To Smack or not to Smack

[Tigger2]

Henry McLeish, Scotlands First Minister is trying to put a Bill through that children under the age of 3 should not be smacked. What are everyones views on this. And do you think this will lead to a total ban on smacking altogether?

I don't believe in using any physical force with children. Picking up a small child who is too young to understand when removing from danger need not be done aggressively. Any form of smacking or hitting or pushing or pulling is an execercise in assault at one extreme and humiliation at the other. I am glad there is a start in the process of making smacking illegal.

Message withdrawn

As Bloss has said earlier, I'd rather use other forms of discipline over smacking whenever possible. Unfortunatly, some form of physical force is sometimes necessary to safety restrain my toddler when he needs to be strapped into a pushchair or car seat. If you are sure you are applying force for the right reasons, ie safety, then I can't see why it's not OK.

Having said that, I am making a real effort to treat my toddler son as gently as possible and not to subject him to any sudden pushes or pulls if possible (not easy), for instance when I dress him. I may be wrong, and this is just a personal theory, but I sometimes wonder if the development of later too-boisterous behavour can be curbed by gentle and slower handling at an early age.

I have already met a problem with this: My 7 year old son gets on well with my 2 year old, and loves to cuddle and have some rough and tumble with him. This can rapidly turn into what I call wrestling. I stop this as soon as I see it and have talked lots to my son about treating his brother more gently. However my toddler just loves it. The 7 year old will be swinging him round and round, or will be pinning him down on the floor and the toddler will have a huge beam on his face, thoroughly enjoying this physical game. I intend to talk this over with to the nurse at my son's 2 year check up.

Sorry if this is going off the subject a little - I suppose what I'm saying is that, for a todder, some experience of physical force, from parents or siblings, is surely inevitable?

OK I hold my hands up and say that I have smacked my daughter and did so today in fact. Now my husband and I agreed that we would not smack, but ha the theory! My toddler is great, but she is a handful and has screaming, hysterical fits for hours if she can. Today after ignoring, putting on the naughty step, shut in her room and other various forms of disipline I did smack her. I have to say it worked. She was so shocked it stopped the tantrum dead in it's tracks, she had been going for 1.5 hrs. I then was able to talk her through it and explain, I know she will remember the smack and understand what it was for.

I do feel guilty in some ways, but I know that this worked and finally defused the situation. I remember being smacked by my parents once, and I also remember that I repected them for it (I had hit my mother when I was 13, and this was the very last time they ever smacked me)

I grew up OK and so I am sure my kids will. There is a huge difference between smacking a child within a framework of disipline and child abuse. However I also know in some cases one thing ends up the other

Message withdrawn

Just as an aside, why is it that when we refer to hitting a child, we call it 'smacking'? It strikes me that this euphemism is used because to talk about 'hitting' a child is an affront to our sensibilities, and that we all know that hitting a child would be wrong. We therefore call it 'smacking' and it somehow becomes acceptable.

I was 'smacked'occasionally as a child and the only thing I remember about it was that it made me feel resentful and unloved. I would not wish my son to ever feel like that.

Message withdrawn

There's an article by Kate Figes in the Guardian G2 section today on alternatives to smacking, if anyone is interested.

I think it's amazing just how how perennial this issue is. I was reading some Bruno Bettleheim recently (some of which was first published in the late 1940s or early 1950s I think) and the people he quoted in some of his dialogues (who are probably great grandparents or dead by now!)were as polarised as Bloss and Bugsy on whether or not to smack.

Personally I am trying not to smack my boys and have so far succeeded but only by the skin of my teeth. I don't like the idea of a big fat mummy controlling a small child through physically scaring them into submission. However, some of the screeches and roars I've been producing recently in response to their antics are pretty scary in themselves, probably just as bad as a smack. I haven't achieved the calm, firm approach that I aspire to.

I'm with you Bloss on this one. My son gets far more more upset at being shut in his room than over the occassional smack he has had in extreme situations. A smack is of course a blow delivered by the flat of the hand. This is not the way adults tend to hit each other which is why its called "smacking" rather than "hitting".

A blow with the flat of the hand - yep, know it well! With regard to smacking a child, it is an act of aggression and force by a stronger person on a weaker one and one who is not in a position to retaliate.
Just so we are clear on this, I have no problem whatsoever with discipline and teaching a child right from wrong and what is dangerous and what is not, but I still cannot understand why a child needs to be smacked to get these messages accross. My son doesn't touch plug sockets anywhere now, because I have told him over and over again that they are out of bounds. Just like I have told him that our glassware and ornaments are out of bounds and that he must always hold mummy's hand to cross the road.
I think smacking and time out are very different, although I have to confess I am not a big fan of that either. With time out you are supposed to say that they are going to their room, bottom of the stairs because of x to have a think about it and you will come back when they have calmed down/ in 10 mins etc. This is not an act of agression and has a certain degree of rational interraction with a child.
As I said I was smacked alot as a child and I have grown up into a normal adult, but it did hurt me and is something I remember with vivid clarity. I certainly did not respect my mother for smacking me, I hated her for it. I still remember my total disbelief when she used to tell us that when she smacked us it hurt her more than it did us and that she only did it because she loved us - yeh, right. She only did it because she lost her temper.
Also, there is evidence to suggest that smacking is not beneficial. If you read "Raising Happy Children" by Jan Parker she quotes the evidence in there.

Message withdrawn

It would seem to me Bugsy that you were smacked excessively as a child. All of us here who support smacking have done so only in a very narrow amd well defined context - i.e. under extreme circumstances only. I just don't think that an occassional smack (which isn't designed to hurt, rather to shock) can cause the sort of emotional damage that would seem to have been inflicted on you. Like most things, its moderation and appropriateness that are important.

I have to say I agree with Bloss.

It's not something that is yet a "live" issue for me. My ds is only just one year old and so far has been the "child from heaven" so smacking is not something that has ever come up. However, I may well in future "smack" (eg smart rap on the hand) him in extreme and dangerous circumstances, to get across a message strongly, quickly and memorably, especially while he is too young to reason with. The fingers in the plug scenario is the obvious one.

I had an interesting chat with muy mum about it this weekend. We joked about about how they were "awful" parents because they smacked us ("normal" behaviour in the 60s). I know I was smacked on rare occasions - but can't actually remember any of them. I can however remember being threatened with having my mouth washed out with soap if we swore or fought with each other - and I think it even happened once (ugh!). Now that used to give us pause for thought! My brother and I both still have a close and loving relationship with both our parents.

My mum made the interesting point that babies before they can communicate are more like young animals - and in the animal kingdom, if the young do something wrong, they get swiped by the adults - and soon learn (think lioness and boisterous cubs). Nature is cruel - and the alternatives if they don't learn fast are not pleasant.

Now I am not suggesting that our children are animals - but it is an interesting analogy.

And before opprobrium is heaped upon my mother, as a teacher, she always refused to use any form of corporal punishment, yet was apparently highly liked and respected by her pupils (even mentioned once by a famous pop star as his favourite teacher!). Her view was the the belt was far too "quick" a punishment (and hence prefered by the culprits as it was over and done with) and also too often reflected in the violence of the problem kids' home environment. She would give punishment homework or detention - something that took up time and made them think about what they had done.

I think we're probably going to have to agree to differ on this one, but here's my response to some of Bloss's queries.
My son is only 23 months old, so he's not exactly Mr Reasonable himself alot of the time and his curiosity in electric plug sockets developed soon after mobility - I can't remember exactly when. I find repetition of very simple phrases "No touching" & "stop" being two that immmediately spring to mind works eventually, plus removal of child from situation. My son also threw his food in a deliberate manner and still will today if in a temper. I tell him "no throwing" and if I have said it 3 times then I tell him that I will take it away if he does it again, until such time as I can give it back to him without him throwing it again. Obviously, he isn't always particularly pleased about this but it works.
When he was younger, he would not hold my hand to cross the road as he simply would not hold my hand at all and he would throw himself on the ground and refuse to move if I put reins on him, so I would always make an attempt to hold his hand and tell him why and when that didn't work I picked him up, thrashing limbs, shopping bags and all. He now happily holds my hand and we have also started the routine of "look, look, look" before we cross the road. To be honest, I would rather be persistent and negotiate my way to good behaviour & safety from my son than smack him into it. Of course telling a child that certain behaviour is unacceptable is going to be distressing to them but that is no reason to smack them instead. My son will throw himself around the room in indignation when he is not allowed to do something but without an audience that soon stops. He will also throw things in a bout of temper, picking up whatever is nearest to him and hurling it but now I know how is likely to react, I will remove him from the proximity of any objects, let him work off his frustration and then we move on.
I honestly cannot think of a situation where I would smack my son. Of course we have to restrain children in interests of their own safety but we are not doing it to shock or punish them. Yes, there are times when I have used a degree of pressure to keep my son in his car seat while I do the straps up. There have been occasions when I have had to restrain him from hitting another child or rushing toward the road in a way that probably was not comfortable for him, but I was not deliberately trying to hurt him and that is where the difference lies, I think, because if you smack a child, whatever your justification for it, that is what you are doing.

Croppy, I agree that I was probably smacked excessively but I don't think that I am emotionally damaged - it has just made me very determined to find other ways of bringing up my own children.

I think you're absolutely right Bugsy. There IS a distinction between using physical force to keep a child safe and using physical force to punish. The former is the duty of all parents and childcarers should the situation arise, which with most children it certainly will and fairly frequently in the early years. Children MUST be pulled out of the path of moving vehicles, grabbed away from plug sockets, belted into their carseats, nudged away from peers before they sink their teeth into tender flesh, etc. ad infinitem. How one teaches them not to repeat these dangerous and/or antisocial behaviors is a seperate issue.
Given this Bloss, have you thought about really insisting that your son ride in his buggy until he's a little more safe when walking? I sometimes find that I give in too easily to my kids when they want to do things that are beyond their capabilities, with the consequence that everybody becomes very frustrated.

I think that there is a further distinction to be made between using a smack to shock or to hurt. From my reading of Bloss's message, she advocates using a smack to shock a child into stopping dangerous or inappropriate behaviour. Not all smacks physically hurt.

It is interesting because child minders aren't allowed to smack and of course children can't be smacked in an educational setting.

My point again though is that very often kids get smacked when they haven't actually done anything wrong. Mum or Dad are just feeling bad tempered so smack.

Message withdrawn

If you smack to shock and it doesn't hurt, after the first smack how shocking is that going to be? A smack that doesn't hurt is a tap on the hand - is this what we are all talking about here?

A smack on a napply-clad bottom will rarely hurt but does cause a shock. I was smacked as a child and it definitely didn't create any ill-feeling or any other problems on my part.

I agree with Jbr that a huge majority of smacks are administered to relieve parental anger and stress. I sometimes long to smack mine in order to relieve my own tension, I have to admit! However I really don't think this is an admirable sentiment so try my hardest to resist.

Like you, Bloss, I think my Mum did a fantastic job of raising us and in many ways I would seek to emulate her. She did smack us occasionally, mostly when she (rightly) found our smug misbehaviour unbearable and lost her temper, but she always regretted it since the consequence was that we had the moral high ground for the rest of the day and skulked about crying and speaking of people who "descended into violence". We were quite vile in many ways (as I'm sure you can infer!) and I certainly don't resent the fact that my mum snapped on occasion. What I really appreciate though is that she tried very hard to deal with negative behaviour gently and rationally, if sometimes firmly, in the face of sometimes great provocation!

P.S. Bloss- your baby sounds amazing!

Message withdrawn

Hmmm, so in these extreme situations people who smack are going to make sure that they aim for the nappy clad bottom and only smack with sufficient force to shock but not to hurt. I just don't know Croppy about how possible that is, which is why I just think if you don't smack then you are never wondering if it was too hard or appropriate in the circumstances.
I know that there are lots of people who have been smacked with no long-term repurcussions but that doesn't make it OK.
Anyway, as you've probably guessed, for whatever reason (could it be my emotional damage?!), I feel fairly strongly about this. However, I am friends with a number of parents who smack their children in circumstances which I think are far from exceptional or life threatening (temper tantrums, hitting another child [what sense does that make], repeated refusal to obey parents requests etc) and although I hate witnessing it, I know that they are loving parents and that their kids will probably grow up fine. I just think it is a lazy and inappropriate way to discipline a child whatever the circumstances for all the reasons I have outlined previously.

Well Bugsy, I respect your views. I however have no qualms about my very occassional smacks directed at my son's bottom (it just wouldn't occur to me to smack him anywhere else). It is quite obviously not doing him any harm and personally, I feel more comfortable with this than say, shutting him in his room which in contrast, causes him real distress.

I'm surprised to hear that so many people believe that smacking is used to relieve parental anger and stress. I personally have never seen any evidence of this and I find it odd given that the resultant tears would be likely to only increase stress levels. In my experience, women rarely expree frustration physically (unlike men). If I'm feeling under extreme stress, I end up giving my son a sweet or putting him front of a video - that way I know the result will be instant silence!.