Young children should not be smacked as a means of punishment.

[counter345]

I think that by using physical force to discipline a child (especially more than once), you are subconsciously teaching him/her that using physical force is an acceptable means of getting what you want.

This can translate later in life from anything in life from childhood bullying to gang murder.

I personally think that use of physical harm is mentally degrading for the child and that it is sometimes an example of lazy parenting.

 

[trackripper123]

Growing up in a Chinese family, getting smacked was a fairly normal thing for me when I was growing up. I still think it's wrong though, especially to smack a young child around the face. If it came to it, I would only smack my child on the bottom/legs, there's much less chance of damage being caused that way.

A stern talking to works just as well most of the time however, especially when the child isn't old or brave enough to talk back or argue.

 

[niky]

Thanks for the reply, niky. If my friends daughter wasn't now old enough to be reasoned with, I would certainly be making some changes.

No problem. A sign of a healthy psyche is the willingness to look at things from a fresh perspective. Personally, I grew up in a family that was very strict, and in which punishment was a given. It was only in college and work afterwards that I started to see how things could be done differently, and, perhaps, more effectively.

Yes, children today seem spoiled and headstrong and lacking in vaules, but this can't be laid on the lack of physical discipline alone, but also the lack of connection between kids and parents versus the extreme interconnectedness of youth nowadays...

Makes you wonder if perhaps banning all "smart" devices for the first few years might not be such a bad idea... I've seen and heard of this approach working, but I haven't read up on the literature... but also perhaps parents should learn how to use social media and the internet to reinforce parenting instead of merely fighting against it.

 

[Monatsende]

Bad luck if kids have parents who are in complete agreement about that topic...

 

[MisterWhiskers]

^ She's like "Here we go again! " and the kid's like "".

 

[BobK]

Thank you for calling my field of study utter hogwash.

That was in reference to a single statement, not the entire field. Most of the fields I've worked in had their share of utter hogwash as well.

But more seriously, punishment is not a preventive tool.

I disagree. There are any number of actions that I consider morally acceptable but I (usually) don't do only for fear of punishment. Not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign at 1 in the morning when there is no traffic whatsoever in sight is one example. Punishment is certainly working as a preventative tool in this case. Had you said "Punishment is not always an effective preventative tool" I'd have agreed.

I'm quoting from the technical definition, as put forth by UNICEF, thank you very much, and it is not my opinion.

http://www.unicef.org/progressforchildren/2007n6/index_41849.htm

Yep, I was right. That's the "all punishment is evil" crowd.

Definitions Violent discipline is defi ned [sic] as actions taken by a parent or caregiver that are intended to cause a child physical pain or emotional distress as a way to correct behaviour and act as a deterrent.

Going by that definition, simply telling a child "no" can be "violent discipline", if the kid is emotionally distressed by it.

Besides, my disagreement is with the "Even incarceration or deprivation is classified as violence" statement. I read that to mean "Go to your room" (incarceration) and "No TV for you tonight" (deprivation) are violent forms of punishment. Punishment? Sure. Violent? Hardly.

Oh, and this little gem from the same UNICEF page:

Physical or corporal punishment comprises actions intended to cause the child physical pain or discomfort but not injuries.

So breaking the kid's arms is not physical punishment? Lolwut?

 

[e30 freek]

I think some of todays kids need a couple of slaps they dont seem to listen to well and when you ask them to do something they allways ask why, why do i have to do it?

When i was young i would get beats quite a bit, from home and at the Mosque but it was all out of love and care

 

[Brutaka]

I believe physical punishment of a child can be an effective discipline tool but it varies upon the child. I myself had only been spanked once, over 10 years ago, and ever since then i rarely did bad things. Physical punishment can be effective but should not be used every time a kid does something wrong, a good lecture can replace that on some occasions.

 

[niky]

I disagree. There are any number of actions that I consider morally acceptable but I (usually) don't do only for fear of punishment. Not coming to a complete stop at a stop sign at 1 in the morning when there is no traffic whatsoever in sight is one example. Punishment is certainly working as a preventative tool in this case. Had you said "Punishment is not always an effective preventative tool" I'd have agreed.

This is in regards to children. And perhaps, yes, "not always" is more accurate. But again, punishment is merely remediation for a symptom, not the root cause of the behaviour.

Since most acting out is actually attention-seeking behaviour, punishment is, in a strange way, rewarding that behaviour, and in many children, can merely reinforce the desire to perform it.

Yep, I was right. That's the "all punishment is evil" crowd.

The idea is to clarify human rights for children, and protection against violence is a human right.

Going by that definition, simply telling a child "no" can be "violent discipline", if the kid is emotionally distressed by it.

Read again. "Intention". If the intention is to merely cause psychological or physical distress, then it counts.

Besides, my disagreement is with the "Even incarceration or deprivation is classified as violence" statement. I read that to mean "Go to your room" (incarceration) and "No TV for you tonight" (deprivation) are violent forms of punishment. Punishment? Sure. Violent? Hardly.

In education and child psychology, the "time out" is an effective tool in behaviour modification. "Go to your room" is a lot different from locking a child inside a room and not allowing them out.

And TV is not a necessity, it's a privilege granted to the child. Removing that is not deprivation of the basic rights of the child.

Oh, and this little gem from the same UNICEF page:

So breaking the kid's arms is not physical punishment? Lolwut?

Obviously, it means that actions meant to cause pain, even if they don't result in injury, are considered violence.

 

[MarinaDiamandis]

Makes you wonder if perhaps banning all "smart" devices for the first few years might not be such a bad idea... I've seen and heard of this approach working, but I haven't read up on the literature... but also perhaps parents should learn how to use social media and the internet to reinforce parenting instead of merely fighting against it.

I think, as with most things, that allowing children to use electronics is fine in moderation.

Most parents can achieve the 'in moderation' part, but fail when it comes to the child throwing a tantrum because the device has been taken from them - In fact, I'd probably be a little annoyed myself if someone took away the device I was using to watch my favourite movie part way through it, for no apparent reason, and then left me to entertain myself.

Taking something entertaining from a child and replacing it with boredom will never end well!

 

[CinnamonOD]

I've never got hit by my parents in my life, they are that kind of parents that used to tell you "go to your room and think what you've done, and when you're ready, come here and apologize" and now they tell you "Do what you want, be aware of the consequences"

 

[BobK]

This is in regards to children. And perhaps, yes, "not always" is more accurate. But again, punishment is merely remediation for a symptom, not the root cause of the behaviour.

Since most acting out is actually attention-seeking behaviour, punishment is, in a strange way, rewarding that behaviour, and in many children, can merely reinforce the desire to perform it.

My example was with regards to an adult, but the principle applies to children as well. Also, I'm not talking about "disruptive behavior" issues.

Read again. "Intention". If the intention is to merely cause psychological or physical distress, then it counts.

So it wasn't a violent act after all, when my father would spank me. His objective wasn't to cause pain, but rather to instruct me in what was acceptable behavior.

In education and child psychology, the "time out" is an effective tool in behaviour modification. "Go to your room" is a lot different from locking a child inside a room and not allowing them out.

No argument there, but it still could be classified as incarceration. And it still isn't "violence" regardless of what some fuzzy-brained people would have us believe.

And TV is not a necessity, it's a privilege granted to the child. Removing that is not deprivation of the basic rights of the child.

Still it's a deprivation, and a deprivation of something I've seen argued to be a right.

Obviously, it means that actions meant to cause pain, even if they don't result in injury, are considered violence.[/B]

I'm sorry but that wasn't obvious at all. What they clearly stated, even if that's perhaps not what they meant, is that it's violence only when "intended to cause the child physical pain or discomfort but not injuries". Perhaps they could have said "intended to cause the child physical pain or discomfort whether or not it injures".

Hitting a kid is violence (even if UNICEF says it isn't because the intent wasn't to cause pain). Sending a kid to his room, or depriving him of TV, is not violence even though UNICEF claims it is.

 

[niky]

My example was with regards to an adult, but the principle applies to children as well. Also, I'm not talking about "disruptive behavior" issues.

Children aren't adults. Which is the gist of the entire problem.

So it wasn't a violent act after all, when my father would spank me. His objective wasn't to cause pain, but rather to instruct me in what was acceptable behavior.

And the lever by which he applied instruction was pain. So it counts.

No argument there, but it still could be classified as incarceration. And it still isn't "violence" regardless of what some fuzzy-brained people would have us believe.

A "time-out" is meant as a temporary rest period to allow the child to settle down and consider their actions. The isolation of the child isn't the aim. It is to remove the child from distractions and stimuli and to allow them to focus. After which, the real remediation begins.

Still it's a deprivation, and a deprivation of something I've seen argued to be a right.

By whom? Is access to comic books a universal right? Is watching movies a universal right? Is there anything in the charter on human rights that says: "Thou shalt have SpongeBob?"

I'm sorry but that wasn't obvious at all. What they clearly stated, even if that's perhaps not what they meant, is that it's violence only when "intended to cause the child physical pain or discomfort but not injuries". Perhaps they could have said "intended to cause the child physical pain or discomfort whether or not it injures".

Hitting a kid is violence (even if UNICEF says it isn't because the intent wasn't to cause pain). Sending a kid to his room, or depriving him of TV, is not violence even though UNICEF claims it is.

That's to separate the definition for violent discipline from the more general term of domestic violence, which is also covered in other parts of the UNICEF manifesto. It's like defining manslaughter as killing without premeditation. That doesn't make killing WITH premeditation right. That just means we call it something else.

Of course, there is no mention of removal of TV rights in the UNICEF page we happen to be talking about, merely physical and psychological aggression, so I don't know why you're attributing this claim to them, at all.