Grandfather smacked DS bottom

[ranblungs]

DS can have meltdowns/big tantrums, usually when he's very tired. More so when he's at his grandparents' house (ex's parents). They have communicated to me that they found his behaviour very difficult at one point, but it seems to have resolved now.

ExDP did live with them but moved our two weeks ago.

DS (aged 4) told me yesterday evening that grandad had smacked his bottom because he was being naughty and that it "really hurt" he got upset as he was telling me and cried. I get the impression this wasn't necessarily recent.

DS also can play up at bed time when he is there and he told me that grandad pushes him back onto the bed for being naughty at bed time.

I'm not sure what to do next?

They are huge sources of childcare, ExDP is supposed to have him two nights per week but often works away so they will have him. They also help out during the week as/when needed.

The relationship between us was once very strained when DS was tiny.

I am furious that he has hit my child. Am I overreacting as it was just a smack on the bottom?

DS can be very challenging there.

I started hitting back at 14 and it stopped then.

Again what a silly generalisation.

My grandparents were born in the late 19th century and i can clearly remember when I was little that they had nothing but contempt for the small minority of people they knew (literally 2 people) who were rumoured to 'knock their wives around'.

Just because unacceptable things used to happen, doesn't mean they were somehow seen as 'OK' or were encouraged.

Good for you. It took me a bit longer but yes, the day I hit back was the day they suddenly managed to stop reaching the end of their tether etc etc.

Amazing.

Ooh, a silly generalisation, was it?

I was being a bit glib. But in response to someone who seems to think psychological damage essentially didn't exist in two years of human millennia, it seemed appropriate. Since we're talking about silly generalisations.

Two years of human millennia? Gah. You know know I mean. Two millennia of human existence. There was definitely psychological damage featuring in it.

You can see from my post a few pages back I think smacking is wrong and would never smack a child, so the question isn’t aimed at me, but to be fair the answer is pretty obvious.

A poster did answer above by saying that they think there are more effective discipline methods, which is consistent with holding an opinion (albeit one I disagree with) that smacking isn’t always wrong.

there is significant daylight between something being always wrong, and something being the best way. I assume those posters say that they think smacking falls in the middle. Not wrong to abuse, but not the best way either, hence they choose other better methods. I’ve genuinely been really confused why you keep asking that question.

Yes it does.

You keep using the fact that physical chastisement - or hurting children, to call it what it is - has gone on for thousands of years, so therefore it must be OK. Marital rape was only criminalised 20 years ago, so can we assume that it was OK for thousands of years prior?

You're on the wrong side of history here.

I never said that nobody in the past ever suffered from psychological issues, just that if what you and others were saying is true about physical chastisement, then literally everyone in the past would have been deeply damaged.

Please can you address my actual position, not one you imagine I hold.

'Hurting children' smacking does hurt soemwhat of course but by that rule lets apply it to other methods as well. Stop calling it 'giving a time out' and start calling it 'psychologically torturing' instead.

Hyperbole helps nobody. 🙄

You are conflating legal with moral.

Marital rape was never morally ok, but it was legal.

Smacking is not legal in Scotland or Wales, but it is still moral.

But that's the point - not EVERYONE in the past physically assaulted their children so no, not everyone was affected. But many people did, and therefore there was a significant degree of damage in previous generations.

Well, I have an annoying colleague who I'm now looking forward to smacking next time he annoys me. I won't hurt him, just a small chastisement for being rude, so I won't have done anything wrong...

Your position is already risibly reductive, as you're trying to claim that smacking isn't wrong unless every single person who was ever smacked experiences extreme mental breakdown to the point of either suicide or being unable to live independently (unless you meant something else by "unable to cope with life", in which case do share).

We don't use that as the measure of whether any other kind of assault or abuse is wrong. Once again, it's weird that the standards are so different when it comes to children.

The studies are in and have been for ages. It's no longer a matter of opinion. Outcomes for children who were smacked are overall consistently worse than for those who weren't. The fact that you have a very odd view of human history and how psychological trauma shows itself is really neither here nor there.

I suspect you're of the "if nobody outside the house sees anything wrong, nothing is wrong" school of thought. Scary

If by "unable to cope with life", you mean depression, trauma etc...Well yes. Kids who were smacked are known to exhibit those symptoms far more than those who weren't. The fact it wasnt understood and recorded as such in the past doesn't mean it wasn't there, and you can easily see examples of desensitisation and abuse - and mental illness - in human history.

Honestly, it's the daftest argument for "smacking is OK" that we've had yet.

Smacking is not legal in Scotland or Wales, but it is still moral.

I don't even know what to say to this response (that won't be deleted).

Suffice to say if you were my mother you wouldn't be allowed anywhere near my children unsupervised. And that is not hyperbole.

Smacking is not legal in Scotland or Wales, but it is still moral.

This is just argument by assertion and means nothing.

And I agree with PP - I'd never let you near my children. You aren't safe or reasoned.

That is a really illogical and ill considered statement.

Children who are too young to be reasoned with still understand very well the purpose of a slap on the hand or bottom, which is to prevent a behaviour, not to necessarily explain why that behaviour is bad (which can and should come later when they can understand.)

The second part of the statement presents a false dichotomy, which is that we can only have reasoning or punishment, not both. That's not how the world works.

Even with adults, we don't just reason with them to make them aware of why they shouldn't do something and why its wrong. We do that as well, but we also punish and/or chastise in someway so they have an additonal incentive not to do it again.

Why should it be different for children? We should always reason with a child and explain why something is wrong of course (if they have the capacity to understand), but that doesn't mean they shouldn't be chastised as well, I mean, what if they just don't agree, or agree and then do it anyway? What if the behaviour is dangerous or damaging to them or others? All the reasoning in the world doesn't change the need for a clear punishment if the behaviour is not to be repeated.

@ColonelDax I'm not quite sure how you a reasoning that a smack prevents a behaviour as surely the smack will come after the behaviour therefore the behaviour has already happened.

And that's your prerogative. I'm not arguing that you should smack your child if you don't want to, or let anyone else do it either. No problem.

Quite right, I meant to say 'prevent a behaviour being repeated'

@ColonelDax but is there proof to suggest that this is in fact the case? Would a small child have the forethought to think oh two months ago I got smacked for doing this so I'd better not do it again? Mine can barely remember what he has had for breakfast!

I find the whole 'I'm against any kind of smacking, its abuse crowd' quite tiresome to be honest, as its always the same hyperbole expressed, with no attempt to address an argument.

Even on this thread there seems to be a feeling that a parent who gives their child a single smack on their bottom after numerous warnings is morally equivalent to a parent who beats their child with a baseball bat.

Until people can be sensible, its impossible to have a sensible discussion.

Children who are too young to be reasoned with still understand very well the purpose of a slap on the hand or bottom, which is to prevent a behaviour

If they know it's to prevent a behaviour, then they are able to reason. In which case, you should be reasoning.

not to necessarily explain why that behaviour is bad

God forbid you should have to do that, hm?

If they're too young to understand why a behaviour is bad, they're too young to be punished for it. There's no point telling someone something is bad If you're unable to explain why. It's literally mindless violence.

So for example, if a child is too young to understand why running in the road is dangerous, you don't hit them for doing it: you keep a tight hold on their hand or reins so it can't happen. And ask yourself why you weren't smart enough to be doing that in the first place.

I find the whole 'I'm against any kind of smacking, its abuse crowd' quite tiresome to be honest

Oh, sorry. If we'd known you didn't like it, we wouldn't have done it!

I am against physical punishment of children. I think it's cruel and unnecessary. But what im wondering is is there any proof that it actually works? People who do smack their kids do they only need to do it once in a certain situation then never again as the kids remember not to do it (through fear obviously) as if it needs to be repeated then surely it is not effective?