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?

yes but that talks about the "least negative" consequences. I honestly don't see any "research" or "findings" talking about positive or constructive hitting of children.
have you every read the Save the Children study "It hurts you inside"? what the children being hit think about smacking. will find the study if you are interested

Yep. Because i am so thoroughly uneducated i took the time to read through the link i posted and there are no loopholes. Unfortunately i am now getting harrassed by dh as i have been hogging the pc all day, so i will bid you adieu and go take my lo to bed.

"Smacking is wrong because: 'it hurts; it?s painful inside; people do it too hard; they could make you stop it by telling them in words; it makes people cry; you feel sort of as though you want to run away; it?s bad manners; it feels embarrassed; it?s nasty and you go in a huff; it?s a bad thing to do; if it was an adult like my daddy, he can smack very hard; it might stop your blood for a few minutes; it could hurt the bones; if they're very little, they might think it's right to smack and go off and smack somebody else; (...)"

those are collected comments from children who have experienced being hit.
from this study commissioned by Save the Children

From one of a series of reports conducted by UNICEF at the Innocenti Reasearch Centre in Florence, 2003:

"it is the
spirit of the Convention as a whole, and
not its specific articles, that seeks to
condemn to history the notion that
children may be subjected to physical
violence in the name of socialisation and
discipline.The Convention establishes the
positive rights of children to express their
opinions, to participate in decisions as
and when they are able, and to grow
towards maturity in an atmosphere of
mutual trust and respect ? rights which
are unlikely to flourish in a climate that
is constantly darkened by the threat of
physical punishment."

Pretty unambiguous IMO. Don't hit children.

Someone asked what would happen to those who now and in future break the law. There have been some prosecutions.

This is a very biased pro smacking article and I think placing his family under supervision is a very good thing adn the case was a useful example to smackers that they need to watch their step if they think physical violence against children is fine.

"A father at the centre of a controversial smacking case hit out after his entire family was ordered to be put under the supervision of social services on Thursday.

The man, a teacher from Motherwell, Scotland, was convicted of assault in May after he smacked his eight-year-old daughter on the bare bottom at a dentist's.

He and his wife were asked to attend a Children's Panel in Bellshill, Lanarkshire, on Thursday with their daughter, causing her to miss her first day of term.

She emerged from the two-hour hearing in tears.

The panel decided that she and her two brothers, aged six and one, should be placed under a supervision order, meaning the family would face regular checks by North Lanarkshire social workers.

Her 48-year-old father, who cannot be named, said the decision was "destroying" his family and accused the panel of failing to listen to either him or his daughter.

"They are behaving like the Ministry of the Interior in Eastern Europe by their oppressive decision."

He said his daughter wanted to put the whole affair behind her.

"It's most distressing to see her like this," he said. "The panel was supposed to do something for the child's best interests. I ask the world - is this in her best interest seeing her so upset?"

High profile case

The panel of three lay people agreed by a vote of two to one in favour of a supervision order. In July, the family had fought off a similar move to place a supervision order on them and had thought that the case was over.

The father said he believed his family was being made an example of because the smacking case was so high profile.

He said the case had put such a strain on his family that he was thinking of abandoning his appeal against the criminal conviction, although they plan to appeal against the supervision order.

The father is waiting to hear whether he will be sacked from his teaching job with North Lanarkshire council.

He is currently suspended on full pay. "
BBC web site Aug 99

I remember that case. TBH, I was even more about him pulling down her pants in public than I was about the smacking.

Temporary reprieve - i have a couple of mins.

No child wants or likes to be told they are wrong to do something, whether it be poking their baby sister in the eyes, climbing a wall in the rain, mountaineering in the kitchen to get the cookie jar...you still have a parental responsibility to stop them from doing it. You can't reason with a very young child some of the time. The ones included in the study were most likely hit too frequently or too hard. I re-state my case...original pdf points out these studies are biased.

As for your 'controversial smacking case' Xenia - no good parent humiliates their child like that, especially not in public. I have never took any of my dcs pants down to smack them - what the heck was he thinking???

I understand what you are saying about not being able to reason with your toddler, but causing them pain isn't the answer.

Ok, whatever. I'm not going into the whole explanation again. I've got far better things to do with my time than argue the toss with a load of people who can't admit to the truth, let alone see past their own collective nose.

I'm sorry that you think I'm trying to give you a hard time, I'm not trying to honest. I was spanked as a child. I grew up being afraid of my dad. I just know how it feels and its horrible..

I remember that case (and yes Harpsi I am in Scotland). The 8 year old had been complaining of toothache on Xmas Eve. Her father took her to the dentist and she promptly had a huge, major tantrum in the waiting room. The man was by all accounts a darn good, respected teacher. His child had been constantly moaning and complaining about her tooth so he did what any caring parent would and took her to the dentist which she promptly decided wasn't on. I can sympathise with him. The alternative would have been her complaining and being in pain all over Xmas. Unfortunately some busy body stuck their nose in and his whole family was torn apart, whether her tooth ever got fixed I don't know but I do remember all she wanted was to see her Dad again because at the time he was banned from the house under the order put on him. His whole family were distraught especially the daughter who will probably be traumatised more believing that her behaviour got her Dad into trouble.

She was 8

He pulled down her pants and spanked her in public.

The fact that the girl wanted it all to be over and to have her daddy back etc is totally irrelevant here. Most victims of abuse of all kinds - especially where the child is young and the abuser is a parent who can be loving at other times - would react in the same way to the abuser being brought to justice. Children don't always know what's best for them.

You can't have it both ways - one the one hand dismissing the anecdotal evidence of smacked children who report pain/sadness/damage, and on the other hand citing the confusion and unhappiness of the girl in this case at her father's being prosecuted.

What he did to her was undoubtedly abuse under the law as it stands. He hurt and humiliated her.

Yes awful ain't!! But is it so awful when you compare it to being removed from your loving family when they don't want you to be? He did not beat his children, he smacked his child on her bare bottom to bring her under control.

Humiliation is a human emotion, it cannot be eradicated just because some people think it's not nice. Hey perhaps it even exists to help humans learn right from wrong.

He was removed from his loving family because he abused his daughter in publicly. If he had controlled himself, it wouldn't have happened. Yes, it's all very emotive and shocking, and pro-smackers LOVE to trot out this little girl's distress in defence of their/his actions - but the fact is, HE broke the law, HE behaved appallingly, and HE is responsible for the disaster that subsequently befell himself and his family.

I think you'll find I don't agree with children being taken away from their parents as a result of a one-off smack. Although God knows this is a pretty shocking example IMO, more for the stripping than the smacking even. But it should have been dealt with, rather than just ignored. Otherwise it would be judged to be acceptable. Which it isn't.

"Her feelings are totally irrelevant"
"You can't have it both ways"
"Children don't always know what's best for them"

Ooh the irony of those comments.

Yes, your misquoting of me is very ironic

is there a bad old fashioned smacking thread somewhere?

to buck the trend a little, I'm not particularly anti a quick smack on the hand in cases of dangerous behaviour but am gobsmacked that the OP would even consider smacking a child of 2 for not eating their food

I had a boy in my form who was taken into care becasue his mother was a heroin addict, beat him when she was there but more often neglected him. He was malnourished.

He was devastated at being taken away from here. It broke his heart. He longed to return to her 'care'.

Distress is not an indicator.

It has to be balanced against long term harm.

I can guarantee that if I went into Sainsburys this evening and punched my son in the face, resulting in somebody quite rightly reporting it and me being arrested/my son being removed, he would be crying himself sick by bedtime because I wasn't there. Does that mean I should be allowed to keep my son and punch him whenever I feel like it, because it would cause him distress to remove me?

Obviously I'm not equating the two here...

So a good, respected, loved, no previous blot on his copybook teacher is the same as a junky who beat her son and starved him.

Or perhaps not obviously.

Sorry.

And as a teacher, I ould have to say that hime being a teacher is utterly irrelevent.

Crossed posts there. And again a smack on the bum is comparable to a punch in the face