Grayling defending smacking

[seventiesgirl]

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

Merry,

Absolutely, although I have to say that each stage in childhood has presented its surprises and what I thought would be easy never is. So, I can say what I think but I cannot guarantee it is what will happen.

Our oldest is already "outgrowing" smacks. Firstly, he is getting the hang of behaving. Secondly, he is developing a long enough term perspective for other punishments to be more effective, such as no "movie night" on a Sunday (where they watch a video and are allowed to eat their snack dinner on the floor) or no swimming for a week (which he adores) or, of course, no chocolate for a day.

I think Thunks put it more technically with his/her description of paired aversives where the more grown up aversive and the understanding of behaviour and word meanings develops to a level where smacks are not necessary.

I think for as long as they are dependent on me, though, I will use a combination of positive and negative incentives to help my children develop into adults that I will be proud of. More positives but, always, some negatives as well. I do think parenting is about mirroring behaviour and the real world. So, although their World may be easier than the adult world, I do want them to appreciate concepts such as "life isn't always fair", "sometimes you have to respect people's positions even though you despise their views" (something I personally have trouble with) and that you need to work hard to achieve anything meaningful.

That was rather wittery...but it encompasses my general ideas.

I love how the smackers say 'it's only on the hand' and 'it doesn't hurt'. As far as I know, none of us is able to feel another person's physical pain, so 'it doesn't hurt' is a ludicrous assertion.
Clearly the smackers think they are absolutely in the right and will argue long and hard to justify why it's okay to hit a small child. Personally, I am disgusted by this type of parenting and think it shows up the perpetrator for what they really are: weak and deluded.
And saying your child is 'outgrowing' being smacked is one of the stupidest things I've ever read.

I don't disagree with using negative/positive consequences. (Or reward/punishment). However, I think there are also other techniques that very effective, although they can take a bit more practice to learn to use.

For instance this morning my daughter (6) ran into the garden full of the joys of spring across our saturated lawn just as we were heading out the door to school. I didn't want her to do this because I could foresee her slipping on the mud and having to go back inside and change her clothes. (Don't mind mud on clothes, but prefer children to at least start the day mud free.).

I completely admit that in the past (and possibly under stress in the future) I have used threats to get my children to do what I want them to do. We don't have gerbils, but this incident could have escalated to the point where I called her, she ignored, me etc. etc. until I was threatening to buy gerbils just so I could return them to the shop.

However, I was together enough to think about what I was going to do, called her, she turned around, I said "You paid attention as soon as I called you!" and she skipped back to me. (descriptive praise as described here
www.telegraph.co.uk/health/3293373/Parental-guidance-two.html.)

This is the kind of mind control technique that sales people use, so you could call it a bit devious and it isn't guaranteed to work 100% of the time. However, we then had a pleasant journey to school and she was involved and listening when we discussed muddy clothes.

There are more alternatives to smacking (which to be honest is just a negative consequence, with the danger that it could get out of hand/set a bad example), than the naughty step.

descriptive praise link

Larry & SteLLa (& maybe others I didn't see).

[Apols - now finished this can see is long post; that's partly as it feels an important post to write, partly I suspect as writing is the only thing I can do as I sit here right now in vigil].

It is very obvious that smacking is probably one of the most divided and divisive subjects on MN. For example, I do not agree with either of you, and am aware that you don't agree with me. That's fine, as it's a discussion, a debate, a 'whatever you want to call it'. I do though want to thank Larry for two things though.

1: He has been the sole person to acknowledge that when he smacks, he does so for it to hurt in order for it to achieve what he believes it does achieve. Whilst smacking to me is just not something I could or would ever do, I admire his utter honesty. Many of us have (repeatedly) asked the Q re 'hurting' vs. the oft used and pretty ambiguous 'tap' etc (as part of genuinely trying to 'get' the whole picture of something we don't understand), yet only he has had the balls (no pun intended!) to actually be that honest. I repeat, whilst I do not smack and I do despise smacking, I cannot help but be grateful to him for his honesty, as if a discussion is to have any meaning, it does need people to be as straightforward and honest as he has been. Thank you Larry.

2: Larry has (upthread) written: 'It is a smacking thread so I am defending an incidence of smacking' - I agree, it IS a 'smacking' thread'. Unfortunately though, both Larry & SteLLa have invoked what they see as damaging in terms of day care for younger children. Whilst the points you raise may/may not (depending on one's own experiences as opposed to research which, by definition, will be generalised rather than child specific), I am in agreement with Larry vis fact this IS a smacking thread rather than a working parent/daycare issues thread, so probably best if stick on topic rather than introduce other matters we may/may not agree with as i) it is a separate subject; ii) given it is NOT a 'daycare/working parent' thread, the only aspects being mentioned here seem to be where people are invoking them as other 'equally' (you get gist) damaging to children, but de facto without the broader input that thread itself would have. I.E. mentioned negatively, but with no alternate views or experiences to balance it.

Am not flagging this to be tricky, rather because many people have no choice but to use daycare as they have no choice but to work, so to invoke it in a different topic (however analogous you as an individual may see it), seems pretty unfair on those who may be using daycare right now, probably feeling bad enough about the fact they have to work anyway, only to see - out of topic - the worst of daycare/worst of daycare stats. etc suddenly flagged in here.

I would imagine & hope that those who do use it as I did (was DS2), which was do my research/check the staff ratios/spend entire day there observing care before using it/do all possible to ensure it was the correct environment for my child/etc etc etc. Having done all of that though, the fact remained that DS2 was there as I had no choice but to use daycare as I HAD to work, and wasn't fortunate enough then financially to have the choice. For what it's worth, my experience of daycare was that DS2 thrived there, loved his carer to pieces, had a great routine there, was able to socialise well post daycare, suffered no separation anxiety when started school (which DS1 HAD suffered from really badly), and I couldn't fault it. Either per se or - more importantly - with regard to DS2. DS2 now being an all round and very balanced 18yr old 'dude' who is both loving (IE comforted 11yr old DS3 by cuddling & stroking his hair when all 3 DS's said goodbye to Nanny last Friday before the sights here became too harrowing), very sociable, very funny, very clever, and is emotionally capable of - right now/today - simultaneously mourning the fact his grandmother is slowly slipping away from us day by day now, whilst recognising that life must go on so is at school today and looking forward to being Oxford bound this Autumn as well as being able to be sad (I hope that makes sense; it's a very hard thing to put into words but I think you'll understand what I'm trying to convey).

hmm or option B noone will even respond to your emotional out pouring...gotta love MN...

Sorry, clearly meant to write:

'Whilst the points you raise may/may not be valid (depending on one's own experiences as opposed to research which, by definition, will be generalised rather than child specific)...'

ICBINEG - sorry, was that directed at me?

nope.

I have been thinking about it ICBINEG!

I think its difficult to disentangle smacking from the fact that until recently, being a 'good father' meant keeping your family in line, not changing a nappy. Therefore in many families father's job was to discipline, (i.e. physically punish) and earn a wage, mother's job was to care for the family (including father).

It's difficult not to have a slightly damaged relationship with somebody growing up if it revolves around not disturbing them or being punished by them.

Obviously that isn't the whole story, but I do think these mother/father roles have endured for a very long time.

As soon as somebody starts spouting about descriptive praise, distraction, talking to their children, blah, blah, blah, then I know immediately that you just DO NOT GET IT. A couple of us on here have said that we have children who do not respond to normal methods of behaviour management whether positive or negative. Why is that so difficult to understand?

The only times (very rare) I've smacked have been in extreme circumstances when I needed to deal with the situation immediately. It wasn't designed to teach the DC about appropriate behaviour because we all know that smacking doesn't do that. I don't smack as a normal method of managing behaviour. I usually do all the right things and then go on to shouting, manhandling, etc which goes on for a period of time and is unpleasant for everyone involved. Personally I think this is more abusive than an occasional smack. I know that smacking isn't the answer which is why I don't do it but I don't know what the answer is for very, very wilful children. I wish I did

I think housewives seem to have a warped view of the amount of time working parents spend with their chidlren as if we waft downstairs for 20 minutes before bed or something. Instead I got home around 6.30 for abotu 4 hours then and 2 in the morning (plus every few hours breastfeeding at night), of holidays and weekends. It is hours and hours of having your children alone with you and yes I am such a wonderful supermother as most working parents are as we can achieve a lot more and tend to be better and less likely to smack than those who stay at home and cannot even manage when there to avoid violence against their children, that I never smacked them and nor did my parents of me. In fact my father lobbied against it in schools in the 60s. I used to read his newsletter as a teenager which he subscribed to 0 an NSPCC things I think called STOPP. He was a psychiatrist.

PIty 40 years on we are still having to debate whether a parent can hit a child in 2013. The smackers should ashamed of themselves and come on a course to learn how to live in loving families without violence.

It is as if smackers think it is impossible to bring up children without smacking them and those of us saying we don't are those who are never with our children.

Alldirections, please give an example of a situation that could only be dealt with by smacking.

merrymouse See my post from Mon 04-Feb-13 15:00:47

Please don't suggest that I could have chatted with her, played I Spy, given her snacks and a drink, books to read, drawing stuff, toys, etc because I'd already tried those things. Please don't suggest that I could have stopped and waited for her to calm down, because it wouldn't have happened for hours, yes, really hours!!

I am always astounded that the smackers will argue to the ends of the earth in defence of smacking rather than wanting to find a way not to hit your child. Any situation where you are out of control should be addressed and if you aren't out of control and 'plan' your smacking you have time to walk away or talk to the child. I cannpt believe it is still legal in the UK.

Walk away or talk to the child

Alldirections, the answers to dealing with a wilfull child lies in the parenting you do before they get anywhere near their meltdown point.

Xenia - please don't mix up 'housewife' with SAHM. SAHm does not automatically equate housewife. I am a SAHM but I am not a housewife (all chores shared 50-50 and all parenting 50-50 when Dh at home).
I agree with this wholeheartedly: "It is as if smackers think it is impossible to bring up children without smacking them and those of us saying we don't are those who are never with our children."

Merrymouse - YYY! I use that technique with my DS. Drives me nuts when people ask what my 'secret' is for having such a well-behaved and pretty tantrum-free toddler but when I tell them about descriptive praise (and other AP techniques) they sneer at them. I'm nowhere near perfect, but I try to always model good behaviour.

The more I read on this thread, the more it becomes apparent to me that what lies behind the defences and excuses of smackers is a deep-seated need to keep feelings about their own childhood experiences of smacking buried, and to refuse to feel any 'disloyal' feelings towards their own smacking parents. "Never did me any harm", to me, is one of the saddest statements. Not just because it means a parent has no decent level of perception towards their choice of action and how it will affect children, etc., but because it screams out 'If I admit my parents did something wrong, the floodgates will open, aaargh!'.

Alldirections, the answers to dealing with a wilfull child lies in the parenting you do before they get anywhere near their meltdown point.

I'm sorry but I've described a situation and not one person has come up with a way for me to have dealt with it differently that hadn't already been tried or was possible. If anyone does come up with an alternative I am ready to admit that I could have done something differently (seriously)

OK. So the question would be, perhaps, you are on your way to the airport to catch a plane. You are the only adult in the car on the motorway and your young child suddenly gets out of their seatbelt and starts roaming around the car. There is nowhere to pull over - what do you do?

Well I wouldn't be able to get a good enough aim to smack my child, but I agree I would do whatever it takes to get them back in the seat, and abandon all principles of good parenting.

However, that hardly amounts to a general 'go to' philosophy does it?

In general, if the children misbehave in the car, I pull over and read a book. I am often alone in the car with them on long journeys. The car does not go forward if they don't obey the rules of the car. You calmly maintain your boundary. You might have a few slow journeys. (And you can actually plan for this by ensuring you are well equipped with books and snacks, which you of course do not share with them) But I find that it takes seconds or minutes for them to get the message, not hours.

The really difficult thing is for the adult to maintain their own sense of calm and control, not to control the child. I can see that there are many situations where it is difficult for a parent to do this (lack of support, tiredness, lack of resources etc. etc.). However, that doesn't make smacking a good idea.

Oh and believe me when I say that I have absolutely no feels of loyalty towards my parents and the beatings, neglect and being unloved and unwanted have most certainly harmed me.

But I find that it takes seconds or minutes for them to get the message, not hours

And that is the difference!!

So have you ever stopped a car and calmly and wordlessly taken out your book and actually found that it took more than an hour for everybody to settle down?

(Ofcourse if you take headphones you don't even have to listen to them and you can call it 'me' time...)

I find that the first time you do it and really follow through, they are shocked into silence, the next few times they push the boundaries, and usually after that you only have to turn the indicator on near a strange side road and silence falls.

Ofcourse, as noddy says, preparation before hand and use of other techniques also helps.

I'm not getting the impression AllDirections, that you have really given other methods a chance.

all there is no doubt that different children are different! But there is also no doubt that if you have to date modified your child behaviour through negative responses to bad behaviour, you are not going to be able to switch over night (or in the middle of a stressful journey) to something better.

It is likely that Merry or any of the others on here pursuing more positive methods would not be able to pull your child out of that funk using their techniques. But it is also likely that given the same child and teaching them continuously in this way from birth, they would not face the same situation in the first place.

So for now you may well have to continue with your current discipline regime while you work in the ideas given on this thread. Eventually you should stop needing to smack because your child will become more receptive to, for instance, descriptive praise.

But it is also likely that given the same child and teaching them continuously in this way from birth, they would not face the same situation in the first place Like my DD2 you mean. If I only had DD2 I would feel exactly the same as most of you so let's not pretend that this is about my parenting.

work in the ideas given on this thread Give me strength

stop needing to smack I don't smack. I have but I don't

There is another issue here. Even smacking got you the most perfect children is it not just fear? I am sure some of us have occasionally seen very spookily well behaved very small children and you sit looking at the scared furtive glance they give to their parents, silently and they know if they do anything wrong they will be physically punished. If parents who smack think that fear and the total obedience it engenders is a positive result then that thinking needs to be challenged.

What is much nicer is a family where people love, look out for each other and indeed for many of us we learn as much from our children they learn from us. We borrow them and certainly have no moral right to hit or smack them.

What is very refreshing is that every year there are fewer and fewer mumsnetters ni favour of smacking.

Of course smackers do it to hurt. If it doesn't hurt you don't engender the fear and you don't obtain the obedience. So we establish the only piont to it is to hurt.

Thus extend the academic argument to my piont above - if pain is the key to the compliance then morally there shoul.d be no different with say a pinch or an electric cattle rod product which causes no more pain than a smack. There is no moral difference surely if you are a pro smacker between a smack on the hand which causes pain at level X and using an electric device to cause the same pain level or indeed implement? Do the smackers agree with me? I am sure they will have to.