To ask should smacking children be banned.

[HadABadDay2014]

Just seen this on the welsh news.

I am not perfect and once I have smacked ds felt awful and never did it again.

Now I know if this was a patient at work or a member of the public I would had been arrested and highly likely ended up with a criminal record and lost my job.

So the question is should snaking children be banned.

What is the difference Irene?

Do you smack any other family members or just the little ones?

Smacking is abuse, end of. Only very bad parents smack children. I pray that it is made illegal.

Not understanding the difference between smacking and beating a child doesn't invalidate the position that any kind of hitting is wrong. Smacking, beating with an implement, caning, etc - it's all wrong for me.

Irene- is this also palatable?:

"The benefits of a smack is that it does not necessitate the wife's co-operation and delivers an immediate consequence.. Please note , by immediate I don't mean lashing out in a red mist, which is always wrong.Also it is over and done with very quickly and husband and wife can move on.
I am not talking about smacking for every transgression, mainly where repeated warnings have been ignored."

Blimey where's that from ant

As a child of the 70s I and dh were hit hard by teachers, neighbours and parents. Still makes me cross now to think of it.

And it doesn't work.

Ant is quoting Irene from an earlier post, except replacing parent/child with husband/wife.

Thanks culture- yes it seems horiffic if we change the wording a little to describle another family member rather than a child Pyjamasandwine,and yet Irene sems to think hitting people is OK.

Sadly there are some people who think that a husband should behave like this to his wife:

www.christiandomesticdiscipline.com/ddinchristianmarriage.html

Definitely not saying that anyone here would agree with this.

Which is why I am always completely puzzled why smacking is justified by some people in the parent/child relationship. Somehow, the child being dependent on the parent and being in an unequal relationship with them is used to support the right to smack them.

I am shuddering at that link....

If anything it is worse to hit a child than another adult. All violence is abhorant, but small child is much more vulnerable than another adult.

Is that link for real?????? My OH and I were reading it, completely open-mouthed!! All normal in a 'christian' marriage? WTAF??

Yeah Domestic Discipline is a fetish thing. It's set up as serious because that's part of the fetish.

Although it does correlate quite closely with some of the extreme "Quiverfull" Christian movement stuff in the US. But I don't know. I think that's more of an old fashioned view that women are subservient and men are more rational, although they do go in for a lot of harsh discipline of children, so who knows. But I am entirely convinced that the whole idea of domestic discipline is more of a BDSM dom/sub whole relationship dynamic thing, rather than being any serious "This is how everyone should conduct their relationships" kind of thing.

There's the idea that smacking is not the same as hitting, and is therefore reasonable to do to a child. That the intent behind it makes it ok. That's the part that makes no sense to me.

Very well said antrumba

cultuer it makes no sense because it is rubbish.
A smack, a hit, a thump, they are all the same thing.
Inflicting violence.

of course smacking a spouse is wrong (unless consensual fetish) and smacking an older child is wrong because it undermines their dignity and you would have to smack too hard to get a result but mainly because their understanding is more developed

My mother is elderly and her understanding is becoming less developed.
Is it OK to smack her too then?

I am surprised to hear you think younger children's dignity is worth so little.

So you stop smacking as a child gets older as you have to give harder slaps the older he becomes. So you hit an 8 year old harder than a 4 year old?

i would only smack a small child 3-6 maybe.

So you hit an 8 year old harder than a 4 year old?

My post said the diametric opposite of this. I would not smack an older child (partly) because of this reason.

The naughty step and isolating the child in their room with TV etc taken away is more psychologically damaging because of the sense of rejection. An hour in their bedroom or 5 minutes on a naughty step seems like forever for a child or todder. A sharp tap on the leg us over and done with quickly and an explanation and cuddle and it's put behind you. 3 minutes for a 3 year old is a very long time as opposed to 20 seconds and move on. After the 3 minutes on the naughty step the child still needs an explanation and to apologise

Rjae, I agree with you that the naughty step or isolating a child in a room is not ideal. You seem to be giving the impression that this and smacking are the only two options, which is a limited view of parenting methods. There are other approaches to managing behaviour, I don't use timeout or smacking, because I think they are both ineffective and/or produce undesirable outcomes in the long run.

Essentially, I don't want my child to behave out of the fear of punishment, or the fear of getting caught - external motivations. I want them to behave out of an internal motivation based on an understanding that behaving well is a good, positive experience and later on when they are older, because they empathise with other people.

Well said culture.

To the hitters- you seem to think it is an "either/or" situation.

It seems to illustrate your lack of insight into how to manage behaviour without punitive measures.

Rjae- this idea of hitting being a "tap". Sugar coating the language does not make the act any more palatable.

Irene- you only hit little kids- are you afraid the big ones might hit you back?

I don't want my child to behave out of the fear of punishment, or the fear of getting caught - external motivations. I want them to behave out of an internal motivation based on an understanding that behaving well is a good, positive experience and later on when they are older, because they empathise with other people

hence why we only smack tinies.Older children are developed enough to have the capacity for internal motivation and empathy.
But remember smacking is only for situations where explanations, timeouts, naughty step have failed and the parent (me) needs to seize control of a situation quickly.

hence why we only smack tinies

This, for me, is a quite shocking thing to read. Actually a bit upsetting.

A child between the ages of 3 and 6 (which is what Irene has quoted as the approximate age of child she will smack) can easily be "controlled" by a parent without getting to the point where things have got dangerously out of control. Young children who have yet to develop internal motivation/empathy need to be kept safe, and need to have boundaries consistently and compassionately enforced. This does not need to include physical chastisement (smacking). I'm not sure how smacking them is meant to encourage them to develop empathy!

Irene - you contadict yourself- how are the tinies to learn.

Hitting them give no opportunity to develop that internal compass.

I don't see how "seizing control" of a situation merits being hit.

Culture - I totally agree. Only smacking tinies is an awful,shocking thing to say. A stern look and firm 'No!', said at eye-level has all the necessary emotional impact. Physical pain is not required.

It's a parent's job to keep tinies safe by controlling the situation, not hitting them after control has been lost (and I absolutely include so-called "measured smacking" in that definition).

Why would anyone want to hit a todder- or any other person for that matter.

It leaves a bad taste in mty mouth this talk of "hitting tinies".

Irene I hope you don't work with children- I wouldn't trust you.