Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

Grayling defending smacking

999 replies

seventiesgirl · 03/02/2013 11:38

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

OP posts:
mathanxiety · 05/02/2013 16:12

It is likely to be a much more effective strategy to explain to a 3.8 year old child that a poke in the eye will hurt the pokee than explain about possible eye injuries. A child that age has no concept of eye injury or blindness, whereas he does have a concept of what it means to be hurt by a poke in the eye.

Encouraging empathy (which tends to develop at that stage anyway) is likely to be far more effective as a means of preventing poking of the eyes of others therefore than warnings about causing injury or blindness.

It really should be primarily because it hurts.

You start children off with small bites of what they can easily swallow when you feed them information. To continue the nutrition analogy, you only give them what they can digest and trying to get a small child to understand an unimaginable consequence (and it has to be imaginable because children of 3.8 relate everything to their own experience) is like giving them chewing gum to swallow.

Your child did not understand on any level the seriousness of what he was doing. You otoh understood the seriousness of what he was doing, or the potential of what he might do with a sharp toy, yet you allowed him to have a sharp object, in the bath where there was another child present, where you might or might not have been in a position to keep control of that sharp object (due to having soapy hands, soapy children, suds all over the place, need to ensure the safety and balance of both children simultaneously in the tub, etc).

If a child was taken to the hospital with an eye injury inflicted by another child while in the tub, the staff of the A&E would want to know why the supervising adult allowed the sharp toy, not why the child poked his brother or how many times he had been told about blindness or other eye injuries.

mathanxiety · 05/02/2013 16:15

Wrt needle vs triceratops part -- injuries to genitals and buttocks can happen as a result of sitting on either one.

Himalaya · 05/02/2013 16:16

amazingmum

Reasons - as in

Don't do something:
Because it hurts someone else
Because it is dangerous to you or others
Because it hurts someone else's feeling
Because the longer term consequences are not good ('don't eat all those sweets, you will feel sick', 'get dressed now or we will miss the bus' etc..)

Do do something (you might not want to):

Because the longer term consequences are good ('you'll like it when we get there')
Because its kind to someone else
Because you are part of a family that depends on each other ('this is whats for dinner, i'm not cooking something different tonight but we will have your favorite another night')

I am not saying i reason everything, normally I just get on with it and my kids comply without too much trouble, but not by having to remember an arbitrary set of rules they don't understand and aren't allowed to question ('would mum or dad approve?')

If children are too young to understand the reasons then they need to be supervised or the temptation put out of harms way (including not making them aware of every choice).

amazingmumof6 · 05/02/2013 16:18

math and about sharp objects - I have a sewing machine and use it regularly.
I thought my boys that the orange handle scissors are for cutting fabric only, they are mummy's scissors, they mustn't touch.
and they don't. ever. they tell my DH he's not allowed to cut nails,paper or wires with it.

I also have loads of pins and no matter how careful I am some go astray, they know they are dangerous, so if they ever find one they tell me. and after a sewing session they like putting them away neatly. they know the pins are not toys.

we are surrounded by dangerous objects and yes, we lock away medicines and household chemicals and power tools and pins and knives and many other things, but believe me the most innocent things can turn into a weapon in a creative child's hand!
you can't bubble wrap them!

and so what if larry takes the dino away, what's to stop larryboy to poke baby larry in the eye with a finger? how do you take away his fingers?

merrymouse · 05/02/2013 16:22

larrygrylls, if he is deterred from boundaries by the thought of a smack and he "knows we don't touch eyes" why did he decide to suddenly, out of nowhere, jab his brother's eye with a dinosaur?

If smacking is supposedly more of a deterrent than removal of a toy and end of playtime in the bath, how hard were you smacking him? I am not accusing you of hitting him hard (and am pretty sure you didn't). I'm just not convinced by your argument that smacking taught him anything (or had previously taught him anything). If it was a light tap, it wasn't as bad as removal from toy and fun. If it was more than this - well...

Completely agree with mathanxiety's comments about defiance. If you think your child is deliberately defying you, you need to examine the pattern of behaviour that led up to the 'defiance'. If the child is young (under 7) examine their environment, and, perhaps, ask yourself whose behaviour they might be copying. If they are over 7, teach them that with privilege comes responsibility. If they are over 12 and you are trying to wallop them, seek professional advice. That's a battle you will eventually lose.

Pretty sure that parents all over the land are getting to school on time with shoes on their children's feet without needing to resort to smacking.

Himalaya · 05/02/2013 16:23

Larrygrylls

I don't think there is the clear line between innocent experimentation and deliberately pushing boundaries that you think there is. Childhood is all about deliberately pushing boundaries ('can i jump off this wall', 'now lets try this high one') . The point is children can't judge risk well enough to know which boundaries are is safe to push.

Do you really think your 3.8 year old understood that sticking a dino in his brother's eye could seriously injure him, causing pain and possibly blindness for ever? And he still went ahead and did it, taking that calculated risk, because he wanted to see what it would feel like to blind his brother. I don't think so.

amazingmumof6 · 05/02/2013 16:27

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

jammybean · 05/02/2013 16:34

I haven't read the whole thread....But i just wanted to say. That all smackers fail to understand is that you may feel that you are protecting your child by disciplining them. But who is to say you're not inflicting real long term damage to your child? The "It did me no harm" argument infuriates me! Theres a lot of things that were perfectly normal in the past that aren't accepted today.

I endured years of being hit with no real explanation as to why, and let me tell you, it broke my spirit! Often it was out of frustration. I still remember times of being hit repeatedly on the back of the head as I cowered crying on the floor. Did it teach me anything? NO!

As a result I have suffered from bouts of depression. I have had therapy to come to terms with what i believed was the norm. I have minimal contact with my mother, she barely has a relationship with my daughter or her other grandchildren. I lost all respect for her. I finally snapped at 17 when I slapped her back. I still regret it to this day. Treat your children how you would like to be treated and lead by example.

larrygrylls · 05/02/2013 16:38

Math,

Re your previous post addressed to me:

The whole post is typical of your de haut en bas style; wordy, assumptive and condescending.

Firstly, do you have a particular qualification in child development to back up your instructions? Secondly, and even more importantly, do you know either my children or the circumstances in detail? To deal with your specific points:

"It really should be primarily because it hurts."

I have taught him "danger" and "dangerous" as two important words. He knows when I say something is dangerous, the reaction will be quick and immediate and he also gets both a simple and detailed explanation of why certain things are dangerous.

"Encouraging empathy (which tends to develop at that stage anyway) is likely to be far more effective as a means of preventing poking of the eyes of others therefore than warnings about causing injury or blindness. "

We have encouraged empathy from a young age. We always ask them both (even at an age where we know they are unlikely to get it) "how would you feel if that happened to you". We also try to remind them of times when similar things have happened and asked them how it felt.

"Your child did not understand on any level the seriousness of what he was doing. You otoh understood the seriousness of what he was doing, or the potential of what he might do with a sharp toy, yet you allowed him to have a sharp object, in the bath where there was another child present, where you might or might not have been in a position to keep control of that sharp object (due to having soapy hands, soapy children, suds all over the place, need to ensure the safety and balance of both children simultaneously in the tub, etc)."

He did not understand it on an adult level but he knew it was "very naughty", so he certainly understood it on a basic level. I do allow them to play with things which are (a little) dangerous and I explain to them how to use them. Yes, I accept that I am taking some risks but I feel that the gains are worth it. They have a good perception of what is and isn't dangerous and are sensible around dangerous things. I heard a paediatrician the other day saying the reason they were seeing so many more injuries in older children is that parents are over protective of younger children and they these same children then see themselves as inviolate and take too many risks when they are older. Your idea of safety over everything else personifies this modern (and dangerous attitude). They also receive a psychological boost of making intelligent decisions about things with real consequences. My children are good at balancing in the bath and, whatever the state of my hands, I am fit enough and dexterous enough to deal with bathing my two children. As soon as the point came anywhere near his brother's eye, I had it away from him.

"If a child was taken to the hospital with an eye injury inflicted by another child while in the tub, the staff of the A&E would want to know why the supervising adult allowed the sharp toy, not why the child poked his brother or how many times he had been told about blindness or other eye injuries. "

Fortunately, unlike you, they would be primarily interested in treating a sick child. Then, with zero accidental prior visits to A&E since our 3 month old fell off a bed (and wasn't actually hurt) they would dismiss it as an unfortunate accident. Not, again, that that is the point.

larrygrylls · 05/02/2013 16:47

Merry,

"larrygrylls, if he is deterred from boundaries by the thought of a smack and he "knows we don't touch eyes" why did he decide to suddenly, out of nowhere, jab his brother's eye with a dinosaur?

If smacking is supposedly more of a deterrent than removal of a toy and end of playtime in the bath, how hard were you smacking him? I am not accusing you of hitting him hard (and am pretty sure you didn't). I'm just not convinced by your argument that smacking taught him anything (or had previously taught him anything). If it was a light tap, it wasn't as bad as removal from toy and fun. If it was more than this - well"

Again, post based on incorrect assumptions because it serves your argument. He did not suddenly jab it. He started pushing it close to his brother's eye while uttering his what I would term his "defiant" laugh. He was clearly looking to challenge a known boundary. Whether he would have gone on to push it further, I don't know. I like to think he wouldn't but I was not going to experiment.

The smack was on the back of his hand and made a noise but he did not actually notice it so I had to tell him "that was a smack" and pull him out. The smack was more effective because he often has toys taken away for not sharing, splashing etc but very rarely gets a smack from me.

Himalaya,

"Do you really think your 3.8 year old understood that sticking a dino in his brother's eye could seriously injure him, causing pain and possibly blindness for ever? And he still went ahead and did it, taking that calculated risk, because he wanted to see what it would feel like to blind his brother. I don't think so. "

I really don't know what he thought. I think he was boundary pushing because I was there and he was going at a pace where I think he was "hoping" I would intervene. I like to think he was not being as malicious as it seemed as he is generally very kind to his brother.

amazingmumof6 · 05/02/2013 16:57

I said I expect them to be ready and do as they are told. I call it being obedient.
why do you think that I will smack them if they don't? where on the last 20 odd pages did I ever mention the my answer to not putting their shoes on or whatever is to smack? or that I would do it every time? what is wrong with you?

I tell you what happens. they put heir shoes on and we go. even my 2.8 year old will cheerfully say "ok mummy!" and puts his wellies on himself. he is independent enough to do it without my help.

if they don't I count down from 5, I rarely get to 2 and they are doing it.

not because they are worried about being smacked, but because when they were younger I took the time to teach them what I expect of them. because I reasoned, because I explained, because if they weren't ready they would miss out on something, or have the toy that distracted them removed and other things.

and if they didn't get ready on time because they were distracted or couldn't find their shoe or couldn't hear me - I learnt with them to be more organized or to be more pro-active, or took the book away.
I allowed more time to get ready.
I used to count down from ten like a rocket launch and it was a game to get ready. we'd have little races who gets ready first...and they learnt what to do.

it is called conditioning if I'm correct.

if on the other they would stomp there feet and throw their shoes I'd have none of it. they would be punished.
and if you think the only way to punish a child is by smacking them I have no words of wisdom for you and I feel sorry for you for your lack of creativity!

My DS4 once refused to put his shoes on, so I told him to go without, see what happens.
he marched outside onto the soaking wet grass then started crying that his socks got wet and cold. lesson learnt, problem solved. no smacking involved. the wet socks were punishment enough. and he never did it again.

amazingmumof6 · 05/02/2013 16:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

larrygrylls · 05/02/2013 17:03

I would love to see how some of these soi-disant parenting experts would deal with six children. Personally, I admit that I wouldn't know where to start, two can be tough enough!

amazingmumof6 · 05/02/2013 17:05

btw just to clarify, what I call punishment is what a child would call "something bad"

I'm not talking about a 100 ways of torture, but common things like removing a toy, or timeout, or having to compose a letter of apology or missing out on something fun - that type of thing.

smacking is reserved for specific circumstances

so calm down people

amazingmumof6 · 05/02/2013 17:15

larry and they are 5 boys in a row! baby girl is very lucky!

and for what it's worth when my oldest was 4 he had been told off for drawing on the kitchen walls. then I found him in the bedroom doing the same. I really didn't understand why he would do that, but figured out that he moved to another room, because he took the instruction literally and to be fair I only said he can't draw on the KITCHEN" walls. in his mind the rest was fair play!

massive insight right there into the thoughts of children. then as we talked about it he got upset and came up with this absolute gem:
mummy it is so hard for a little child o know what's right and what's wrong. I mean it's just too much, I can't think of everything!

I kid you not! at the age of 4! so I told him that's what mummies and daddies and grandparents etc are there for! to tell you and teach you and remind you.

he was very happy about that.

Kaekae · 05/02/2013 17:29

I was hit as a child, a lot of the time for no real reason. It made me unhappy, depressed and an aggressive child. I do not hit my children they are five and three I am not sure why I would ever have the need to hit them, I talk to them and this works for us. Makes me shudder, an adult overpowering a small child like that.

Himalaya · 05/02/2013 18:20

Larry so what your child was experimenting with was not "what happens when I poke my brother like this", but "what happens when I pull my dad's chain" ... you are right that is not innocent experimentation - it sounds like something he has learned to do because you have made obedience and discipline a thing rather than not hurting people a thing.

It's a bit of a self fulfilling prophesy. Normally kids overstep boundaries because they forget, get caught up in something interesting etc... and yes they need to be reminded. But if you make such a thing about the boundaries and obedience they become interesting in themselves.

merrymouse · 05/02/2013 18:53

"Again, post based on incorrect assumptions because it serves your argument. He did not suddenly jab it. He started pushing it close to his brother's eye while uttering his what I would term his "defiant" laugh."

I assumed it happened suddenly, because obviously with a 2 year old and a 3.8 year old in the bath, you were right next to them and watching what they were doing, and had it been anything other than fast and unpredictable, you would have been able to stop the jab before it happened and saved your 2 year old some pain.

Anyway, if your child didn't really notice the 'smack', and you had to explain that it was a smack, great, but I wouldn't really classify it as a smack in the sense meant by the minister. You are just making a hand signal.

Amazingmumof6. Pretty much agree with your last post. Just unclear where smacking fits into any of that. It would seem to be completely unnecessary.

RaisinBoys · 05/02/2013 18:54

amazingmumof6 states "but a kid laughing in your face and doing the exact opposite of what he was told to or not to do is not a mistake!
it is a deliberate and very carefully calculated act of disobedience designed to test and challenge and has to be met accordingly by and equally deliberate and carefully calculated discipline.
and that kind of punishment will not break his spirit, only his will"

I'd laugh in your face too amazingmumof6

Who raises children by trying to break their will? For goodness sake.

Popped back on the thread as I couldn't believe it was still active.

Are you really an amazingmum etc...you've been on this thread opining seemingly all of yesterday and today.

Can't believe you find time to do anything, let alone hit your children.

mathanxiety · 05/02/2013 18:58

A cautionary tale here:

The brother of one of my aunts by marriage returned to his house in County Galway from a day shooting and set his gun down in the mudroom in order to attend to his wellies and take off his jacket. His 5 year old son picked up the gun and pulled the trigger, killing his father instantly. The child had been warned not to touch the gun. The child had been told what guns could do. It happened about 30 years ago and knowing my aunt's family and knowing those times, smacking in order to reinforce house rules was an acceptable part of their family culture.

The obituary read 'tragically, at his home... X. Y. O'M... of [address] and founding partner of [construction firm], aged 40something...' It was a tragedy that has kept on giving, at least for that now-grown child. Of course nobody could blame the child and nobody did. It was a horrible accident, the worst case scenario, a nightmare for everyone concerned. Nevertheless, the child bears that burden and will throughout his life.

It's not about how well we tell or train children to be careful and responsible around them. It's about taking complete responsibility ourselves as adults, and not potentially placing the burden of a horrible and unintended outcome on a child, be that the death of a father or the blinding or disfigurement of a brother. Taking responsibility means removing dangerous things from reach and keeping them unavailable. If a sharp thing is so dangerous that its misuse warrants a physical chastisement then that dangerous object should not have been available to the child in the first place.

mathanxiety · 05/02/2013 19:05

LG, I have dealt successfully with 5 children, one short of 6 I will admit, but I know that what I do works.

I agree with Himalaya's analysis of the bathtub/dino incident. It can be applied to Amazingmum's tales of defiance too. Physical punishment really only works if you do in fact succeed in breaking a child's spirit.

merrymouse · 05/02/2013 19:09

"If a sharp thing is so dangerous that its misuse warrants a physical chastisement then that dangerous object should not have been available to the child in the first place."

I think that's true. There is a difference between, for instance, allowing your child to use a sharp knife in your presence and allowing them to use a sharp knife when you are distracted and they are playing with other children. You teach them respect for the object and you teach them how to use it, and if you don't think they are safe with it by themselves you don't give them free access. Smacking is completely irrelevant.

OxfordBags · 05/02/2013 19:11

I would rather give my child up for adoption than even consider 'breaking his will'. Since when has breaking anyone's will been anything but abuse?

Society is full of arseholes, abusers, and delinquents precisely because of the 'never did me any harm' school of thought. It doesn't teach obedience, it teaches insolent, resentful towing the line, waiting until they can be adults to unleash those feelings of 'no-one will ever get the better of me again' on the rest of society. Delinquents do not come from homes where they are brought up gently and sweetly, they are knocked about, yelled at, made to feel stupid, punished for things without understanding why, etc.

Let's not humiliate ourselves by putting lipstick on a fucking goat - adults smack because they have either lost control, cannot parent effieciently, or like the rush of adrenaline and power it affords them.

If your co-worker was winding you up or getting something wrong at work, would you smack them? Of course you bloody wouldn't. And that's another adult who could defend themselves and possibly give you worse back. What sort of SCUM would hit their own child; small, defenseless, powerless, dependent on you, viewing you as the centre of the universe? Bullies, power-trippers, inadequates and the emotionally crippled, that's who the smackers are.

StoicButStressed · 05/02/2013 19:22

Polka - vis your (wholly uninformed and 'could not be way more of the mark') comment - copied below - DIRECTLY to me; and ditto vis your post to world at large that you would be "reporting my 'abusive & unpleasant posts". Firstly, if you felt I was in ANY way abusive to you, I apologise. I don't believe I was, but if that is what YOU felt, I repeat - I apologise.

Secondly, you might note that whilst you did (& I am aware you very def. did) 'report' 'post/S' of mine, it was 1 of the 6 posts I have made on here has been deleted; one that I suspect was deleted as much for MY sake/DS's sake as it was too revealing about personal stuff. And the REASON it was, was because I was so utterly incensed by the nonsensical & truly offensive (especially in relation to what I have parented through/successfully - albeit with the ferocious work at it - and in the most unimaginable of circumstances) 'statement' you made below, that I just felt I HAD to make clear to you that you (nor I, or anyone) can make presumptions about anything they do not KNOW. Worse, you did it solely as you didn't like my POV and I very clearly did not agree with yours. And, factually, you were and are wrong on EVERY presumption of yours stated as fact below:

Yes there are a few parents that breeze through parenthood never raising their voice or giving out threats with continual perfectly behaved children.Some of that is down to luck and some circumstances and personality.You clearly are one of those people,lucky old you however you don't speak for all-far from it.

So whilst I genuinely do apologise if you felt offended by what I wrote, I would also very respectively suggest you learn the simple lesson that just because I (or others) do not smack; regard it as vile and also counterproductive; &/or simply have a VERY different POV to you; that that does NOT give you the right to make sweeping and offensive statements such as the above. And as a statement of 'fact' of yours, it would have been impossible for you to be more wrong.

Lastly, and especially in the context of you (again) 'stating' that I was 'clearly one of those people who like to shout and abuse' - you are again wholly wrong. And on that point, of how people act/basic manners etc, I posted directly to YOU & 2 others (page 15) a way I had found to deal with one of my DS's previous behaviour that seemed to match how you (& the other 2 posters) described issues you facing. I was thanked for that (& by someone who also had a different POV to me generally), but not by you. 'Reported'; yes. Insulted; yes. 'Victim playing' and pompous; yes. Manners? Nope.

noddyholder · 05/02/2013 19:25

Oxford I wish there was alike button for posts like yours