What are your views on parents hitting their children as a means of discipline?

Monday 30th March, 01:00 AM JST

› Login to comment

Latest 15 of 59 Total Comments Show All

GenevaMan at 04:45 PM JST - 31st March

And the answer is No.

Wow, that's one hell of an argument. As I said in my previous post, smacking kids should be done as an ultima ratio, when absolutely everything had been tried. Smacking a kid pretty much means you failed, but it has to be done if the kid's naughtiness is over the top. Japan and its monster parents is definitely the country that prolly spoil their kids the most: look at their young generation of me-me-me who cannot stand any contrariety. I was smacked about once a year by my mom when I was really naughty, and I am all fine today, and I am actually grateful to my mom. We smacked kids for 5000 years, and now we've been stopping giving them a rare but firm warning through smacking them since the past 20 years, we obvously see that just forbiding them to play with their playstation for one afternoon is not enough.

And by the way, I believe that parents who don't want to resort to any kind of physical punishment is somehow making an experience and are challenging themsleves, more than thinking about their kid. A lot of parents are just posers.
jessssicaaa at 04:50 PM JST - 31st March

What are your views on parents hitting their children as a means of discipline?

Well i was hit/slapped when i was younger, and one of my friends parents hit there kids with a wooden sppon accross the back of there legs. I dont get hit anymore cause im 18 "An Adult" now. But i believe its a quick, not thought out punishment for a child. So not a good idea.

I think clear rules and boundaries with good punishment not involving hitting the child will do just as well. If it acually effects the child then it would be a good punishment.. "No TV for the rest of the week" even though they cant miss episodes of some show.. great punishment was used on myself T_T lol, maybe cancel them going to that party they had been looking forward to all week, no computer, no xbox/ps3/wii, are just some examples of punishments not involving hitting a child.

But one thing all parents/guardians should remember when decided a punishment. It MUST fit the crime. like.. say the child had drawn on the walls, dont ground them for a month, give them extra chores and they now cant see any friends after school or on weekends.. that DOESNT fit the crime.. sure it was naughty but that punishment would be over doing it.

My mum does those kinda punishments with my brother and my dad hates it when she does.. cause it doesnt fit the crime and he cant even have a say.

Another thing is, if it is a really bad thing like involving the police discuss the punishment together if you have a husband/wife. That way you'll both be on the same page with the punishment. ;]
GenevaMan at 04:54 PM JST - 31st March

The fact is, hitting kids is often the act of out-of-control parents who have lost it.

Well, in this case I'll have to agree, but this is not note exactly a mean of discipline. Open question:is it possible to smack a kid in cold blood?

Yes, definitely, as long as it is done as the last of the last mean to discipline your kid.
cleo at 05:23 PM JST - 31st March

Wot PaddySmash said, except -

I know Cleo wouldn't do that much

I have slapped my kids, when they were being little terrors - and I lost it. Only a couple of times, and both times I was at the end of my tether - and in the wrong. I regretted it and was ashamed of myself. Thankfully a couple of slaps doesn't seem to have had any lasting effect on them.

smacking kids should be done as an ultima ratio, when absolutely everything had been tried

Thing is, when everything else has been tried and still the kid is playing up, chances are the parent is at the end of his/her tether and as far from being ultimately rational as it's possible to get. No child should ever be punished just because a parent has lost the plot.

is it possible to smack a kid in cold blood? Yes, definitely, as long as it is done as the last of the last mean to discipline your kid.

I suppose it is possible to smack a kid in cold blood - but definitely not when you're at the end of your tether and flailing around for a 'last means' of disciplining the kid.
imacat at 05:49 PM JST - 31st March

Right. They think, 'Oh, so that's how I get someone smaller than me to do what I want.'

I think there is no evidence for this and it's just not true. As I said, bullies are usually the kids who have never been disciplined themselves. I have observed this when I was a child and again as an adult watching kids. I doubt very much whether anyone has observed a child become a bully as a result of strict discipline from parents which involved smacking as a last resort.

If punishment worked, there'd be no one driving over the speed limit, no one parking where they shouldn't. Or maybe it would be a good idea for the traffic cops to paddle your bottom then and there, instead of giving you a ticket? And if not, why not, if it's so effective?

This is just ridiculous. Measured punishment in society is acceptable and necessary. I mean what's your idea to control speeding drivers? Give them a gold star for every day they keep within the speed limit? Perhaps they could proudly stick the stars in a neat line on the rear bumper. It sounds like a great scheme...

Or maybe it would be a good idea for the traffic cops to paddle your bottom then and there, instead of giving you a ticket?

If they're female cops I support this idea strongly.

There isn't a Goody-Two-Shoes gene, so it must be that the way kids are brought up has something to do with them being 'good'

I think you are wrong. I thing some kids are predisposed to be very good, obedient and docile. Other kids are more rowdy. Still others seem to be something akin to Satan's devil spawn. There are all kinds of kids and the happy-clappy "let's have a time out and take deep breaths" approach may work with some kids but others may need a firmer approach. If the parents decide a firm smack as a last resort in some circumstances is necessary I think it is absolutely fine, particularly with rowdier and naughtier kids.

By the time you get to that state, discipline has already failed. It starts way, way before a child is old enough to attend any kind of class.

Maybe you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head. The problem is not parents who use a smack as a last resort, the problem is parents who in no way discipline their kids. That IMHO is a hundred times worse then a slap on the bum.
onewrldoneppl at 06:14 PM JST - 31st March

parents who cannot control themselves/their anger, should never (be allowed to) raise their hands towards their children. only those who can observe the difference between discipline and abuse can properly judge when and what type of corporal punishment is warranted for a given offence/situation.
greensatindress at 08:19 PM JST - 31st March

I am a believer in "Spare the rod, and spoil the child" I know that some parents abuse their children and also their responsibilities, but children need discipline. A smack on the backside never did anyone any harm. If there had been more such discipline of the brats going around today when they were younger, maybe society would not be in the shambles it is in today. I dont like the "parents hitting their chldren" part of the sentence above this thread. It is not a question of "hitting" because that implies violence for violence` sake. The act of discipline by smacking a child on his/her posterior is actually an act of love, to produce in the child a better personality in the future so that he/she will not be a pain in the ass to everyone else for the rest of his/her life

I completely agree with this. Thank you for being a realist ;) There are a lot of 'o-shiris' that need a good smacking in this country, but not Japan alone.
Darren White at 08:20 PM JST - 31st March

Absolutely not ! Hitting a child means that the parent has lost the argument and their temper.. It's more about the parent letting off steam than giving the child a lesson.

You can discipline your kids without ever hitting them. It just takes more time and attention. As a parent myself, in my experience, the worst-behaved kids are the ones that are shouted at or hit by their parents : never getting a clear explanation for what they did wrong.

People who hit their kids should be ashamed of themselves - it's backward ! It's also been made illegal in 28 countries around the world.
Triumvere at 08:58 PM JST - 31st March

"Hitting a child means that the parent has lost the argument and their temper.. It's more about the parent letting off steam than giving the child a lesson."

Why? Why does it mean this? This is getting dogmatic. "Violence is never the answer" dogmatic. What you have written in no way describes my experience growing up. I will freely except that there are many bad partents (or good ones who have temporarily lost it) who fit the bill, but there are plenty of other ones that do not.
cleo at 11:40 PM JST - 31st March

Measured punishment in society is acceptable and necessary.

Well we certainly accept it, but since it obviously doesn't work (people still drive over the speed limit, and park where they're not supposed to) it hardly seems correct to call it 'necessary'.

I mean what's your idea to control speeding drivers? Give them a gold star for every day they keep within the speed limit? Perhaps they could proudly stick the stars in a neat line on the rear bumper.

Gold stars aren't much of a reward. If cars could be fitted with some kind of device that monitored and recorded the speed at all times and drivers were offered some kind of bonus or reward for, say, every thousand kilometres they drove without going over the limit (eg a discount on road tax, lower insurance premiums etc) you'd find more drivers eager to observe the speed limits even on days when the speed traps weren't in operation.

Maybe you've inadvertently hit the nail on the head. The problem is not parents who use a smack as a last resort, the problem is parents who in no way discipline their kids.

Nuffink inadvertent about it. I repeat, no one is saying kids should not be disciplined, simply that there is no need to discipline a child by hitting it. When smacking is used as a 'last resort' kids quickly learn how far they can go before the parent becomes physical, and will push up to the limit; parent counters by shortening the limit, and after a while the smack becomes the first resort, not the last. It's quick and easy, has some temporary effect and gives the parent the satisfaction of having shown the kid who's boss.

If it's possible to raise children to be upright, moral adults without smacking them (and it is), what kind of parent would choose to smack?

in my experience, the worst-behaved kids are the ones that are shouted at or hit by their parents : never getting a clear explanation for what they did wrong

Yup.
Patrick Smash at 12:03 AM JST - 1st April

Anyone who really thinks violence against kids does them no harm should read up on serial killers. They were almost all beaten as kids. I'm not saying the occasional smack equals child abuse, but I agree with Cleo that it is a slippery slope.

Many parents lash out at kids because they (the parents) have lost control. This does not bring back control, it only frightens the kids and often leaves them with no clear understanding of what they did wrong. One day their behaviour is ignored, the following day the same behavious earns them a physical punishment. That uncertainty is a big problem.

Kids need rules and they need consistency. I see parents here lashing out with no consistency and they are the ones with the troubled kids. Someone who smacks a child as a last resort in a cool and consistent manner is probably doing nothing wrong, but for that kind of parent the physical punishment is probably unecessary.
imacat at 01:41 AM JST - 1st April

When smacking is used as a 'last resort' kids quickly learn how far they can go before the parent becomes physical, and will push up to the limit; parent counters by shortening the limit, and after a while the smack becomes the first resort, not the last.

You present this as an inevitable result but of course it's not. It's one possible outcome, and I think a very unlikely one. A much more likely one is that the child learns to be better behaved in general and to respect authority, so that a smack is rarely or never required. That was my experience as a child and I think that will be the result in 99.9% of cases where parents use smacking as part of their strict but fair discipline measures.

If cars could be fitted with some kind of device that monitored and recorded the speed at all times and drivers were offered some kind of bonus or reward for, say, every thousand kilometres they drove without going over the limit (eg a discount on road tax, lower insurance premiums etc) you'd find more drivers eager to observe the speed limits even on days when the speed traps weren't in operation.

This is cloud-cuckoo land, but it's kind of sweet and touching that you think it might work.

Well we certainly accept it (punishment), but since it obviously doesn't work (people still drive over the speed limit, and park where they're not supposed to) it hardly seems correct to call it 'necessary'.

Why stop with speeding? Why not abolish the concept of punishment altogether? Then we could get points for, say, every day we didn't murder someone. And if we did happen to murder someone we would get no points for that particular day...

the worst-behaved kids are the ones that are shouted at or hit by their parents : never getting a clear explanation for what they did wrong.

I think this goes against everyone's experience. The bullies and the nasty kids are the ones who haven't been disciplined properly by their parents.

Not getting a clear explanation is a problem for any discipline method. Most anti-smackers here seem to think it's solely associated with smacking. That's rubbish. As some have already pointed out, non-smacking discipline methods can be considered a kind of mental torture and if there's no explanation of why such a method is being implemented it is equally bad.

When I was a kid and had gotten a clip round the ear, my parents would invariably sit me down later to talk it through. Absolutely fine parenting... strict but fair discipline with the possibility of a smack for severe misdemeanors.

I'm sure the happy-clappy crowd on this forum are doing a good parenting job with their time-outs and withdrawal of privileges etc, but they are wrong to condemn other parents who are doing an equally fine job but who think a smack can be used under certain circumstances as a discipline measure.
Blazed at 04:08 PM JST - 2nd April

Everything needs a stimulus(cause/reason) to give a response(eventuallity)
I must say;I agree that smacking kids afew slaps maybe,(NO extremes here)is the only way to raise them upright. When I was a kid,my dad had only two rules;1: I only ask you twice for you to do something - the third time was always a slap. 2:Do all that is required of you and then you can play/do your own stuff.
As kids,in the event of getting smacked,the third party will always say such things like;"They are only kids" but as these kids grow up,they tend to lean towards the third party's opinion hence becoming more rebelious to their parents(talking about abuse).S0 merely stopping the kid from watching TV or PS/WII/XBOX is a total waste of time(in my opinion)coz they'll come up with new ways to pass time.BUT,as long as you have the memory of pain,you'll never be tempted to try it again.Take for example an electric shock,with that experience,have you ever again thought of let alone retry picking up a naked electric cable with your bare hands?? PS: Your morals will be judged according to the answer you give to this last question.
ca1ic0cat at 04:34 AM JST - 3rd April

It would depend on the offense but in general it is a bad policy.

On the other hand so long as it didn't cross the line to physical assault it is nobody elses business.
DanManjt at 01:04 AM JST - 5th April

It certainly makes the parents feel better.