Meet the Other Phone. Protection built in.

Meet the Other Phone.
Protection built in.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

to wonder how many people on here use physical discipline ..

222 replies

havinhoops1974 · 03/10/2011 23:32

compared to past generations??

I was thinking you hear so may of the older generation talking openly about using physical discipline on their kids compared to now where I almost hear people whispering it, but at the same time giving the old 'it doesnt do them any harm'

personallyn I dont advocate it , should always be a last resort, however I wont cricify someone who has slapped wrists etc at their wits end.

What are the views of MN???

OP posts:
GetOrfMo1Land · 04/10/2011 14:36

Unacceptable does not have any legal connotations.

If I think something is unacceptable I will say so.

I haven't said it is illegal, criminal or against the law.

Morally unacceptable. I don't see a problem in saying that.

LauraShigihara · 04/10/2011 14:38

I don't smack because:

It hurts (duh)

The shock (and sting) of it cancels out any message that I would be trying to convey

It is bullying

It is lazy

It can get out of hand (eg end up hitting harder or in the wrong spot)

It's frightening

Violence is wrong

It doesn't appear to work

I have three very strong willed children who are extremely well-behaved. I can/could take them anywhere (two are grown-up now). They have never been smacked.

Hullygully · 04/10/2011 14:43

Spooks, why do you think smacking is an effective discipline? How did you come to that conclusion? I'm interested because I don't smack, and most people on this thread don't, and i'd like to hear the other side.

seeker · 04/10/2011 14:46

". i do get annoyed when people start using terms like child abuse and beatings etc because as others have stated its not really helpful to the conversation and detracts from people have actually experienced such things."

I agree. Now will you tell me why you smack? What is the rationale behind it?

Greensleeves · 04/10/2011 14:49

I'm afraid I think there is an "entitlement" element to the smacking debate as well

parents who smack ime tend to have a very strong identity as "the one in power" in the relationship and they need to reinforce this message frequently. It's not just about the misbehaviour itself (and children of smacking parents are hell-bent on electrocuting themselves or being flattened by lorries), it's about who is In Charge. They feel that they have the right to impose their will and their ways on their children in any way they choose. I don't, personally - I feel responsible for my children, their welfare and happiness, but they are not animals or slaves or extensions of my own being. They have rights, including the right not to be hit by any other person.

and I find smacking parents are usually quite bossy and disagreeable with other adults as well.

GetOrfMo1Land · 04/10/2011 15:04

spook - I didn't call you ridiculous, or mean to insinute that you are, just taryning to say that the comparisons with vaccinations etc are ridiuclouslt convoluted, and miss thepoint.

Mind you, you probablt think that I am labouring the point when I mention beatings.

However - where do you draw the line with a small tap, a hard smack, several hard slaps, lots of hard slaps, a beating. And, if a small tap starts to lose its 'efficacy', then do you give 2 or 3 slaps, or hit harder. If there is no line between a smack and a good hiding, how do people know when to stop.

And - I am not saying that everyone who smacks is monstrous and a bad parent. Like the many people on here who were smacked but still retain a loving relationship with their parents and smack their own children. However, there are plenty of crap parents out there who have no compunction in hitting their children in ways which none of us would consider good parenting. That is why I wish they would make it illegal - there would be none of these greay areas in people's minds.

GetOrfMo1Land · 04/10/2011 15:05

Apols for appalling typos

mumsamilitant · 04/10/2011 15:13

No, don't agree with tapping/slapping etc. Just seems to me that it says "if you do something I don't like I will hit you for it. Then we tell the kids not to hit???????????????? Double standards in my book.

spookshowangellovesit · 04/10/2011 15:34

others have said on here and on other threads that they have felt closer to smacking their children the older they get, i find it the reverse. i would say that i smacked them more when they were younger and i was unable to discuss things with them etc the older they get the less i have.
when they are younger however and they start to move around etc and play with things they shouldnt (no i dont mean electrical sockets) or do things they shouldnt they will get a warning usually a firm no followed by 321 and then a slap on the hand and moved away from the situation.
this became our routine for bad behaviour as they continued to grow so when i started the 321 they would know to stop the behaviour and they did. it is effective, productive and clearly sets boundaries. is that a good enough explanation?

Hullygully · 04/10/2011 15:40

thank you, spooks.

I might have different methods to you, but I appreciate you explaining your thinking.

spookshowangellovesit · 04/10/2011 15:42

making smacking illegal would not stop people that abuse their children from abusing their children.

Hullygully · 04/10/2011 15:43

No, it wouldn't. But it might make people that smack casually think twice. I think there can be a lot of power in social campaigns in changing attitudes.

TiggyD · 04/10/2011 15:50

I use physical discipline, but only on consenting adults.

Wouldn't dream of it on kids.

horribledinners · 04/10/2011 15:50

no smacking. Ever. I can't think of a single situation that would be resolved by violence towards a child. And I have 3 boys.

spookshowangellovesit · 04/10/2011 15:54

you are right hully, 50 yrs ago this conversation would have been laughed out of any social establishment because smacking and a good deal more was completely socially acceptable. spare the rod and all the jazz.

Hullygully · 04/10/2011 15:59

The campaign that really showed me the power of social campaigning was Keep Britain Tidy!

We need that back again now. People have forgotten.

We could have: Keep Britain Tidy, And Hey! Don't Hit Your Kids!

seeker · 04/10/2011 16:21

"when they are younger however and they start to move around etc and play with things they shouldnt (no i dont mean electrical sockets) or do things they shouldnt they will get a warning usually a firm no followed by 321 and then a slap on the hand and moved away from the situation."

Why not move them away from the situation with out the slap stage?

Kladdkaka · 04/10/2011 16:40

In Sweden (the first country to ban smaking) the majority of the country opposed the ban. Although I'm guessing they didn't include the children in that poll. However within 10 years of that you would have been hard pushed to find a single person who thinks it's acceptable. Fact is people thought it was acceptable because is was allowed.

Something I saw here in Sweden a couple of years ago really upset me. It was during international children's week. There was a series of programmes highlighting children's issues around the world, such as soldier children in Sierra Leone, 'profession' beggar children in India. There was one called 'I Kärleks Namn', or 'In the Name of Love'. It was about the plight of British children whose parents are STILL Shock allowed to smack their children.

GetOrfMo1Land · 04/10/2011 16:44

I know it is probably a daft comparison, but I think of it as similar to when they banned smoking.

When the smoking ban came in people were pissed off, thought pubs were going to close etc. Most people were quite accepting of the fact you could have a fag indoors with a pint, in a pub, restaurant etc. Now though, 5 years after the ban, most people (and I include myself in that as a social smoker) would be horrified at the thought of smoking being allowed indoors. It seems that in this case the majorty of public opinion follows legislation, iyswim.

Like being forced to wear seatbelts. And drink driving.

MuddlingMackem · 04/10/2011 16:56

Strange how polarising this topic always is, particularly since I'm someone who actually swapped sides.

From I was a teenager babysitting my younger brother's friend and his siblings until ds was about 18 months old (when I was mid-thirties) I was seriously anti-smacking. I thought it was abhorrent and couldn't understand how anyone could deliberately hit and hurt any child, let alone their own. And then, well, I changed my mind.

DS started stamping his feet on the buggy wheels so that it stopped dead. Damned annoying on the path, but extremely dangerous if he was to do it when we were crossing a busy road. I tried reasoning with him. I tried taking away his toys. I tried refusing him treats. As we were out and about I couldn't really think of anything else to try until, out of other options and in sheer desperation, I slapped his leg.

And it worked.

I can still remember going home and telling DH that I'd finally found something that worked. And then having to tell him what it was - he too was totally anti-smacking. Unfortunately for both of us it turned out that for a number of things a slapped leg was the only thing which would work for ds, but, other than the pushchair wheels situation (which he did stop altogether after being slapped a few times), he was always given a warning and the opportunity to do what he was supposed to before being punished. We would count to three, but usually he would do what was required after only getting to 1. Of course, gradually the frequency of the slaps reduced until we couldn't remember how long ago a previous incident had been, as he got older and his reasoning skills developed it was just needed less often. In fact, by the time he got to about five we considered him too old to smack or slap except for very serious offences.

DD was different. The slapped leg at toddler stage didn't work for her, in fact it just made her worse. After trying it a couple of times we ditched it as a strategy and worked to find an alternative. However, it turned out that a smacked bum worked for her as she got a bit older, say four, and now at five she's growing out of needing it.

I now think that smacking/slapping has its place as a parenting tool but only if it works for a child. Otherwise it's totally pointless. However, I still find it abhorrent to hit a child in anger.

However, I really do wish the anti-smackers would cease lumping a judicious smack or slapped hand/leg in with abuse as such lack of discrimination is, in my opinion, an insult to those children who have been abused.

Kladdkaka · 04/10/2011 17:02

Are you all aware of the UN's 'Global Initiative' to protect all children in all situations from corporal punishment? The number of countries where there is total prohibition is currently 30 and rising. I think it's a shame that Britain is trailing behind on this issue.

It's not only international human rights organisations that condemn Britain's stance on this issue, it's also the government's own human rights committee and their health committee who were tasked with looking into the matter. Both of whom have called for it to banned because it's 'disproportionate, futile and in violation of children's rights' and 'in order to fully protect children from injury and death'.

bibbitybobbityhat · 04/10/2011 17:04

Yes but are you being unreasonable about what?

GetOrfMo1Land · 04/10/2011 17:05

Grin bibbity.

PenguinsAreThePoint · 04/10/2011 17:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

GossipWitch · 04/10/2011 17:57

Erm why smack to cause pain? I smack to shock I don't use anywhere near my full force to smack and I never would, my children hardly ever cry when smacked, only when pride is hurt, and as I say other methods have to be completely exhausted before smacking is used,

Swipe left for the next trending thread