To have judged this mum?

[Flowersinyourhair]

I've just witnessed some awful parenting in a cafe and feel slightly rubbish that I looked away and said nothing.

Sitting in a cafe at lunchtime with my two girls (youngest a toddler, oldest 10). On the table next to us are two women, clearly friends, and their collective 3 children (a baby, an 18 month old-ish and a toddler of a similar age to mine). Lots of smiling between the kids, parents chatting etc. All well, until it's time for them to leave.

Woman 1 grabs hold of the toddler with no preamble, no warning, just reaches over and grabs him while still chatting to her friend. Child predictable yells "no", starts crying and kicking off about leaving. Mother forcibly shoves him into his pushchair next to the 18 month old sibling. Child now crying in earnest. Mum gets down in his face and yells at him to "shut up or I'll give you something to cry about". Child now desperate. He reaches out and grabs something from the table, knocking some bottles over. Mother immediately hits him. It then becomes clear that he's grabbed the bottle because he was thirsty. Mother now gives him the drink, telling him for not telling her he needed a drink and being "a naughty boy" instead. At one point she apologise to the friend she was with who said "it's ok". The woman then said to the child "she doesn't think you're ok. She thinks you're a naughty boy who deserved that smack".
My children were really upset by this. When this woman shouted, she really shouted and they were really close to where we were sat.

I kept quiet throughout but to be honest I wish I'd said something. If this woman behaves like that in public, lord knows what those children go through at home. Notably, when she shouted in the toddlers face, the 18 month old sitting right next to him didn't even flinch.

The other mum, with the baby, gave me a "sorry" look as they left. I'm hoping that maybe she's in a position to intervene if needed.

DianaMemorialJam: Well, that's one way of looking at it. All violence is...well, violence. But no, violence isn't just 'violence'.

The definition of 'violence' is physical force intended to hurt or damage. If I smack my toddler on the hand to warn them off a particular behaviour and I don't hurt them or intend to hurt them (I don't smack - I don't believe I need to) then that is not 'violent'. It doesn't meet the threshold for the use of the word, hence the law that basically allows for light smacking without leaving a mark, ie not enough force to hurt.

If I say 'violent emotion' I mean passion, rage, uncontrolled feeling - I don't believe in smacking as I said, but I don't think light smacking is a serious problem because I believe the word 'violence' is being misused here.

Anatidae: Fair enough. Highly subjective, though, isn't it? There is no black and white argument there. Certainly not enough to say anyone who chooses to see someone shouting at a child and mind their own business because it doesn't bother them as much it bothers you is a coward, irresponsible, disgusting etc.?

Ok Trifle I see why you're saying. I understand it isn't necessarily a 'black and white' situation. When I said that about violence i more meant (for eg in this case) hitting someone is hitting someone. Whether they are 3 years old or 30 years old is kind of irrelevant; it's not nice.

DianaMemorialJam: Fair enough.

I would argue it's not the same if they are 30, but we might be here some time

Hitting a child - especially a young one - is not a decent thing to do. The hitting with an open hand on a soft area of the body advice made me feel awful. Some advice.

I would be ashamed to hit a child, frankly.

trifle I'm not the one calling people cowardly or disgusting - I think another poster maybe?

Swatting a child's hand away from a knife /grabbing their hand and pulling them away from a dangerous object - is that what you mean by light smacking? Because I can see that happening - if my son is reaching for something that could seriously hurt him I need to physically stop him from doing it. If he's running into the road I'll grab him. If he's reaching for something that could burn I'd block him. The intent is to block the action. Not to punish.
I think smacking them after they've done something is different, to me that's punishing. Even if it is a light tap, I just do t like the idea of it.

As to what you do when you see something happen in a cafe, well that is a tough one. I think most people have witnessed something they feel uneasy about. Last time I was in the uk I heard some mum in the supermarket doing the 'shut your fucking mouth or ill shut it for you'thi g with a young child. Now here in Sweden that would get reported, but in the uk? Well I just stood looking appalled at her. Cowardly? Yeah probably... but would anyone have followed up on it? Probably not.

Anatidae: I get that, sorry.

I mean as a deterrent after the fact, not a punishment per se. So I might understand why a person would smack a child who did something dangerous or persistently ignored verbal instructions and consequences. I wouldn't do it myself but I don't think it is harmful as long as it is done without hurting.

some mum in the supermarket doing the 'shut your fucking mouth or ill shut it for you

And this is never acceptable, of course.

" I wouldn't do it myself but I don't think it is harmful as long as it is done without hurting"

Why would you hit someone if your intention wasn't to hurt them? Surely the whole point of a smack is to hurt?

Every two years or so I check back into Mumsnet in the vain hope that something will have changed and people will have decided to do something useful and positive with their time apart from post pointless threads about other people behaving like something off Jeremy Kyle and then polishing their own halos. It seems they can't. No need to check back in 2019 then, this is an even bigger time-sink than Facebook.

CommonBurdock so pleased to have your royal declarations from upon High.

Sounds like your favourite past time is halo polishing.

No, I disagree, OP. The point of smacking a toddler isn't to hurt them.

ODFO CommonBurdock

"No, I disagree, OP. The point of smacking a toddler isn't to hurt them".

Would you like to elaborate? I'm not sure why else you would hit?

I wouldn't hit. But the point of a smack (that doesn't hurt) is to emphasise.

commonburdock and what exactly have tou been doing of great importance for the last two years that we lowly mners should be so in awe?

And how does it "emphasise" if it doesn't hurt? I think that hitting children always sets out to hurt- physically, mentally and emotionally. It's about the power of a bigger person over a smaller one. It's about saying, I can and will hurt you if you do that again. Hideous.

Sorry, Op, but this is what really gets my goat: you were clearly concerned for the child, so much so, that you started a thread about it. Why on earth did you not say something?

I just do not get it! I never get these 'close stable door after the horse has bolted' threads, unless it is to make you feel smug against objectively 'bad' patent. And, you can come back with whatever retort you want, but you should have stood up for this child that you were so clearly, clearly worried about, no?

If you see what you think is child abuse, call it out, first & foremost..

A smack is a short and sharp reminder where "No" isn't strong enough (in the eyes of the smacker). I don't do it myself but that is what it is.

You're right dd. I wish I had said something, although I suspect all it'd have achieved would be frightening my children when she yelled at me. I sat listening to it/watching it thinking about what I should do and chose to wrap my arms around my own toddler who was scared by the shouting. For the record, we weren't the only ones in the cafe. No one spoke up but everyone without a doubt would have heard. There were lots of people there without children who were in a better position than me to speak to her- not least her friend.

"A smack is a short and sharp reminder where "No" isn't strong enough"
So it's stronger than a spoken word? What makes it stronger if not pain?

I see no point in debating this with you anymore, OP. Please make an effort to understand me: I am not defending smacking. I am explaining why people can and do smack children without hurting them. The rights and wrongs, or the efficacy, of this decision are not my concern at the moment. I am simply explaining to you what the intention behind a painless smack is.

And for someone who wasn't prepared to speak up themselves, I think you are taking a remarkably belligerent stance here. All mouth, no trousers, it's called where I am from.

I find it difficult to accept that causing pain isn't the intention when someone hits someone else. It's as simple as that really.