Is smacking still acceptable?

[asouthwoldmummy]

My SIL still smacks her 3 DC's when they're naughty despite the fact that it's now illegal. I have always said I'd never lay a finger on DS (nothing to do with legalities, I just hate the idea and don't see that it's necessary). I can't say anything, they're her kids and I guess it's up to her to parent them as she sees fit.
I just wanted the MN jury verdict on whether it's still acceptable or if what she's doing is wrong?

"Well partly because for some children an immediate mild physically aversive stimulus is the best way for them to learn to avoid a particular behaviour becuase they don't have the skills to internalise other methods".

It's alright to hit a child because they don't understand anything else? Do you apply the same theory to non-English speaking holidaymakers who ask you for directions and then go the wrong way? I cannot think of a single situation where there is no alternative to smacking. There are always better ways, regardless of a child's age or development.

mamatomany, your child learnt not to do something because they didn't want to be hurt, not because it was the wrong choice in the first place. It's a subtle, but important distinction.

And the naughty children you know happened not to be smacked. The two facts are mutually exclusive.

mamatomany, you go anywhere near my bottom and it's common assault. Might be hard to prosecute without evidence, but it's still illegal.

Can you hear what you're saying? Shall we change the protagonists...

So I might say: DH smacks me, but only with an open hand. He doesn't use a weapon. And it's only if I'm naughty and he's teaching me a lesson. Don't worry, he doesn't leave a mark.

"mamatomany, your child learnt not to do something because they didn't want to be hurt, not because it was the wrong choice in the first place. It's a subtle, but important distinction."

The why isn't important it's the fact that it hasn't happened again, either the smack or the behavior that matters.
I don't care if they don't get into trouble at school or with the police later because they are afraid or because they know it's the right thing to do, as long as they don't do it at all.

No my argument is that kids are buggers at time and push you like no adult would ever get away with, you'd leave them. So if I have to stop behavior which is utterly unacceptable by smacking their bum then I will do so.
You are comparing it to an adult situation which isn't right because as the other lady pointed out if your DH smacked you both of you would talk and rationalize, it simply wouldn't get to the stage where ones husband smacked you to teach a lesson.

mamatomany, I'll leave you to your decision. You admit that you can't see the problem with your child growing up in fear. And you can't think of other ways of engaging with your child during difficult periods other than physically chastising them.

And I can't start debates from the pov of 'if your dh smacked you' as he wouldn't do it. He doesn't physically hurt other people. Especially not children.

It's an interesting argument - the government certainly want to encourage parents to stop doing it; the info that came with the recent change in the law re: third party physical chastisement made that clear. For the record, my family does not use any physical force (smacking, pushing out the way, dragging, etc) against the children, and that was a conscious decision which we have stuck to. However, it would be easy for a parent to smack in frustration, and to make that illegal could prove devasting for families. Personally I think it is a ridiculous comparison of child abuse and smacking (where that smacking is within the context of a normal family life). What about those parents who give in, smack, and are then terrified of their dcs telling the teacher the next day? It would add a whole load more stress to parenting than there already is. I think smacking is poor parenting in the way that crap food or TV on all day, every day is poor parenting. It would be better to show alternatives and have free parenting courses made more available (maybe when you do antenatal courses) to address guidance and discipline?

These conversations go nowhere, though, don't they. The anti-smacking group of posters refuse to see any of the points of those who do not regard it as completely immoral.

Tell me in what other field of discussion, is it OK for a poster to say "Well my experience is x, so you are just wrong." That is exactly what some posters here are doing.

Smacking is like any other form of discipline. Used in the right way it is useful in limited circumstances.

Tell me, which one of you would count to 3, warning your child that they will be sitting on the naughty step when they get home, when they are about to step off the pavement into the path of a juggernaut?

Do you apply the same theory to non-English speaking holidaymakers who ask you for directions and then go the wrong way?

Que-wha?!! I can't remember the last time someone bit my leg while asking directions, and more to hte point you can communicate pretty well with afully formed adult brain using gesture even if you ultimately don't understand each other. If the person were trying to enter a restricted area and couldn't be 'told' not to, then I would imaging a security guard would physically block their way and they'd work it out. That's the point - adults can make those kinds of inferences.

I cannot think of a single situation where there is no alternative to smacking.

Genuine question - when the following have all been exhausted and the 3yo child is still biting what do you do? (And really, I know a mother who needs an answer because I can't think of any other alternative she hasn't tried).

-explaining
-naughty step
-isolation
-shouting 'NO'
-removal of fun mummy time

None seem to be aversive to said child who thinks loud voices are funny and is good at entertaining herself...

It was a joke Leggy.

I don't know the biting 3yr old so can't comment. Might there be a reason why they're biting? Has that been addressed?

And it doesn't matter whether you present the scenario or stepping in the road, biting, hitting or any other behaviour. I would not smack. I certainly wouldn't be attempting to teach that physically hurting others is wrong by, er, physically hurting my child.

And I don't count to 3 or sit dd on steps either btw.

why do you have to smack someone for stepping into the road - surely you just stop them doing it, before realising that either
a) you need to up your road safety skills
or
b) they are not capable of being far away from you.

Exactly grumpy. Don't give them the opportunity if they're not old enough to be responsible for their actions. And if they are old enough, then teach road safety.

What, in this instance, is the smack for?

on the couple of occasions my children have started out towards traffic or "in the path of a juggernaut" (amazing how smackers always have lemming children who spend their childhoods hellbent on drinking poisin/sticking forks into plug sockets/leaping out in front of bulldozers [hmm)

I have physically restrained my child and held them back from the danger and then explained that they need to LOOK before they walk, and to stay right next to Mummy when we are near a busy road. Although generally I was holding their hands anyway.

Oddly enough my instinctive response to my child being in split-second danger has never been to draw back my hand an wallop them

These are the same tired old excuses and platitudes people who smack always wheels ou - it's just a tap, it's not a beating, the child is too young to respond to reason [?!?), the child was in danger.

None of it holds water under even the most superficial rational scrutiny. I think in the majority of cases (apart from the real bullies, who are thankfully rare) people don't actually know why they smack. They just do. It is learned behaviour. It is habit and it comes of unreconstructed rote-performing of patterns of behaviour which have been normalised to the person. That is why some of us call it "lazy parenting". And that is why some of us don't accept the "never did me any harm" line from smacking parents. Clearly, it did.

"I don't care if they don't get into trouble at school or with the police later because they are afraid or because they know it's the right thing to do, as long as they don't do it at all."

So do you care if they do something immoral or dangerous, as long as they don't get found out?

Not saying smacking is the only form of discipline which can have this effect, any method which over-relies on punishment is likely to, TBH. Yes punishment, whether smacking, naughty step, removal of priveliges, can be useful, but you have to have some element of teaching children how they should react in a given situation or show them an alternative way to deal with their feelings etc. It just amaes me how often a punishment is brought out as the first reaction to something.

The biting thing, might be helful, might not, but I have a few suggestions:

• offer a teething ring when she bites and state clearly "We do not bite people. You may bite this instead." If she tries to bite again then remove her from the situation - it doesn't matter if she's "good at entertaining herself"! It's a consequence, not a punishment.
• try to work out why it is she is biting - is it frustration/communication difficulties? ie is she biting when someone else has a toy she wants? Acknowledge the feeling "You feel frustrated that X has the toy" and give her an alternative. "But we don't bite people to tell them we want something. Use your words. 'Please may I have a turn?'"

-use the key phrase "use your words" as a short warning. But always give her a phrase to use unless you know that she knows what she should say.

-Reward chart? Not a fan personally, but worth a try. A sticker/smiley face/etc for every day she does not bite anyone. After 10 days in a row she gets a small reward. If she bites at any time tell her she has just lost out on her smiley face for the day and she will have to start again. Or do smiley/sad faces?

Liberty - ah ... okay!

Re the biting - my impression is it's part of 'normal' boundary pushing and reaction to new sibling - not associated with wanting particular toys or even attention per se. I know she's been told 'we do not bite' but, BB, a teething ring might be something worth trying if only to distract her. I don't think it would work long term as it isn't a person so wouldn't entertainingly react with an 'ow'... which I think it the problem - she doesn't know that biting hurts and doesn't connect what she's doing to anything other than the interesting, high pitched reaction.

-explaining
-naughty step
-isolation
-shouting 'NO'
-removal of fun mummy time

Re: biting. Has she given these long enough to work? It's quite a lot of tactics to try - it can take a long time to break a bad habit, and consistency is key.

OK, Greensleeves, you carry on believing that all those who don't disagree with smacking are damaged. Well done.

interesting that you say "well done". Passive aggression aside, clearly on some level you regard my position as morally superior. Perhaps there is hope yet

Supercilious, perhaps, Greensleeves.

If disapproving of hitting people who are smaller than you qualifies as 'supercilious' Lougle, then I am happy with it as a label:)

I note that you have quite quickly resorted to personal insults. Is this because you have no logical argument to put forward in favour of hitting children? Amazing!

I have never smacked my kids for jumping out at traffic. I have never smacked in fear or anger. When I smack, and it is very occasionally it is because they have been bloody naughty and other methods haven't worked. Smacking always does.

haven't been on a good old smacking thread for a couple of years

me neither

hello kitty, how are you and your six?:)

Hello greeny ah well we are shrieking our way through the holidays, as you do. How are you and yours?

I am not willing to engage in a slanging match. I don't think it was a personal insult to point out, that especially in your last post directed at me, you were displaying a supercilious attitude.

The logical argument is simple. You only have to look at the generations of children who now are so devoid of respect for their elders, to see that the decline of smacking has had a very negative effect on society as a whole.

Children today have no boundaries. They are treated like little mini-adults. But they don't have to ability to make decisions in an adult way because they don't have adult minds or adult experience.

How common was it 20 or 30 years ago for a father to be knifed because he dared to challenge anti-social behaviour? The mantra used to be 'it takes a village to raise a child'. Now, people are too scared to challenge inappropriate behaviour because children are given no boundaries and taught no respect for their elders.

Smacking isn't the answer to all the world's woes, but it does have a place, as part of loving discipline. It isn't my favourite form of discipline, and there are many things I would do first, but if the occasion warrants it, I would smack my child.

I am stepping away from this thread, because like all the others I have seen, there will be no discussion. It will just be an opportunity to metaphorically bash posters who don't agree. Which is ironic for a thread against physical bashing, hey?