Grayling defending smacking

[seventiesgirl]

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

There are not worse forms of abuse, there are other forms of abuse.

Thunks - I think starting from the perspective I don't hit does help reduce violence whilst accepting the reptilian response is possible in certain circumstances.

But saying I could lose control & lash out is not the same as I think it is ok to hit people.

My ds is dyspraxic and was challenging at times but I would never have even considered hitting him and my mother smacked us a lot and it was awful.

Merrymouse, I agree with everything you say and can't add to it!

Except - I was hopeless at disciplining my kids. I was tolerant to the point of negligence, and often couldn't keep a straight face for long enough to let my shouty voice come out. I really had to psyche myself up to be angry, and all that happened was they would laugh at me having a strop. But the effect was the same and the behaviour stopped and we all calmed down. I really was the worst possible parent. I was inconsistent - I did smack very occasionally (and then, horrified, apologised profusely and over compensated). I was awful. Believe me.

The truth was that I was secretly quite happy when they were mischievous and disobeyed me. I liked the thought that they would not just accept my authority, but always, always questioned it. However, I did know I was a crap parent, and did feel guilty about never setting boundaries.

But - and this is the point, surely. My children were well-behaved at school, and hardly ever got into trouble with anyone else. People were always saying how lovely they were, and they were often invited to other kids' houses. They had a lot of fun - we all did. Now they have all grown up to be lovely, thoughtful, responsible, considerate people. They obey the law and treat everyone with respect, including their own children. They are stricter parents than I was, but their children are happy too.

And the moral of this story is ... dunno.

... But I would do it differently now, and Merrymouse would be my guru.

noddlyholder - no, I don't think you should smack your partner. But I think that physical expressions of fed-upness do have their place.

FWIW, I used to be against smacking of children. But I have come to realise, through close observation, that all the parents I know who have never smacked their DC are emotionally abusive and use very insidious forms of control. The reality is that we all need to clarify our boundaries sometimes and allowing physical expressions of those boundaries in exceptional circumstances is healthier than disallowing them entirely.

Bonsoir, I simply don't believe you. I am not even prepared to get into a debate about all the people you claim to know, who of course I have never met, but your last post can only be tosh.

It is perfectly possible to have boundaries without physical or emotional abuse! I would say it was abusive NOT to have boundaries.

Is the fact that no one has answered my question due to the fact that there is no logical answer?

You have the child from birth-it is a lot easier for you than anyone else who comes across your child.

Noddy, what's your point here? That you are a better person than someone who says that they can see that sometimes people might lose control and lash out?

"But saying I could lose control & lash out is not the same as I think it is ok to hit people. "

I know this and and I don't think it's ok to hit people. The thing is, I also don't think that condemnation of others' fallibility is okay (and there has been a lot on this thread and I'm not talking about the very isolated incidents where people say it is okay to smack, but condemnation of those who have admitted losing control). I particularly dislike the air in some posts of clutching one's pearls to one's chest and saying categorically you would never ever cross that line no matter who you were, what you had experienced or what the circumstances were. How can anyone say this? I have no idea what it would be like to have a child who constantly pushed my deepest buttons again and again and again if I was in extreme poverty or suffering serious illness etc etc.. I have no idea what I would do or could be capable of, nor do I believe, does anyone else. I am assuming that, on balance of evidence, I wouldn't turn into some horrendous abuser.. but I do feel that there is no certainty of that and this is something I have learned to tolerate.

Also, my father (who was severely beaten throughout his life) made a point of never smacking... but God, we knew all about it. We almost had to be prostrate and thankful to him at all times for not making smithereens of us... and he basically diverted his anger and rage through being extremely emotionally abusive rather than owning his rage and yet in the intensity of his roaring/how close he would stand to you, the threat of physical intimidation was always writ large, there was always the fear of the day you would cross that line. The rage and its intensity were what did the damage and frankly sometimes I wished that he would just hit us so we didn't have to feel "grateful" that we weren't being smacked.

I just find it unbelievable that some people actually think that having been smacked on the hand 30 years ago was "abuse". Abuse, to me, is something where serious boundaries are crossed relative to the current cultural context and where significant ongoing harm has been caused by what has happened. I remember having several lashes with a ruler from a nun for being out of my place (I had gone to look at a globe with a friend to show her where we lived, I was about 7). I remember it well. Was it right? Absolutely not. Would I sue the pants off someone who did it to my child now? Definitely. Does it compare to the abuse in the Magdalene laundries and was I scarred for life? No. In general, that particular incident really didn't do me any harm in the long run. I felt a keen sense of injustice about it and I would still feel that if anyone hurt me now. It didn't break my spirit or my heart.

I remember too, my mother once totally and utterly losing it because she had sent me to get some eggs from the neighbours and I broke them, and she was very calm about it and sent me back, and I broke them again on the way back. She slapped me several times on the legs, she was in a total rage about it. Afterwards, she was just SO sorry and like the poster above, overcompensated. She made me "princess" for the rest of the day and she bought me a doll (I never got toys like this etc). She has even apologised to me as an adult about it on a number of occasions. While I got other smacks for bad behaviour as everyone did back then, I don't remember any of them.. I only remember this one time she lost control and being totally bewildered by it and her apologies.

I believe it is only right that we move away from smacking these days as there are better ways, though I don't believe it "never taught anyone anything" or that it can't be done in a measured way where the parent believes they are doing what's best. I think the reason it is right to move away from it is because mostly, it does involve a loss of control on the adult's part and loss of self-control isn't something that we usually encourage in any area of society so why should it be different in this? However, I don't believe that acknowledging that such loss of control can be damaging and frightening to children and trying to forge a better solution necessariy means that you have to believe either a) that anyone who ever smacked is a sadistic abuser or b) that we don't all sometimes feel this loss of control and not know what to do with it, even if we choose not to smack as our response to that feeling.
Taking the position that "I would never...." seems to me to imply that the smack is what most sticks out in a child's mind, whereas I feel it is actually more the degree to which their parent has lost control that can be damaging.

(ps the you above is not directed to any poster, it is meant in the generic sense e.g. "one")

I don't now anyone who smacks or is emotionally abusive and I don't think I am unusual!

I have known both but the vast majority of parents I have known are neither.

Thunks- what that nun did was abusive, it would just not be possible to sue due to context but that just means abuse at that level was legally allowed.

Whether something is abusive is not related to whether it is legal.

Also one doesn't really measure abuse on a scale, so because someone was beaten a hundred times doesn't make it ok for someone else to be beaten twenty times.

What your mother did over the eggs sounds really scary.

IMO hitting anyone is physical abuse. Does it happen? Yes. Do adults hit other adults? Yes. Is that ok? No. Do adults hit kids? Yes. Is that ok? No.

The fact we may lose control does not make it ok to hit someone. It is still not ok even if it is explainable.

I didn't suggest it was or should be legal, I just think that all this talk of "abuse" encourages victim mentality when you have 40 year old adults going on about how they have never forgiven their parents for smacking them. It just seems ridiculous to me to have that sort of gripe with your parents and not work hard to deal with it.

I really genuinely believe as an adult that part of your work in just, well, being a human and in being a parent especially is to learn to accept and have empathy with where your parents were coming from except in very rare and extreme cases (e.g. sexual abuse etc), and even in those rare and extreme cases, some degree of acceptance (and by acceptance, I don't mean liking it or not acting to stop it or thinking it is okay, but it was as it was and that can't be changed and current bitterness is more damaging to the present than what happened in and of itself).

And I don't agree that "degree of abuse" is an irrelevancy when you are talking about one off incidents, it may not have been right or just but "abuse" as it is generally used in everyday terms these days (unfortunately in some ways) implies more than the dictionary definition of "improper use of something", something more like lasting damage and it is and can be very emotive. I don't think it is the same as other things it is sometimes compared to e.g. rape. It was an unfair, unjust and over the top punishment for no crime at all, but terming it abuse seems to me to just be disproportionate as a way of describing a one-off incident and I can't see how it is helpful to construe it in this way. I think people can get very caught up in these stories of "abuse" in a way that encourages them to think of themselves as victims with no good outcome, it seems very Oprah to me.

In general, I think smacking doesn't always do the amount of harm you might think from these posts, but it isn't something that should be advocated or taken lightly and on balance it is generally best that it isn't used as a form of punishment. I just don't think people who have occasionally smacked against their better judgement are "abusers".

And Yellow, yes it was scary but do you know what, life is scary and shit sometimes and sometimes people lose control. It is not an irrelevancy to understand or explain that behaviour as in itself, that empathy is part of human understanding and interpretation. You don't have to like something or think it was warranted to understand it or explain it, it doesn't mean you are saying "it is right", merely that there is something seriously unhelpful about moaning and whinging dwelling unneccessarily on how someone reacted to an incident over thirty years ago and using terms to explain it that cast you in a perpetual role of "the abused" and a parent/teacher/other as "an abuser" about something that at the time was a bit scary but not exactly deathly serious or life/personality altering.

In fact, most psychology these days is about having this sort of balance - about not ruminating on what shoulda coulda oughta happened and taking a more expansive and generous view of even the worst of what happens to us in life. What is to be gained from condemnation of anyone, really? What do any of us get from it? What does anyone posting here to say how wonderful/perfect/balanced they always are and always have been "even though x/y/z" have to gain from doing so?

Still no one to explain why you can hit your child but others can't?

Thunks - it is because LG is offering so much by way of rationale both for his smacking and for smacking in general that I point out what baloney it all is.

Yes exotic strange that? Why not let anyone who sees them as in danger wallop them to let them know!

I don't think there is an answer -unless you see them as property and 'they are mine so I can hit them' -in the way that wives used to be property.
I think I first asked the question yesterday-anyway I have asked 3 times with no answer.

Or maybe they are happy with everyone smacking them?

'What is to be gained' from having a long list of crimes on the stature books?
Many are not heeded. The list of crimes arises from a community sense of morality, and as that sense changes over the years - as values have changed, punishments have been modified and behaviour not hitherto considered a crime has been added to the list (no more exile to Van Diemen's Land; marital rape is now a crime).

What is to be gained from condemnation?
Obviously there are some who do not want to heed it. But it is an indication of changing values, and I agree with Xenia when she says the tide is turning. A change in values happening within the space of one or two generations comes about because people who were affected by the old values decide not to deny abuse and instead condemn it. Ultimately what is to be gained from condemnation is a better environment for children. Smacking in the home has been condemned/made illegal in at least 30 countries, with the majority of that number banning it since 2000. Over 100 countries prohibit physical punishment of children in school.

What is to be gained from pointing out that there are other ways of turning out decent children?
The hope that someone might decide to look into alternatives?

WRT where exactly the line between abuse and what the parent feels is right -- that is the crux of the debate. How much of what a parent feels is right is after the fact justification? How much is based on a tangled inheritance from his or her own parents and family culture?

What is to be gained from condemnation?
Obviously there are some who do not want to heed it. But it is an indication of changing values, and I agree with Xenia when she says the tide is turning. A change in values happening within the space of one or two generations comes about because people who were affected by the old values decide not to deny abuse and instead condemn it

Very true-at one time the police wouldn't get involved with domestic abuse. Every time you get a thread like this you get less support for smacking. Condemnation works-everything is to be gained.

I meant on an individual level. What do individuals gain from saying they were 'abused' 30 years ago because they got a smack on the hand? I don't need to call it abuse to know that a different way is better, and I will admit it rankles that well intentioned smacking 30 years ago is compared to violent beatings or the context sadists hid behind to perpetrate life-altering abuse.

The tide can turn without condemnation of individuals who say they smacked in a specific situation and regretted it, but felt there was no other way or had a moment in which they ' whited out'. The tide can turn without name calling or without lack of empathy.

I believe the change to viewing smacking as unnecessary, mainly pointless and poor modelling arose out of a better awareness of child doevelopment and horror at how some individuals pushed the cultural belief in corporal punishment to extremes. I believe some people will have been smacked in a way consistent with abuse but many won't have been and will have experienced it as a one off or as a paired aversive in dangerous situations. I just don't understand the need to view every smack as some sort of heinous crime or abuse.

(Or perhaps to put it more succinctly, I think sometimes polarised debate can cause views to become more entrenched and the baby to be thrown out with the bathwater).