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?

My experience is that those who have been hit grow up to hit others because it's the norm, it's learned behaviour.

I was extraordinaryly lucky, my Mum's a hippy (bless her) and never raised her hand and hardly ever her voice to us. I promise you neither myself or my brother are delinquent because of our peaceful upbringing, nor spoilt for that matter.

Likewise, my children and nieces and nephews are not hit. I am often complimented on what thoughtful and gentle children they are. And they are, it's true.

But it's been an easy path for me. My friends from school were hit in the 80s, one girl with a bamboo cane. Their path is more difficult but still, they persevere and avoid violence for the sake of their children. You cannot raise nonviolent children with violence Fefifo.

It's a strong person who can break a cycle of violence. My congratulations and utmost respect and admiration goes out to those who have done so.

its not up to me whether you respond or not.

i have just made a polite and reasonable request that your response is not in the form of several hundred lines of insults dressed up as argument.

You all seem to have neatly dodged giving me a disciplinary method that I could agree with and find effective. Now, given I have discounted time out and the naughty step because I think they are a lot more distressing for my children. Given I have said she isn't attached to any particular object for me to take away. Given I don't go in for humiliating my children in public (like sleep). Given she is a wilful three year old, not a baby and I want her to know that she is not to engage in doing whatever it is again and being told 'no' and moved away most certainly isn't going to achieve that and is actually just another form of whining 'gentle hands' once a child is of clear comprehension. What method of discipline to deter, would you recommend?

If she is only 3 then a firm 'no' - not whiney pleading no - removal from the situation and distraction should work in most cases.

If that doesn't work, I suggest time out in bedroom for a short period of time. Or removal of a favourite toy or sanction such as no sweets or other treat.

You may have to repeat this several times. A lot of 'naughtiness' at this ages is, I think, developmentally quite normal testing of their abilities and what you will allow. So I would hope for most NT children that if you are consistent in your responses, they will respond to.

I really appreciate that, thank you.

I don't think I was very articulate when explaining the angry out of control side of things and should have expanded a bit.

I suppose what I should have said is if it does happen and that isn't something as a parent you wanted to do, you have to have a word with yourself, acknowledge where you went wrong and recognise those feelings of lack of control in the future. Everyone's makes mistakes, it's how you learn and develop from the that's important.

Oh Fefifo you are funny.

Do you think I paraded my daughter around in reins, or made her wear a sign saying 'I'm a naughty girl who runs away' round her neck? How is carrying through my threat of attaching baby reins any less humiliating than telling her I'm going to hit her when she gets home? She said sorry, pretty much immediately, and I unclipped them. However, she now knew that it was no empty threat and the running off stopped. There was the odd occasion she would forget, but I would remind her I still had them in my bag, and all of a sudden holding my hand wasn't such a bad idea.

A three year old is old enough to reason with. Try talking to your children.

Also, I would try to catch them being good, and then tell them how pleased I was. It's easier to tell a kid with ants in their pants how proud you are that they are sitting nicely at the table than waiting for them to climb underneath then start telling them off. Children naturally want to please, give them a helping hand, praise them when they do things right.

Spero, did you supervise your daughter around the home all of the time at three? I don't and there are certain behaviours that I want her to identify with instantly as being absolutely wrong. These are behaviours that I don't want her to engage in because they could potentially cause her real and serious physical harm. I want something that works instantly on a case by case basis. I don't want to pop to the loo, hear a whack and come out to see that she's really, seriously injured herself doing something that I had told her no and moved her away from ten times before, whilst waiting for results. I never said smacking is ruddy brilliant and an absolute miracle cure for all kids for all things. But with my children every single behaviour that I have smacked for or threatened to smack for they have never repeated again.

I won't use time out, she doesn't have a favourite toy, she has lots and lots of toys which she ignores equally and wouldn't care in the slightest if I threatened to remove one. She doesn't generally happen to have a sweet in her hand so if we've both agreed that punishing after the event isn't effective then how will this ever be followed through? What else would you suggest?

What exactly was the deterrent of putting a three year old child in reins sleep if not humiliation? The deterrent in smacking is pain. The deterrent in what you did is humiliation, you could go on to argue which of those two is worse and everyone here may agree with you except me, but you humiliated her, plain and simple.

Thanks, it had never occurred to me before to praise my kids .

I wouldn't have left her on her own for longer than it took to go to the loo or put the rubbish out, I think that is far too young to leave unsupervised. But nor did I have a flat full of hazards that she could have seriously hurt herself with.

I can see it's difficult if you have a child who is not bothered by toys to use those as a sanction, but if you use sweets as a treat I can't see anything wrong with saying 'stop that or you will not get a sweet later'. Or watch TV or play on mummy's phone - there must be something she likes doing and would be upset if you didn't let her!

Refusing to give a sweet at some future time is nothing like promising to smack at a future time - I think this is where this debate is faltering. I, and many others, are saying that smacking is significantly different to other forms of discipline. It is raising your hand to a small and vulnerable person who you have a legal and moral duty to protect.

Of course, we have to give our children boundaries and discipline or they won't thank us when they grow up and find no one else can bear them - I just think you don't teach any good lessons by hitting them.

I don't deny it was humiliating for her. She wanted to run, she was a big girl who didn't need to walk next to Mummy. With the reins on she couldn't do that could she? Better to go back to the three choices given to her than accept the restrictions of the reins.

You're welcome for the advice BTW, you'd be amazed how many people never think to recognise their children's good behaviour, prefering to ignore them and then being quick to punish them when they seek out some negative attention by playing up.

You don't think that the time it takes to pop to the loo or put out the bins is long enough for a child to get themselves into trouble? I have a house that I would consider to be full of many things that could be hazards, stairs would be one of them.

I don't sit down at two o clock every day and give her a sweet. I give them to her if I happen to have some on me and she hasn't had one for a while. I certainly wouldn't give them as treats as I don't like rewarding my children with food and particularly food that is bad for them. I would have to say 'don't do that and mummy will give you a sweet'. I think we both see where that falls down.

There is no punishment or deterrent in saying that I will not let her watch TV as she's just not that into it yet (yes I know that will soon come) I don't really see the point in threatening to remove playing if I'm not prepared to do time out as that would just involve her sitting on my knee having a cuddle.

You still have not given me a deterrent that would serve its function anywhere near as well for my child have you?

I don't smack my children to build their character I do it because, I believe that for my children it is the only discipline that has an effective enough follow through to deter them from serious acts of wilfullness that could really hurt them and I'm happy to trade off what probably amounts to less than twenty seconds of physical pain a year to achieve that.

You've not given me a solution that fits (until about 5 for my eldest which is probably why I stopped smacking her then) other than time outs or removing things that wouldn't bother her anyway.

So you used humiliation in order to deter her then sleep, as I originally stated. Would it be okay for you to humiliate a doddery brained elderly person to get them to behave? Would it be okay to humiliate your husband if he were doing something you didn't like? Do you think your child will grow up to humiliate others as a way of controlling them?

As a point of interest did you put the reins on her calmly, or did you do it when you were in a state of heightened emotional distress?

Time to start asking yourself some searching questions methinks sleep.

Not at one in the morning it's not.

I was perfectly calm when I clipped the rein to her backpack, yes. I told her I'd do it if she ran away and I did. She slumped and refused to move till I unclipped it. I told her if she apologised and promised to stay with me I would take it off. She did, so I took it off and she kept her promise.

I would not be in the position to deter an elderly relative or my husband from running away over the horizon from me, so I'm going to answer no to your question. It was the dangerous nature of my daughter's actions that led to the measures taken and it was extremely effective, unlike your 'calm' smacks that seem to need repeating every few months.

I would certainly hope that my children can rationalise cause and effect with their own children when they are parents without resorting to violence, again they'll have a head-start, like I did.

As my moniker suggests, I am missing my sleep. I'll bid you adieu.

And so to bed!

Your one of those aren't you, no matter what anybody suggests you will find a reason why it won't work even if it would.

Putting reins on a 3 year old is not humiliation it is to keep them safe.

I think you are just looking for things to lash out at others about ..thinking attack is best form of defence.

Doesnt make you look better.

I put reins on my 7.5 year old to keep her safe..

I guess I must be abusing a child with SN.

I would actually stop engaging with her..saying nursery and reins are abusive are pretty low arguments just designed to wound.

If your home is full of hazards then you need to do something about that first, rather than slap. If your child is liable to fall down stairs, get a stair gate. I am struggling to think what else there might be that is so dangerous you cannot leave her to go to the toilet, without having first slapped her into state of fearful compliance.

Have you ever actually tried anything other than slapping? Or have you just fallen into replicating what was done to you, as the only template of parenting you know?

While I should give you credit to how you responded in more recent posts, I note how quickly you fell back into belligerence and defensiveness.

I appreciate I can't judge someone from their style of posting but over very many posts you do seem to come across as someone who is quite angry, defensive and unkind. I hope that doesn't inform your parenting style.

I think I have come to the end of anything constructive I can offer. I hope things go well for you and you can gradually phase out slapping as your children get older.

I suspect it's an attention thing with Fefifo, so I'm going to stop feeding the troll too.

I've mentioned 'pigeon chess', apt description of our friend here.

24.media.tumblr.com/b875b2309956190f4a13d360e8481dcd/tumblr_n17fkzRHIE1rf1a64o1_500.jpg

That is brilliant.

This thread has been worth it for that link alone.

There's another one (I'm crap at links, sorry) with a woman going "are you coming to bed?" "No, someone is WRONG on the internet". I've been guilty of getting sucked in myself, it's such a waste of energy as you realise later the troll has got what they want by being the focus of all your attention.

I don't know much about Sue Atkins, but she seems to be pretty well respected on my twitter feed and she has a book with an iPhone app which might be of interest.

www.freado.com/book/11771/the-parental-journey

I like what I have seen of her so far - here is a clip of her on This Morning saying why she doesn't agree with smacking in wake of what David Lammy was saying about riots being caused by not smacking children.

I think you'd like her fefifo. She seems very no nonsense and does believe in discipline, as a former deputy head teacher and mum of two.
www.sueatkinsparentingcoach.com

Wrong on the internet.

A standard phrase in our house.

I am trying to compose myself from laughing as I write this (for context).

I've stayed so long girls because I just think you're all such damn good fun and as I've said a million times I have absolutely nothing better to do!!

If that constitutes being a troll then fair play that's what I am then.

There is nothing on this thread that I have posted that isn't true or an accurate reflection of my views. I am a happy mother of two young girls who I occasionally smack from time to time. I believe in using discipline as a deterrent. I feel a point coming on so you may all want to settle down for a nap.

There have been enough pro-smackers come on the thread for you to understand that I am not in a minority of one on the whole of MN. They came and left quickly in the knowledge that what we are arguing is essentially a question of an absolute moral principle. You either have to believe that a child's right to never be hit is an inviolable principle or not. I do not believe that anyone has an inviolable right to never be hit or hurt. The link above just reminds me that the whole of London shut down a year and a half ago in what was essentially an argument about whether 'reasonable force' was used to kill a young man, and the motivations of the police officer who killed him. Not that it was his absolute moral right not to be killed, but whether reasonable force had been used by the officer trying to apprehend him. The right to never have reasonable force used on any of us is not a morally absolute one enshrined in law. A police officer has the right to use 'reasonable force' to apprehend a suspected criminal and in this country that goes as far as being shot. We all have a right to use reasonable force if we feel personally threatened to DETER the person physically threatening us from doing so. Some feel that extends to shooting a man in the back when he is running away, I feel that this is clearly not a deterrent but a punishment, however would have no problem whatsoever with doing so should I happen to have a gun handy and someone bigger and stronger than me posed an immediate, serious, physical threat to me and my family. I work from this basis, never being on the receiving end of physical violence is nobody's moral or inviolable right. If you believe it is then there is no debate. If you believe it isn't then you can talk about other ways (still waiting) and bad parenting but your central argument cannot be that it is morally absolutely wrong.

Like I said, as a smacker, I engaged at the beginning of the thread because of all the nonsense about abusing the elderly and and taking pictures of children's genitals being compared to smacking as it stands within the law. You all seem to have climbed down from these ridiculous comparisons now so what is left?

Saying it is 'bad'. Bad people do it, it is bad parenting or whatever else. You can only actually achieve this by personally attacking me (on this thread) and other smackers at large to achieve the conclusion that I am either 'bad' or just plain stupid. The whole concept of the thread is a personal attack, because if I smack, and it is smacking that you are attacking then you are obviously attacking me. Every one of the main posters on this thread that has engaged in this debate with me, bar beck's, has been patronising and sneering towards me and I back to them. Contrary to Spero spitting her dummy can't resist about the nursery thing I have not personally attacked anything to do with anyone else's parenting unless it has been smugly suggested to me as a 'better way' (for the last bloody time, I have absolutely no problem with working mothers, my own most excellent mother put me in a nursery as an infant and it has very clearly done me no harm ).

The reason I have enjoyed this thread so much is precisely because a) I am clearly very thick skinned and enjoy a bit of banter and b) because you all cannot see the irony of the fact that the thread has just descended into an all out character assassination of me is because you absolutely must come to the conclusion that I am stupid and bad to render your assertions that I cannot possibly, as a loving mother, have come to the conclusion that smacking is not the only, but the most effective way of disciplining my own children and I know it will do them no harm because I know them and you don't correct.

And so, it could go on and on forever but as I don't believe I 'abuse' my children based on the fact I know me and I know them and I consider myself logical enough to come to that conclusion before a bunch of people I dont know on the internet. The only thing that is very, very clear to me after all these posts and all this time is that I am most definitely capable of the most incredible abuses of the English language.

"I work from this basis, never being on the receiving end of physical violence is nobody's moral or inviolable right. If you believe it is then there is no debate."
There is no debate then.
I believe it is everybody's right. Adult or child.