Violent behaviour

birkee

I'm really pleased to hear that you are very upset by the incidents. It means you have the right instincts to teach him right from wrong. There's hope for society yet, with people like you around.

My feeling is to try and communicate lessons in a form they can understand. Visual images in their head.
Tell him, that if you find two boys sitting on him and smacking him, how would he feel if you let them get on with it?
Also, tell him that if the dog bites him for kicking him, then it's not the dog who will be punished.
(No, I don't mean let the dog bite him! .... I mean let him visualise the situation.)

mrs_marty

Dont be hard on yourself, it is a stage they go through testing the boundries. Just keep reinforcing the boundries, removing him from the situation my son hates being removed from whats going he is 5 dont get me wrong he does push it beyond it and does get a smack on occasions. Just keep showing right from wrong, and you will be fine.

Agutka

bestpud wrote: »

This wont be popular, but I really struggle to comprehend the thinking behind hitting a child in order to teach them hitting/kicking is bad. :cool:

There is no thinking involved, it's just a reaction from me.

POPPYOSCAR

I also struggle with the concept of punishing violence with violence.

bestpud

Agutka wrote: »

There is no thinking involved, it's just a reaction from me.

I think it I'd for a lot of people tbh, and I'd be lying if I said I'd never smacked any of my children as an impulse reaction.

I guess that's the problem for me though. We want to teach them to think before they act and not lash out on impulse, and yet many parents lash out in order to teach them not to!

I'm not having a go - none of us is the perfect parent - I just think it's odd when parents justify smacking iykwim?

birkee

There's smacking and smacking.
Why other people confuse smacking with violence able to cause injury, I've no idea.
A gentle tap is all that's needed, because the children can then get the idea that there is FAR more power available, if you make Mum or Dada REALLY angry!

Apart from which, I've had three children. Three 'different' children. One girl who was normal, one girl who was hell on wheels (despite taking her to 'the Experts' turned out later in life to be Bi-Polar.) and a Son who NEVER needed a smack his whole childhood. Just a word in a particular tone was sufficient for him to accept admonishment. (In fact, it made me feel like a bully, just telling him off.)

So, what sort of children are some posters recommending smacking or not smacking? None of my three are tolerant of violence, despiter assurances from some, that violence breeds violence. A loving smack is not violence in the accepted sense, but there IS a limit you mustn't exceed.

DVardysShadow

birkee wrote: »

There's smacking and smacking.
Why other people confuse smacking with violence able to cause injury, I've no idea.
A gentle tap is all that's needed, because the children can then get the idea that there is FAR more power available, if you make Mum or Dada REALLY angry!

Apart from which, I've had three children. Three 'different' children. One girl who was normal, one girl who was hell on wheels (despite taking her to 'the Experts' turned out later in life to be Bi-Polar.) and a Son who NEVER needed a smack his whole childhood. Just a word in a particular tone was sufficient for him to accept admonishment. (In fact, it made me feel like a bully, just telling him off.)

So, what sort of children are some posters recommending smacking or not smacking? None of my three are tolerant of violence, despiter assurances from some, that violence breeds violence. A loving smack is not violence in the accepted sense, but there IS a limit you mustn't exceed.

Head says no smacking. But when the child shows itself minded to stick its fingers in the electric socket, or take on the dog in a fight on equal terms, pragmatism really does have precedence over principle.

bestpud

birkee wrote: »

There's smacking and smacking.
Why other people confuse smacking with violence able to cause injury, I've no idea.
A gentle tap is all that's needed, because the children can then get the idea that there is FAR more power available, if you make Mum or Dada REALLY angry!

Apart from which, I've had three children. Three 'different' children. One girl who was normal, one girl who was hell on wheels (despite taking her to 'the Experts' turned out later in life to be Bi-Polar.) and a Son who NEVER needed a smack his whole childhood. Just a word in a particular tone was sufficient for him to accept admonishment. (In fact, it made me feel like a bully, just telling him off.)

So, what sort of children are some posters recommending smacking or
not smacking? None of my three are tolerant of violence, despiter assurances from some, that violence breeds violence. A loving smack is not violence in the accepted sense, but there IS a limit you mustn't exceed.

I really don't want to start a smacking/no smacking debate as we all must do as we see fit.

That said, the idea 'a loving smack' is intriguing! Not sure those ate two words I'd ever put together!

It is just my opinion though - I'm not saying it's right or wrong - just how it is for me.

DVardysShadow wrote: »

Head says no smacking. But when the child shows itself minded to stick its fingers in the electric socket, or take on the dog in a fight on equal terms, pragmatism really does have precedence over principle.

Yes, it's not straight forward, and we are all capable of acting out of character when we see our child put themselves in danger.

BitterAndTwisted

Agutka wrote: »

So, would it be fair to say that as long as I am a law abiding citizen, who has empathy for the world and his dog, morals and is generally nice to people - then my sons will be the same? I don't have to put in extraordinary effort or read millions of books, because it'll all work out fine in the end?

Because realising that I am in charge of two human beings and it's my job to teach them EVERYTHING really scares me

I don't think you are alone in worrying about being responsible for teaching your children EVERYTHING that it's important for them to know and understand. It's a huge responsibility and most probably the hardest job any person could undertake without any specialist training and no previous experience. What employer would entrust you with a job under the same circumstances?

Having the qualities you mention yourself is unfortunately probably not enough although I expect it makes you half-way to imparting them purely by osmosis. Encouraging impulse-control and empathy can be a struggle and it's obviously not impossible but I suspect that what sounds like your frustration about it might have something to do with your appreciation of what a child so young is capable of understanding. Your toddler sounds completely and utterly normal to me. And thus spaketh a middle-aged childless woman, so what do I know?

That you actually fret over these issues demonstrates what a great parent you are and want to be. I fear that a lot of other parents never give issues like this a second thought and if they ever did wouldn't have the faintest idea of how to deal with them either.

Carry on caring and doing your best: I'm sure you're doing a grand job.

Murtle

I think you handled it well.

*violence with violence* If a child kicks a dog - it would hurt the dog. A child will learn that being kicked hurts when he is kicked back. Just my thoughts.