If i had done what a horrible mum did to her child, to her, i would be up on an assault charge.

[LEMneedsaholiday]

I was in the sweet shop with DD yesterday, we are after chocolate . Mother was with her child with her dodgy looking geezer hanging around outside the shop. Her DD must have been about 18m, so she was obviously going to head for the sweets - which were at her level - her mother was buying cigarettes - growled "leave it" and when she reached out for the sweets she pushed her backwards by her head, quite hard so she fell back. I really wanted to do it to her - and then ask her how she liked it, but of course if i had, i would probably been arrested.

Why is this OK? Well its obviously NOT ok, but in the eyes of the law?????

Smacking doesn't work, naughty step doesn't work. I have done both - i used to smack DD1 - usually if i lost control - i am not proud of that. That wasn't considered parenting. I am a much older much more considered parent now i have DD2.

I have smacked her, in her nearly five years no more than twice - just a smack to the legs, or bum, probably less hard than i have smacked her bum in play, but as a punishment it just left us both upset and me comforting DD and trying to "make up" for MY bad behaviour. Totally counterproductive. Over quickly though.

Naughty step - fucking horrendous, just results in complete battle of wills, net result, child sat on my knee sobbing and unable to catch her breath - Me fraught - for what? To win a discipline battle?

Out of the two, i think smacking is the lesser or two evils. I cannot say absolutely truthfully that i will never smack DD2 again, but i certainly don't plan to. I do however know that i will NEVER use the naughty step again.

Cirrhosis - you are always talking about how illogical hitting (which is actually different from smacking) a child is. If you don't get the logic of smacking you obviously can't understand the logic of the naughty step / sending a child to their room. It is the same logic but just a different method of discipline.

One is an instant consequence and the other is more delayed. One is more suitable for a young child that obviously is not capable of reasoning or remembering naughty behaviour and the other is more suitable for a child that is old enough to reflect and understand their behaviour. You can't expect a 3 year old to understand why they are being sent to their room / naughty step. They are far too young.

I don't really understand how some of you who are anti-smacking can not see that all punishments have the potential to abusive and it is the way that they are used which determines this and not the actual method of discipline. If a child knows that they are loved and cared for but that there are clear boundaries then I really don't see how smacking could equal abuse (I reiterate I mean smacking with my hand, not beating my child).

I think that as with everything to do with parenting it depends on the inidividual child. For dd time out in her room works and has done since she was about 3(she's nearly 6) She seems to use the time out and process whatever's happened and calms herself down to be nice dd again. When she's calm she comes back downstairs and we speak about what happened, why she went to her room etc etc.

It wouldn't work with ds(just turned 3) he's a much younger 3 than dd ever was(she always seems much older than she actually is) ds needs a more instant consequence. If he hits out then he does get a tap back, which he doesn't like. I always say something along the lines of 'see you don't like being smacked so don't smack mummy'

oh please don't kid yourself that a smack is not a hit.
FGS. Do it if it's your parenting choice but at least have the insight to admit to what it is.

Ali, you'll never see it - I just think my rights to 'discipline' my child stop short of hitting them. And there is always a better way. Always.

and - I just can't get started on 'See you don't like being smacked so don't smack mummy'

btw I said smacking is 'an abuse of power' not child abuse, there IS a difference of course and I am not suggesting that any loving mum on this thread is abusive. So lets not get hung up going down that blind alley if I can mix metaphors for a minute! I can see that a child can have the odd smack without experiencing child abuse; I just utterly, completely disagree with it and think it's lazy parenting, and all the other things I've already said. etc etc etc.

If smacking was all that necessary, you'd expect non-smacking cultures to be
full of out-of-control children. You would also expect parents who smack to have better behaved children and be more in control of discipline

Snobear - I have reported your post, please take your religious prejudice elsewhere

Cory, i think that says it all

CirrhosisByTheSea, you are entitled to your opinion as am I. You have to accept that some people will agree with you whilst others won't. I simply stated MY opinion. Don't try to belittle it just because YOU don't agree

You're right Eddas that you're entitled to your opinion. However I reserve the right to find it illogical and silly and to say so.

sometimes it's not what you say but the way you say it. You can disagree with someone without belittling their opinion, which you have now done to me twice. Everyone's parenting style differs. I understand that you do not agree with mine, why not simply say that you don't agree, why say my opinion is illogical and silly. It isn't. It's just not the same as your opinion.

thing is, Eddas - my opinion of smacking a child to 'teach' them not to smack is that it is illogical and silly, do you see what I mean?

It's hard for you to hear of course and I am sorry for that; but that's the thing with opinions; you have to allow others theirs even when you don't like it. It's easy for us all to say we're all entitled to an opinion, but you're not allowing me mine. I'm sorry you find it belittling - the simple fact is, it's my opinion whether you like it or like it not. I can't change it because you don't like it. You can't tell people what to say in reply to a post; I don't want to say simply "I don't agree with you" I want to say why I don't agree. And I'm allowed to.

See, if you had said it that way in the first place then I would not have felt you were belittling my opinion and dismissing me as some kind of silly idiot. not at all hard to hear and I never for one minute would say that my way is the best/only way and I would never tell anyone that they should change their opinion because I choose to do something differently. It works for me and I am happy that I am not harming my children. If you choose a different path then so be it. I am all for listening and learning from others and learning their opinions and why they have them, I just don't feel that anyone should be told what to do or how to behave just because the other person has a different view.

Life is a learning curve and I believe entirely that you learn from everyone around you. I understand what you mean about teaching not to smack by smacking. Saying it that way it doesn't make sense, however I do believe that it works and if it isn't a constant reoccurring issue then there is no problem. My ds has only hit out at me once maybe twice, he was tapped back. I believe the hitting out stopped because I tapped him back and he didn't like it. It wasn't my first cause of action I did ask him to stop more than once in a stern voice and moved away from him. As I said before it works for me. As does time out for my dd. Parenting is all about working out what works for your child. No child is the same and the same things won't work for all children.

I totally understand what you're saying Eddas and clearly you do make your choices

I just passionately believe that we don't have the right to hit children. And that will never change, unless I hear a justification for it that does actually make sense, which I never have yet. to me, your justification, (that it works) is not a justification because I believe in principle that it is wrong for an adult to hit a child - it appearing to 'work' does not make it the right thing to do, imo.

There are other ways of dealing with it that stop short of physical and I believe that as an adult it is our responsibility to use those ways.

each to their own, and all that.

Ah it seems in this politically correct age - the catholics are still fair game for prejudice - i'm outa here

cory i dont agree with that. children in western countries who are sexually abused by older men are deemed to have been victims where children in other parts of the world are married off at age 9 and take part in sexual relationships grow up fine with no talk of child abuse. this is because it depends on your society, so we cannot base our views of smacking on the outcomes of children of non smacking socities.

I feel that trying to explain things to toddlers and preschoolers is often a complete waste of time, it just winds me up because they dont care enough to listen and dont really understand the consequences of why they shouldnt do x

i havent smacked my son, ive given him a tap on the hand when he tried to put it into the fire on my gas hob because my shouting stop or grabbing him out of the way wouldnt have been quick enough.
my sil smacks her son but with my child if i did smack him where would i go from there? at the moment i take a toy away or remove him from the situation.

nothing really works as he still does naughty things! but then he is a 4yr old boy and is never thinking of his safety/my carpet/ etc...

"charges of assault"...
Because it would really help the little child to have her mum serve a jail sentence. Guarantee future security of employment. And a grand deterrant to the sort of person who impulsively over does it with discipline -- they really think thru their actions, don't they?

Oh well, it never hurts to get all indignant and judgemental, does it? And mighty easier than trying to figure out and actually implement the kinds of support some potentially quite poor parents need instead.

Cory,

I would expect non-smacking cultures to be full of out-of-control children, and I do find that to be so. There are more middle class brats around than ever before.

It seems to be normal now to allow children to leave the table as soon as they have finished eating. And there are so many whiney children who in turn get whined at by their parents (I wonder where they get it from?!).

What children need are firm guidelines backed up by meaningful consequences. As an 80 year old French woman told me, the age of smacking is 18 months to 2.5yrs. After that, there should be no need and a child should know how to behave. I am not as extreme as that but I get where she is coming from.

I am not saying that all well behaved children have been smacked but I suspect the majority have been. The lazy parents are those who fail to define boundaries, back up threats etc. They think they are being kind but they are actually being cruel.

You suspect the majority of well behaved children have been smacked? Well that's just absolutely ridiculous and based on zero evidence. It's impossible to have a sensible debate if that's where you're coming from, really it is. You're into the realms of making stuff up to suit your argument. Totally ridiculous - makes as much sense as smacking to teach not to smack though I guess

Not smacking does not mean not giving boundaries.

Leaving the table early is a sign of a child being 'Out of Control'? ? I shudder to think of what AliG thinks of people using cutlery the "wrong" way, then.

I find this whole stay-at-the-table-even-if-the-adults-need-3-hours-to-finish expectation a complete cultural mystery (I am from another culture).