Would you ban smacking? Take our two-question-takes-less-than-10-seconds poll (and be entered into this week's comp)

barnsleybelle

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.

Littlemy dancing... I enjoy discussions that are level headed, thought provoking and not antagonistic... I have enjoyed the discussion with you.

I usually exit the thread once the name calling and swearing starts!!!

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.

Yes, I agree LittleDancing & Tatt.

Legislating about something about which there is no real evidence of what works seems like potentially a very bad idea.

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).

Podrick - "Dottoressa - "I'm assuming her smacking was not done occasionally and within a context that made you feel loved and respected..."

how on earth could smacking ever be done in this context? Sorry but that is beyond my comprehension."

The very fact that it is beyond your comprehension is clear evidence that you suffered far more than an occasional smack as a child.

I think LittleMy's posts are the sanest thing on this thread - realistic and undogmatic.

(And I don't apologise for knowing my Latin! What did that jibe have to do with the smacking debate, anyway?)

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.

In all honesty I need to exit this thread - it makes me feel physically sick.

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 send a message - 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?

But you agree that it probably hurt at the time... It's common sense, you smack, it hurts.

I for one could never envisage myself inflicting any type (no matter how small)of pain on either of my children.

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.

I'm sure it hurt at the time, although I was never hit hard - what I mean is that I have no memory of any pain.

The pain is not what has stayed with me about the punishment - but the realisation that my behaviour had gone too far has.

A clap in the air would get your attention after all. It's about hurting a child, not getting their attention.

LittleMyDancingWithTheDevil how can you say that there was no pain associated with smacking? It is not "tickling" or "stroking" after all????