Nigel Latta parenting show TV1 tonight.

[The Stranger:Me]

I am contributing to a thread....not sticky noses.

So quickly, efficiently and quietly eh....I don't see parenting that way but I manage with Nats and don't smack her so guess I am just lucky.

My Dad use to hit me...only negative is our relationship so I guess not a major eh...

So you resent you your dad because he disciplined you with a smack occasionally?
If so, you are a bloody wimp, and I mean that.
My old man used to hit me, until the day I just stood there and when he was finished asked him if that was all. He never bothered again.
I bear him no malice at all for that at all. I know when he hit me, in general I had fooked up, and at times when he lost the plot and hit in anger or it wasn't deserved he was only human.

[Grahameeboy]

So you resent you your dad because he disciplined you with a smack occasionally?
If so, you are a bloody wimp, and I mean that.
My old man used to hit me, until the day I just stood there and when he was finished asked him if that was all. He never bothered again.
I bear him no malice at all for that at all. I know when he hit me, in general I had fooked up, and at times when he lost the plot and hit in anger or it wasn't deserved he was only human.

I said "Hit" not "Smack"...and no I don't because I get on with my life but what I am saying is that I would love to have a relationship with my Dad but because he sees this as the "way" we cannot have that...If I am a wimp...that's no problem...didn't realise life was about being macho.I just don't believe that hitting is needed if a kid fucks up...I mean to use your words "they are only human"...kids are suppose to fuck up, that is how they learn but surely talking about why and what to do next i.e. support them in their mistake is more of a "relationship".The difference is that I am big enough to hurt someone (also achieved Brown in Aikido) but prefer to talk and even if provocked, would not hit someone.That is why we will just have to be difference and agree to disagree.

[The Stranger:Me]

I believe that may have to do with NZ's shamefully high rate of violence toward children. And before you jump up and down, I'm not saying everyone who smacks their children are abusers. I do believe the issue of child abuse in our lovely little ole country needs to be addressed and making smacking children for discipline is (possibly) a way the Government believes that society can have a bit of a mind shift. This is just a thought off the top of my head while listening to Martha and Vandella's in National Radio after having woken up at 5:15am.....so I could be a bit wrong.

Ah yes, child abuse. That'll fix it - except it remains unabated, I wonder why? Perhaps abuse has nothing to do with discipline and more to do with poor communication skills - often those that can't communicate well verbally use the only thing they can use well, their fists. Or a number of other reasons.

I don't believe for a minute that every parent that smacks their kids does so cos they have no ability to come up with alternatives but you've hit the nail on the head saying it's easier and quicker but that don't make it right.

Don't make it wrong either. Yes, quicker and easier. Nothing wrong with that. Let's take a single child family. As a parent, you never have to deal with interaction between siblings. Your child gets your undivided attention for both affection and for discipline. Whilst you are doing these things with this child no one else misses out on your time and no one else is arguing or playing with the stove etc. Now as you add 1 more child, time will about halve, add 2 or 3 more and the dynamic changes a lot. Quick and effective becomes necessary, or the time you get to spend being constructive with your children becomes such a small slice. So no I'm not about to make an apology for suggesting quick and effective in the context of bringing up children. You want to deal with the negative aspects quickly and effectively as you possibly can.

I guess the other side of it for me is that it's kinda hypocritical to tell kids it's not okay to hit your siblings or other kiddies but then to hit them for being naughty.

I note you drink - apparently, do you have a problem not allowing young children access to alcohol?

[MisterD]

Kids need three things from their parents: love, boundaries and consequences for crossing them.

The anti-smacking jihadists need to get over their obsession with how some parents choose to apply the last of those three and have a bit more of a think about why it is that too many parents, especially Maori parents, don't seem to bother with giving their kids the first two...

[The Stranger:Me]

I said "Hit" not "Smack"...

Right, so your experience with smacking kids is nill.
You don't smack Nats and you were hit/abused, so on what basis do you claim it is somehow wrong?
Bloody typical one kid expert!

[PrincessBandit]

Adult time-out is called prison. If you lock your kid in a room all day then that could well be classed as neglect which is a form of abuse.

And how many in prison actually have a better lifestyle than on the outside? 3 square meals a day/better access to education...blahblahblah. Some kids couldn't care less about being sent to their room, and most do not use the time in their to contemplate the reason behind their "time out".

It's a non-binding referendum based on a question that has no meaning irrespective of a "yes" or "no" answer.

That's my "face value" reading of it.

I love "non-binding" - it only is if the answer isn't in line with what the government wants to do anyway; if the answer is what the govt is after, then that's a different story. Hahaha.

... Life does produce winners and losers and children have to learn that. Apparently Kiwifern netball games have no score. To my mind that is ludicrous.

Absolutely. Life is NOT fair, but how we bring our children up should deal with how to cope with that.

I'm going to be the best parent, I've got the little pricks all worked out.
Unconventional, but the best.

One day.

Cool! Let me know your secret when you have finally finished raising them (except I'll probably be long dead by then....)

So criminalising me for the way I choose to set boundaries for my boys is the f-ing answer to stopping kids being beaten to death?

An analogy for the hard of thinking...if you want to characterise smacking as "violence" or "abuse" then we may as well talk about "solitary confinement" or "imprisonment" instead of "time-out" or the "naughty mat". It's just plain f-ing stupid.

Whenever I watched Nanny Jo put kids on the naughty mat I often wondered how many times it DIDNT work, which you never got to see on the telly.

Why do you have to smack for correction...would you smack a work colleague for correction? No you would talk to them...surely Kids can be penalised without having to smack?? You know talking to them...

The old misconception again and again - kids aren't adults. End of story. They are not miniature adults and do not have the same cognitive powers of reason, experience with which to judge consequences etc. Stop comparing how we treat adults and children as if it should be identical.

I would like to smack them from many other reasons as well

Go on, do tell.....

...Anyway, Kids are suppose to be naughty...

To what degree though?

...
Did your parents ever smack you?
Mine did, shit can't say I can imagine a single negative impact as a result - except the old man breaking a toe when he kicked my brother's arse.
Was it bad for you?

I did smack both my kids. Never had to do it often as they knew the action likely to bring it about wasn't worth the short stinging result it would elicit. Neither of my children (both in their late teens) can remember being smacked much. That is because: 1, as I said it only had to be used sparingly and 2 the end result was a lesson learnt quickly and was over and done with. They don't feel abused or down trodden by physical violence. In fact they both feel completely loved, valued and have grown to be wonderful teenagers who get frequently complimented by teachers and other adults they interact with.

[The Stranger:Me]

I believe that may have to do with NZ's shamefully high rate of violence toward children.

I note also that in an interview with mother of the year Sue Bradford in 2007 she said
"The epidemic of child abuse and violence in this country continues - sadly. My bill was never intended to solve that problem"


So there you have, literally from the horses mouth. That should pretty much lay that argument to rest.

[James Deuce]

I love "non-binding" - it only is if the answer isn't in line with what the government wants to do anyway; if the answer is what the govt is after, then that's a different story. Hahaha.

No, that's no true at all. It's non-binding because the question doesn't propose anything to do with any sort of specific change.

If the question said "Should Section 59 be repealed?" then the Government's attitude to the referendum would be completely different.

As it stands, the referendum is the sort of question that Stuff Poll (and some KB Poll ceators) creators revel in. A false dichotomy.

[The Stranger:Me]

I did smack both my kids. Never had to do it often as they knew the action likely to bring it about wasn't worth the short stinging result it would elicit. Neither of my children (both in their late teens) can remember being smacked much. That is because: 1, as I said it only had to be used sparingly and 2 the end result was a lesson learnt quickly and was over and done with. They don't feel abused or down trodden by physical violence. In fact they both feel completely loved, valued and have grown to be wonderful teenagers who get frequently complimented by teachers and other adults they interact with.

HOW COULD YOU? You ghastly monster you - fancy admitting such a heinous crime in a public forum. Next thing I expect is you'll want us to believe that you actually love your kids, ha, yeah right, Grahameeboy knows the truth.

[Ms Piggy]

I note you drink - apparently, do you have a problem not allowing young children access to alcohol?

Ummmmm...you've lost me there.

Otherwise your replies are food for thought, particularly your point about those that are violent toward their kids relating to a lack of communication skills and lack of many other life skills as well I suspect.

I guess we'll have to agreed to disagree because I do believe if as a society we make a stand against hitting kids being acceptable it will make a change, sadly I believe a lot of us are looking for a quick fix - it aint gonna happen because life can be farken tricky at times!

There are compelling arguments for both sides though eh. I appreciate the intelligent discussion btw.

[MSTRS:Me]

Something that seems to be ignored in this 'debate'....
Where is it written that smacking is the only tool in a parent's kit? Just because *some* of us view smacking as a valid parental tool, doesn't mean we also view it as the be all and end all.

[James Deuce]

Something that seems to be ignored in this 'debate'....
Where is it written that smacking is the only tool in a parent's kit? Just because *some* of us view smacking as a valid parental tool, doesn't mean we also view it as the be all and end all.

No, you can't say that. You're either a violent bashing monster or a loving caring parent with valid opinions about child rearing. There's no middle ground.

[Winston001]

For the umpteenth time - a light smack is not unlawful in NZ.

I've been regularly checking the Family First website which months ago promised to tell us about 9 cases of victimisation of families under S 59. They've gone quiet. So far there are 3 cases which would be interesting to know more about.

The referendum closes soon but its supporters haven't come up with anything. Silence is its own answer.

[MSTRS:Me]

For the umpteenth time - a light smack is not unlawful in NZ.

.....

The referendum closes soon but its supporters haven't come up with anything. Silence is its own answer.

Define 'light smack'...nobody can (or will).
As for supporters...anyone who ticks either box is a supporter. It is a referendum, with a choice of answer.
EDIT: I will assume by supporter, you mean someone who wants to smack their kid/s with impunity? Not sure how they can 'come up with something'...anymore than the anti-brigade can.
We can, however, see a decline in youth behaviour/responsibilty that has accelerated since corporal punishment was abandoned..along with many more violent assaults, use of vehicles as weapons - that sort of thing. Too simplistic to draw that inference? Perhaps. Yet no denying there is every chance the two are connected.

[Clockwork]

For the umpteenth time - a light smack is not unlawful in NZ.

I've been regularly checking the Family First website which months ago promised to tell us about 9 cases of victimisation of families under S 59. They've gone quiet. So far there are 3 cases which would be interesting to know more about.

The referendum closes soon but its supporters haven't come up with anything. Silence is its own answer.

Yes it is, if it's hitting for correction. The only other time you can be excused for "assaulting" your children is if it is part of normal parental duties such as forcibly cleaning or phisically restraining them.