Smacked children more successful later in life, study finds
- Thread starter McHanhan
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Smacking a child who's playing up is good for them (within reason), teaching everyone at a young age not to act like a little ***** would make the world a better place.
I was spanked as a child - I usually deserved it. My older sisters were also spanked. We were never daemon children, because we knew that if we started fighting then we'd get a smack from mum or dad.
I have 5 little cousins at the moment, all under aged 7. None of them have ever been spanked, and they are all the most pretentious, elf-entitled spoiled little brats I've ever seen. They bully each other, and when given a "stern talking to" tell their parents to fuck off (from a 4 year old!) and when sent to the "naughty step" they just wander off and get their DS and start playing. Then they get another "stern talking to" and maybe sent to bed.
The parents seem to think it's abhorrent to spank a child, and equate it to kicking the living hell out of someone (like many on this thread do). Yet they have such little control over their children, as the kids have learned that if they push the boundaries the worst that will happen is they'll get an early night and can try again the next day.
I'm going to spank my kids, but only as and when they deserve it. I do not condone child abuse - I doubt anyone here does - but sometimes the tactics of the current "be their best friend approach" just fail miserably, and the child needs to learn to *not* attack the dog with a knife, or to push a sibling down the stairs, or to run around the house kicking holes in the walls.
They used to be great kids when there were only 1 or 2 in each family (the 5 are split across 2 couples), but when they all get together they wind each other up and cause havoc, and know their parents just won't do anything about it (case-in-point, when my step-dad - their grandpa- tells them not to do something in a stern voice, they don't do it. But they don't listen to their own parents - I overheard one child say to a younger one "Don't listen to my daddy, he always says stupid stuff like that. He's not very clever, just do it anyway".
I feel that things like the "naughty step" and so on are decent reprimands - but there are times when the child needs a much firmer lesson. Spankings should only be administered for very bad behaviour. Mind you, I'm probably not going to be allowed kids - I am of the belief that if a kid is playing near a fire, and they go to touch it, I'll say "Don't do that, it's hot, it'll hurt" but I won't actually stop them. They'll learn soon enough haha.
Once a kid is older, like over aged 10, it's not that you don't hit a child because they'll hit you back (I'll still be under 50, and since I'll be a copper or in the army I'll be in pretty decent shape, certainly not fearing a little punk
) but rather that groundings, confiscations and "time-outs" become much more effective as the child is developing socially - they have friends, they have a greater attachment to the things they do in their free time than when they were smaller, and stopping them from going to the cinema with their friends is a greater punishment, particularly if they were looking forwards to it, when they do something really stupid or wrong.
I have 5 little cousins at the moment, all under aged 7. None of them have ever been spanked, and they are all the most pretentious, elf-entitled spoiled little brats I've ever seen. They bully each other, and when given a "stern talking to" tell their parents to fuck off (from a 4 year old!) and when sent to the "naughty step" they just wander off and get their DS and start playing. Then they get another "stern talking to" and maybe sent to bed.
The parents seem to think it's abhorrent to spank a child, and equate it to kicking the living hell out of someone (like many on this thread do). Yet they have such little control over their children, as the kids have learned that if they push the boundaries the worst that will happen is they'll get an early night and can try again the next day.
I'm going to spank my kids, but only as and when they deserve it. I do not condone child abuse - I doubt anyone here does - but sometimes the tactics of the current "be their best friend approach" just fail miserably, and the child needs to learn to *not* attack the dog with a knife, or to push a sibling down the stairs, or to run around the house kicking holes in the walls.
They used to be great kids when there were only 1 or 2 in each family (the 5 are split across 2 couples), but when they all get together they wind each other up and cause havoc, and know their parents just won't do anything about it (case-in-point, when my step-dad - their grandpa- tells them not to do something in a stern voice, they don't do it. But they don't listen to their own parents - I overheard one child say to a younger one "Don't listen to my daddy, he always says stupid stuff like that. He's not very clever, just do it anyway".
I feel that things like the "naughty step" and so on are decent reprimands - but there are times when the child needs a much firmer lesson. Spankings should only be administered for very bad behaviour. Mind you, I'm probably not going to be allowed kids - I am of the belief that if a kid is playing near a fire, and they go to touch it, I'll say "Don't do that, it's hot, it'll hurt" but I won't actually stop them. They'll learn soon enough haha.
Once a kid is older, like over aged 10, it's not that you don't hit a child because they'll hit you back (I'll still be under 50, and since I'll be a copper or in the army I'll be in pretty decent shape, certainly not fearing a little punk
) but rather that groundings, confiscations and "time-outs" become much more effective as the child is developing socially - they have friends, they have a greater attachment to the things they do in their free time than when they were smaller, and stopping them from going to the cinema with their friends is a greater punishment, particularly if they were looking forwards to it, when they do something really stupid or wrong.
I was never hit as a child. I was, however, mercilessly mocked if I did something wrong.
Or right.
...
*sob*
Or right.
...
*sob*
I was never hit as a child, being from a greek family mean that the punishment was more psycological like getting yelled at and being told i was a disapointment. But hey I turned out pretty ok....*twitch*
Well I'm doing pretty well and I was smacked as a child. I agree with it. Plus I hate fighting. I only fight with words. I'm a git.
I think the government banning it has been stupid. Now all the children are rude and stupid, and deserve such a hitting.
I think the government banning it has been stupid. Now all the children are rude and stupid, and deserve such a hitting.
The people who are whining about how they don't want to hurt children.....get real. Physical Discipline does not equal Abuse. A smack is an immediate negative reinforcement of punishment in reaction to whatever they did. You're not bruising them or breaking their bones. You're not cracking them with heavy objects....you're just slapping them.
Yes, hitting your kids works. Is it 100%? No, but then neither is the philosophy of raising your kid in a negative-free environment where you don't say no and you don't punish them and you let them express themselves whenever they want.
Hint: If you punish your kids at an early age, then they generally won't have behavioral problems when they are older and then you won't have to smack them at 12-13 and up.
Yes, hitting your kids works. Is it 100%? No, but then neither is the philosophy of raising your kid in a negative-free environment where you don't say no and you don't punish them and you let them express themselves whenever they want.
Hint: If you punish your kids at an early age, then they generally won't have behavioral problems when they are older and then you won't have to smack them at 12-13 and up.
There are several problems with this article. Firstly it says that they ask 179 teenagers about it. They had a small range of subjects and they can't prove any of their evidence. Secondly I don't think the things they claim to have asked were very well thought out. Thirdly, how do you define success.
Many peoples definition of success is to get the highest paid job possible and have the largest amount of influence over other people. That for me would be failure. Being in a extremely stressful position where one mistake could mean being torn apart by the people you are responsible for is not success. Success in my opinion is getting a job you enjoy that also pays your bills.
To answer the other question (was I smacked as a child), I can't remember it specifically happening but I don't doubt that my mum would have done it if she thought I needed it. TBH my opinion is that it probably should be done in some circumstances but I'm not experienced enough in that area to say when.
wall of text ^_^
Many peoples definition of success is to get the highest paid job possible and have the largest amount of influence over other people. That for me would be failure. Being in a extremely stressful position where one mistake could mean being torn apart by the people you are responsible for is not success. Success in my opinion is getting a job you enjoy that also pays your bills.
To answer the other question (was I smacked as a child), I can't remember it specifically happening but I don't doubt that my mum would have done it if she thought I needed it. TBH my opinion is that it probably should be done in some circumstances but I'm not experienced enough in that area to say when.
wall of text ^_^