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?

they're oops

I probably sound like most folks mother .

I thought the op position was interesting - saying that previous generations were better behaved cos they were smacked!

I think, as I said, it is because previous generations got the message from all corners that really really unpleasant things would happen if they didn't tow the line! Most of those messages are no longer given. So that old desire to avoid said unpleasant thing has therefore also gone.

Also, basics like good manners and respecting your elders are mostly gone.

It's a slippery slope. In another 10 generations it'll be Lord of the Flies.

Thing is I really don't think most generations were better behaved.

There have always been children who run riot. There have always been teenage gangs murdering each other. There have always been bandits, criminals, psychopaths, people with no respect for other people or property. There have always been classrooms full of disrespectful kids. Lord of the Flies was written by a teacher about the nature of the boys he taught. And go back further and read any Dickens, read Romeo and Juliet. There has always been awful behaviour and good behaviour and I don't think it's got anything to do with smacking. I think it has to do with a combination of personality and upbringing - and the best upbringing IMO is one that shows children love and respect, gives them a voice and teaches them compassion and understanding for others. No it doesn't always work, but it work better than brutality.

Smacking does NOT work. I have smacked ds. I tried the talking, the taking away favourite toy, ignoring, no tv, naughty step. Then I resorted to an occassional smack. That didn't work either. We plough on. We have to find other ways.

Previous generations were much more well behaved. But I doubt that was down to smacking.

legislating against smacking will not prevent child abuse.

I have beliefs about the world, the way it works, why things happen etc etc. You have beliefs about those things too but I can guarantee you that they're different from mine. If you legislated for everything each of us believed was unacceptable I do not think that there would be anything left that we could do that was worthwhile.

The only thing a law against smacking would achieve in this country is to disenchant already distrustful educated parents even further.

Stop haranguing parents who do love their children, want the best for them, are doing what they believe to be right and go get the parents who are already breaking the law as it stands by abusing their children.

BTW this has be hashed out again and again on MN, I have argued the toss before and won't be drawn in again. See y'all later.

I smack my kids. Occaisionally. Like for example the time when i was round at a friend's and dd1 tried to grab the fire (gas fire - nice shiny metal bits at front). She was 2 years old, i tried distraction, tried holding on to her for a bit hoping she'd forget about it - eventually when she went back for the fourth time she got a short sharp slap on the bum (she was wearing a nappy at the time). This surprised her so much she stopped, and has never tried to a fire since, thankfully, as i would not like to have to take her to hospital suffering from burns.
However i know a very nice lady who refuses in any situation to smack her ds, who at the age of 3 has only just learned not to grab fires. People have had to leave there fires off when he visits because he is totally oblivious.
I'd rather smack thanks, no matter how many well meaning comments are aimed at me. I am not a child beater and of course i would never thump my child.

lol, so you really think it's as simple as "smacked child = safety conscious, non-smacked child = sticking hands in fire? How ridiculous!!

Nope. Jut saying it worked. I personally think you are ridiculous because you cannot see that someone else's way of doing things might work for them.

On the contrary, I can see quite well how being hit by an adult might cow a child into obedience. I imagine a few good pokes with a cattle prod would "work" equally well. What I am disputing is the notion that to cow a smaller child into obedience through the use of violence is a worthwhile or acceptable thing to do.

saying you disagree with something is very different to saying that it should be illegal surely.
I hate to see little girls in high heels or clothes that they cannot jump and stomp in but i'm not suggesting their parents get arrested

Lol. You really don't get it do you Greensleaves? The majority of caring parents do not use smacking for every little thing, but as a last resort when all else fails. Well, i hope they do, it is what i do. I don't think it is necessary for most things, i try to reason with my dd whenever possible, as i think knowing why a behaviour is unnacceptable is a good prevention rather than resorting to punishments.

Greensleeves, sorry.

Hmmm, in the case of the inappropriate clothing witchandchips, it would be more practical to outlaw the sale of such items for young children, not arrest the parents. Smacking is a bit different - it's an act of violence, not a dubious fashion choice.

But if it is not OK to hit adults, why is is OK to hit children? If one is against the law, surely the other should be too?

It is not a case of whether it works. I'm sure hanging all shoplifters would stop them from doing it again, buit it doesn't make it right, does it? It's a case of whether it's acceptable. I can't see how hitting your helpless 2-year-old is OK but once they turn 18, can fight back, can escape from you if they choose, then they're protected by law and you can't hit them? Can a pro-smacker please explain this one?

Oh and last time I looked "last resort" wasn't a reasonable defence for hitting your wife or a stranger.

I can't see the relevance of your past post Godzilla. So what if you don't use it very often? When you do "resort" to using a smack, it's an act of violence from a larger person to a smaller, devoid of reason. It's bullying, in fact. The frequency with which you do this is immaterial, although of course it's good to hear that you aren't subjecting your child to this sort of treatment very often.

greensleeves i hate the idea of smaacking [inc the fact that we give it a different name so as we don't have to face up to the issue that it is hitting] but i'm not sure that making it illegal is the best way to ensure that people don't do it. I can think of strong arguments either way. My point was that your strengths of feelings on the issue of whether it is ever a legitmate from of punishment do not necesarrily relate to whether you think it is an issue for the govt. to be involved with

Why would you need to hit an 18 year old? Surely they are accountable to themselves/ the law by that time?
And i think capital punishment should be brought back too, for rapists, child abusers and murderers, because prison and slaps on the wrist don't seem to help. Anyway, you can all call me what you like now cos i'm off to have some grub...and smack my dds if they don't eat it.

I am kidding about that last bit. Why would i punish them for being full?

Since when did making anything illegal ensure that people don;t do it? I don't hear anyone saying "Oh murder shouldn't be illegal because it doesn't stop some people from committing murder." No, but it's illegal because it's wrong because it causes unacceptable suffering to other people - which is the basis of most of our laws.

Before i go...That's ok then, when dd3 starts walking i'll just let her get burned.

Personally I do think it is a matter for govt to legislate on. While there must of course be room for individual style and preferences in parenting, society does alreay draw certain lines in relation to people's treatment of one another and we do already to a certain extent accept that the basic physical welfare of children is a matter of public interest rather than entirely a private matter. The infrastructures are already in place for dealing with violations of acceptable child-rearing practice and we are all well used to accepting this. Outlawing smacking is a natural stage in this process, a next step ion the path to civilised and mature society. Abolition of the death penalty met with much the same character of scandal-mongering and outraged objections. Some time after that corporal punishment of adults within the judicial system was abandoned, to similar choruses of objection. Then physical punishment in our schools. The next natural step in this process is for the basic physical protection of children to be completed by the outlawing of parental smacking. When this is finally done (and of course the usual doom-mongering naysayers can be expected to rear their heads), we will finally have a society in which no physical violence is legally sanctioned against any individual.

It's a great indictment of us as a civilisation that the last people to acquire basic human rights are little children, though.

pmsl, yes Gozilla, go ahead and let her get burned. We non-smackers are easily spotted when out and about - we're the ones with the hideously scarred and mutilated children, from all the gas fires and broken bottles and combine harvesters we've let them play with

Godzilla you're scaring me! "Why would you need to hit an 18-year-old?" So your argument is, it should be legal to hit children because they need a good whack, where as once you're 18 there's no point???

The law against hitting people means I can't come and whack you one in the street. There are even laws against cruelty to pets. But the law says you can whack a defenseless child who is less than half your size, and what's worse, who is stuck with you and can't do anything about it, and can't choose to leave.

I'm not insensitive to the end-of-tether or scary situation where a parent loses it and slaps. Any sensible law would be lenient on that situation. But a law would still make sense of the general principle that violence is wrong. At the moment, it's wrong... oh unless you're a child, then it's OK. To me that's just awful and i still haven't seen a rational defense of it on here.