To wonder if there is any compromise when parents disagree on smacking?

[Waitrosesaysimessential]

Dh and I disagree on smacking - he is for it, I think it is pointless, and that there are better ways of managing behaviour. We have three under 5 and it is getting me down as we continually argue about it. We were both smacked as kids, and tbh I thought nothing of it until i had my own. I have had the urge to smack at times but restrained as i think it is quite cruel. I also dont understand how it is ok for me to smack my small child, while if i smacked an adult it would be assault! My dh says there is no evidence of harm, and says yelling is more harmful.

How do we compromise on this issue? He is adament our kids would behave better if i smacked them, instead of the current system of star chart and sent to room for bad behaviour. He has smacked our kids, never much but i find it horrible. I also feel it is kind of lazy, like he cannot be bothered to think of another punishment. His parents are all for smacking, and his ds did it to her own. My friends are all against, they see it as quite outdated and pointless.

Any ideas would be welcome as it is really putting a strain on us, despite years of discussion. Thank you

It's much more common to see children in restaurants now than it was when I was a child (80s) - if we ever ate out it was in some grim 'family room' out the back of a pub!

merry I'm talking about the kids in the class I teach now.

Way to assume...

IME parents who hit tend to be parents who are struggling most anyway - poor parenting skills, depression, other violence going on in the home. So there isn't a split between 'parents who smack' and 'parents who don't give a fuck'. Badly behaved children are normally badly behaved for a reason and that is often that parents aren't coping - smacking is a symptom of that.

The worst behaved kids in my class were the ones where the parents either didn't give a fuck or were completely soft.

Your use of the past tense indicates that you are not talking about children with whom you are in contact now and your turn of phrase suggests you aren't a teacher.

On the Internet the only information I have is what you post.

Blimey. Mumsnet hasn't lost it's power to shock me. I'm aghast that there's still people out there who believe it's accceptable to hit a child. To use physical violence on someone smaller than them, who is wholly dependant on them. Wow.

It is the being a friend rather than a parent school of parenting that leads to a lack of appropriate boundaries and problematic behaviour in schools.

That doesn't have much to do with smacking or not smacking. There are plenty of ways to set boundaries and teach children without resorting to smacking.

And, where I grew up in the 80d, it was common to see 5 and 6 year olds in restaurants at lunch and early evening. They all knew how to behave.

You are going to have to clarify where this was. I grew up in what is probably the epicentre of child friendly restaurants, south west London, but in the 70's people had dinner parties at home and children weren't allowed in pubs. We had one of the first pizza express branches in the high street but I think I went there once when I was 10.

McDonald's didn't even open its first restaurant until 1974.

Typical children's menu food like pasta wasn't widely eaten in the 70's - those were the days when spaghetti was sophisticated.

Most importantly, most adults didn't eat out therefore most children didn't eat out. I get the impression that the 70's was the era when a lot of British food deserved it's bad reputation.

Merry and Bertrand,

I grew up in Hampstead area of London.

Merry,

Why is it 'resorting' to smacking? Is it also 'resorting' to the 'naughty' step (horrible term) or time out (generally wholly ineffective)?

Ah. Hampstead.

Why is it 'resorting' to smacking? Is it also 'resorting' to the 'naughty' step (horrible term) or time out (generally wholly ineffective)?

Whether or not the naughty step or time out are effective depends on the child and parent and how they are used. Sometimes they are effective, sometimes not.

They both have the advantage of not simultaneously teaching children that a good way to control somebody is to hit them.

There is no situation where smacking is the best option so it will always be a last resort.

Ah, Hampstead, birth place and home of Penelope Leach who famously did not say in the 1970's 'spare the rod and spoil the child'.

We've decided as a society that it is unacceptable to hit even the very worst of criminals. We need to give small defenceless children the same rights.
This about sums it up
IME parents who hit tend to be parents who are struggling most anyway - poor parenting skills, depression, other violence going on in the home. So there isn't a split between 'parents who smack' and 'parents who don't give a fuck'. Badly behaved children are normally badly behaved for a reason and that is often that parents aren't coping - smacking is a symptom of that.

I agree, LittleNelle and Catmuffin, it is my experience in RL, too. The smackers are often really struggling parents with a chaotic home life and children who play up because they, too, are struggling.

For example Alexa described a "screaming swearing 8 year old" she'd like to bring into line by hitting them. Screaming swearing 8 year olds in public are quite rare, I'd assume they are struggling with something. Can be as little as a terrible day, can be much worse. The 8 year olds I know who are being chastised like this have a lot going on in their lives, lots of involvement of authorities in their lives and their parents are exhausted and not coping, not bold-as-brass "well, I smack because it works" type people. Which means they can be helped.

'They both have the advantage of not simultaneously teaching children that a good way to control somebody is to hit them.

There is no situation where smacking is the best option so it will always be a last resort.'

Haha. So the best way to control someone is to imprison them....I see. Things are so much clearer now. I wonder how you would feel about being physically placed on a naughty step or locked in your room?

I have never used the naughty step or imprisoned a child in their room. However, as a parent I am in control and there is nothing wrong with being in control. As an adult I am in all sorts of situations all day long where somebody else sets the rules and will enforce them without having to resort to imprisonment.

imprisonment is a punishment used by the authorities in the UK, but I'd far rather be sent to prison than live in a country that has corporal punishment.

larry you seem to think that the only way to teach behaviour is the naughty step or smacking. There are far better techniques that also have the advantage of being effective long term, not just with a 3 year old.

merry the other methods require effort though so people like larry can't be assed and will just smack because it's easier for them.

Don't assume that I smack merely because I am not against it. I have smacked a few times but end up feeling far worse about it than my child. I too have been conditioned against it. However I see some parents who smack and some who don't. The ones who don't might be smugger but often are actually worse parents in many other ways. Many have convinced themselves that their children are naturally 'good' as they run amok.

I find it very strange that you would be so incensed by the way I parent my children. It doesn't affect you at all

Because it affects your children, and even 'random strangers on the internet' care about that.

No decent parent likes to see bullies hitting children. That's why people are challenging you.

Do you cope with adult relationships without shouting or hitting? Probably so, because you know damn well you wouldn't get away with it. You children have no choice though, do they?

Why can't you treat your children with the same respect?

This ^

Also it does effect me. As I said earlier the children at toddler group who are smacked, now smack other children, including mine.

umbongo,

Were you smacked? You clearly see it as fine practice to criticise others' parenting in a bullying manner, without any real evidence behind your accusations. Where did that come from?

"The ones who don't might be smugger but often are actually worse parents in many other ways. Many have convinced themselves that their children are naturally 'good' as they run amok."

Do you have any evidence to support either of these bizarre statements?

Bertrand,

Yes I do but clearly not in a form that I can post here. What a strange question! What are you expecting? Interviews with parents coupled with videos of their children?!

Nope. Some sort of research. If you use words like "often" and "many" it is reasonable to assume that you are not basing your opinion on a couple of families you saw in Waitrose. Or even on your own social circle. And observation of the general population around you won't do, because you won't know the level of smugness. Or whether or not you are observing families that smack or families that don't. My own personal observation is that children who are smacked are much worse behaved than children who aren't. But I wouldn't say that on here because I have nothing to back it up. Anecdote is not data.

Yes I was smacked why?

Bertrand,

As opposed to not bothering with data or anecdote and just moving straight to a conclusion, as per your post of 8:17. Clearly far more professional...