Grayling defending smacking

[seventiesgirl]

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

Agrees with xenis (strongly) faints!

I suspect Blip that most of them are in a bad mood or just cross or the baby was up all night and instead of shouting or usually in addition to shouting they slap it. Toddler bursts into tears, red mark on leg (which is the illegal act), mother feels terrible. That is actually better than the doing it deliberately way although either are pretty awful,.. which presumably involves a very calm mother who thinks violence is the way to get their own way and impose their will on a child and they may get out their Koran or Bible which indeed have sections on how to chastise a wife or child within the law (very useful these books from the deserts 2000 years ago ) or follow their family Victorian tradition and do it for the good of the child later.

Either way we all know it's very wrong but no Government ever has the strength of will to push through a new law which removes the current permitted gentle touch which leaves no mark which is currently still allowed.

Xenia, I guess what I am interested inis do people think that casual violence of the kind you describe following being stressed out/ exhausted/ at the end of tether is better or worse than carefully planned and executed violence - placing a child over your knee and not leaving any marks.

I suspect that the first is more understandable but harder to justify in terms of constructive discipline.

I'm interested in those who claim that smacking them as a child never did them any harm - what form did this smacking take?

Another example from my own experience - my father was punished with a cane in school, probably repeatedly and certainly they left marks - he would definitely say it did him harm and certainly never altered his behaviour (like me he can't remember why he was punished only that it was very unpleasant) and he would not tolerate physical punishment for any of his children.

Blip- I was smacked twice as a child. I was seven-got a pair of scissors and cut the flowers out of my duvet cover. The other time my sister and I were dancing the polka over the living room when we were meant to be going to sleep. We were told several times to be quiet,pleasantly, more seriously and finally we both got a smack on the bottom. We went to sleep.

I felt no sense of injustice over either smack. My mother would never have smacked anywhere except on our bottoms with a bare hand. She only ever delivered one smack. She would certainly have been cross, but not out of control. Had she felt like she was losing control she wouldn't have done it, she would have removed herself from the situation.

Polka Is clear you have misunderstood me and, having just read it back, I can see why that might well be due to me/the language I used. For that you will simply have to forgive me as I am beyond exhausted (I think you are aware my Mother is critically ill and only on Friday told that she will likely - and very suddenly, as we thought it was weeks or months she had left - this week). Ergo, sleep appalling; trying to guide & support my DC's through this most horrific of situations also emotionally draining (but non-negotiable or 'optional' for obv reasons), so am tireder than can describe which suspect led to my normally VERY precise use of words gene going AWOL. So, to be clear:

1. I was (and do) apologise if caused you offence;
2. Using the word 'acknowledgement' was, bluntly, the wrong one to use but was the best (as I wrote in it, I was in huge haste leaving to see my Ma but wanted to check you HAD seen apology) my tired brain & rushing body could come up with as I DID want to check you had received my apology;
3. I did NOT mean to in any way infer YOUR children (as how could I know this? Let alone write it) do not have manners; ergo if that is how you read it, I apologise for that too.

Can agree to differ on all else (as that is what debate is), but I hope I now have managed to clarify anything else and that you understand that my apology to you for if had offended you was/is genuine.

I know what you mean, noddy. The world is going to hell in a handbasket, because I also find myself agreeing with Xenia for the first time ever!

In fact, I'm surprised at the sheer volume of posts from two or three people who seem hell bent on defending the practice of hitting their children. Their vehemence is almost evangelical. Scary stuff.

I try to avoid punishment but am happy to dole out consequences if I think they are merited.

I think with a sleepover situation I would have just said the first one - no more sleepovers if you have homework, unless the homework can be done first. Because she's proved that she's not mature enough to take the responsibility of the homework seriously after the excitement/no sleep of a sleepover. And perhaps review this when she's older and has proved in other ways that she is responsible about homework.

I think I would have ignored the "don't care" because actually it doesn't matter if she cares or not now, what you've learned from this experience is that she isn't responsible enough about homework to take charge of it in this manner yet. Perhaps if you felt strongly about the homework and/or wanted to make an extra point then extending it to missing brownies in order to make time for the homework makes sense too, but again I would have ignored the "don't care" about that too because it's not about caring, it's about making time for the homework and getting her to think about when she can fit it in. And in fact, it may well be that when it comes to brownies night or someone invites her for a sleepover and she isn't allowed to go, she will think about the reasons why you're making her stay home to do homework instead, and perhaps it will make her more inclined to get the homework out of the way first. She does care - she doesn't want YOU to know that. IMO it doesn't help to keep trying to gain that reaction which shows that they're upset about it - think about your consequence, if you're happy with it teaching something or preventing the situation from happening again, then that's enough. Don't engage with the battle, because you'll end up threatening (and having to carry through!) something that's totally out of proportion to the crime, which just makes her resent you. (Even though actually it's her reaction which has pushed you to this reaction - argh! Aren't pre-teens great??)

Of course this is purely theoretical - DS isn't homework or sleepover age yet, so it's not something I've come across in real life but this is how I'd handle it, hopefully, if I was thinking it through, in an ideal situation etc.

The one we have had which is similar is that if DS plays any kind of electronic game before bed he ends up really hyped up and it's difficult to get him off it when it's bedtime, so I've banned them from 6pm onwards. The first time I said this he couldn't have cared less, he said he didn't want to play them anyway, etc etc. But every now and again he asks and I say no and remind him we don't play computer games before bedtime, only in the day. And sometimes he whines and moans that it's not fair and if I explain the reasons he promises to go to bed nicely etc, but I know it won't happen - so it stays the rule.

Amazinngmum- I have 4 children aged 3 to 19 and honestly I have never had a "what are you going to do about it?" look from any of them, ever. Do you not think there might be a link between bad behaviour of that kind and a need for attention, even if it's negative attention?

I have had a proper "Ha! Now I've shown YOU!" look from DS if he's angry at me and then gone and done something he knows I don't like on purpose.

i've seen two articles in the Daily Fail this week and have to say that the vast majority are in the "for smacking when necessary" camp.

I'm quite new here but Mumsnet does seem quite left-wing in these regards.

The 'vast majority' of what? Sadists?

twofingers - they defend it so vehemently because they know, deep down, that it is wrong. Rather than putting some effort into parenting or using a bit of self-control, it's easier to smack and relish wallowing in sating their anger and the inadequacy of needing to have physically cruel power over someone defenceless.

Well I'm visiting here from Germany and from what I can see the UK (generally speaking) is bringing up a lot of attention seeking, undisciplined, whiny children who get have been brought up to believe they are THE most important thing going around.

This does not bode well for the future.

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2273565/SHONA-SIBARY-I-know-horrified-But-I-slap-14-year-old-daughter.html#axzz2K0aH4Jx4

As it is an important part of many religions to beat a child no wonder people defend it. Luckily it is mostly illegal. I don't think it is easy to slap or smack a child and not leave a mark so I'd encourage any child reading this to photograph the marks and notify someone. How can you smack in a way that hurts but don't leave a mark or does it depend on skin colour?

In the absence of any pro smacker linking us to their loving lawful discipline here is a link which one clever teenage girl put on line of her father doing it - he's a judge. The mother was pretty complicit too. Awful stuff. Why lay hands on a child? It must mean extreme incompetence as a parent.

www.liveleak.com/view?i=006_1320194791&comments=1

That makes for harrowing viewing Xenia but frankly it's in the continuum- how else do you continue to exert total control through violence over a child as they grow, unless by escalating the violence? You'll not hold them for ever with a tap on the back of the leg... I would love to know at what point the people who believes it works stop using violence to control behaviour? Or at what point they plan stopping- when the child hits back? When it starts to work? If so, when will that be?

I'm amazed Xenia is so anti-smacking

stella, coming from Germany you may not know that the Mail has a long tradition of printing articles by women who are either mentally fragile and being exploited, or can spot a good money earner and like to portray all women as a bit mentally fragile and exploit this persona for all its worth.

The woman who wrote the piece you refer to is known for her rather odd (to be polite) point of view. You might want to check out her other work before listening to her as the voice of Britain.

Jesus Christ - have just watched video on link Xenia posted. So horrific am lost for words. That attack (as that's what it was) was utterly psychopathic. And guess what? The video taken in '04 when the child was 16 only became public in '11. And the fucking terrifying nutter the Judge (yep, was a JUDGE doing that), was suspended then on full pay pending investigation.... And a year later/pretty recently has had that suspension lifted. See below:

www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/06/judge-william-adams-gets-suspension-lifted_n_2084578.html

And I am very firmly with the MANY posters here who have already asked that very simple question - i.e. what do they do/progress to when the 'tap'/'smack'/'smacking' no longer 'works. Surely a smacker can at least let us know the answer to that very simple but also pretty vital Q??? And why in over 740 posts (10% of which belong to just one person?) has NO-ONE answered it?

ffs STOIC there is a huge difference between beating and a smack. Those of you who don't know the difference are a matter for concern.

A smack is a tap. Same as you do to a naughty dog, across the nose. Seems like lots of you don't know the difference between that and a frigging beating.

I would expect to get bitten if I was ever stupid enough to either slap or tap (in anger) a dog on its nose.

Erm, SteLLa - I didn't say there wasn't a difference? NOTHING in I wrote remotely stated, suggested, or inferred I equated them.

Fact still waiting (genuinely and along with others) for a smacker to please answer how it works post 'tap' (IE the subsequent & separate Q I asked) has JACK to do with anything else I wrote - that's why they are in separate paragraphs?

If you can't read that clearly and then also leap to assumptions, please don't send me a post with opening word of 'For Fucks Sake'. Cheers.

Erm Stoic I might get just as offended when you start a post with "Jesus Christ"

and don't put words in my mouth re what FFS stands for. Thank you.