Grayling defending smacking

[seventiesgirl]

Never did him any harm apparently. The tory party are such a bunch of tossers. Whatever next?

I was smacked a very few times as a child, by my Mum. On the few occasions it happened I think I thoroughly deserved it and still do. I have a very good relationship with her and always have done. She was totally consistent and I knew exactly where the boundaries were.

On the other hand, my Dad called me stupid, clumsy, fat-head etc. What he found funny one day would incur his wrath another. This had a long reaching effect on my self esteem and although I am none of those thing it took me a long time to realise that. His parents used to punish him ( an only child) by giving him the cold shoulder for days on end. I think this was also more damaging than a single smack would have been.

I hope I parent my kids with very firm boundaries and that they know what I find acceptable and not. I don't personally believe smacking achieves anything, but there are many worse ways to parent than a smack. Occasionally smacking a child is still very different from physical abuse.

^"Anyone who says their relationship with their parents was irrevocably harmed because of slapping - note, slapping, NOT beating, just the odd smack in relation to their behaviour - really needs to grow the fuck up."

Thanks for that thunksheadontable - that's me you've described so I must need to "grow the fuck up" as you so charmingly opine.

Clearly you're another one of those "calm, controlled" people who hit "not in anger" but in love.

What a load of self serving crap!

The very act of hitting another means you have lost control. At least admit that smackers. Do what you want but be honest with yourselves at least. ^

I don't hit... interesting how if you question hysteria around smacking you are obviously smacking left, right and centre.

I am merely saying that this ridiculousness that what was common behaviour in the 70's and 80's is the root of all violence and evil seems to me to be borne of people not being able to see their parents as flawed, imperfect human beings who did something that we now realise is not ideal.

And I'm sorry, but I really stand by that. Adults should really deal with their issues and learn to forgive their parents for their humanity unless they have seriously crossed the line into abuse - and even then, to be honest. My father was extremely emotionally abusive.. I mean, extremely defecated in my room and pinned me to a chair and shouted at me for three hours until I would "admit" I did it. There are stories I could tell you that would raise the hair on your neck. I won't say I've forgotten or even forgiven but I have learned to accommodate it, to understand that he was a product of a particular set of circumstances and he hated himself for his actions too. That is growing up.

alemci, part of the reason that there is perceived to be less discipline in schools is that some/ a large number of the children are used to heavy-handed discipline at home, and are treated very differently at school where corporal punishment is not allowed. So there is now a disjunct between home and school discipline that is a lot more marked than when both used similar methods. That's not an argument for hitting though- it's at least as much an argument for no-one to use hitting as a form of discipline. Actually I don't believe it is a form of discipline- it's almost the opposite afaic- discipline should come from within as quickly as possible, not be imposed by violent caregivers until the child leaves home. I prefer to call it "behaviour control". It's Pavlovian training, not education.

I was talking to a friend about this thread and the accusations of hysteria, she suggested

I had an interesting debate with my DH about this. We don't smack our children and plan never to use this method of discipline. We were both smacked as children, on some occasions quite severely.

DH reckons that it is a grey area. He says that it is more damaging to a child to not smack them and be inconsistent with punishments such as time out/removing toys etc than to consistently use smacking as a punishment. I realise that this is not what this thread is about btw.

I think there are far more smackers out there than I ever imagined. When I had my DD and start meeting other mums through toddler groups and the NCT, I was surprised at how open they were on how they planned on smacking, I was even more shocked when one of my closest friends, an otherwise lovely parent, walloped her 16 month old across the bum in front of everyone at a picnic to stop her from playing with their begonias. I found it really uncomfortable and it reinforced my decision to never do that to my child. The shock, fear and pain on the baby's face was heartbreaking.
Even worse, no one batted an eyelid.

The trouble is that Chris Grayling idiot has just normalised it, such an irresponsible thing for a man in his position to do, really really damaging.

Recall

Not just smacking, but all discipline is best kept in the home if possible.
If you can teach your kids to behave at home then it is unlikely you will often have to discipline them in public. My DD2 can be pretty awkward at home, but has always been well behaved in school, public and when visiting others houses, because she knows what the expectations are even though she sometimes chooses to ignore them at home.

And I am not a "smacker",although I think there are very rare occasions when it is effective. I would say that AllDirections post upthread is such an example.

I am so saddened by this thread. So many mothers on here that think is is okay to use violence against their children. I really didn't realise that viewpoint was so common.

Smacking IS physical abuse. It doesn't make parents who smacked when that was totally normal anything but a product of their time, any more than people who thought black people were stupid or women were incapable of being raped within marriage were. But if you hit someone, you are physically abusing them. If you did it to an adult, you'd face criminal charges. Do it to someone completely defenceless, and that's fine? That makes no sense.

And justifying smacking on the grounds that it's better than psychological abuse is just odd. All abuse is bad. All abuse is wrong. If you can't say it's a fair and reasonable thing to beat someone far smaller than you, over whom you have almost total power and control, then perhaps that means people should not be doing it. Full stop.

There are stories I could tell you that would raise the hair on your neck. I won't say I've forgotten or even forgiven but I have learned to accommodate it, to understand that he was a product of a particular set of circumstances and he hated himself for his actions too. That is growing up.

I don't disagree with that. But nor are you saying it was a good method of discipline and that it was character-building and never did you any harm. There is a difference between understanding the humanity and fallibility of the people acting as society tells them they may, and condoning what they did. Smacking did harm me, because it made me anxious and scared of my mother. My mum herself says she struggled desperately as a single parent with one child on the autistic spectrum and one NT one, and she smacked when she lost her temper and coping ability. It was horrible, it was scary, and it was not a useful discipline tool, because she hit, as parents do, from anger. It wasn't good at explaining what was wrong in the behaviour, or instilling self discipline and self-control, which is, surely, what you want with kids?

And really, I return to the core point: why do people think violence is always wrong... except when targeted at the most vulnerable members of our society? That makes no sense whatsoever. Why is the ability to be violent to small children so important to some people? Sorry but I find that genuinely disturbing. Of course they drive you crazy and of course the temptation to hit is there. But it's the need to pretend that the urge towards violence is anything but very wrong, no matter the provocation, that troubles me. Why do people want to hit little children, and then feel good about that?

Either violence is wrong, or it isn't. And if people can't even accept that a blow intended to cause pain is violence, then their level of denial is extraordinarily high. And I also question why that is, if they're so sure what they are doing is not wrong?

marthabear I agree, I usually enjoy a discussion/debate on MN, but this one has really saddened me, and left me feeling very uneasy

viewofthehills smacking is best left in the home for the abuser smacker...

The reason that abusers smackers would not hit someone else's child is that they would be committing child abuse, breaking the law and could be convicted of assault....

Great post perfectstorm.

Marthabear its not loads of people saying its ok, it's a few people saying it over and over.

FastidiaBlueberry Mon 04-Feb-13 21:14:35

An excellent post and very wise -- personally one of the basic things motherhood has taught me, is that I sometimes have to accept that there's no shortcut and I have to take the long, circuitous, irritating and fucking difficult route and much as I hate it and wish there were always a short cut, sometimes there just isn't.

Parenthood is supposed to humble you.

I'm not justifying smacking. I'm certainly not justifying it on the grounds that it is better than psychological abuse. I'm merely saying that the absolutist nature of this debate e.g. every single smack is "abuse" is over the top and in particular, I take issue with adults talking about it as a defining feature (and not a symptom of other issues) in their own past experience and assuming that every slap/smack etc is "abuse".

It's a question of degree, of intent, of how it is handled afterwards, of the general quality of the relationship etc. Of course it is horrible and scary for a child when an adult loses control especially if it causes pain. However, there needs to be some sort of recognition that ALL children will see their parents lose control in a way that upsets them at some point, and if it is not to an excessive degree or frequency, there is no ill intent, if the parent apologises afterwards and the relationship is usually a loving one, it isn't going to cause a huge amount of harm.

There are lots of things that we do to our children that would be considered unacceptable with other members of society e.g. holding them down while they wriggle away when you are changing a nappy, holding them while you put on clothes, giving a slightly unwilling child a big bear hug because you feel it will make them feel better etc right down to shouting "oh for goodness sake, would you ever BE quiet????". If I did that to my manager at work, I would face disciplinary action... but that doesn't mean that if I have a moment's impatience with my children that I am "abusing" them.

Anyone who thinks that children need perfect, calm, saint-like parents who never so much as raise their voice in order to develop a stable sense of self and belief they are lovable and have sovereignty in this world has a profound lack of understanding of human beings. We are resilient, we learn from ALL our experiences (not just the negative ones) and part of our learning over our lifespan is that people are stormy and imperfect and experience rage etc. Everyone does. The action needs to be viewed in the context of the whole. I'm not going to say smacking is right - I don't believe it is. I just don't think it is a crime of the highest order or comparable to rape in marriage , nor do I think anyone who says that they have once or twice lost control with their children and given them a smack is an "abuser".

It isn't comparable to the domestic situation between a man and woman because a man hitting a woman is not responsible for teaching that woman everything she ever knows or keeping her safe from herself. The balance of power is different and violence in this relationship is likely to be of a much higher degree, be symptomatic of very severe issues and has a very different meaning.

Does that mean I think smacking is a sensible or correct way to exercise control in the parental relationship? No, I just recognise some people will occasionally do it as sometimes they will shout or raise their voices or otherwise show their "ugly" side, and that action doesn't necessarily characterise them, their relationship with their children or how their children will view the incident in thirty years time. I choose not to smack because I think it is ugly, undisciplined and to be avoided. I just don't believe it is "abuse" in and of itself, and I think characterising it as such is a bit insensitive to anyone who has actually suffered sustained terrifying abuse.

Yes, completely agree with Fastidia Blueberry.

My mum smacked me occasionally - I don't think there was a single time that she did this when she wasn't experiencing that feeling you get at work when you just want to go into the toilets and cry.

I don't think she psychologically damaged me (she never smacked me hard). However, I don't think the experience taught me anything except to do whatever I was doing more secretly.

At best it's pointless. At worst condoning it gives a licence to people who don't have the self control or self knowledge to know what they are doing is wrong.

thunksheadontable wise words.

"Hitting a kid is lazy. It's quick and it means they're scared so they do what they're told. It does not get them thinking about what they did, in fact the reverse because they'll be focused on the humiliation and hurt. It doesn't cause them to think about how to adjust their behaviour in line with what seems right - just to avoid getting into trouble when you're there to catch them at it."

Works for me if they have just poked their brother in the eye. My main concern is that they DON'T do it again, not the whys and wherefores.

The elephant here is the idea that children are never naughty on purpose. It is just a case of them making a mistake which, when they think about it, they won't make again. Real children push at boundaries and want the boundaries to be reinforced. The only smacks I ever resented as a child were the (very few) that I felt were unjust.

I really don't get the analogy with hitting children and wives. It seems extraordinarily disrespectful to the wives to assume that husbands are bringing them up and trying to modify their behaviour, rather than it being a relationship of equals. Or, as a corollary, the idea that a parent/child relationship ought to resemble a marriage or a friendship.

As for those who say smacking has affected them as adults, I think you need to examine your overall relationship with your parents. The vast majority of people who were smacked as children (which was 90% of children 30+ years ago) love and respect their parents and do not regard smacks as a meaningful part of their childhood.

But isn't it slightly worrying that there are people on this thread who can't think of another way to manage a 2 or 3 year old than to smack them?

I was a child in the seventies. We had corporal punishment in school and smacking was normal. We just did whatever we wanted to do (fighting/smoking/bullying etc. etc.) in the farthest part of the playground/the park/upstairs/behind the bike sheds etc. etc. etc.

Actually, up until the 60's and 70's , I think many husbands did think it was their job to manage their wives. Women certainly didn't have an equal status in law. Men also routinely physically controlled other men, whether by giving them a few slaps in a police cell or bullying at work. The world has changed - we don't do that any more.

It's one thing to agree that not all parents have to be Julie Andrews for their children to survive psychologically intact, quite another to think that smacking is a good thing.

'amazingmumof6 you lost me ages ago! Don't know what you're going on about in your last post but I think you must be answering someone else. But you are misguided if you think smacking is effective. If it were you would only need to do it once!'

Rubbish raisinboys So you are defining 'effective' as 'only need to do it once'? So by that token, time out/naughty step etc are therefore not effective if you have to use it more than once.

Merry,

Whilst I agree with you in many of your points, I do think that we still need some form of of discipline and, for some children, some of the time, smacking is actually the least bad alternative. I am really dubious about some of the modern parenting methods. For instance, parents whose ultimate sanction with a biting toddler is to put them down and say a firm "no". There are countless threads in the behaviour section from parents who are consistently being hurt by toddlers and don't know what to do. These, to me, are clearly not healthy relationships. As I posted upthread, children need to learn that clearly unacceptable behaviour will meet with a robust and meaningful sanction. What would you think if when you bit someone, the worst that could happen was being told "no"? Logically (and all the anti smackers claim that children are logical) you would think that you are in charge of that household.

Watching one Supernanny programme about a child who regularly hit his mother, Supernanny's sanction was ultimately a fairly aggressive and physical form of the naughty step (forced and clearly painful restraint). Professionals won't recommend smacking these days but some of the sanctions recommended come awfully close but are now deemed acceptable.

Although in some ways views have moved on, I think the idea that the child/parent relationship is equal to a friendship or marital relationship is a dangerous one and, if parents really parent like that, it is potentially very damaging to children.

Recall my point exactly.

merrymouse I think most people on this thread are saying that they are using a wide variety of techniques to discipline their kids, but some adds smacking to this repertoir.

that's all.

I actually think that the ones that choose not to have kids who are easier to manage, because they are not so spirited/stubborn.
I can imagine these parents may not need to raise their voice much either - and I know these kids exist, because DS3 is like that!

I think that people who agree with smacking but know they shouldn't because it's now classified as abuse probably use it much less, if at all, but not because they think it is wrong, but because smacking was not on the agenda as a daily threat to start with and most problems are sorted by eager communication!
they have generally great relationships with their kids and nothing is damaged between them!

On the other hand people who regularly hurt their kids and end up seriously damaging them emotionally and/or physically are an entirely different group of parents.
the law was implemented to protect children in these dysfunctional families - but chances are the hitting is not going to stop there, because people just venting their frustrations and anger instead of talking things through.

it is easier to just say, right any smacking, hitting, hair pulling etc is physical abuse, but as Polka said before what about shouting and screaming? or spitting in someones face? or verbal abuse, like calling someone stupid or ugly?
and verbal abuse is not only very hard to prove, but is far more damaging than a quick slap, because it breaks your spirit!

and as I said before unfortunately there are many ways to physically abuse children that will go undetected (as the result is not visible) - so people who hurt their kids on a regular basis for the sake of hurting them will carry on regardless.

and the whole definition of " leaving a red mark on the skin" is just pathetic, because whatever would be visible on my skin will simply not show on other skin types.

so due to these and other reasons some people will carry on and get away with seriously abusing their kids on a daily basis, while the rest of the people who see smacking as a useful but hardly ever used tool of their parenting actions will feel violated against their God-given right to bring their children up the way they see fit.