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 My friends are all against, they see it as quite outdated and pointless.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

The ones who don't might be smugger but often are actually worse parents in many other ways.

larry I very much doubt whether you know whether most parents you come across smack or are in a position to judge their parenting.

You still aren't making any argument that counters the arguments against smacking.

Hitting people is wrong- except in self defence or in defence of another. Hitting somebody smaller and entirely dependent on you is particularly wrong. I do not need "data" to make that point. It is commonly held among civilized people.

I do not make statements about the smugness or otherwise or the state of delusion of smackers or non smackers, or about which group has better behaved children. I have my opinion, but that is pure anecdote and not data. You, however do make such statements. it is reasonable to ask what you are basing your assertions on.

That smacked children are worse bahaved than others is my (anecdotal) experience, too, Bertrand. I put it down to the fact that smacking is very common in troubled families. This bit is backed by research. I personally think smacking doesn't necessarily cause the bad behaviour, but that both parents and children leash out in response to dire need, substance abuse, violence and general desperation in their lives.

Smacking by a parent who for some cultural or religious reason tries to parent like in the 1850s in an otherwise loving environment where all the child's needs are met will probably not have the same devastating effect.

As for the perceived smugness of the non-smackers, it might be more common than in smackers. It is difficult to be smug if you live in a violent, chaotic home.

Hitting somebody smaller and entirely dependent on you is particularly wrong. I do not need "data" to make that point. It is commonly held among civilized people.

And except for domestically, it's also the law in the UK. The UK may never go as far as completely banning smacking, but if you smack your children you are setting them up first to believe that hitting people is tolerated when it isn't, and then to learn that you as a parent don't have a scooby about what you are doing.

Bertrand,

You expect me to justify what I say to dissertation level but hold yourself to entirely different standards. 'Commonly held among civilised people'. No, it isn't. And certainly wasn't a mere 30 years ago. It is just fashion, nothing more and nothing less.

Possibly in 3o years a quick smack will be the accepted form of discipline among 'civilised people' and humiliation punishments (naughty step etc) will be looked down upon with disgust.

I think whether smacking improves behavior to me is completely immaterial. (I don't think it does, by the way). The issue is the civil rights of children. We stopped using corporal punishment against adults many years ago. It is now considered barbaric. So why do we allow children to be hit? There is just no justification at all.

And I think it is especially harmful to do the smack and then cuddle thing with girls especially if the father is doing it. That is just setting her up to associate a man's love with physical violence. I find that more than objectionable. It's just plain sickening.

So thinking hitting people smaller than you is a matter of fashion?.

Bloody hell.

Bertrand,

You are doing the typical straw man argument. We are talking about smacking a child as a means of discipline, not beating up a smaller person. But you know this, don't you? You prefer to (in your mind) win the intellectual argument than actually engage with the discussion.

Is that because you actually lack any real underpinning for your argument. How about you cite some real research showing better outcomes for the naughty step than a smack?

I'm not sure outcomes matter, do they? The point is whether it is ever justifiable for an adult to hit a child, particularly one to whom they have a duty of care. I would say clearly not.

After all, if we were only concerned about outcomes, we'd probably have corporal punishment in schools and hanging for sheep stealing.

I didn't say anything about beating up. I said hitting.

And I have said several times that I have no evidence beyond personal anecdote that hitting children does not improve their behaviour. Which is why I have not asserted that it does. You, however have said very clearly that you believe not smacking makes behaviour worse. Because you made that statement I asked you to justify it. It would seem you can't.

I have smacked dd a handful of times. Always in a temper and always felt like total and utter shit afterwards.
My mum did it to me though regularly and much harder. I turn into her at these times.
It's fucking awful.

Right, I have looked it up. Corporal punishment increases mental health problems in children, increases future drug and alcohol use, increases violent behaviour and hampers cognitive child development. On the plus side, it has the positive effect of increasing short term compliance but it decreases long term compliance.

I don't know where that would become "fashionable" in 30 years' time. Nowhere that has the best interest of children at heart.

Sources among many others:
Grusec & Goodnow 1994 Developmental Psychology, 30: 4-19
Straus et al. 1997 Arch Ped Ad Med 151: 761-767
Ateah et al. 2003 JPAC 17 (3): 126–32
Gershoff Law & Cont Prob 2010 73 (2): 31–56
Durrant et al. 2012 CMAJ 184 (12): 1373–1377

'I'm not sure outcomes matter, do they? The point is whether it is ever justifiable for an adult to hit a child, particularly one to whom they have a duty of care. I would say clearly not.'

But why 'clearly not'. Why do you think that you have that opinion but very few people believed that in the 70s (for instance)? If it is not based on some evidence, then it is surely just fashion. I don't believe that human beings have become inherently more civilised. I see no evidence of it in other behaviour. The prison population is one of the highest ever, classes are increasingly hard to manage in schools.

Our generation have no reason to believe that we are doing it better.

My exDH smacks his children. One of the many many reasons I'm so glad I left him & never had children with him!

If it is not based on some evidence, then it is surely just fashion. I don't believe that human beings have become inherently more civilised.

It used to be fine to smack your wife around in a saturday night. It used to be fine to knock a prisoner about a bit in the cells. It used to be fine for children to work up chimneys. It isn't anymore. That is not because of fashion and is very much because we are now more civilised.

There isn't a single good reason to hit children and there are plenty of reasons not to hit children.

Why on earth would you think not hitting children is just a fashion? If you really can't see the clear, logical reasons not to hit children, I'm afraid there isn't much more to be said.

Possibly in 3o years a quick smack will be the accepted form of discipline among 'civilised people' and humiliation punishments (naughty step etc) will be looked down upon with disgust.

Again, there are plenty of ways to manage behaviour that involve neither naughty steps nor smacking.

Neither smacking nor humiliation is appropriate. Do we have to choose?

Actually larry there are studies which show we are living through the most peaceful era in history... link

Victimisation of children in the US and violence against women has fallen since the 1990s.

While correlation is not causation, popularity of smacking in the US is also falling link

I would suggest that there is likely to be a link however, based on the 2002 study reference below from another report "There is also robust evidence of an increased incidence of aggression among children who are regularly spanked. A 2002 meta-analysis of 27 studies across time periods, countries, and ages found a persistent association: children who are spanked regularly are more likely to be aggressive, both as a child and as an adult. Many parents spank their children to put an immediate stop to bad behavior (e.g., shoving another child, reaching for a hot stove, etc.). Being on the receiving end, children may learn to associate violence with power or getting one’s own way. Indeed, much of the aggressive behavior attributed to children who were spanked differentially tends to correspond to interactions where violence is used to exert power over another person—bullying, partner abuse, and so on....."
link

You can find studies to support both views. The best studies differentiate between children who get beaten up at home by struggling or non caring parents, and those who are occasionally given a smack by loving parents. Here is one example of a studty. There were 2 more which I was unable to link to as they were newspapers that needed me to subscribe.
www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809

I agree the better studies differentiate between intentions and also severities. You can always find studies to support any view, you can probably still find some supporting tobacco to be fine.

The large meta-analyses appear to show overwhelmingly negative effects, this is why the UN asked Britain to ban smacking and I hope we will one day soon.

You can always find studies to support both views, true - but the volume of studies saying smacking has no ill effects is smaller than the volume saying it has negative - hence the results of the meta-analyses.