To be more than annoyed when people inform me my children need a good smack?

[Slightlyneuroricnat]

It really winds me up.
Not so much the oldies who say " in our day I would have a got a whack for that " but people that can see I'm already having a tough time dealing with 2 toddlers, my eldest daughter is going through a phase ( I bloody hope ) of hitting everyone including me and we always have the same conversation, I don't hit you and you must not hit mummy, you've hurt me and now we are going home.
So we had this yesterday in a park and a lady informed me that I was " wishy washy " and what she actually needed was a good smack herself.
Am I being unreasonable to think she is an ignorant fool or am I some kind of martyr as I don't believe in hitting children?

Well apparently it's ok as long as you are calm when you do it.

Why don't you start with the acknowledgements including who did the research and provided support for it to happen.

To help here's a cut and paste

CAU! Cymru would like to thank Vikki Butler and Dr Sam Clutton of Barnardo’s Cymru who undertook all the research and the report writing on behalf of the Alliance. We also give our thanks to all of the organisations who attended the Help at Hand steering group planning meetings for their hard work and for implementing co-operative partnership working. We thank the local health visitors, Startwell, Barnardo’s Cymru Neath Port Talbot Parenting Matters Service, Save the Children, Briton Ferry West Communities First and NCH Llansawel Family Centre for their parts in the delivery of the events during the Help at Hand week. Particular gratitude is extended to NCH Llansawel Family Centre and Briton Ferry West Communities First for undertaking a large amount of the planning work, use of their premises throughout the activities week and dedicated involvement and support throughout the delivery of the Help at Hand activities week. Despite planning and delivery, this evaluation could not have been undertaken without the honesty and enthusiasm of the parents and young people we spoke to. To this end, we thank all of the parents and young people who willingly shared their opinions and experiences.

wonder why barnardos may be biased against physical chastisement when used on children!

It's all getting a bit circular now isn't it? Fefifo knows she is right, we are all wrong or lying about where we used to live, or emotionally detached from out children who languish in day care ... Or whatever.

I can't keep up with the flood of justification and misrepresentations.

I am at least heartened by the statistics in the Barnados report about % of people who thought it was wrong to hit a child. I think we have definitely turned a corner, even from 10 years ago.

Ok Spero, so did you get the fact that my daughters would find time out or the naughty step a lot more distressing than a smack or not? So let's put that aside. My three year old doesn't get pocket money or have an interest in the TV, she has never been attached to a particular object (neither of them were) she eats and she plays, can't really take away either. So let's put that aside. If there is no deterrent what part of 'meaning it' do you hope to imply with no?

My kids are exceptionally well behaved, it's really just quite that simple. When they are at an age where there is a consequence that I can apply that works better than a smack every now and then I apply it. Can you not make the distinction that just because it's not a miracle one time only solution for bad behaviour that it does not follow, at all that it's ineffective.

I've said it before but I'm discinclined to allow my children to go through 'phases' of hitting, or climbing or running while I piss about with a sticker chart and some pound land toys. Those behaviours are dangerous and I'd rather put a stop to each one as quickly as possible.

Needs, because like you they have seen what happens first hand in some of the worst cases and it shocks them into ridiculous thin end of the wedge conclusions?

Nunquam (and others) please stop referring to yourselves and your wider circles as 'we' and 'society'.

This blanket ban that you all imagine imminently to be swept through on a wave of populist support isn't even on the political agenda. Even in light of needs' groundbreaking report, the Welsh Assembly voted on and rejected the idea as little as two months ago. In England, not one senior figure of any of the three main three political parties has advocated for this. There is no political will here because the vast majority of the (smacked) electorate are actually of the notion that if did indeed do them no harm. This disinclined me to think that more people than I would imagine have suffered emotional damage.

A blanket ban on smacking can't be policed. The law in place at the moment is shockingingly badly policed, what makes you imagine they would fare any better if it were extended?

The other reason it can't be policed is because you would actually have to implement some sort of deterrent. Your answer was SS involvement if I recall. Given that it is the children who come from generally loving homes who are occasionally physically disciplined that you'd be sweeping up into this blanket ban I ask again do you really think they would thank you? Can you not see that cannot punish these parents without also punishing (and in an extremely emotionally damaging way) their children? So you would avoid emotionally damaging a very small minority of kids having a larger minority experiencing unhappy memories by hugely damaging potentially, and that's if you really do want this properly policed, far more children than either of these minorities ever added up to?

Emotional abuse is not inextricably linked to smacking, a child that was emotionally abused before this blanket ban would continue to be and a child that was emotionally abused before this ban would continue to be. Why would one have a bearing on the other?

If you are referring to me saying "the knowledge we have now" as I can't find another example, understand that I mean: the knowledge that is widely available for people to read and act on. Ignore it if you like, but it's still there.

Far more valuable than anecdotal evidence that your mum hitting you did you no harm.

And there would be no need for ss involvement or other deterrent if the parent kept to the law and didn't smack their kids. What sort or parent would find that impossible?

Could you prevent yourself from smacking them if it was illegal?

There was very little political or societal will to decriminalise homosexuality - but it happened. It didn't stop Daily Mail readers getting upset about it, even now, but who cares? They are being left behind by history and the same will happen to the law about smacking children.

But fefifo, we get it. You are not going to stop, despite it being so effective and your children so exceptionally well behaved, you still have to resort to hitting them every couple of months.

So long as you don't cause your children significant harm it's up to you how you parent and the state won't interfere. I just think it is a shame that you can't seem to take anything of value from what we say about smacking and instead devote considerable energies to trying to personally trash people you disagree with.

Some people might comment that this very defensive posturing might point to a lack of real commitment to your beliefs, and fear that deep down you have for it wrong.

But only you can know.

It's not 'my report' all I did was change a unclickable link to a clickable one.

children who come from generally loving homes who are occasionally physically disciplined

This description of families where you consider the level of violence against the children to be acceptable would also have been widely used 100 years ago to describe families where children were beaten with canes and belts.

We look back today on those actions, quite rightly, with horror. I hope it doesn't take another 100 years before we all feel the same revulsion for people who smack.

Try 40 years ago gold

Would love a direct answer to this.

Why is it acceptable (to some) to hit a child, but not anyone / anything else?

Fefifo, I only needed to put the baby reins on my daughter once for her to get the message that I meant what I said. I carried them in my bag, and said if she ran off I would put them on her. She had choices; hold my hand, hold onto pram or stay nearby on side furthest from traffic. She chose to run off. She wore the reins for less than a minute, then apologised and that was that, I took them off and put them back in my bag. I carried them in my bag as a deterant till she was four and never even had to mention them again.

You do not need to smack or threaten to smack Fefifo.

You say your husband doesn't smack. Why not?

Oh Spero, you've just become so predictable. I'll presume you meant legalise gay marriage as homosexuality was decriminalised in 1967 or do you think you had the measure of the political or societal will of the entire country as a small infant/ before birth? Having written it I realise you probably do. You've clearly missed the entire point of my argument (again). You are comparing the decriminalisation of an issue that affects a minority in spite of populist opinion with the criminalisation of an issue that affects the majority, in the face of populist opinion. This challenges my point about it being a popularly held assertion that it 'did me no harm' how?

You think that the opinions of Daily Mail readers are being left behind in history? That actually made me laugh out loud. The paper whose circulation is only seconded by the sun? At a time when the current Conservative government considers the biggest threat to its prospects of being re-elected with a majority next year the popularity of a minor political party spouting an even more of a populist right wing agenda of its own?

I know you have a tendency of taking your own personal experiences and thrusting them upon everyone else as a cast iron fact but I haven't 'personally trashed' anyone else except you. I clearly hit a very raw nerve by simply stating that your daughter was in nursery at seven months. If you did not place a value judgment on it yourself you would have seen it as nothing more than a fact. Is it because there are numerous schools of thought that believe that group daycare at such a young age is wrong? Is it because extensive studies have been done on it and even those suggesting it does no long term damage do conclude that children who have experienced this are found to be more likely to demonstrate aggression when they're a bit older? Is it because in general policy and statute has moved on from believing that this is just okay by continuing to extend the maternity leave allowance and there are groups lobbying for this extension to be furthered? Is it because you know that as someone who did decide to stay at home with my kids (and the majority of my self selective group of stay at home friends) would clearly not make this decision for our children and would be inclined to believe that it is negative for the child? Is it because many of the same arguments against smacking could also be applied against putting a seven month old infant in nursery? Is it because I could, theoretically, turn around and call you a bad parent, question your relationship with your daughter and assert that based on the widely held evidence on this matter it is likely that your daughter will be damaged by your actions?

But Spero, this is where we part ways because, put simply, what the fuck do I know of you and your child besides that snippet of information? Diddly squat. In my own personal experience a disproportionate number of the children in my daughters class with behavioural issues were in childcare from a very young age. However, given that the majority are not manifesting any signs of 'damage' I would be inclined to think there were other factors at play and that in general terms, it did them no harm. I like to think that I am doing the right thing for my kids by staying at home but again, who the fuck knows? I don't know whether you went back to work because your daughter was so young to put a roof over her head, which would not be bad parenting. I like to think that my kids will have benefited in the long run by me staying at home but then your child may feel that the long term, relative financial advantages of you going back to work such as more holidays, a larger savings account and eventually a bigger house to inherit would have outweighed having her mum around all the time when she was young. I would not sneerily question whose child would be sobbing louder about the the 'abuses' inflicted upon them as young kids if they met up in ten years time. I would suggest that given they both had mothers who could even be arsed enough to think about the role they played in their children's lives, whatever conclusions they came to, they'd probably both be doing just fine. You assumed that I think all working mothers are shit because I'm confident of my choice to stay at home. Yes, I'm confident of it but not so bloody smug and self satisfied that I would make arrogant and misplaced judgements about people who do things differently to me. I phrased my point about time outs exactly as I did to put in order to put this to you, what you presume were my motivations were wrong. (Although in my head I managed to do it in a more succinct way, fuck me, I do ramble on).

so long as you don't cause your children any significant harm it's up to you how you parent and the state won't intervene

What ON EARTH do you think it is that I have been arguing so vehemently about and with so many bloody words for so many bloody days? Jesus weeps.

tl;dr

But I did note an interesting point about majority and minority opinions.

When same-sex marriage was legalised, it affected (say) 5% of the population and had the support of over half the voting population (YouGov, Mori etc polled relentlessly). It's easy for a government to make a change that actually has quiet widespread support.

As for smacking, you say it would affect a majority, and I'm surprised. I may just live in an unusual part of the world, but I think I know only one parent who even threatens a smack, and I don't know if she ever follows through. She is one of the older parents in our circle, which I think is significant.

I would be really very interested in some proper research to see how many families of minor children do smack, don't smack, have smacked but don't intend to do so again, etc. Because in your circles it's normal and in mine it isn't. Who knows which of us is in the majority? In real life, that is. MNers are as we have seen probably 80:20 non-smackers to smackers.

As a complete aside, I wonder whether the popularisation of BDSM-lite as supposedly increased by 50 Shades will make any difference? It might move smacking from "between parent and child" to "between consenting adults" in people's minds.

fefifo have you read why love matters by sue gerhartd?
in her book she makes the connection between positive experiences a child experiences and explains how these positive experiences help to shape a. child's brain development
she explains how these experiences influence everything that happens after childhood
she also explains how negative experiences influence a child's emotional development and produce adults who are emotionally scarred
when adults say " I was smacked as a child and it never did me never did me any harm"
they fail to see that it has
they have failed to see how physical violence against children is simply unacceptable and damaging to their children
how many parents say " my parents never smacked me but I'm going to smack my children"?

Fefifo, you need to step away from your clearly personal vendetta with me and engage with e wider points on the thread. You are clearly a committed and dedicated parent, it is a little arrogant to assume you can learn nothing from challenging your strongly held views.

Sorry, I confess my eyes glazed over a little at your magnum opus and I didn't finish it. If there is anything specific in there that you would like me to address, I would be happy to if you can restrict yourself to a few sentences and make it less personal.

You may feel Spero misses the point when responding to some of your comments.
You Fefifo, however, are avoiding answering some direct questions from myself and other posters, that have been asked multiple times.
Perhaps if you actually addressed those questions, you might be listened to.

On a separate note Spero may not have any other option but to use childcare for her dd, and your remark wasn't an observation but a dig.
There are other options to smacking though, other options you are not willing to even contemplate or think about.
And I'm going to play devil's advocate here, you won't ever consider to try them because they might actually work and you will have been proven wrong?

Wow just wow

And not in a good way

Fuck me she does ramble on

newt

I couldn't even get through it, so much if it was irrelevant.

No way do I believe the majority of parents smack.

If it is such a great deterrent, why can't childcare providers do it fefifo

Fucking ipad. of not if

Beck's, I'm sorry that you feel your good works are going unnoticed but as I tell my children, there is only one of me and sometimes I have to focus on someone else. That does not mean you are any less loved.

I have actually responded, and at the most astounding length, to you, nunquam, sleep and lots of others. I'm afraid that because I am quite clearly incapable of using one word instead of fifteen in order to answer every single, question, comment or accusation levelled at me on this thread I would have to dedicate my life to it. Where would that leave the kids? I'm afraid that is why this could go on in circles forever. There is not one central point or theme. What, exactly (yes, I know I have a cheek) is your argument?

I may have given Spero a little more attention in my most recent posts because a) I find her so damn engaging with all of her talk of implements and cold, calculating psychopaths and b) I've found her argument to be the least coherent and weakest, which is probably why she's gone from a stance of thinking all parents who smack are unfit to parent, and that The reason I smack at home is to dodge the authorities, to one of 'the state won't interfere' and I (a smacker) am 'clearly a committed and dedicated parent'. I think that, in her heart of hearts, she doesn't think there should or will be an all out ban on smacking because deep down, she understands that there are so many children that actually need protecting that are not being protected the authorities would be best placed to focus on them.

Did you finish my magnum opus beck's? It was not a dig.

What, what, what from my (many) words have you taken to mean I am unaware of parenting methods other than smacking and that I don't use them? I'm not arguing that my kids have (so far) turned out so great because of smacking and smacking alone. I use many, many methods of parenting as we all do. One of the methods I use, when they are too young for other discipline is smacking. I agree with discipline where it acts as a deterrent. Smacking is a very effective one and I've found it the best option for my kids when they are young. Unless gold is actually going to give me her magical parenting solution rather than asking me to trawl the whole of mumsnet or every resource on parenting available (when I find it will it be highlighted in gold?) I will stick with it because it works. Sleep, there is a school of thought that believes reins are damaging and 'abusive' even when used correctly, what are your thoughts? There is a school of thought that thinks time outs and naughty steps are 'abusive'. What is it about smacking that you feel makes the school of thought that renders it 'abusive' is so right? What makes you think that the people who find time outs and reins so abusive wrong? Or don't you? If you discounted every single method of discipline where there was a school of thought that it was wrong that would rule out all discipline and all we would be left with is 'gentle hands'. Is this what you want?

Oh my god, I did it again.

I have admitted it was over the top of me to accuse parents who smacked as necessarily being 'bad parents'.

But I stand by what I say as smacking as 'bad parenting'.

I am not sure why that makes my arguments weaker and more incoherent than any one else's. Perhaps it is because my daughter was in a nursery?

I thought I was saying pretty much the same as everyone else who isn't fefifo.

Smacking doesn't work.
It is illegal to smack anyone else, so why do we allow children to be smacked?
There are other techniques to disclipine a child that are effective and don't run the same risk of physical and emotional abuse as smacking.