Smacking Kids

A new book by a Queensland mother of three has reignited the old debate on whether parents should smack their kids as a first resort. Author Sue Edgerley says parents should stop trying to be their friends to their children and that there is too much explaining and reasoning with kids these days.

Sue Edgerley's new book is titled Bring Back the Smack and is available from bookstores and online retailers for $19.95.

Source/Video: http://aca.ninemsn.com.au/Video.aspx?videoid=655fbcb5-c881-4413-9157-137126470922

Well I've got to say, growing up all I needed to know was you do something wrong, you get punished, you do what your parents tell you not to do and you get spanked or stood in the corner. That's all the logic I needed to get the point and I rarely got in trouble.

Now, what I'd like to know is to the people who say spanking, grounding, time outs, and standing in the corner are ALL lazy methods of parental discipline (I think there were a few such people on here a while back) just WHAT is left in the way of punishing kids when they disobey?

It depends on their age. Although I feel smacking is not want most parents do; that is spanking. A light spank is different than a smack across the face.

As to the effectiveness, try reasoning with a two year old. Let's face it, talking it out does not always work.

Spanking looses it's effectiveness after about 6ish, so you have to be more clever with duscipline.

Smacking works better than talking when it comes to toddlers. Past the age of five I wonder. I mean if the child is old enough to be reasoned with, then that should be the first course of action. If they're unreasonable or defiant, then you can up the degree of discipline. But I don't think smacks should usually be the first option. It should be very last resort because honestly when you pop a 10 year old, you're not "teaching" him anything. You're just retaliating to something he did.

JB wrote:Smacking works better than talking when it comes to toddlers. Past the age of five I wonder. I mean if the child is old enough to be reasoned with, then that should be the first course of action. If they're unreasonable or defiant, then you can up the degree of discipline. But I don't think smacks should usually be the first option. It should be very last resort because honestly when you pop a 10 year old, you're not "teaching" him anything. You're just retaliating to something he did.

When you physically discipline an older child, it's less about "teaching" and more about reinforcing consequences of their disobedient acts…and honestly that's fine with me.