the lines of how to avoid blowing up the coffee machine. Your distinction between discipline and self discipline sounds like you are talking about the former. I am trying to discuss the latter.

The point I am trying to make is I think you could discipline just about every child with smacks, and providing you do it correctly - produce a fairly well rounded kid. In fact, our parents did. It might be that you can produce a slightly better rounded kid by avoiding smacks completely - sounds dubious, but maybe it is so. But it's not a discussion I want to get into.

Equally, you can produce an abused and damaged kid while never laying a hand on them. The problem isn't the type of discipline. It isn't that simple - if it was everybody would produce perfect kids. The problem is when to discipline, and how often. Knowing when and how often is far more difficult - that is why you girls discuss it endlessly.

And that is my point. The original question was about smacking. I am saying smacking isn't good or bad per se. Bad outcomes are produced by bad parenting, not smacking. If you managed the impossible and stopped smacking, poor parents would find some other way to loose control.