Is choosing NOT to smack undermining my authority?

[amyntomsmummy]

Hiya
dd (now 4) and to a certain extent ds(2) for some reason or the other, lately seem to be goin bonkers with me in the house despite firm convetional disciplinary tactics e.g. time out, bottom step, rational talking to (which all do sometimes work)...
Ive always gone by the thought that i'd rather die than ever see any of my kids go through pain, so smacking to me was a NONO! And this has been despite many times when the temptation to lay my hand upon a few little bottoms has been great! I would only beleive in smacking the bottom though, (never damagable hands, legs,arms...)
dh is a bit of a smacker when he needs to be but I feel this is sometimes the only thing the kids seem to respond to and dh has a MUCH bigger grip on the kids behaiviour than I do. I feel with me,
especially with my daughter, she feels that mummy is powerless because she never has a detering last resort. I.e. my authority is being undermined because I dont smack.
After long thinking I think that im right not to want to put my child through 'real pain' but I feel that a little discomfort on the cute, soft thing she sits on, is really not 'pain' but instead might probably be good for her in the long term.
Have others felt that they are powerless to their children unless they become as firm as I am thinking? Tell me your thoughts pls xxx
Jessica

I suppose thats much less likely though for a toddler. The most violent kids I taught were the ones who were smacked. I wouldn't confiscate toys either as I remember a girl I tauhgt had that done to her regularly and she used to spend her days stealing off all the children and teachers. Ignoring and praising has worked for me so far so hope I'm lucky and it stays that way as it has for all my friends children and when I taught primary children.

Reading some of this makes me very sad. I am against smacking children and it saddens me to see parents rationalising it when there are so many other tried and tested and proven ways to kindly discipline your child.

I have a dd who is 2y 4m. The agony and ecstasy stage. My blood boils at times when she is being defiant and non-compliant but I could never smack her, even though I sometimes would feel better for one second if I were able to lash out.

I have to say, that if parents DO choose to smack, I'd rather know they were doing so in a clam, thought-out, consistent manner than using it in anger. Small children push just the right buttons and ALL parents feel this anger evein if to differing degrees. It's especially wrong for parents to use smacking in a way to vent this anger - although, as I said, I am 100% against smacking.

I just need to address two quotes from the people who I sense are anti parents-who-don't- smack.

Bloss "I knew you wouldn't have objected to me taking ds to his room when he persisted in hurting dd. My point is that by doing that we would break up the lovely moment that we were enjoying, reading together on the couch. And also that he finds it far more distressing. If the aim is to curb the behaviour and I can achieve it in a less distressing manner (ie smacking), why would I send him to his room, which really upsets him?"

If you had sent your ds to his room, or out of the room for a moment, then you'd still be able to continue your nice moment with your dd. What about your dd? Didn't she deserve to gain your attention by showing you she could sit and read nicely and your son NOT get your attention by removing him from the nice game? Wouldn't that teach them both at the same time that to gain your attention and to be allowed to sit and read with you, they must behave?

You don't have to send your son to his room if you don't like that, but Time out is about removing the child froma situation and not giving them any attention for a set amount of time. It achieves a longer term pattern of behaviour than either a) a painless quickly forgotten tap to the bottom or b) a painful smack to the bottom

Lindysmum - I thought the law had been changed so that it was no longer permitted to hit a child with anything but a hand? If it's not changed yet, I'm sure it is due to change.

"The old argument goes that if you smack your children, you teach them that it's ok to hit people. It seems that Twiglet's son thinks the same about sending people out of a room. "

I see a big if Twigletts son grows up thinking that people should leave rooms when their behaviour is not pleasing to him, I don't see anything terribly unusual or harmful about that. Teachers send teenagers out of their classrooom when they are misbehaving. When people are rowdy and misbehaving in a theatre, for example, management ask them to leave.

For those who smack as the last line of discipline - how do you expect childminders/nurseries or school teachers to be able to discipline your child?

Message withdrawn

How old is your DS Bloss?

Message withdrawn

I get mixed messages from your post Bloss.

If you use other forms of discipline and sending your son to his room is the nuclear option - then why do you need to smack? What does the smacking achieve that other forms of discipline don't?

I'm pleased to hear that you use other forms of discipline alongside smacking but IME many parents do not. The children I see being hit in public usually get no threats or warnings. Their parents are incapable of dealing with their escalating bad behaviour and then the parent gets angry and lashes out with a smack. IME as a child, I was smacked or shouted at in a most humiliating way (just as bad). There were no other techniques used. My DH was abused. His parents called it discipline and I know they regret it now, but what my DH describes was way beyond a smack. I'm willing to bet there are many households today which either smack their children with no other techniques used alongside and tragically plenty of households where the smacking escalates into abuse, as its effectiveness decreases.

You say that your reading with your children was only interrupted for 3 seconds. I'd respectfully suggest that the impact of this punishment, therefore, lasted for 3 seconds, and is unlikely to act as a deterrent in the future. Does the threat of a smack stop your child from misbehaving?

"And contrary to your suggestion, I am not 'anti' parents-who-don't-smack. I don't for a minute suggest that not smacking leaves you hopelessly handicapped as a parent. I just think that most people are emotional or sentimental about the idea of smacking, and have no experience of how it works when properly used"

Of course parents are emotional and sentimental about this issue. We're talking about hitting out precious beloved children. I wouldn't let anyone else hit my child. I wouldn't hit my child, and I'd prefer to know that all other children in the country weren't being hit either.

Message withdrawn

I don't use the 'nuclear' option very time because (a) it degrades the notion of degree - I save it for serious offences; and (b) it makes my son far, far more miserable than a smack. As someone who is distressed by the thought of children across the country being smacked, you surely should be concerned that parents should produce the desired results, in terms of modification of behaviour and understanding of wrong, with the minimum of distress to children. I find your question totally bizarre, tbh!

Why bizarre? If I manage to use different techniques of dicipline that don't include smacking - why can't you? I don't agree that the only options, in your stated example, were to smack your son or have him screaming and yelling in his room.

The fact that you say other discipline techniques make your son more miserable than a smack is neither here nor there. None of this misery is long term and the point of a punishment is to make a child think about their behaviour and help them develop a conscience so that they choose to behave well of their own accord.

Again, I don't think smacking has any long term effectiveness and I think people use it as the quick and easy method.

Message withdrawn

However much you choose to pick my quotes out of context and rationalise smacking as a form of discilpine, I still uphold that it is morally wrong to hit children.

Bloss - I would rather not argue with you anymore on this. I only picked out your quote originally because you seemed to be so against Time Out or other methods of discipline and I felt I had to defend that.

Also, I see you frequent the nappies forum and are a fan of cloth nappies. When I have my second baby in September I know I am going to be back there screaming for help so I'd rather we didn't see each others names and avoid each others posts.

Message withdrawn

Message withdrawn

OK - we need a shake hands emoticon

Hi all, as I have only just had my 1st babe, I cannot solely comment on discipline. I always thought that people follow there parents example -this isnt always true as my dad had very bad childhood and was beaten. He never laid a hand on me when I was growing up, this didnt make me a naughty or difficult child-I was taught respect,I would be terrified of letting my dad down.

mumforfirsttime, I agree so much. When I was growing up I was so upset if I did anything that would make my mum and dad ashamed of my behaviour.

Congrats on your new arrival btw!