is it right to smack kids?

Thought of this thread when I read this today.   Relevant stuff in the comments as well. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/life/the-hot-button/mom-draws-flak-for-publicly-shaming-shoplifting-son/article2140355/

I don't know if smacking a kid is right. Of course it's not right to smack a kid out of anger, frustration or to discipline. But you just can't tell a 2 year old "No, you can't hit Judy on her head. She doesn't like that, because it hurts". A 2 year old hardly knows it excists itselfs. Let alone be aware of anyone elses feelings. I think people (especially parents) really think too much of the emotional capabilities of an infant.

I do not think it is right to smack kids.  It is also not needed to discipline them - just glaring at them with a fierce look should be good enough to scare them into behaving themselves :-)

FriedChicken wrote: I don't know if smacking a kid is right. Of course it's not right to smack a kid out of anger, frustration or to discipline. But you just can't tell a 2 year old "No, you can't hit Judy on her head. She doesn't like that, because it hurts". A 2 year old hardly knows it excists itselfs. Let alone be aware of anyone elses feelings. I think people (especially parents) really think too much of the emotional capabilities of an infant.
No, that's exactly what I tell my son and it works. For example, I might tell him that "you cannot hit your sister etc. because it hurts her" or when wants to throw sand in the air at the sand pit, I will tell him that it will get into your friends eye and it will hurt. Yes, he knows what it means to be hurt, because I can verbally relate the hurt to some experience he himself has had, like "hurts the same like when you fell off the pram and hit your head on the asphalt". 

People who think a two year old has zero capability to empathy, or no concept of how others may feel, should then take a second to consider why would spanking or hitting this allegedly un-emotional kid be any help, wouldn't this argument of yours Niek, totally make the impact of corporeal punishment annulled. This assumed lack of emotional capabilities would, I think, be an even more reason then not to beat anyone up, or should we do physical harm systematically to the mentally disabled, for example?

I think people  (especially those without kids) think way too little of the emotional and intellectual capabilities of infants. 

I'm constantly reading 19th century advice manuals for parents, men and wives in relation to my masters thesis, and I'm shocked at how some people here have similar opinions as those primitive brutes (pardon, they were all civilized men of their time) who wrote some of those manuals warning parents of the dangers of "sparing the rod" and how the "mischievous nature of children" requires discipline. I thought we had moved on from those times, judging by Queenzone many people here have  been raised according to worst 19th century standards.

pma wrote: 

I'm constantly reading 19th century advice manuals for parents, men and wives in relation to my masters thesis, and I'm shocked at how some people here have similar opinions as those primitive brutes (pardon, they were all civilized men of their time) who wrote some of those manuals warning parents of the dangers of "sparing the rod" and how the "mischievous nature of children" requires discipline. I thought we had moved on from those times, judging by Queenzone many people here have  been raised according to worst 19th century standards.

The feeling i got from most people here is not a strict 19th century 'squash your child's natural exuberance and make him toe the line and conform' as much as 'in some cases it isn't wrong, such as if a child is hurting another person or if he is in danger.'  There is a huge danger in physical punishment, and it is (in my opinion) often, if not usually, misused.  Having said that though, i think there is something to be said for teaching reality -- and the reality as you get older is that if you beat someone up, you will be beaten up or put in jail.  If you play with fire, you will be maimed.  If you are mean to other people and take their stuff, they will not play with you.  So sometimes, in my opinion, a light smack (and i;m not talking about 19th century beating with a belt, i mean a light smack and firm 'no') is basically allowing the child to understand that there are consequences to their actions.  Having said that, i work with kids and would obviously never smack or 'punish' a child in work, we use a positive approach to managing behaviour.  And when a child has been in that structure for a while, the 'need' for discipline gets less, and a lot of childcare workers will find that just giving a child a 'look' or saying no will be very effective.  And this may sound stupid, but programmes like 'super nanny' also highlight that it is not necessary to smack.  I dont watch it often, but the two or three times i have seen it, it seems like she basically uses time-out and loss of privileges, and when it is consistant, the behaviour comes back under control.
I also have a friend who is very softly-softly with her kids, doesnt believe in discipline and DEFINATELY not in smacking... she reasons with the kids... it works to some extent, but they are really difficult to manage.  They can't take no for an answer, they have to make a 'deal' with you, everything is a battle of compromises, doing anything or going anywhere takes forever cos they have to argue and 'deal' over shoes, coats, etc, and if the kids produce a tear, everything is dropped instantly and there are big long cuddle times.  And when there is something that they 'have' to do (eg school) its really difficult for them.  So i think that both approaches can be misused.

Instead of hitting my kids I find it's far easier to have them fight each other. We take them out into the garden, draw a chalk circle on the patio and let them slug it out over a period of no less than three 10 minute rounds. Not only does it teach them about dicipline but it's a great way for them to keep fit (apart from our youngest son who is sadly no longer with us).

fatty.

I didn't say it's right to hit a kid. I would never do that if I had children.

I just said I think it's hard to explain to a 2 year old that someone else can feel pain as well.

Good Parenting 101

A Southern California man allegedly hit his crying 7-year-old son and then threw him off on a tour boat in busy Newport Harbor, Orange County, authorities said Tuesday.

Sloane Briles, 35, of Irvine, California, has been charged with felony child endangerment and resisting arrest, the Orange County Sheriff's Office said. He was released Monday in lieu of a $100,000 bond.
Briles, who's divorced, was on the tour boat Sunday afternoon with his two sons, ages 6 and 7, when he got into an argument with his current girlfriend, said sheriff's office spokesman Jim Amormino.

Moral:  Should have thrown the girlfriend overboard and avoided the bad press

"Should have thrown the girlfriend overboard and avoided the bad press"

If she was a hooker, he might've even been able to claim some of the expenses back next financial year.

When I was growing up, I only got a smack or spanking when I did something reeeeally bad.  Like, if I cursed, or verbally disrespected my parents, I get a little pop on the mouth.  Now a spanking...whew, you knew I'd done something bad - and my spanking I mean a good smack on the ass.  I was never spanked with a belt or anything else like that.  But...I grew up just fine.  And if I had kids (I can't) I'd raise them the same way.  The rest of my family does.

BEATING a child is wrong, no matter how you slice it.

I never understood why my folks would banish me to my room when I was bad.  I mean, really.  All my stuff is there.  Like my Queen albums...my guitar...all my stuff.  How is that punishment?  My Dad got wise and would make me sit in the middle of my bed and not touch anything.  That was brutal, although I usually fell asleep. lol

[QUOTE]SiriuslySmitten wrote: 

BEATING a child is wrong, no matter how you slice it. [/QUOTE]

That's even worse!!!!!