The Youth of Today...

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

Well said, for the same reasons I applaud Sean.

Remember too people that kids do not get to choose their parents, the people who give them moral guidance. Giving them a slap, as some are advocating, is hardly going to assist that moral education.

Um, russ said that physical discipline is for the parents to perform, not that it should not be done.

It seems to me that those of us who believe physical discipline is valid are able to discern between giving a child a slap and beating a child, whereas those who are against physical discipline are unable to discern the difference.

[Russ]

I'm not against (limited) physical punishment, my point being it should be for the parents only. If a teacher, policeman, security guard, social worker, clueless vigilante etc lays a finger on my daughter, I want them fully prosecuted for ABH or GBH.

Having read through this thread I was compelled to comment, due to some of the ridiculous ideas put about.

Kids today aren't that different from kids 40 years ago, but the world around them has changed beyond recognition - so at least some of the differences must be due to the world around them.

After their earliest years, this world is no longer just their parent's responsibility, yet some would still blame the parents for everything.

I don't believe many parents set out to be uncaring or bad, but at the same time, for all the education that some think will solve every problem, I don't recall there being much education on parenting in schools/colleges/universities. So parenting is the ultimate DIY experience, with the highest stakes. No TV reality show to come and fix your mess here - in fact, very little help to fix up the mess. Just criticism.

And to make it worse, much of this criticism is from people who are not parents! What gives you the right to condemn?

Life today places a much higher burden on parents than what my parents experienced. The expectation of children today is that they should all have a mobile phone, computer, PS2, MP3 player, digital camera etc. This materialism is not of the parents' making - that's what society is doing to the kids.
So parents try to give their kids what they can. And to do this they have to work hard - often both parents. This doesn't mean that kids miss out - I suspect there's fewer latch-key kids today then there were 40 years ago - it's just different.

And once the kids get to the age where a parent might actually dare let them out on their own, what do they find? Few cities/towns offer any space they can use, or what space there is is then generally used to allow dogs to defacate.

What do they do with their time? Well, obviously same sort of things their friends do. And it starts by watching TV and now that's running 24/7 what reason to do anything else? The program makers go out of their way to captivate their audience - mostly so they can throw more materialistic adverts at them - but rarely to offer them some inspiration.

In my youth kids indulged in hobbies, these days a lot of that is not 'cool' or 'geeky'. The most compulsive activity they seem to have today is to play computer games. And they takes these so seriously - when they start claiming how skillful they are because they've scored a goal in FIFA(whatever) on a PS2, you have to wonder what their value system has become, or where that came from.

So don't just turn on the parents as an easy target. Society at large has a responsibility to bear.

I would also like to add, that next time you see that child behaving atrociously in Tesco's, that rather than tut-tut and condemn the parent, spare a thought - some of us have children with special needs and that's juts the way they are. We do the best we can (again, usually with very little help) and much as it might annoy you, it's pushing us close to breakdown.

So a little understanding for what we have to face, and a little less readiness to give our kids 'what they deserve' wouldn't go amiss.

[seaneeboy]

How can you be sure of that Xaccers? A new NSPCC survey finds that many parents lose their temper with their child almost every other day.

On top of this, nearly half of parents admit when they hit their child they were over-reacting.

Every week in the UK one to two children die at the hands of the very people who should love and protect them. Many are tiny and defenceless babies under a year old.

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Having read through this thread I was compelled to comment, due to some of the ridiculous ideas put about....[snip].

Another voice of reason.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by seaneeboy

How can you be sure of that Xaccers? A new NSPCC survey finds that many parents lose their temper with their child almost every other day.

Losing your temper is human. It's how you deal with it that makes the difference.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by seaneeboy

How can you be sure of that Xaccers? A new NSPCC survey finds that many parents lose their temper with their child almost every other day.

On top of this, nearly half of parents admit when they hit their child they were over-reacting.

Every week in the UK one to two children die at the hands of the very people who should love and protect them. Many are tiny and defenceless babies under a year old.

And there are millions and millions more parents who just give their child a quick slap when they are misbehaving, after verbal discipline has failed.

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Um, russ said that physical discipline is for the parents to perform, not that it should not be done.

It seems to me that those of us who believe physical discipline is valid are able to discern between giving a child a slap and beating a child, whereas those who are against physical discipline are unable to discern the difference.

I'm not an advocate of hitting children but, knowing what little I do about Russ from reading his posts, I suspect his form of physical discipline would be mild and hardly likely to trouble child protection agencies (although other parents, as Sean points out, may not know where to draw a line or control their anger). My ire is aimed fairly and squarely at those who think it is acceptable to assault children, take pride in it and actually think it's going to achieve something positive.

[seaneeboy]

I'd be interested to see what the universal measure of "A Quick Slap" is - location, pressure, speed, what warrants a repetition, and whether they get harder in relation to the discipliner's frustration.

From the NSPCC Website:

Hitting your child if they have done something you think is naughty simply doesn't work. Your child will copy the way you act, so if you hit them, they learn it is ok to hit other people. They may turn into bullies at school, and even hit back at you next time. If you catch yourself about to lash out, count to ten. It may calm the whole situation down.

Seeing red; exploding with anger; wanting to hit your child because you've tried everything else. If you reach this level of anger, it has turned into rage. Rage is always destructive, hurtful, and if you experience it, you will need to get some help.

Click for some extra information.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by andyl

I'm not an advocate of hitting children but, knowing what little I do about Russ from reading his posts, I suspect his form of physical discipline would be mild and hardly likely to trouble child protection agencies (although other parents, as Sean points out, may not know where to draw a line or control their anger). My ire is aimed fairly and squarely at those who think it is acceptable to assault children, take pride in it and actually think it's going to achieve something positive.

I don't know of anyone on this forum that advocates assualting children
__________________

Originally Posted by seaneeboy

Hitting your child if they have done something you think is naughty simply doesn't work. Your child will copy the way you act, so if you hit them, they learn it is ok to hit other people. They may turn into bullies at school, and even hit back at you next time. If you catch yourself about to lash out, count to ten. It may calm the whole situation down.

So why is society getting more violent and not less?
50 years ago most children got the belt or spoon at home, or the cane (or witnessed) at school.
By that reasoning, the majority of adults in the UK should be violent thugs and bullies.

[Doofy]

I can't really see the point in hitting a child. Having said that in this nice loud war zone that i live in there are about 20 kids ranging in ages, that i could cheerfully throttle. Sorry if this offends some people but these kids arent misguided or just being kids they are out and out little ******** and some of them aren't a product of bad parenting either, they know the difference between right and wrong they just choose to ignore it. They dont know what discipline is and need a quick slap. These are todays kids and tomorrows future it makes me shudder to think what they are going to grow up to become.

[seaneeboy]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I don't know of anyone on this forum that advocates assualting children

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001

I admit on more than one occasion I have commited common assault on a teenager. And actually yes I am quite proud of it, because the litte **** needed a lesson in humility.

I have no time for the tarquin has a behavioural problem brigade, what tarquin needs is a bloody good thrashing off someone.

I was well pleased that the 13 year old was jailed ...
Perhaps once he's had a few good beatings in prison he will start to learn

Originally Posted by Xaccers

So why is society getting more violent and not less?
50 years ago most children got the belt or spoon at home, or the cane (or witnessed) at school.
By that reasoning, the majority of adults in the UK should be violent thugs and bullies.

Because society and our culture has in the whole changed massivly in the past 50 years?!

You're surely not suggesting that the only possible reason that things aren't the same as 50 years ago (which, by my reconing was the end of the second world war - hardly the best example of society) is because of corporal punishment being taken out of schools?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

And there are millions and millions more parents who just give their child a quick slap when they are misbehaving, after verbal discipline has failed.

I recall very clearly when my eldest was a mere toddler him reaching for a hot gas fire. I was there in a flash and slapped his hand, quite sharply, in my panic.

For years after, he associated that fire with that slap - in fact he thought the fire had done it. He never tried to touch it again.

Just one example where it was not abuse and actually in the child's interest. Hence the outright ban is far too extreme and could criminalise a responsible parent.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by seaneeboy

Originally Posted by timewarrior2001
I admit on more than one occasion I have commited common assault on a teenager. And actually yes I am quite proud of it, because the litte **** needed a lesson in humility.

I have no time for the tarquin has a behavioural problem brigade, what tarquin needs is a bloody good thrashing off someone.

I was well pleased that the 13 year old was jailed ...
Perhaps once he's had a few good beatings in prison he will start to learn

Perhaps TW can expand on what happened?
Escpecially when it sounds like the 13 year old involved was found guilty of a custodial offence.
Could it have been that TW was defending someone against this 13 year old?
Or are you saying that if someone under 18 attacks you, then you shouldn't defend yourself?

Originally Posted by seaneeboy

Because society and our culture has in the whole changed massivly in the past 50 years?!

You're surely not suggesting that the only possible reason that things aren't the same as 50 years ago (which, by my reconing was the end of the second world war - hardly the best example of society) is because of corporal punishment being taken out of schools?

Ok, so what has changed to make that NSPCC statement to be completely inaccurate 50+ years ago but valid now?
How is it that millions of children were exposed to corporal punishment, but didn't go on to become violent thugs, but you slap a kid today and it'll start bullying others?

[Escapee]

Originally Posted by Russ D

I'm not against (limited) physical punishment, my point being it should be for the parents only. If a teacher, policeman, security guard, social worker, clueless vigilante etc lays a finger on my daughter, I want them fully prosecuted for ABH or GBH.

I certainly never said physical punishment should be handed out by a stranger, but on the other hand are we to stand still and let a 15 year old physically attack us in the street?

I certainly wouldn't, if they're big enough to have a go, they're big enough to suffer the consequences.

Russ, Would you blame an innocent person doing this if you had an unruly 15 year old who attacked/mugged them?
Are any of the the liberals saying we cannot hit a 15 year old who is trying to mug us, remember a well developed 15 year old is physically capable of doing a lot of damage or even killing someone.