Good old fashioned smacking

[heepie]

I don't believe it did me any harm and I do wonder why the previous generation, ie mine, was so much better behavied than the current, ie my kids. I find the softly softly, ignore bad reward good behaviour does not work with a strong willed child and find myself more and more thinking what was wrong with a good old smack? Peeing on the floor right in front of you with a big smile on the face surely warrants more than the removal of a star on the reward chart? And whacking little brother over the head with a heavy object? Not eating something very nice and edible that I have slaved over in the kitchen? Why must we never tell our children to eat what is in front of them when I wasn't allowed to leave the table until I was finished? I don't have an eating disorder. I think it's time I through all the modern how to bring up children books out of the window and remember how it was done when I was a child? Anyone else feel this way?

Of those of you think people should be criminalised for using smacking as a form of discipline, how old are your kids?

All ages. I have never smacked. My oldes is 22. My parents never smacked up either. Smacking tends to be something the working classes do and people who aren't very clever or good at handling children.

And it's already criminal - it's not going to be criminalised - some of you already are breaking the law if it leaves a mark as it often does. So in a sense it doesn't matter if you don't agree it's wrong because the Government has told you so.

"Any punishment which causes visible bruising, grazes, scratches, minor swellings or cuts can face action."

THAT IS THE LAW!

I was (lightly)smacked as a child. Did that damage me? I don't think so (never given it a second thought tbh). My mother's verbal abuse, lack of love and contempt was far more damaging.

"Smacking tends to be something the working classes do and people who aren't very clever or good at handling children."

Anyway...

For me it is a bit like the campaign against foxhunting which IMO narrowed the debate of animal welfare at the expense of more widespread abuses.

Oh, and which also reinforced class prejudice eh Xenia .

Xenia, all in all I think your post at 22.27:43 makes great sense...very relieved that even you don't see it warranted for children to be taken into care for smacking....must say though, I am slightly shocked at the assumption that a smack could leave bruising (unless in special cases with bloodclotting issues, etc...where one only needs to touch another person and they bruise, forinstance...), because to me that is where a smack becomes hitting/beating imo. I mean, I think a red mark is soimething you will get even with a light tap, but a bruise, I think would show there was force used.
Greensleaves, what do you think of when you say marked though....red mark or bruise?

'Smacking tends to be something the working classes do and people who aren't very clever or good at handling children.'

Or people who are at their absolute wits end because their ex partner has fucked off with some tart and left them to bring up three children on their own who cannot appreciate that mummy is so goddam bone tired that she can barely function. We can?t all hand the children over to someone else when they are exasperating

I?ve smacked 2 of my 3 children a handful of times in anger. It?s not something that I am proud of and not something that I take pleasure in admitting.. I didn?t do it when they were too young to realise why I was doing it and I?ve apologised and discussed why I?ve done it after we?ve all calmed down again. I don?t advocate it as a form of discipline and I do believe that other methods are far more effective. As they have grown older and we have learned to understand each other the opportunity to smack has diminished.

I?m working class and covered in tattoos , however I?m not common and I?m not stupid. I?ve learned how to handle children as my experience of mine has grown and as my life has returned to normal. My children are all fabulous. The extremely occasionally smacking that occurred does not seem to have unduly traumatised them and is not, to my mind the same as a calculated parental assault where your will is imposed with an accompanying slap.

When I say I would advocate a short prison term (with compulsory counselling and parentcraft - I know, fat chance) for parents who think it's perfectly acceptable to hit a child hard enough to leave a mark, I mean a mark that's still there an hour later, IYSWIM. Not necessarily a bruise, but a livid red mark which IMO constitutes an injury (in fact discussing this is making me want to throw up).

I would like to see a very strong message being sent to people who actually plan/defend/advocate smacking that it's just not acceptable any more. I can't think of any other way to achieve that - and I do think that on balance the wider welfare and protection of ALL children outweighs the trauma prosecuting smackers might cause to their families. Some people simply won't stop hitting their children until they are strong-armed into it. They don't know any other way and don't want to. To put it in cliched terms - it's the only language these bastards understand

It is illegal now to beat a child. And you are describing a beating there surely?

Semantics again. A mark which I would consider an injury can be easily achieved by hitting a child once with the flat of the hand. Although admittedly you'd need to be concentrating quite hard on using the maximum force possible. Which people do. [vomit]

IMO a child living under those conditions isn't safe anyway. And as long as we all sit on the fence, it will continue to be normal for a great many families.

Greensleeves..again, I would think a smack wouldn't leave a mark for hours after....like you siad it would need higher force and indeed to use that would be wrong.

I am abandoning this debate now because it's just too revolting and upsetting. When it comes to debating the actual brass tacks of how hard you should be allowed to hit your child and what the resultant injuries should look like, I just don't want to be involved any more. I can't believe people still think it's defensible to hit a child, let alone to calculate the level of force you can get away with and still stay within the law. Sick, frankly.

I thought it was illegal now to hit a child and leave a mark. But I might be wrong. I don't look to see how hard I can legally hit my child

But semantics is a big part of the problem for me here.

I have touched my child's hand when it is reaching for a forbidden object. I put my hand on theirs and say "no". Particularly when my dd was young and non-verbal, it was much more effective than saying no. I have seen other people do the same, only with a tap instead of placing their hand. And I have seen a smack on the hand, which leaves a red mark, but which fades quickly. Fortunately I have never seen a beating. Which should be illegal?

So judgemental it's incredible.

Smacking that leaves marks is different to a light slap on the hand to get a child's attention.

Pre-meditated smacking as a form of punishment as opposed to mum at end of tender doing it then regretting it.

I think we are debated on several different issues here.... and getting them mixed up.

Greensleeves. I don't agree with hitting a child. On that we agree. Most of the posters on here agree.

I am saying that the practicalities of enforcing a ban on all smacking need to be considered. If you are going down the legal route to eliminating it, then semantics and shades of grey are actually much more important than if you are going down the education route.

I'm sorry you find it upsetting. I am quite upset myself that you think I am dispassionate on the subject. I am not.

No, I didn't mean to imply that everyone else was dispassionate! I don't think many people are totally dispassionate about this issue. I just meant that I personally am finding the actual nuts-and-bolts of 'how hard is too hard' too nauseating to continue.

And yes, 009, damn right I am judgemental. Of people who hit children. Because it's a disgusting thing to do IMO.

For the record though, I've said throughout that I think all smacking, however "light" (yuck) should be illegal. I differentiated between the level of penalty I felt was appropriate for one-off loss of temper/persistent hard hitting/the "light tap" etc.

Greensleeves, you make it sound like I ask so I could see if what I do is o.k.....and let me tell you, I didn't ask...but like meandmy says, you can't just say lock the feckars all up, it's child abuse, take kids into care without establishing what you actually mean, if that makes sense. But I am pretty sure that those using it in a punishment way are probably, hopefully, talking about smacking not hitting...

But as soon as you start legislating you have to do the whole nuts and bolts thing. Especially if you are differentiating the level of penalty.

That's one of the reasons I can't agree with that approach TBH.

smacking is hitting...

I mean, you might not think it is wrong, but it is certianly hitting.

Greensleeves having never smacked a child seems to be very expert on how lightly one must smack to leave a red mark and on how long that red mark lasts!

I've been on the receiving end of a fair few though

What a silly remark.

Think about it.

To heepie GS, not you

Well Greensleeves, if you are are still there, that would explain a few things. You say you've received a few, assumably as a child. My parents also smacked but I have not a single recollection of it. Maybe your anger should be directed at your parents, not those of us who know the difference between a smack and a memorable beating!