To wonder why on Mumsnet there is a smacking minority and in NZ 85% of people seem to want to do it?

[twentypence]

Lies, damn lies and statistics I know. But apparently NZ's new "anti smacking" law is opposed by 85% of New Zealanders.

Now I haven't looked into the proposed law carefully at all - partly because to actually find a fact amongst all the political posturing and soundbites largely because as I don't smack and never will it doesn't matter to me personally whether it becomes illegal or not.

But 85% just seems so high...

Ok sorry, I didn't think there were any actively pro smackers on here, my appologies

I used (note past tense) smacking as part of a raft of techniques (and not a preferred one - as evidenced by the rarity with which it was used), so I supposed that that would count as being "pro-smacking".

I've also read the link that Harpschordcarrier provided - and it is saddening stuff. No-one would dispute that what these children are talking about is genuine abuse.

However, when reading their defintion of "What is a smack?", what I have defined as a smack in my own circumstances would not be defined as a smack by them.

FWIW, I am against smacking of kids over a certain age (in my opinion, once you can reason with them) and have always been agaisnt corporal punishment - and before you say "so what", I am 45 and was brought up in an era when it was deemed to be accpetable, and my mother was unusual in being a teacher who refused to use corporal punishment (but who had smacked me on rare occasions - only I can't remember them).

To go back to the OP, I am concerned about the idea of criminalising parents for "trivial offences". Children1st (the Scottish equivelnt of the NSPCC) seeks to reassure parents that they wouldn't be prosecuted for "trivial offences" - but what is the point of the law then? It's just a badly drafted law, as is it's either agains the law and you get prosecuted or it's not. It's not up to the police to decide "well, they only broke the law a wee bit".

I think pro is the wrong word. I chose to smack occasionally as part of my very varied methods of discipline. I do not think the occasional, controlled and considered smack is a bad thing.
I wish that I didn't have to discipline my childen in anyway
whatsoever.

I also wish for a personal masseur to come to my house whenever I felt tense and sort me out

There is an implicit message present in these types of debates that it is not wrong to smack occasionally.

No, I disagree, some people think that to be so, myself included. Other people hold the view that those who do so are crazed child abusers

Prettybird "However, when reading their defintion of "What is a smack?", what I have defined as a smack in my own circumstances would not be defined as a smack by them."

The point, Prettybird, is that the children define a smack differently to how their parents define a smack. Parents talk about 'tapping' their child and a child interprets it as their parent hitting them.

It doesn't matter how you define a smack it's how your child interprets the smack.

Nobody is necessarily saying that if you smack your child you are a "calculating, thick uneducated evil abuser".

What I am saying is that yes, you ARE failing as a parent and as a person if you hit your child. You can sit and sob your heart out about it as much as you like as I imagine your child has probably sat and sobbed too when he/she has been hit.

It's hiliarious that someone said they wouldn't smack as their children get older. Damn right you won't because you might just get a punch back on the nose! And you'll have taught them that is ok behaviour.

It's not about being sanctimonious or smug for those parents who have less than difficult children. It's about basic standards of decent behaviour. Whether you have a first class degree or not - total irrelevance!

One child decribed a smack as "A pat" then said "only harder". What I did to ds was a "tap" and not hard. In fact, I would do it to him even now - or to my dh, or to a friend if they tried to steal my last rolo - only I wouldn't define it as a smack! (Just a "don't you dare mess with my sweets!" )

I do accept your point about it is how the child perceives it: my ds cannot remember these occasions, as they were so minor to him, so his current perception of the hurt casued is zero. He can remember not liking being sent out into the hall - and still hates it.

We are all failing as parents. Not one of us is perfect, unless I am very much mistaken.

Treating a child with coldness is failing. Leaving a child to cry is failing. Giving thme fruit shoots (according to some) is failing. Putting a child in a position that they are distressed is failing. Not giving them boundaries is failing.

I am not going to get sucked up into a guilt complex.

We do the best we can with the children we have. We may or may not bring up axe murderers - we hope not. We hope that we will bring up sociable, friendly and useful members of society.

So far, with ds, the signs are good. However, as he is only 6, I know I still have a long way to go. I am sure the teenage years will be "fun", but having brought up a wee boy who is loving, loved, sociable, sweet natured but who know his boundaries, I hope to minimise some of the angst that I have no doubt we will go through.

BTW - I don't smack ds now "becasue he is older and could punch me back". It is because I can reason with him and use other techniques. Smacking would be quicker - but is no longer appropriate. He was very non-verbal toddler - only started talking when he was 3 (like his mum). It may be with another child that I would never have needed to "smack" (as in tap lightly on the hand to stop a tantrum or whatever) them, as I ouwld have been able to negotiate an alternative solution.

spandex i suggest you read my personal account on the other thread before you assume anything about me or my child. this can be found on a thread on called Behaviour / development: Smacking! At what age do people thinking it's appropriate. Then feel free to voice your opinion.

But we are talking specifically about smacking here. Not being cold, neglectful etc. Smacking is the topic.

lol at fruit shoots prettybird

But Spandex- the point is that the sort of smacking that has been defended has to be seen in the context of the overall pattern of parenting. You can't isolate one aspect.

None of us is perfect.

"Treating a child with coldness is failing. Leaving a child to cry is failing. Giving thme fruit shoots (according to some) is failing. Putting a child in a position that they are distressed is failing. Not giving them boundaries is failing."

Some of these situations are highly ambiguous. IMO smacking is not. Perhaps all of the above are capable of damaging a child but there is a lot of grey areas in each of those situations. With smacking, I don't see the grey area. A mild hit? A half hit?

It seems to me that if you want to parent compassionately, smacking is the easiest thing to get rid of. IMO (again!) if the law supported the idea of smacking as unacceptable, fewer parents would ever think to hit their own child. It's the current low-level acceptability that starts people off on the path of that form of discipline.

yes, smacking is cetainly being demonised as the worst of parenting mistakes. What is worse - a family where the child is basicly ignored, given very little feedback of any sort, or one where the parents are loving, affectionat and interested in their children, do fun and interesting things with them, and smack them occasionally?

Don't be daft. You most certainly can isolate one aspect of parenting. Why ever not? I am.

Don't hit your child. It is abuse. Whether it's a one off or a regular thing. It is abuse. Simple.

Nobody ever said anyone was perfect. But don't hit your child. Simple.

You want someone to hit, you hit me and see how far you get.

what grey areas are there regarding fruit shoots? Sunny D? Etc. They are bad for your child. There is nothing ambiguous in that.

Spandex, no it is not wrong and it is not abuse.

Kitty, yes it is wrong and yes, it is abuse. Another intelligent post there.

Once again I'm with You cataSTROPHE, I was smacked as a child occasionally, I only know this becuase my Mum told me a few years ago. I have no recalection of it.(and not in a blocked it out becuase it was too painfull kind of way) I have a fantastic relationship with my mother but not so much with my father who is pretty emotionally availabe. Once again still not saying I'm pro smacking.

catASTROPHE it doesn't have to be a choice between those two things. If you're a loving, affectionate, interested parent why not also strive to be a parent who doesn't smack their child? And I ask that question genuinely? Why did you first smack your child? Did you make a conscious decision to not be a smacker but it just happened or did you leave the idea of smacking open and it happened? I'd genuinely like to know how other people think.

I am not a patient person and I have been driven to the brink by my DD1 on a number of occasions but I have put the idea into my head that smacking her would be so wrong that I manage not to. When I feel like I want to lash out, I take that as my cue to put distance between us. Time out for me so to speak.

unavailable

Unlike Ekra and Spandex I do believe that there are shades of grey. And I know that the alternatives - all of which are deemed to be perefectly acceptable and even suggested in the thread abour "Non Spanking Parenting Alternatives" - would have been far more distressing to ds.

He used to howl with distress if we suggested he should go into the hallway (which was only ever for about a minute).

And Spandex - if I am having a tantrum, or try or steal your last rolo, you are perfectly entitled to hit me as hard as I "hit" ds' hand - because it doesn't hurt*.

I don't think it's just about how visibly distressed the child is at the point of discipline, though. Nobody is suggesting that children should always enjoy being disciplined. My ds2 "howled with distress" yesterday because I wouldn't let him block up the toilet with big wads of paper.

I think it's more about a fundamental principle that hitting people is wrong, especially a bigger person hitting a smaller person to demonstrate controlling power over them. Some of us think this principle is totally inalienable - no shades of grey - and that children need to learn it absolutely and without nuance too.

No, prettybird. I won't hit you because I don't believe in it unless it's self defence against an abusive adult. I've been brought up to believe that violence is wrong. You clearly haven't.