ADVICE RATING |
    3.39 (May work) from 17 votes (213 Visits) |
It's becoming pretty common place lately for half truths and outright lies to be promoted as ultimate truth. One very evidant area in which this happens is in the area of disciplining our children. The debate is very polarised, in a very misleading way.
In one corner are the
parents (mainly female and some males) that disapprove of smacking As the natural nurturer of the family, this comes as no surprise, after all it is a natural role for a mother to be the one to comfort and provide a shoulde to cry on.
To the other corner we find another group of parents (mainly men, but more women here, then men over there) where they believe as part of a discipline regime, smacking has a very real and meaningful place. Once again this is no surprise as one of the natural roles of a father is to take on the lead role of discipline and challenging boundaries. This role is extremely important for setting and testing boundaries, a process that
In the middle are the parents who through a combination of common sense, experience and reasearch come to the realisation that as long as you use a consistant escallation of discipline, then children will learn healthy boundaries through a series of choices of which have concequences.
The problem I have with this debate is that the position of the anti group is that smacking is considered harmful in any form, however only extreme examples are cited. The oversignt is that the greater majority of the population have been smacked and they are fine. The anti-smacking crowd however have no problems with manipulation of the mental variety. Perhaps someone should investigate "should mental abuse be illegal". The whole debate has been sidelined into politically correct extremism.
This whole debate is actually irrelevant. We all agree that abuse is not good. The list of no-nos for parents includes nagging, physically displacing, name calling, screeming, throwing and tantrums to name a few. They are the things to avoid, not the methods that have actually worked for hundreds of years (like a well crafted glare, a firm warning or a smack).
The bigger picture of good boundaries and respect for each other is a great starting point. Teaching your children why you disipline them is just as important as the disipline itself. It's about time we started acting how we want our children to be, after we are their best role model
Why use extreme examples and not the norm to reduce extreme behaviour? Why use the exception to prove the rule and take away a very effective proven form of discipline.
Sounds out of balance don't you think?