Jump to content

Recommended Posts

A study has found that young children smacked by their parents may grow up to be more successful than those who have never been hit.


"...parents who rule out smacking as a matter of principle may be less likely to help their children develop the self-discipline and social skills needed to succeed in life."



http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article6974059.ece



While this may seem to go against the grain, there can't be many parents who haven't smacked their children at one time or another. Now it appears it may be a good thing.

How do you define success silverfox? Good exam results? High earning potential?

Doesn't necessarily make for a well-rounded individual; able to distinguish from right and wrong; who knows how to handle themselves and to treat those around them with respect and humanity.

The implication of this research is that there will be a time lag until the untouched little darlings in Germany, Sweden and Finland reach adulthood. Only then will be be able to judge whether it is accurate or not.


Sweden and Finland could be measured against their high alcohol and suicide rates before and after smacking was abolished. It will be slighly more difficult to assess the effect on Germany given that its dominance of the EU will muddy accurate economic figures.

parents with hard & fast rules incl the use of smacking as a sanction will probabaly have equally strong opinions on success and achievement and will push their kids harder.bogus headline.


Rather like stating that because Howard Hughes, the mad billionare, had rooms full of his own bottled urine, that following his example would also mean you would eventually become a rich man.


fail.

There's probably a better correlation between the "unindulged child" and success.


Children that are rewarded for success and either penalised, or have rewards witheld for lack of success, probably tend to be more successful than otherwise. Such an unindulged child may also, occasionally, receive the odd smack as part of a disciplined tough love approach?


Children to whom all is given with no need to strive or deliver beforehand probably tend to be less successful.


The over indulged and conspicuously unsuccesful children of many a successful business person, entrepreneur, film star, pop star etc give some credence to this theory.

I wonder if every time a parent hit a child the child hit the parent squarely back in the face it would encourage more 'successful' parenting, or at least be a deterrent against adults being violent towards children on the basis that they are their own. :)

Indeed, I'd go further. Many successful people talk of having childhoods where they were neglected, unloved and even abused. Ambition can be driven from deep seated needs to please, be loved, validated even just plain bloody noticed.

It's no coincidence that they are often workaholics and feel unfulfilled by their successes.


So I'm with taper, keep this about morality. Damaging people may e a recipe for a narrow definition of success but hardly seems conducive to a healthy society.


If empires are your thing then children being seen and not heard and packed off to boarding schools full of disciplinarians certainly worked wonders, but let's face it, all that opium addiction, mothers ruin, repressed sexuality and terrible food has taken us the best part of a century to recover from (made for some great literature too mind).

It's always worth reading to the end of these articles..


"The results were less clear for a separate group of teenagers who had been smacked until they were slightly older ? aged seven to 11. They fared slightly worse on negative behaviour scores ? they reported being involved in more fights, for example ? but were also likely to be more academically successful than those who had not been smacked.


Teenagers who were still being smacked, however, scored significantly worse than every group on all the measures."


It's only one study and at best it's inconclusive. The children who were smacked between the ages of 2 and 6 performed "slightly better" which could well be within the margin of error on studies like this. And it would be worth investigating what other characteristics the groups that performed better academically etc had in common. Studies like this are of very limited value (if any) and the article could easily have been headed "smacking children leads to bad behaviour" and still been a fair reflection of its conclusions.


And if the best conclusions that can be drawn from this are that children who are smacked perform no worse in terms of behavour and academic results than children who aren't smacked, then that means children who aren't smacked perform just as well. So....why smack children if it makes no difference.....

As someone who often gets to see family dynamics (albeit at a time of stress) I can see no benefit in the smacking of children - without trying other means first.


It seems to be used only when the parents don't have the confidence or skills to try and calm situations without resorting to physical assault (as it would be called in a boss/employee dr/patient teacher/pupil relationship).


I caught something on daytime telly today about this report (the joys of shift work!) and one of the panelists was saying how she and her siblings had been smacked when they were kids and they'd all gone on to uni so it obviously the report was completely right and it does no harm.

She then went on to say that she had seen children upset more and for longer by sitting on a naughty chair/step than if smacked so surely smacking was better... my jaw dropped as much as the other panelists.


I'm ashamed to say I text the programme suggesting this would indicate that the smacked children were being numbed to the violence of it and if smacking children how could you then tell them off for smacking/slapping their peers - the comment was read out and blimey did she squirm and didn't have an answer back to it.

Timster Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> well more to the point, what did the study mean by

> 'smack'?

>

> of course, it's been quite a while since it was

> legal for schools to cane or slipper pupils..

SteveT Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Early sixties I believe.


Fairly sure it was later than this - was born in the late 70's and sure I remember seeing about this finally being completely banned on John Craven's Newsround so that would be early/mid 80's.

Slippered , caned, and hit over the knuckles with a plastic rod that the physics teacher referred to lovingly as Candy, as in "Do you want some candy boy" all the way through the 70s and early 80s. Thats not to mention what the Fencing Prof used to do with Epee's and Foils to boys who didn't perform well.


Never did me no harm!


*Twitches uncontrollably and reaches for his pills*

As Bob Dylan says, 'When something ain't right it's wrong'. Hitting children (or anyone else for that matter) is wrong. A spurious, possibly right wing, report on how 'smacking' children could improve their chances in life deserves utter contempt and rejection.

smacking children, (who are smaller, dependant and less powerful)is still legal, but I am not allowed to smack someone my own size ???? Smacking children teaches them to smack in turn. There are many better and more respectful ways of teaching a child social skills, caring for others, right and wrong etc.

It is hard for us to realise that perhaps our parents were wrong.

I am a counsellor and have seen many examples of where physical assault on children has affected the lives and happiness of the adult they became.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The issue must be everywhere at the moment. I was visiting a friend last week in Bermondsey, think we were walking  down Linton Rd & we dodged 7 dog poos. It was disgusting. 
    • Thanks for your message — I actually took the time to look into what CityHive does before posting my original comment, and I’d encourage anyone with questions to do the same. Yes, the Companies House filings are overdue — but from what I’ve gathered, this seems likely to be an accountant or admin issue, not some sign of ill intent. A lot of small, community-based organisations face challenges keeping up with formalities, especially when they’re focused on immediate needs like food distribution. Let’s not forget CityHive is a not-for-profit, volunteer-powered CIC — not a corporate machine. As for the directors, people stepping down or being replaced is often about capacity or commitment — which is completely normal in the voluntary and community sector. New directors are sometimes appointed when others can no longer give the time. It doesn’t automatically mean bad governance — it just means people’s circumstances change. CityHive’s actual work speaks volumes. They buy most of the food they distribute — fresh produce, essential groceries, and shelf-stable items — and then deliver it to food banks, soup kitchens, and community projects across London. The food doesn’t stay with CityHive — it goes out to local food hubs, and from there, directly to people who need it most. And while yes, there may be a few paid staff handling logistics or admin, there’s a huge volunteer effort behind the scenes that often goes unseen. Regular people giving their time to drive vans, sort donations, load pallets, pack food parcels — that’s what keeps things running. And when people don’t volunteer? Those same tasks still need to be done — which means they have to be paid for. Otherwise, the whole thing grinds to a halt. As the need grows, organisations like CityHive will inevitably need more support — both in people and funding. But the bigger issue here isn’t one small CIC trying to make ends meet. The real issue is the society we live in — and a government that isn’t playing its part in eradicating poverty. If it were, organisations like CityHive, The Felix Project, City Harvest, FareShare, and the Trussell Trust wouldn’t need to exist, let alone be thriving. They thrive because the need is growing. That’s not a reflection on them — it’s a reflection on a broken system that allows people to go hungry in one of the richest cities in the world. If you're in doubt about what they’re doing, go check their Instagram: @cityhivemedia. You’ll see the real organisations and people receiving food, sharing thanks, and showing how far the impact reaches. Even Southwark Foodbank has received food from CityHive — that alone should speak volumes. So again — how does any of this harm you personally? Why spend time trying to discredit a group trying to support those who are falling through the cracks? We need more people lifting others up — not adding weight to those already carrying the load.
    • Well, this is very disappointing. Malabar Feast  has changed its menu again. The delicious fish curry with sea bass no longer exists. There is now a fish dish with raw mango, which doesn't appeal. I had dal and spinach instead, which was bland (which I suppose I could/should have predicted). One of my visitors had a "vegetable Biriani" which contained hardly any vegetables. Along with it came two extremely tiny pieces of poppadom in a large paper bag.   This was embarrassing, as I had been singing Malabar's praises and recommending we ordered from there. The other mains and the parathas were OK, but I doubt we will be ordering from there again. My granddaughters wisely opted for Yard Sale pizzas, which were fine. Has anybody else had a similar recent poor (or indeed good!)  experience at Malabar Feast?
    • Another recommendation for Silvano. I echo everything the above post states. I passed first time this week with 3 minors despite not starting to learn until my mid-30s. Given the costs for lessons I have heard, he's also excellent value.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...