AIBU to believe smacking doesn't have to be part of disciplining your child?

[BulletProof]

DS is only 2, so I obviously am not that experienced in the trials and tribulations of raising children but I often hear parents are annoyed that the government has banned smacking as a form of discipline. I personally intend not to resort to smacking but what does everyone else think?

The thing that has caught my attention is people blaming the smacking ban for the London riots and lack of discipline in today's youth...

Only on MN could someone post bragging about striking another human being.

The arguments SaggyOld ClothCat Puss put forward for the striking of children should be logically applied to those with certain SNs, and the demented. After all, they aren't in a position to learn, and need to be saved from themselves for their own benefit.

I was smacked as a child and I absolutely hated it, not because of the relatively minor physical pain but the humiliation. It wasn't frequent but nor was it done in a calm and measured way. With the benefit of hindsight, I can see that my parents were not great with discipline: they let us get away with behaviour then all of a sudden seemed to get sick of it and lash out (Dad) or scream and insult us (Mum.)

I do think the smack/hit is differentiated between because if I was to smack DD it would be with an open palm. I have never hit anyone but if I did I would think of hitting as being with a fist. I am not saying that makes it right.

I smacked my dog once and I still feel terrible about that. She was only a puppy and she cried and cried. I ended up crying too. I still hate myself for that. :(

"Smacking is a parenting tool that when used correctly is completely appropriate."

Says who?

Who defines 'used correctly'?

I would guess you mean the parent using smacking to justify their behaviour?

I don't think I'm morally superior because I choose not to smack my children. I just don't see how it works as a parenting tool. I have managed to raise 3 perfectly polite, respectable, well behaved (mostly!) children over the last 13.5 years without resorting to hitting them.

And of course you can compare it to assaulting an adult - if you display a behaviour that I find unacceptable and I hit you for it you would call the police, and rightly so. That's all smacking is, isn't it? Physically assaulting another for displaying a behaviour that you find unacceptable.

Says who?

Me. Because smacking is a moral judgement. Some feel it right to say not breastfeeding a child is morally wrong. Personally i don't.

I take no issue with those who consider smacking off limits in their parenting. I do take issue with those who choose to make it their crusade to ban stand make it an illegal act.

sorry but if you don't hit people (whatever their age) then you are definitely morally superior to others in that respect at least.

I wasn't bragging at all. I have rarely smacked my children, and only in the kind of situation described. A session of 'don't run into the street sweetie, you might get run over" would probably have resulted in a toddler dd laughing in my face and throwing herself under a number 37 bus!

Im sorry if I've stirred up a hornets best, just really wanted to hear what the majority think in our generation.

sorry but if you don't hit people (whatever their age) then you are definitely morally superior to others in that respect at least.

So by logical conclusion violence is never justified? I wish i lived in your utopian world. I really do.

Well I'm a smacker very very occasionally.

If that makes me a bad person and parent then so be it. I said what I think earlier on in the thread.

I personally don't judge people who smack their children in a controlled and calm way, when the situation warrants it. I don't judge people who choose not to smack their children.
I do judge people who parent in a way which allows their children to be ignorant rude little gits, who have no respect for other people and other peoples property.

Smacking will only make your children listen until they're as big as you are. Which is exactly the time that you need them to listen the most. Of course, it works in the short term, which is why it's so popular.

It's pointless IMO. From 0 to about 11ish, you're laying the groundwork, and although generally they will believe that you are the font of all knowledge, they will also learn more during this time about the way the world works and the way people interact as humans, from the way you are than the things you tell them. Then after that you have to sit tight and hope like hell they've learned some good, useful things from you, because they get to an age where their own opinions, their friends and other outside influences are suddenly equal to or more worthy than your opinions. Do you remember being a teenager and thinking that your parents were just plain wrong on some issue or another?

I think the same about any generic punishment though, whether naughty step, screen ban, removal of pocket money etc. If you're going to teach your child something you need to do something which will show them why they are wrong, give them the tools to deal with the situation better next time, or guide them into making things right (so, e.g. removal of pocket money to pay for something damaged is fair). Preferably all 3, but one or two is adequate.

You can't control what kind of outside influences will be around your children when they're in their teens, but it makes logical sense (to me anyway) that if they've learned in this way that they are much more likely to come round in the end, than a child who is taught that they shouldn't do bad things because something might happen to them which they don't like, if they get caught.

That's not a logical conclusion at all. We are not talking about a "self defence" situation Sparks1 are we?

I'd say MN probably spans a couple of generations :)

Like I said I was smacked and it's not has any ill effect. I don't know if it helped me behave or not... But I have chosen not too as I don't really see the point in my situation ...

I don't use it as a parenting tool, but it makes me mad when people start talking about calling the police or social services because someone has given their toddler a light smack on the bottom.

I have noticed over the years that those most militant about anti-smacking are often also anti discipline overall (or don't have the courage, dunno) and have the nightmare kids.....

I don't intend to smack my children.

I was hit as a child. Don't intend to visit it on mine.

As an aside though I remember someone arguing that smacking, for it's effectiveness as a message, will work on a small child. But once they reach two there are many more effective means. Bizarrely though people recoil at the idea of smacking an 18mo but seem fine about smacking an 8yo.

I remember much misery as a child, including a rage that my parents were smacking out of anger rather than as last resort as is so often touted. On many occasions I remember feeling 'why couldn't you just sit me down and have a right go, or explain why what I did was rude' etc. once I quivered behind the door for two hours as the threat only mum of wait till dad gets home (and inevitable smack two hours after the crime) terrified me.

Was that aimed at me Whatmeworry...?

So people are anti smacking because they are not courageous enough to do it whatmeworry? You have to be joking! What is courageous about hitting your child?

My dd is incredibly well behaved as are most of her friends, none of whom are smacked by their parents as far as I know.

Not smacking is brilliant in theory and I agree with all the reasons people think its wrong, but it works.

No one has yet given me a viable alternative for a limit pushing 2-5 year old that actually works.

I remember DF saying "But, she went to her room when you told her to "
Well yes because she knew if she pushed it too far she'd either get a sharp tap or tucked under my arm and taken there or both. Unlike your DD who knows you'll just get more and more annoyed, but not do much. Of course I couldn't say as this.

I should add that DD was free to return any time she pleased as long as she'd stopped stropping.

I'm old fashioned, I bring my DDs up the way DH and I were brought up, lots of love, hugs and a sense of knowing that home was always on our side, but firm boundaries too!

I can only say that at 10 yo DD2's report said she was "impeccably behaved" although I do wonder if the teacher got mixed up because I still have the stubborn, determined lively little darling I've always had.

From the OP:

I personally intend not to resort to smacking but what does everyone else think?

I was smacked occasionally as a child and have not suffered any harmful effects...As I'm sure most of our generation were...

Not sure what you are trying to say?

Smacking has yet to be totally banned you can not use force that will mark a child but to smack a child is still legal at the moment although soon to be changed but the big issue is how to enforce it

I'm just saying I'm not sure how effective it is or when it becomes harmful. In my experience it wasnt harmful but I don't think it was effective either, hence why I won't be doing it. I have no problem with carrying my child to bed if they refuse to go, I understand that physically prompting is necessary, but smacking seems pointless to me...

Limit pushing consequences have to be in context, is all. I think sometimes it's down to a difference in attitude of parents/different personality of child, too. I don't expect DS to do exactly as I tell him as soon as I tell him, but usually he does anyway. I have never smacked him or used a naughty step, and only ever removed him from a room when he was in danger of hurting himself or others or breaking things.