When & Where Did it Change?

Headhuunter

daviesee wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

NOT telling off certain children is as counter productive as telling off others, it's down to professionals who work with kids to work out what is best for each and every child rather than make blanket statements like "smacking children is bad". Unfortunately resources are often not available to give every child a tailor made upbringing outside the home environment.

Unfortunately this is where it all goes wrong - parents absolving themselves of any responsibilities.
Children should know how to behave before they go to school and certainly before secondary school.
If the parents can't handle it then yes, they should seek professional help but they should try at least. I see so many cases of parents leaving it up to the school to teach their children absolutely everything. Manners, respect, how to eat etc, etc. should be taught in the home along with a basic level of education. Maybe the parents don't know any better but that's where it went wrong and it had to start somewhere.
It's always someone else's fault :evil:

PS:- Isn't the fight supposed to be on another thread?

This is something that my dad and other teacher relations said many times. Kids arrive at secondary school these days without the life skills and knowledge of boundaries that they used to have. Many parents rely on schools to teach their kids what is right and wrong and until then they get to school they're frequently either spoiled or just allowed to do whatever they please with very little consequence. As soon as teachers at schools try to instil some discipline they often do what DDD suggests - shut down and rebel, simply because no one has ever set any boundaries in their lives and they are unused to it, they are used to getting their own way. It then takes many hours of expensive professionals' and teachers' time to teach them what their parents should have when they were younger.

antfly

All together now,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6hHLWmeQscI

secretsam

lost_in_thought wrote:

I don't know when exactly it happened, but I was born in '83 and was told by my mother to only sit down if nobody older or better than me was standing.

So sometime between 1997 and now.

When did Labour get in again?

:P

Actually, it was Thatcher's fault.

Dudu

SecretSam wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

I don't know when exactly it happened, but I was born in '83 and was told by my mother to only sit down if nobody older or better than me was standing.

So sometime between 1997 and now.

When did Labour get in again?

:P

Actually, it was Thatcher's fault.

...but then so are most bad things. Don't get me started.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

There are certain kids for whom touchy feely talks about "issues" work and bring them out of their shell and address underlying problems but there are other kids who will continually rebel and push boundaries as far as they can and need something firmer than a nice sit down and a cup of tea to talk things through. These kids need something more forceful as they are already waaaay out of their shells. As I said, professionals who work with children ignore a good old fashioned telling off at their peril

Most teenagers of my brother's generation don't respond well to being shouted out. They didn't when they were children.

You shouldn't need to smack a small child.

A person who loses their temper with a child or teenager is a person who has lost control of themself and run out of ideas.

Conflict resolution courses (such as those that deal with teaching people to deal with a group of unsociable teenagers) teaches that to engage with anyone you don't project negativitiy i.e. shout at them.

All I am saying is that there are other, proven, more productive methods.

Have kids, find out. I benefit from having a girlfriend in family law, teachers as friends, friends as parents, a 16 year old brother, several cousins of varying ages from 5 - 27, professional training, a friend who dealt with young offenders and now pedophiles.

I'll remind you of this when you've got yours, and you're in a state of chronic sleep deprivation. You swear you'll never do it...

...and then you do...

...and then you hate yourself for it.

TBF, by the time they're teenagers, they should be sleeping through though.

The trick is (I think) catching yourself in time, stepping out, and letting someone else take over.

spen666

DonDaddyD wrote:

....

Like I said if an adult is shouting or serverly telling off a child - you could argue intimidating them - then how does that child learn or feel safe that they can express themselves and any problems in that situation.

The whole point is the aim in those circumstances is to teach the child not to do something again, not to teach them to feel safe or to express themselves


Context is important. There is a time to punish and a time to reassure and support.

Some children misbehave because they are being bullied.

some children misbehave. Misbehaviour is wrong. Misbehaviour is to be punished.

The fact the child was being bullied is not a licence to misbehave.

Remember the saying two wrongs don't make a right?

Example: kid not going to school because they are getting bullied. The teachers find out, call the parents in, they tell the child off never really getting to the bottom of how or why the child is doing so. And because of their anger the child reverts into their shell and doesn't feel like they can confide in them or tell them about the bullying, they don't feel like they've got the support of the teacher or parent. That's how its counter-productive. And yes this is one example but its the principle behind it. That we should work with children, not rule over them and alienate them as they have been in the past.

Alternatively child thinks great I've got away with misbehaving therefore I can carry on doing it.

You are reinforcing the belief in the child that they can misbehave with impunity

And whilst it might not be ideal, boundaries are learnt when consequences are understood. An angry parent or teacher sends a clear message,

No it doesn't, it sends the message that the parent is angry.

Right.

Good - I hope it does send that message. The message the parent/ adult is angry is the right message to send.

Children need to learn discipline and boundaries

spen666

Headhuunter wrote:

daviesee wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

NOT telling off certain children is as counter productive as telling off others, it's down to professionals who work with kids to work out what is best for each and every child rather than make blanket statements like "smacking children is bad". Unfortunately resources are often not available to give every child a tailor made upbringing outside the home environment.

Unfortunately this is where it all goes wrong - parents absolving themselves of any responsibilities.
Children should know how to behave before they go to school and certainly before secondary school.
If the parents can't handle it then yes, they should seek professional help but they should try at least. I see so many cases of parents leaving it up to the school to teach their children absolutely everything. Manners, respect, how to eat etc, etc. should be taught in the home along with a basic level of education. Maybe the parents don't know any better but that's where it went wrong and it had to start somewhere.
It's always someone else's fault :evil:

PS:- Isn't the fight supposed to be on another thread?

This is something that my dad and other teacher relations said many times. Kids arrive at secondary school these days without the life skills and knowledge of boundaries that they used to have. Many parents rely on schools to teach their kids what is right and wrong and until then they get to school they're frequently either spoiled or just allowed to do whatever they please with very little consequence. As soon as teachers at schools try to instil some discipline they often do what DDD suggests - shut down and rebel, simply because no one has ever set any boundaries in their lives and they are unused to it, they are used to getting their own way. It then takes many hours of expensive professionals' and teachers' time to teach them what their parents should have when they were younger.

+1

SamWise1972

I tend to think of children and adults as part of one larger category, which I like to call "people". As far as seats on a train, the frail, infirm or pregnant get first dibs, and beyond that, it's first come first served. I can see no reason for an adult to give up their seat for a healthy child, nor vice versa.

This is related to what I believe about people in general; if you want them to respect you, then you should respect them. Treating children as the enemy, as we do now, or as lesser beings, as we used to, results in them being resentful and unwilling to co-operate. I have a 13 year old son; his mother has trouble with him, I don't. Why? She has always insisted on "do as I say, no questions asked", whereas I've treated him from 2 years old as someone who deserves to have the whys and wherefores explained to him, to be negotiated with, to have his opinion respected even when I disagree, and to be able to change my mind sometimes, perhaps because he's right and I'm wrong, and perhaps just because I want to be kind. This doesn't mean he does whatever he wants whilst I say "Come on, let's sit down and discuss it". If he would endanger himself by doing something, I would prevent him before trying to persuade him. If he was going to cause harm or offense to someone else (not everyone; some people take offense at stupid things), then I would stop him doing whatever it was BEFORE we discussed it. Now, surprise surprise, he wants to please me. He values the trust and freedom I give him, and doesn't want to flush that down the bog. Treat your kid as a lesser being, and best case scenario, he will come to see you as one. Worst case, he may decide that he really IS, and then he'll still want to treat you like that, but will struggle to make headway in the world.

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

This is something that my dad and other teacher relations said many times. Kids arrive at secondary school these days without the life skills and knowledge of boundaries that they used to have. Many parents rely on schools to teach their kids what is right and wrong and until then they get to school they're frequently either spoiled or just allowed to do whatever they please with very little consequence. As soon as teachers at schools try to instil some discipline they often do what DDD suggests - shut down and rebel, simply because no one has ever set any boundaries in their lives and they are unused to it, they are used to getting their own way. It then takes many hours of expensive professionals' and teachers' time to teach them what their parents should have when they were younger.

I think that this is very much the case with the poorly behaved kids. They're behaviour is often linked to either parents not setting boundaries early on in that child's development. Or parents that have set boundaries that are far too strict and the child abuses the apparent freedom (school) to act out.

In my experience (certainly in the 12 years between my going to school and then my brother) parents are now more aware that schools are there to simply teach children things (if that) and parents are there to raise their children.

Either way, I simply do not think that a group of adults telling off a child about how bad they've been is the best way to engage with that child, even if it is to punish or tell them off. The group is intimidating and will only serve to make that child revert into themselves, meaning that they are harder to engage with and less likely to absorb any information.

Better to talk to that child one to one. Rationally and calmly but not losing authority, respect and maintaining the seriousness of the situation.

SamWise wrote:

I tend to think of children and adults as part of one larger category, which I like to call "people". As far as seats on a train, the frail, infirm or pregnant get first dibs, and beyond that, it's first come first served. I can see no reason for an adult to give up their seat for a healthy child, nor vice versa.

This. Always.

bikey2009

Has kids behaviour really changed?

More people use public transport now than they did 20 years ago (in London). The tube on a weekday morning is bloody mental, everyone in a rush without care for others.

I've travelled on London Undergroud for nearly 30 years, it's not just the kids (susposed) attitude to giving up a seat to an elder, imo it's all of our faults.

Yes it's changed from before, but all public transport users behaviours and usage has changed in that time.

further

notsoblue wrote:

DECLINE!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yob6FejcU1g

Everything is less good when compared with my detail lacking memories of the past.

Tish and fipsy, I say.

Excellent interjection.

Monkeypump

In short, this:

Headhuunter wrote:

There are certain kids for whom touchy feely talks about "issues" work and bring them out of their shell and address underlying problems but there are other kids who will continually rebel and push boundaries as far as they can and need something firmer than a nice sit down and a cup of tea to talk things through. These kids need something more forceful as they are already waaaay out of their shells. As I said, professionals who work with children ignore a good old fashioned telling off at their peril

And, of course, this – the two concepts are not mutually exclusive (although I agree with SamWise's later point – sometimes children need to be told, then given an explanation):

SamWise1972 wrote:

I tend to think of children and adults as part of one larger category, which I like to call "people".

And although I'm really not trying to have a dig at you DDD, your situation isn't unique.

DonDaddyD wrote:

I benefit from having a girlfriend in family law, teachers as friends, friends as parents, a 16 year old brother, several cousins of varying ages from 5 - 27, professional training, a friend who dealt with young offenders and now paedophiles.

Headhuunter

SamWise1972 wrote:

I tend to think of children and adults as part of one larger category, which I like to call "people". As far as seats on a train, the frail, infirm or pregnant get first dibs, and beyond that, it's first come first served. I can see no reason for an adult to give up their seat for a healthy child, nor vice versa.

This is related to what I believe about people in general; if you want them to respect you, then you should respect them. Treating children as the enemy, as we do now, or as lesser beings, as we used to, results in them being resentful and unwilling to co-operate. I have a 13 year old son; his mother has trouble with him, I don't. Why? She has always insisted on "do as I say, no questions asked", whereas I've treated him from 2 years old as someone who deserves to have the whys and wherefores explained to him, to be negotiated with, to have his opinion respected even when I disagree, and to be able to change my mind sometimes, perhaps because he's right and I'm wrong, and perhaps just because I want to be kind. This doesn't mean he does whatever he wants whilst I say "Come on, let's sit down and discuss it". If he would endanger himself by doing something, I would prevent him before trying to persuade him. If he was going to cause harm or offense to someone else (not everyone; some people take offense at stupid things), then I would stop him doing whatever it was BEFORE we discussed it. Now, surprise surprise, he wants to please me. He values the trust and freedom I give him, and doesn't want to flush that down the bog. Treat your kid as a lesser being, and best case scenario, he will come to see you as one. Worst case, he may decide that he really IS, and then he'll still want to treat you like that, but will struggle to make headway in the world.

I don't think anyone is saying kids are the enemy and they're certainly people but they're not full grown adults and not always able to recognise boundaries and rules. These days there seems to be an increasing rush to turn our kids into mini-adults and we seem to forget that they are not always mature enough to recognise mistakes and need to be taught how to behave. They are children and whilst they should be allowed to enjoy their childhood without being pushde into adulthood, they also need to be taught a few things along the way. Your "sit down and discuss" it approache evidently works well for you and your kid, butthis approach does not work 100% of the time. Kids are all different, they are not automotons upon which a specific set of rules and instructions works for all.

rjsterry

Not to disagree with your point, but there's a fair few adults who are not always able to recognise boundaries and rules.

Headhuunter

rjsterry wrote:

Not to disagree with your point, but there's a fair few adults who are not always able to recognise boundaries and rules.

Probably adults who were never taught to recognise them as kids....

DonDaddyD

Actually, it was only during my adult years that i really started to push boundaries.

In person I believe myself to be generally polite and respectful (when it is deserved), I always have been. But i grew tired with pointless social taboos and hang-ups.

In fact I guess when I was younger some attempted to tell me that I must do this or must do that, like give up my seat to an able bodied man (didn't happen but for arguments sake its an example) and I would ask why and I mean really why, "Is the man tired, does he have a physically disability where standing gives him pain or is it simply because its expected of me and if so what makes him a priority over me?" Would be my likely response. In return I was often simply told "just because" or "you must" said with a stiff upper british lip.

And so that lack willingness to explain, the sheer dismissiveness affored to me is now what I give to some of those boundaries...

"The Hate U Give Little Infants F*cks Everybody"

"Monsters are created by monsters. Bullies are often bullied. People who shout were often shouted at"

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

Actually, it was only during my adult years that i really started to push boundaries.

In person I believe myself to be generally polite and respectful (when it is deserved), I always have been. But i grew tired with pointless social taboos and hang-ups.

In fact I guess when I was younger some attempted to tell me that I must do this or must do that, like give up my seat to an able bodied man (didn't happen but for arguments sake its an example) and I would ask why and I mean really why, "Is the man tired, does he have a physically disability where standing gives him pain or is it simply because its expected of me and if so what makes him a priority over me?" Would be my likely response. In return I was often simply told "just because" or "you must" said with a stiff upper british lip.

And so that lack willingness to explain, the sheer dismissiveness affored to me is now what I give to some of those boundaries...

"The Hate U Give Little Infants F*cks Everybody"

"Monsters are created by monsters"

To be honest I think this discussion has moved on from whether kids should offer seats on trains and buses. I'm with you on the seat offering thing. I couldn't really give a crap if a 13 year old child leapt up to offer me, a fit n strong 37 year old a seat or not. Certainly if it's down to pure ability to hold onesself up in a standing position for a 10 minute Tube ride, I feel stronger, fitter and more able to do that now than at any other time in my life so I don't need a seat. Also being offered one makes me feel old. I can see that it's definitely worth doing for a genuinely elderly or disabled person but otherwise no point. I wouldn't jump up and offer my seat to a 45 year old (if I could even tell they were 45 and older than me of just an old looking 35)....

DonDaddyD

But my later point, and the overacrching one, was that if you bully someone they are likely to bully someone else. A child who is shouted at, sworn at, hit etc often does or will do these things at some point in their life. The degree of which varies between children.

So, I think three adults chasitising a child together will only have a longer term negative effect. Sure the child may learn that what they did was wrong. But they will also learn the method that taught them its wrong.

Futher to this point as a Man I wouldn't smack my children. I think the message is completely different when a Mother smacks her kids as oppose to when a Dad does it. I think this because each plays different role when parenting.

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

But my later point, and the overacrching one, was that if you bully someone they are likely to bully someone else. A child who is shouted at, sworn at, hit etc often does or will do these things at some point in their life. The degree of which varies between children.

So, I think three adults chasitising a child together will only have a longer term negative effect. Sure the child may learn that what they did was wrong. But they will also learn the method that taught them its wrong.

Futher to this point as a Man I wouldn't smack my children. I think the message is completely different when a Mother smacks her kids as oppose to when a Dad does it. I think this because each plays different role when parenting.

I think it depends on how and in what context the telling off is done. You refer to telling someone off as "bullying" which it's not, it's simply giving someone the tools to respect others in future life. I wasn't suggesting swearing at or smacking kids, what I'm saying is that in the face of continued misbehaving when the softly, softly approach has failed, showing a child that the adults in his or her life (parents and teachers) are a united front in the face of continued problem behaviour, is a positive thing. The "softly, softly, lets all talk and sort out your problems" approach will only work with certain kids and up to a certain point.

DonDaddyD

Headhuunter wrote:

I think it depends on how and in what context the telling off is done. You refer to telling someone off as "bullying" which it's not,

But it can be interpretated that way by the child and that's the point. Three adults telling a child off at the same times can be taken as bullying. the child is intimidated, doesn't feel they can answer back, safely defend themselve etc = bullying.

I wasn't suggesting swearing at or smacking kids, what I'm saying is that in the face of continued misbehaving when the softly, softly approach has failed, showing a child that the adults in his or her life (parents and teachers) are a united front in the face of continued problem behaviour, is a positive thing.

It can be, but more often it might not. By forming a united front, you inadvertedly remove the support system from that child and if there is a deeper rooted problem then that child may feel they aren't able to got any adult to confide in. Basically they'll feel they don't have any support, ostracised from those who are supposed to be "on their side".

Again I go back to my example of the child missing school (an example that happened to a child I knew) because they are being bullied. They are called in with their parents to discuss the matter with their teacher. All the adults show a unitied front so the child doesn't come forward about why they've been skipping school (probably fear that: they'll be beaten up by the bully [ii] no one will listen [iii] they've got no support system to confide in after all both parents and the teacher are telling them off/berating them).

So sure, the skipping school problem has been address the deeper more damaging problem is ignored and the parents have pushed the kid further away.

DonDaddyD

In fact, I think children at all times should be encouraged to talk to adults about their problems. There are many examples where adults are shown the importance of listening to their children and encouraging them not to be scared of them or feel that they cannot approach and adult when there is a problem.

If a young child is misbehaving, there is usually a deeper catalyst for this behaviour, maybe they aren't being pushed, don't understand the subject, being bullied, don't like the school etc.

Encouraging a child to come forward and express themselves cannot be achieved by having several adults telling the child off at the same time. If their poor behaviour is simply 'just because' and 'they thought it would be funny', like they enjoy throwing things at other children and despite being told no keep doing it then that's when actual punishment must happen. Again this punishment doesn't need more than one adult to administer it and having two or more adults doing so or telling them off deeper negative effects as stated above.

Headhuunter

DonDaddyD wrote:

In fact, I think children at all times should be encouraged to talk to adults about their problems. There are many examples where adults are shown the importance of listening to their children and encouraging them not to be scared of them or feel that they cannot approach and adult when there is a problem.

If a young child is misbehaving, there is usually a deeper catalyst for this behaviour, maybe they aren't being pushed, don't understand the subject, being bullied, don't like the school etc.

Encouraging a child to come forward and express themselves cannot be achieved by having several adults telling the child off at the same time. If their poor behaviour is simply 'just because' and 'they thought it would be funny', like they enjoy throwing things at other children and despite being told no keep doing it then that's when actual punishment must happen. Again this punishment doesn't need more than one adult to administer it and having two or more adults doing so or telling them off deeper negative effects as stated above.

I really think you're looking into this waaay to deeply. Yes, certainly, misbehaviour can be an indicator of problems elsewhere in life but it can also be down to good old fashioned naughtiness and testing of boundaries which all kids do. At the risk of sounding like a Daily Mail cliche, a good clip round the ear and a teling off can sort out some problems.

I think in the past, decades ago, there was no support system for kids and teachers and parents alike resorted to physical punishment and a good shouting at all too quickly, and this caused problems for some children, however these days I think we tend to over psycho-analyse everything. Some kids are just kids, they test stuff out, push boundaries and break rules. It's what kids do, it's part of the learning process and all they sometimes need is a stern word from a supposed role model - their parents and teachers. It's not bullying it's just life.

cee

I firmly believe that the balance between rights and responsibilities has changed for the worse.

It seems to me that in the past...people had fewer 'rights' but more responsibility for the rights of others....

Nowadays..it all seems to be about an individuals rights and bugger the responsibilities...

The police can't deal with minors....they all know their rights....who hasn't heard that one..
Teachers can't deal with kids...can't shout at them..can't give detention...can't even really single them out for fear of being called a bully.
Parents can't smack their kids for fear of child abuse charges.

daviesee

DonDaddyD wrote:

Futher to this point as a Man I wouldn't smack my children. I think the message is completely different when a Mother smacks her kids as oppose to when a Dad does it. I think this because each plays different role when parenting.

Huh?????????????

Violence is violence is violence.

If you are against it, it doesn't matter which sex is administering it :roll:

And yes, some women are far more violent than some men.

Headhuunter

cee wrote:

I firmly believe that the balance between rights and responsibilities has changed for the worse.

It seems to me that in the past...people had fewer 'rights' but more responsibility for the rights of others....

Nowadays..it all seems to be about an individuals rights and bugger the responsibilities...

The police can't deal with minors....they all know their rights....who hasn't heard that one..
Teachers can't deal with kids...can't shout at them..can't give detention...can't even really single them out for fear of being called a bully.
Parents can't smack their kids for fear of child abuse charges.

That's another thing my dad told me had changed in his career from the 70s to the 90s! When he started his career it was perfectly legal to give a naughty kid a clip round the ear and they would accept it and the class would move on but at the end of his career he said that kids parents' would call a lawyer in if you even brushed by little Johnny on the way downa corridor and before you knew it, social workers would be in and the teacher would be suspended for paedophilia (OK perhaps slight exaggeration).

Kids are now very aware that they could do whatever they wanted and there would be very little consequence ( from authorities, be they police, teachers or parents) as we're all too busy falling over ourselves making sure kids know their "rights" and are cared for in a softly, softly, mustn't offend fashion that we forget that the old fashioned methods sometimes (not always) much more effective. Not all kids have "issues" to deal with. Sometimes they're just plain naughty.

DonDaddyD

Some kids are just kids, they test stuff out, push boundaries and break rules.

Even under these circumstances I would sit my child down and have a conversation about why they did it and get them to understand why it is wrong to do so. Doing so will hopefully teach them to be more rational and be more aware of their actions. A 'clip round the ear doesn't do that'. It just indicates a lack a patience.

The police can't deal with minors....they all know their rights....who hasn't heard that one..
Teachers can't deal with kids...can't shout at them..can't give detention...can't even really single them out for fear of being called a bully.
Parents can't smack their kids for fear of child abuse charges.

In all instances those are just people and all cases each group have examples of failing.

Police abuse their powers and some teenagers feel singled out/targeted by police purely on a peconception (don't even get me started on stop and search).

Teachers, teach. I don't expect a teacher to shout at my child or single them out in an unruly class. I suffered sh*t teachers in a school so bad it is now closed down. I've seen teachers make preconceptions of children and their parents picking out their favourites and the ones they dislike and treating them unfairly. I've suffered this. Teachers job is to teach. My job will be to be a parent. That's the boundary.

I've seen smacking that borders child abuse, I've seen smacking have no effect. Almost anytime I've seen a parent smack their child it's usually because the parent has lost control of the situation, lost their temper/patience. Hell, even me and my brother freely admit (at seperate times) that we'd rather take the belt than be grounded, have a computer/toys taken away (so what's the better punishment).

So while each group has a responsibility, members of each group have abused that responsibility and that has given strength to other groups rights.

DonDaddyD

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Futher to this point as a Man I wouldn't smack my children. I think the message is completely different when a Mother smacks her kids as oppose to when a Dad does it. I think this because each plays different role when parenting.

Huh?????????????

Violence is violence is violence.

If you are against it, it doesn't matter which sex is administering it :roll:

And yes, some women are far more violent than some men.

Yes, violence is violence.

If a White Van Man spat in your face or Vicky Pendelton, which would be worse? Even if equal force was used would you rather be hit by David Haye or Victoria Beckham?

Perception plays just as much a part as the action.

I reckon the perception of being hit by your Dad is different than being hit by your Mum.

rjsterry

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Futher to this point as a Man I wouldn't smack my children. I think the message is completely different when a Mother smacks her kids as oppose to when a Dad does it. I think this because each plays different role when parenting.

Huh?????????????

Violence is violence is violence.

If you are against it, it doesn't matter which sex is administering it :roll:

And yes, some women are far more violent than some men.

Yes, I was thrown a bit by that comment. That sounds more like a cultural norm rather than some fundamental difference between the roles of mothers and fathers.

rjsterry

DonDaddyD wrote:

daviesee wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

Futher to this point as a Man I wouldn't smack my children. I think the message is completely different when a Mother smacks her kids as oppose to when a Dad does it. I think this because each plays different role when parenting.

Huh?????????????

Violence is violence is violence.

If you are against it, it doesn't matter which sex is administering it :roll:

And yes, some women are far more violent than some men.

Yes, violence is violence.

If a White Van Man spat in your face or Vicky Pendelton, which would be worse? Even if equal force was used would you rather be hit by David Haye or Victoria Beckham?

Perception plays just as much a part as the action.

I reckon the perception of being hit by your Dad is different than being hit by your Mum.

That depends on you, your Dad, and your Mum.

wgwarburton

DonDaddyD wrote:

In fact, I think children at all times should be encouraged to talk to adults about their problems. ....

In reference to this and to your earlier comment about asking "why?"... one of the things I have learned fairly recently is how enthusistically children will ask questions in order to get attention- sometimes when it's not appropriate to do so. This ties in with your example of asking about a third party, since the parent may not want to answer the question within their earshot.

My inclination to answer all questions as best I can is ruthlessley exploited by my children... who are still developing the sensitivity and social skills to know when it's better to shut up.

Not, perhaps, the point of your post but since you've mentioned it a couple of times I thought it relevant.

Cheers,
W.