Sign up for Mumsnet's weekly talk round up in which our very own Morningpaper rakes over the highs, lows and just plain weird bits from Mumsnet Talk. So if you worry that you always miss the juicy bits or if you'd like to see MP's own unique take on them, sign up now and we'll add you to the mailing list. Best, Mumsnet Towers.
Mumsnet Discussions:
Site stuff
: Would you ban smacking? Take our two-question-takes-less-than-10-seconds poll (and be entered into this week's comp)
(264 messages)
reading other ppl veiws on this subject i find really interesting
I am not against or for smacking..i sit on the fence on this one
When i was a child I was smacked in temper by my mother(all over the house), we were also never shown affection by her, it was only when I got older I realised why she did it(and I dont excuse her) I believed my mother had PND and there was environmental factors which effected her such as tiredness, stress etc...PND was not recognised in them days as it is today...tbh my mother should of been locked up for the way she treated myself and my siblings anyhow thats in the past but my relationship with her is not a fantastic one
I have seldom smacked my children, i have smacked them in the past when i have got to the end of my tether...this has not happened for a few years now as my attitude is changing for the better
i think the law is fine as it stands now against smacking...it is specific in its detail about how far the smack should go.
barnsleybelle that's really interesting to hear - it's not often that people have the courage to come on here and say that they've changed their opinion!
it's been a really interesting discussion from both sides of the debate, I think.
I'm with you barnsleybelle, am also sick at the thought of hitting my dcs.
By the way, we went away this summer with 2 families from school who have always been pro-smacking. They had two of the worst behaved, rough boys I have ever come across.
I have wrote many posts on this thread and have read with interest all the views for and against the ban...
I am fiercley anti smacking and always have been. The thought of smacking my children makes me feel sick to the stomach and i hate to see it being done. When i see it i always think it's so humiliating for the child, and i feel sad that the parent has failed to control themselves.
After reading the posts i do accept that everyone has the right to parent how they see fit. Just as i would not like to be told i had to smack my child i see how those who use it as a form of discipline do not wish to turned into criminals.
Therefore, the thread has changed my opinion re the smacking ban.
I still however do not understand any type of rational for smacking a child, regardless of the situation... i do however accept, each to their own.
I think that it's just being politically correct to ban smacking, as if making legislation is an effective way of combating child abuse. Child abusers will abuse, regardless of what the law says. Those parents who try to instil discipline in their children will have a tool removed. Don't see any winners.
I have to give a big thumbs up to what dancingwiththedevil says; a family should be able to decide what is right for them, and this can vary hugely. My parents loved all of us desperately, and strove to give us every advantage possible. However, when we were naughty, we were taught that a punishment was the consequence, and were belted over the backside. That leaves marks all right, we couldn't sit down afterwards. I'm sure many would agree it couldn't ever be necessary to belt a child, and I won't be doing it to my children, but I respect my parents that they felt it was a way of instilling respect for authority, discipline and the understanding that wilful misbehaviour has consequences. None of my sibs feel in the slightest bit damaged by the experience, and I would hate to think that my parents could have been jailed for trying their best to make us well-behaved.
I think far worse for me was when my mother ignored me for a couple of months and refused to speak to me. I'd left home by then, but that hurt has stayed with me. Funny, isn't it?
I think one of the problems is a definition of terms. When 'studies' claim the damaging, ineffective, guilt-inducing nature of using smacking as a form of dicipline, are they talking about:
1) A mother, who has her back to her son while he is whinging on at her, suddenly turning round and slapping him across the face (as seen on 'Supernanny' a couple of weeks ago),
or
2) A mother, who hasn't lost her temper, giving her toddler a smack on the hand after warning him that that is what will happen if he continues in his course of action.
Because I can't believe that there isn't a world of difference between those two situations.
Well exactly tatt - we already have teachers afraid to lay a hand on pupils for fear of being called paedophiles (something which children are very quick to exploit) - are we going to have parents scared to touch their child for fear of being sent to prison?
I think the reality is that some non physical forms of punishment can be just as traumatic - shutting a child in its room, for instance? If done at too young an age, or for too long, that can be as harmful, theoretically, as a smack.
We have to allow parents the freedom and rights to use punishments that suit the child and the family and do no harm. This is not something we should be legislating about.
unfortunately can't read Swedish and any commentator on the research could be biased. IF the report was true it could suggest that children who were not smacked themselves lose control more readily. Perhaps other methods of discipline are not as effective in teaching anger management. It was interesting that the report claimed higher levels of child on child violence.
Interesting that no-one wants to be explicit about their own methods of discipline if they don't ever smack their child. Perhaps they don't have any or they are afraid they might be crticised as more inhumane.
As for teachers - I don't want a teacher afraid to restrain the brat assaulting my child because laying a finger on a child is an assault. That is what happens already and its mad.
I'd also like to make the following comment to those who think yanking the child away is a better response to a dangerous situation. There are many better responses than smacking, I agree, but yanking somebody is a much a battery in law as a light smack. How do you reconcile that one?
I would like to clarify for the benefit of anyone just skimming the thread, that the references to "Twinkle" making sweeping generalisations and cruel comments about people who have admitted to occasionally smacking their children are not referring to me, but to another poster called twinklelittlestar. Thank you.
My point however is, how do they know it's not causing them physical or emotional harm?
Surely if it doesn't "hurt" then why bother? I also think mums hide behind the argument that it's to stop them behaving in a dangerous manner. Many parents who choose not to smack still have children that misbehave, do potentially dangerous things and lose control of their actions. There are other ways to control this without striking out. In my honest opinion it's not about what the child has done, but about the parent losing control of their own actions.
Would you condone a teacher smacking a young child if it was acting dangerously in the classroom? ( not being antagonistic, just interested and enjoying the discussion).
And barnsleybelle that is YOUR choice as a parent. Noone is telling you that you must smack your children.
But nor do you have the right to legislate how other people bring up their children, if they are not causing them physical or emotional harm, then it's noone's business at all.
Podrick - I have already said that I've chosen not to smack my children if I possibly can avoid it. I have smacked DS once, and it was in my own hallway. I don't know if I would smack him in public, as it's never arisen.
But in terms of my parents - to suggest that people who smack are motivated by a desire to hurt their children is completely missing the point. They are motivated by a desire to stop them behaving in a dangerous manner or to get their attention when the child has lost control of their own actions.
I don't think a smacking ban will do that at all, barnsleybelle. As you've already pointed out, most parents on this thread who have smacked their dc's are already of the opinion that it's not the most effective form of discipline, and do try to use other forms instead.
So how would a legal ban change things for them, apart from criminalising them?
People who do actually harm their children are already covered by current laws. So what exactly would this law achieve?
Besides, legislation shouldn't be used to recommend forms of discipline to parents, or sendamessage - that's what education campaigns are for.
Laws don't exist to tell you the best way to live, they exist to tell you at what point you MAY NOT behave in a manner that will hurt someone else.
Seeing as the negative effect of smacking has not been demonstrated in any way, this is no place for legislation.
In the days of your parents smacking was the norm, they probably did not consider that there was another way. You could smack your kids in public without a mass of onlookers who felt horrified.
Things have moved on. How much public smacking is there now? Do you have the conviction to smack your kids in public, or only behind closed doors?
I can't speak for anyone else and why they smack - but I would be very very offended at anyone who suggested that my parents were ever motivated by a desire to hurt me.
As someone who is anti smacking, i don't really understand if it doesn't hurt then what is the point? What does it achieve? I was smacked by my mother and although it has not affected my relationship with her, the fact that i can remember the occasions clearly ( although i can't remember other things) proves to me it has stayed with me.
My children are well behaved and polite and confident, all achieved using discipline methods that avoid smacking.
A smacking ban along will hopefully encourage those parents who do smack to look at the many methods of discipline that are far more effective.
Reading back through the posts a large number of mums who have smacked either regret it or agree that it achieves little in the long run.
oh and in case anyone is wondering, I have a great relationship with my parents, including my father, and couldn't have wished for more loving, supportive and caring parents.
It's interesting that lots of people have talked about 'inflicting physical pain' on children. I was smacked occasionally as a child, and I can't remember it EVER hurting.
The most frequent occasions I can remember are when my father would get cross with us bickering at the table (happened quite often ) and would take us into the hall to spank us.
I have no recollection of any pain. I do remember thinking 'oh, I've really done it this time' and being ashamed of my behaviour.
But physical pain? Nope. If the pain stays with you long after the event, then it's been done too hard, imo. There's a big difference between the sort of smack that gets your attention, sharpish, and the sort that actually hurts.
Inflicting physical pain on your child is a) unecessary b) unconstructive and c) lacking in self-control by the parent - I personally find it abhorrent, as do most people, and that is why few people dare smack their children in public. Shame they carry on behind closed doors. I can understand lapses in parental self control but that doesn't make it right. Smacking is physical abuse and is completely lacking in respect for another individual. It makes me cringe. You do not need to smack your child to have a well behaved and well adjusted child and the fact that you know some latin and still decide to smack your child is no mitigation.
Has anyone been watching the world'sstrictestparents? My point, in response to bansleybelle's son's cute comment, is that sometimes children do not recognise that discipline can be loving.
The teenagers in the above programme all start the week ranting and raging at the parents, how they don't let their kids have a life, are 'power mad', want to control everything etc etc. And by the end of the week the teenagers inevitably come to see that what they thought was abuse (i.e. lack of "freedom", no dating, forcing to do housework, etc) is actually a very loving and effective form of parenting. And I'd bet my bottom dollar (if they are as 'fundamentalist Christians' as the families appear to be in the programme) that their kids got a smack when they were defiant, disobedient toddlers.
Kathy... I think it's quite likely that this guy is pro-smacking as a legitimate form of discipline, but what he is saying in his booklet is that it is possible that anti-smackers also have an agenda, and make their case withoutconsideringtheevidence.
He calls for an unbiased examination of the stats, facts and figures (i.e. I'm guessing not by him, and not by someone from an anti-smacking campaign), but I doubt very much whether it is possible to be unbiased on this subject. His main point is that we shouldn't just assume that everything is now peachy in Sweden because of the ban on smacking, and seek to emulate the law in this country without a full examination of all the possible consequences.
Might it not be that she would have damaged your relationship with her anyway? I'm assuming her smacking was not done occasionally and within a context that made you feel loved and respected...
by twinklelittlestar..... "I think people who wish/desire to hit children and who justify their wishes/actions by saying that they were hit as children & 'it never did me any harm' is actually very sad as it is an indication that they were in fact damaged as individuals as they now cannot see any harm in hurting others (specifically children who are the least powerful members of our society)."
wtf????? seriously are you for real?
that is the most ridiculous statement i have read on mn in ages.
I was smacked, and have smacked my children, however i do not wake up in the morning and think, what shall i do today???..... i know i will hit my kids....
people who think along those lines, have severe problems, and take out their insecurities as a adult out on weaker, smaller individuals ie, children. this is disgusting, but sadly, because it is done on the whole behind closed doors, there is normally little that can be done.
however the posters on here who have admitted to smacking/tapping/hitting or whatever you would like to call it, have done so out of love for that child, and too stop greater hurt or damage from happening to that child. in that instance the parent is taking responsibility for their actions, and is not acting out of malice.
to label someone who has smacked or has been smacked as damaged, is ludicrous, in some cases when smacking is to gain some sort of sick pleasure from seeing their 'victim' in pain, then yes i can see your point, but to suggest that posters on here are disturbed is quite frankly very very wrong.
I would want to know more about the guy who did that research though. Given the strong pro-physical punishment attitudes among various elements of Christian fundamentalist America, it's not impossible someone might be determined to produce a piece of research to show a ban on smacking makes it increase.
Unless Sweden is a very worrying country, the fact that there was a 489% increase in "child physical abuse cases classified as criminalassult" goes against what many people on here seem to be assuming: that passing a ban on smacking would not affect 'ordinary, decent parents' who use a smack as a form of discipline with their child. These people would be prosecuted.
I agree artichokes, but I think by the sounds of it they have some more important aspects of the Children's Act to debate which overran. there's always going to have be prioritisation in parliament or they'd never go home, and it wasn't a bill with a lot of support (28 MPs, I think?), so I can see why it got bumped.
Although i am glad there is no outright bad I would not say "sanity has prevailed".
Sanity would have been to allow our elected representatives to debate the issue and come to an informed conclusion.
It does not say much for parliamentary democracy when the Government can timetable business so that a topic which many real people are interested in, and would be effected by, is not even debated after an amendment has been tabled.
I don't do physical violence, let alone against my little girl because in my experience there is always a much more effective alternative (or ten) to brute force.
Brains over brawn, every time.
However, it would have been ludicrous and irresponsible to criminalise many ordinary parents and divert precious police/social services resources away from protecting children who are subject to real, sustained abuse and neglect. Glad the government and the opposition didn't allow that to happen.
Any half-decent research would take that into account, and given that it says assaults on under 7s remained stable it does seem to have done so. So if this research is reliable (and who knows....) it would mean that kids who aren't smacked grow up to smack their own older, but not younger, kids. How bizarre. Why on earth would that be?
I would have expected there to be a significant rise in figures once the ban came into force. Surely the fact that it is illegal means that more cases that would previously had been ignored are now being reported.
The fact that there is a rise does not necessarily mean that it is actually happening more, just that it is being legally recognised.
"There has been a major increase in the rate of child abuse in Sweden since all forms of physical correction were banned in 1979, according to a paper published today by family advocacy group, Families First.
The author, Dr Robert Larzelere, of the University of Nebraska Medical Center highlights data which shows a 489% increase in physical child abuse cases classified as criminal assaults in Sweden between 1981 and 1994. Dr Larzelere also notes that while the number of assaults on children under the age of 7 remained low and relatively stable, "perpetration of criminal assaults against 7-14 year-olds is increasing most rapidly among those who were brought up after the law against smacking was passed."
The publication of these findings will come as a blow to anti-smacking campaigners in Britain who frequently hail Sweden's ban on smacking as an unqualified success. Last year, for example, Save the Children published a paper by Canadian researcher Joan Durrant, which presented the Swedish legislation in a glowing light and recommended it as a model to other nations throughout the world.
However, Dr Larzelere believes that a careful review of Durrant's findings reveals that her conclusions reflect her "unconditional commitment to an anti-smacking perspective more than an objective appraisal of the data available from her sources." He concludes that there is a need for "timely, rigorous and unbiased evaluations" of the impact of the 1979 anti-smacking law. Contrary to the claims of the various 'children's rights' groups, the data does not provide any basis for viewing Sweden's legislation as worthy of emulation. In fact, the evidence available so far is pointing in the opposite direction."
Forever - I would probably have smacked my DS in the first two instances, too. I have smacked my DS in a situation similar to your third one (though without the breast cancer as a mitigating factor) and, like you, regretted it very much.
I think yours are the kinds of situation in which the vast majority of caring, loving, non-abusive parents will find themselves at some point!
Rachel, I can see the logic, of course I can. But I'm not sure it is actually as simple and as straightforward a relationship as that.
Children learn not just about behaviour from us but also about when behaviour is appropriate and when it is not. They learn that taking all your clothes off in your own home is appropriate, whereas taking them all off in the centre of town is not.
In the same way, we can teach them that a smack on the hand when they've been naughty from Mummy or Daddy is appropriate behaviour, whereas them hitting their friend for taking their toy away is not. Children learn lots of these lessons every day - grown ups are in a different role than their peers, and they learn that grown ups are allowed to punish (naughty step, smacking, teacher telling them off, whatever) whereas children are not. Would you allow your child to send you to your room if you'd shouted at them?
There's lots of anecdotal evidence on this thread of people who have been smacked as children who have grown up to be happy, well adjusted human beings with no violent tendencies. I haven't yet seen a single shred of evidence that smacking in the context of a loving, supportive parent-child relationship produces violent children/adults.
If anything, levels of violence in our society and particularly our young people are increasing, while our society frowns more and more on corporal punishment. An interesting contradiction, wouldn't you say?
Er, no I haven't worked in A&E.... I'm well aware of how people are treated there, have great respect for the people who do it, and it is clear the one of the requirements to manage to do that job is greater than average self-control. I am one of the majority of people that probably couldn't do that job. We ask (and get) amazingly high standards from medics and carers in such situations. They are standards which it would be unrealistic to expect from EVERBODY who wants to be a parent. That is my point.
You do seem to have an oversimplistic view of the causal relationship between children smacking and their parents smacking. Most of us know many many kids who hit other kids but were not hit themselves, or people who were hit but would never hit a soul. Of course being hit makes you more likely to hit in turn, but to say as you have that 'x causes y' is rather naive - there are many other factors.
I am anti-smacking because I don't believe it is an effective diciplinary tool. Before I had children I always said that that I would never smack because there are other methods of disciplining a child. However I have smacked ds on three occasions. I do not regret smacking him on the first two occasions but I do regret the third occasion and will explain why.
First time, ds about 2.6 generally being a bit of pain in the supermarket because I had refused him a kinder egg. We get to the till and ds somehow summoned super toddler strength and lobbed a bottle of wine across the store narrowingly missing an old lady. I was shocked and instinctively chastised him and smacked him on the bottom.
Second time, ds a couple of months later we are returning from a shopping trip, I am laden down with shopping bags and finding it hard to control ds. We get to main road and I ask ds to grab hold of my arm to cross the road, he refuses and runs across the road. I drop my shopping bags, pull him back and smack him on the bottom.
Third time, I am on the telephone to the bank trying to sort out our finances (urgent because we can't meet that months mortgage payment) 2 days before I had received news that my sister had breast cancer and I am feeling like someone has kicked the stuffing out of me. Ds is demanding my attention and I can hardly hear the person I am talking to on the other end of the telephone. Next thing I know is I am feel a thud to the head and realise that ds has hit me over the head with a china mug. I end the phone call and smack him on the bottom.
I have never smacked ds since because he is now 4 and I feel that he is to old to be chastised in this way. The naughty step and stopping pocket money are very effective now. To be honest I hardly even need to resort to these measures as he is a delightful child.
Recently ds lashed out at me because he was frustrated over something, I told him off and said "we don't have hitting in this house" to which he replied "well you smacked me when I hit you over the head with that cup when I was 2!" I think that this had stuck in his head because I burst into tears at the time. It made me realise that on that occasion I had smacked him because I was frustrated and that was wrong. I apologised to him for smacking him 18 months earlier and I reitrated that smacking/hitting is against the rules for all of us.
Now if smacking became illegal would I be fined for those occasions, forced to go on parenting classes? I believe that either of those possibilities would be unnecessary and unacceptable. What about parents who say awful things to their children and constantly undermine them? Or fail to provide their children with a healthy diet or a stimulating environment? I think the government are barking up the wrong tree.
Also when you smack a child on the bottom, you are not actually hurting them are you? If you were making the child feel physical pain then obviously that would be wrong. When I smacked ds I applied no more pressure then when I playfully shoo him up the stairs to bed.
The NSPCC and the government could be doing so much to protect children and yet they choose to pursue this which frankly is a waste of time. Feckless/neglectful parents won't care whether smacking is illegal will they?
OK, we all get stressed and lose our temper at times, but can't you see the logic of the statement that if you hit your child, they will in turn hit other people? Children learn by example. You hear your children repeating your words and see them repeating your actions. Does it not bother people that their children may hit other children (and adults) if that is what they've been taught to do?
Kathy - clearly you have never worked in A&E, where you get spat on, vomited on, bled on, verbally abused, shouted at, complained about and generally treated like a piece of rubbish much of the time. The temptation to slap an aggressive abusive frequent-attending urine-sodden drunk, waving a bottle around and telling you you're a frigid bitch because you won't snog him, is far greater than the temptation to smack a disobedient toddler, believe me! Both situations require calm patience and restraint. Neither require physical violence.
No I wouldn't ban smacking and yes I have smacked my child but not particularly smacked IYKWIM more of a tap on the hand/bum of my 2YO DS if he is doing something really bad that could harm him. Although I don't do it regularly just if he's having a day of not listening to me when I explain to him not to do something 40 times in 5 minutes.
But on the other hand I definately don't agree with people using alot of force on their children but abusive parents tend to stick to doing it in private so what exactly can be done about it? Nothing so there isn't any point in banning it.
I always said I would never smack a child before I had children.
I do smack DD1 occasionally because her behaviour can be appalling and it is the only thing I have found which stops the behaviour ^right now^. I worry that it will teach her to hit is OK, but as far as I know she has never hit another child. It's probably my bad parenting that causes her behaviour, but then why does DD2 behave (never had to smack her)? I've come to the conclusion that parents who never smack probably have very easy children.
As for people who say 'it's illegal to hit an adult so it should be illegal to hit a child', I say that you can't have equal rights without equal repsonsibilities. Are we going to prosecute a toddler for assault? Obviously not. As parents we are told constantly that our children are out of control and badly behaved, then we are told we can't punish them. If I'd found a punishment that works better on DD1, believe me I'd be using it.
"It's is illegal for men to hit their wives, for staff to hit elderly people in nursing homes, for carers to hit handicapped people, for a stranger to hit you in a pub, for a Dr or nurse to hit a weak patient. I don't think anyone would question those laws." Of course it is. If you're a doctor or nurse or carer, there's generally no excuse for you ever snapping or losing it. If you can't keep your patience at all times and guarantee to be 100% non-violent during working hours you should not be in one of those jobs. Being a parent is somewhat different. You are on duty all the time, not just 8 or 12 hours during your shift. You can't change your child to an easier one if it transpires you have ended up with a child you can't manage. You have no-one to call for back-up if the child becomes violent. If you could only be a parent if you were 100% certain you would remain patient and fully in control at all times, the world population would be pretty small. There are reasons for cutting a little more slack to parents who lose it under those circs than to carers or doctors.
LittleMy and Puzzlerocks - thank you for two very sane posts!
Twinkle - I hope you can see that your sweeping generalisations (everyone who's ever smacked their child is a vicious bully who has failed to bond with said child) are as ludicrous in their own way as the idea that regular smacks will teach children to behave.
I personally belive that shouting at children is abusive and offensive - but that is just my opinion, and is helped by the fact that I only lose my temper about once every 10 years!
Parents have to use whatever they feel it takes to turn their children into reasonable adults. Some children are easy and never really need any more than gentle correction. Others are hideously difficult (I know - I have them at both ends of the spectrum). Parents themselves are not all the same: some have short fuses; others don't.
I do dislike the idea that you could have a bolshy 7-y-o reporting his/her parents to a teacher for a light smack if/when it becomes illegal!
disneystar - why do you think that anything more than a smack on the hand wouldn;t be covered under the current "rteasonable punishement" guideline?
All that needs to be done is to issue a guideline to social services, schools, police courts etc as to what constitutes "reasonable punishment" or at least some examples when other factors are present.
There are situations when it is permissable to hit another adult.
and if I'm honest - on the rare occasion when I have smacked DS (and been deeply ashamed and more than a little upset about it) it has made me a better parent ultimately. It made me much more understanding of my fallability and develop strategies to cope better next time and given me a short sharp shock.
He doesn't remember being smacked but I remember it and have learnt from it.
I might not be as perfect a parent as you twinkle but please don't start talking about attachement problems when I suspect that you have little understanding of the real issues involved which have no bearing on this debate. To say that anyone who has ever smacked their child must have attachment issues really undermines your attempt at a reasonable argument.
no one has ever come to me with issues of a slapped hand ever
this ban is trying to protect the millions that are abused not the loving mothers thats give a light tap child beatings are very very real this ban is trying to protect them do you know how hard or for how long the child has to suffer before the police can act or are the bruises so bad to be identified as beatings or did he fall down the stairs its not about you guys its time to get it stopped
twinklelittlestar i totally agree with you no one needs to smack there children ever i have 7 children oldest 22 youngest 3 months so ive done the tennager years the terrible 2,s and so on i wouldnt condemn thise parents mothers now though for there light taps there is a world of difference in how they those grown up children feel now to those who were abused
my own mother used to say to me when exasperated do you want me to smack you or a good hiding if you dont stop it a samck was a slap round the face and a good hiding was brutally beaten on head back of leags everywhere with the hard bit on a hairbrush needles to say i hate my mother i have no relationship whatsoever with her and will not ever let her near my children i recieved this severe beating for telling her on the advise of my teacher that my father was sexually abusing me i was 5 years old they eventually took me into care at 11 years old but the damage was done i dont mean to give you guys a life history just merely to point out i think we all have our own reasons for either being so anti smacking or all for a light tap smacking doesnt show patience or control but just because you have tapped the hand lightly doesn not make you a monster or child abuser we are all human and have emotions if my mother had just smacked my hand i would be a different person today instead i campaign for childrens rights and work for the NSPCC and am a rape counsellor and i cant tell you no one has ever come to me with a serious emotion of please help me my parents have smacked my hand if only that were it !!!!
It's is illegal for men to hit their wives, for staff to hit elderly people in nursing homes, for carers to hit handicapped people, for a stranger to hit you in a pub, for a Dr or nurse to hit a weak patient. I don't think anyone would question those laws.
Why then is it OK for us to smack our children?
Twinklestar's post makes perfect sense to me. If you hit a child (however hard or for whatever reason), you are teaching them that hitting is an appropriate way to resolve an issue. They will then do it to other children, or you, or teachers. And you will only have yourself to blame.
"What are all you slap happy mothers out there going to do if you can't smack your children anymore? Get a tazer?"
I always like a well considered thoughtful post which has obviously read the other posts and absorbed them
I don;t want the right to tazer my child thank you.
I beleive that the exisitng laws are adequate and see no convincing argumetn of who is going to be caught in any new ban who deserves to be criminalised.
To those who said that the police wouldn't strictly enforce the law and therefore any parent "cracking" and giving their child a smack won't be prosecuted (nice to be so sure of that when I see cases of people being prosecuted for throwing gum in the street). Well the existing "reasonable punishment" gives that flexibility now - some people might not like the fact that reasonable punishment is not very clear but it does in fact give Police/DPP and courts the opportunity to prosecute those who deserve it.
Twinklestar - you seem to think that people against this ban are against it because they want 'the right to hit/smack their children', and you paint them to be monsters who are just waiting for the opportunity to beat up their kids, and would probably beat them senseless if the law allowed it.
Far from it. I have chosen to try not to smack my child, but I still do not support this ban.
I am against this law because I believe it is not a matter for legislation to get involved in, and that within certain boundaries (i.e. no physical or emotional harm) people should be free and supported to parent as they choose. Parents come in all shapes and sizes, because we are all people, just as children are all different, and there is not only one way to be a parent.
Some parents shout more than others, some parents use light smacking while others put children on the naughty step. To some children, the rejection and isolation of being put in its room is more upsetting than a smack. To others, being put in their room has no effect, but a smack on the hand does. To some people, shouting at a child is not acceptable - to others, smacking is not acceptable, but shouting is. The point is that as long as children are loved, supported and cared for consistently both emotionally and physically, the differences in parenting styles do not cause any harm.
We already have laws that expressly forbid physical and emotional harm, which is right and proper in a civilised society. We do not need laws that tell us what kind of parents we should be.
Now perhaps mumsnet would like to run another pole that says when did you last slap your child or how often do you slap your child?
It's nonsense to suggest that you are a poor parent if you have ever hit your child. If you resort to it regularly or beat them you have a problem.
I don't hit my children now because they are of an age to understand reason. I did so when they were small and I feel no guilt about it at all. They have no memory that they were ever smacked.
Twinklelittlestar do you have any form of punishment when your children misbehave? What is it? Or shall we be seeing you on one of the parenting programmes wondering why your children are such horrors that every other child avoids them.
Twinklelittlestar. In principle what you are saying is of course right but it is a little unfair to make such sweeping generalisations. I have never smacked my daughter, she is only 17 months after all, but I stand by my original comment (the first one of the thread I think). I can count on one hand the number of occassions when my mother reprimanded me in this way. It was a "tap" and nothing more sinister, never left a mark and certainly didn't hurt. It was more to jolt me, if you will, when I was having a tantrum and shouting at her. I certainly never felt humiliated and I totally resent the suggestion that my fantastic mother who did a wonderful job of raising five children single handedly is somehow no better than the sort of mother who routinely slaps, bullies and shouts at her children. If you read the thread, most people who admit to have chastised their children feel dreadful about it so this "green light" nonsense is pretty offensive. Most parents are not child abusers, reserve your indignation for those who deserve it.
if this law doesn't get passed is this going to give the 'tappers' & 'slappers' the green light to smack/tap a little harder & not feel quite so guilty about it?
Hi I am really hoping that this law gets passed tomorrow. I think this should have been done a long time ago. I imagine if it doesn't all those on this thread who would like to right to hit their children will be rejoicing!
It really is sickening that so many people are coming on here to state that they want to maintain the right to hit/smack their children. It is interesting to read that so many of you think that a ban is being introduced to stop 'other' people abusing their children...rather than being able to reflect on their own behaviour & to see it is also to stop people like themselves using violence as a method against powerless members of our society... even if it is 'to teach/protect from danger etc.
LOL... i smack my dd so that she won't hit/poke the baby... can't you see how ridiculous this is. What lesson are you teaching here? That while the parent is around they wont poke/hit the baby as they are frightened that they might get a smack but when the parent isn't around it's ok as they have learnt that physical chastisements are acceptable.They would feel it was ok to smack/poke etc as they are being taught implicitly through the parents action that this kind of behaviour is ok as the parent is doing it to them. The parent is giving a very confusing message as they are saying on one level 'don't use aggression/physical intervention' against others but on the other they are showing that they do precisely this.
The lesson it is teaching is that it is ok to physically chastise those younger/more vulnerable & less powerful than themselves. They are learning how to get their own way through bullying tactics. (i.e. i want my child not to put fingers into a socket so i will hit them to teach them not to do it = if i hit someone weaker/less powerful than myself they will do what i want). Children learn through imitation/copying much more powerfully than they do by what they are told.
I think people who wish/desire to hit children and who justify their wishes/actions by saying that they were hit as children & 'it never did me any harm' is actually very sad as it is an indication that they were in fact damaged as individuals as they now cannot see any harm in hurting others (specifically children who are the least powerful members of our society).
So in a way they have learnt to dissociate from the pain & humiliation they experienced as children when they were hit. Rather now they have to believe that it didn't harm them in order to keep the view that they maintain of their own fragile selves & their parents (& parenting skills from crumbling).
Additionally I think that people/parents that have to resort to hitting their children for any reason whether it be in the name of safety, discipline or whatever are actually demonstrating the fact that they are inadequate as parents & as mature members of our society. It reveals them to be lacking in maturity if they do not have any more effective parenting skills other than having to resort to smacking.
Perhaps most important parents who use any kind of violence/aggression (a tap etc) toward their children & justify it in the name of 'good parenting' are also revealing that they do not have a very close attachment to their children & that their children do not have a very close/healthy attachment to them as if they did they would not need/want to resort to these types of parenting strategies in the first place.
I will be so pleased if this law is passed as it will be a step forward to a more humane society:
'The best test of a civilsed society is the way in which it treats it's most vulnerable & weakest members' Mahatma Gandhi.
What are all you slap happy mothers out there going to do if you can't smack your children anymore? Get a tazer?
Was going to do poll... but then felt deeply uncomfortable. Yes, I have smacked DD1 once or twice on the back of the hand in circumstances where her behaviour has been dangerous and I have run out of options (eg. her running off in a carpark etc.) Am not proud of it, and certainly wouldn't want to win a skiing holiday for admitting to it...
Some people on this thread have said they sometimes feel like smacking their toddlers, but never would.
I couldn't agree more when it comes to toddlers. But it would be interesting to see if everyone who started out as a non-smacker had still never administered a single smack by the time their child(ren) turned 18.
Some of them would still never have been provoked to that point (lucky them). But I would suspect that it would be by no means all of them!
I would agree with you (although I wouldn't equate a small slap on the hand with a whack). I was brought up with smacking, I don't like it, I think it's demeaning and having seen first hand that it doesn't work I don't plan to do it again if I can help it. But criminalising it would not have helped me to make that decision.
A real "whack" should not come under the defence of "reasonable chastisement" IMO. I think currently the guideline is whether it leaves a visible mark or something? If it leaves a mark that can be seen by a third party some time later then that's more than any smack!
<sigh> I'm not perfect. I don't think we all have to be perfect to have an anti-smacking law (after all as I've said countless times we have it for adults, and we seem to cope - no one is proposing reversing that law just because it gets broken. Most laws do, you know).
And I can't guarantee that one day I won't lose it and smack. Maybe DS just hasn't driven me mad enough yet. But if it happens I won't try find some way to justify it - it would only happen because I lost control. Can children grow up to know how to cross the road safely and be careful around electricity and sharp knives without being whacked? I think they can.
I just don't get it - when a child is in a dangerous situation and about to do something that will harm them, you pull them away, don't you? I've done it countless times with DS and never felt the need to smack him - moving him away from the danger is top priority, I can't see how a smack would help at all.
I admit I have felt the urge to smack him and that is in situations like some of those described here, when he's really hurt me (pulling hair, poke in eye etc as toddlers do) - and I'm really glad I've resisted because it's clear as day to me that that urge is about my own pain, rage and frustration. Smacking would be inappropriate with a toddler who hasn't even done those things deliberately and doesn't understand.
I'm not judging people who have lost control and done it and regretted it - but don't try to justify it by saying it's necessary to save a child getting hurt. What utter twaddle.
Hmm - a sharp slap on the hand, or a serious scald from boiling water??
So am I going to be traced and prosecuted with retrospective legislation then, having given my email address 'n' all?
All they need to do is use the current law properly and issue clearer guidance on the meaning of "reasonable chastisement". Anything else is just political manouevering IMO.
I have smacked my 2 year old a handful of times. Not proud of it, don't think it really works and have only done so as a last resort. But even if it takes him aback and makes him laugh, it distracts him from attempted electrocution or whatever else life-threatening activity he had embarked upon.
i have smacked.it doesnt work and leaves all involved feeling worse than ever.i get to the point(very rarely i must say!)when it feels like the only answer,but ofcourse its not.if it was illegal it wouldnt feel like that. (do i now sound like evil bad parent???)
I have smacked my DS1 twice for scratching his ds2 as a newborn, and I was wrong, it did none of us any favours and didn't stop him going on to hurting his brother.
If it were illegal maybe I would have thought twice about hitting him in the first place.
Yes to a ban IMO. I agree with fanjo (and lots of others). It needs to be illegal so it can be used for those that beat their children. Of course it won't be used for the occasional smack on bottom. I often feel like smacking my toddler if he's being annoying, but never would (I hope), and know it wouldn't work anyway and would just teach him that violence is the answer.
As someone said on the radio this morning, outlawing smacking whilst letting parents nurture obese offspring is going too far. Raising your children to be totally unhealthy and overweight is a life-sentence you impose upon them. We can certainly dissaprove of something without banning it - that is a sign of a mature, sophisticated culture.
I voted no. Because otherwise I would have to hand myself in. I have smacked DD for dangerous things - today for example she was about to poke her hand in a babies eye, I slipped my hand in and tapped hers away with a stern "no", we then talked about being gentle with little babies etc. She spent the rest of the time there being lovely to said Child. She later told me babies are lovely but too small
) and would take us into the hall to spank us.
that there wasn't even time to debate this issue in the commons and has once again failed... 
