Grayling defending smacking

[seventiesgirl]

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

If you are the sort of person who feels responsible for everything, being a parent must be absolutely terrifying. But maybe your responsibility lies more in trying to set the conditions that give you the best chance of making the right decisions than in actually getting it right every time, iyswim.

So you manage your day to avoid flashpoints, go to bed at a decent time, etc, so that you are best equipped to deal with whatever the day throws at you. But obviously sometimes things happen and shake everything up - you just have to try your best to deal with it. And have confidence that you are just as likely to get it right as wrong, I suppose.

< Sorry if I'm burbling. I'm making this up as I go along. My brain starts to shut down after nine o'clock at night.>

This thread is going to be full soon without anyone answering my very simple question.
Please-someone-anyone-Why is it OK for a parent to smack, but not anyone else who is in loco parentis?

I don't think that, but just so you can go to bed easy - maybe people who smack their kids trust themselves to do so but don't trust others?

Because parents who smack think they 'own' their kids bodies?

I have often wondered why it would be more wrong to pierce another persons child's ears than to pierce my own child's ears....neither set belong to me after all......

That is my understanding ICBINEG - and the reason that people won't answer- children are property in their eyes.
Owners could beat slaves and husbands could beat wives because they owned them and slaves and wives had no rights. Other people couldn't beat them without being prosecuted, unless they had permission. Some servants could be beaten, if they had no prospect of leaving.
Now it is just children. It was more understandable in the days when they really believed 'spare the rod............' because at least it was consistent and adults could smack children in general.
Now we are left with the bizarre situation where childcare workers, people outside the immediate family, would be prosecuted and the parent would be incandescent with rage if someone did such a ' dreadful' thing to their child - it is seen as bad ( rightly so) BUT it is perfectly alright for the parent to smack their own child because they are their 'property'. Or even more bizarrely you can smack them because you love them!
It was a very simple question and no one has answered it. It all goes to show that people ought to be given a copy of Kahlil Gibran's poem 'on children' at birth.
I also think that people do it because they can. A 2 yr old won't hurt if he hits you back- a 12yr old would!
Has anyone got a reason why a person can smack their own child but not someone else's child that doesn't involve ownership?

I think the reason that people "won't answer" exotic is because actually apart from LG, no one on this thread actually thinks it's okay to smack...

Also, about four or five pages ago, I think I said that I think that the "reptilian brain" smack (where someone smacks against all their better instincts when something extremely dangerous has nearly happened e.g. reverting to a really primitive place in themselves and is instantly horrified and remorseful for doing so when the moment passes) probably doesn't apply to anyone other than a parent. We are mammals in the end of the day and there really is a lizard brain in there - "in loco parentis" is not the same as being a parent, though a childminder/teacher/other might feel genuine fear if a charge was in danger they would be unlikely to feel it in the same way a parent would, in the same way that if (God forbid) a child actually died in their care they would naturally be devastated but not in the same "forever" way as a parent. Someone "in loco parentis" is also expected to have a certain degree of training and procedures in place, and different sorts of routines around the time they spend with their charges.. it isn't quite the same as life at home. We wouldn't think it was okay for a teacher or childminder to be minding two or three kids while taking a phonecall and packing up a car while suffering from acute tonsilitis as well as clinical depression but I know of someone whose child ran into the road in this very circumstance who gave her child a smack - she felt dreadful about it, but certainly in that moment it was not about "ownership", nor was her action intended as abuse.

I also think if you are talking about "people who smack" (as in people who use it regularly for discipline and would say "it never did me any harm" in the way Chris whatsit did) there are probably a proportion of them who would argue that smacking was good for discipline in general and should be part of normal discipline methods at school (e.g. "bring back the cane!"/"in my day, you wouldn't do that or you'd have faced the cane" etc). It isn't my view but I do think that some (but increasingly fewer as that generation dies out) do genuinely believe it is better for discipline because of how their own experiences colour what they see as a weak and permissive society etc.

I think the important thing to note about this thread is that there are very few parents who currently have young children who think smacking is a sensible solution to general everyday boundary-testing by young children. I think that says a lot about a general consensus on smacking.

There are loads of things parents do that would be inappropriate for others to do. Nowt to do with ownership in the master/ slave sense. I'm on the fence re smacking but the ownership thing just sounds weak to me, and a way to attack parents and patronise them.

You could give a legal answer exotic - you could say it is okay because the law allows it. That would be one answer. I am anti so not my answer of course.

I want the smackers to know how close to the line they get by the way. They cannot go merrily away saying they can always smack. There is one article:-

nursingchildrenandyoungpeople.rcnpublishing.co.uk/archive/article-chastising-a-child-the-legal-position

It includes "but not so hard that they cause actual bodily harm; this could be
characterised by leaving a mark of any kind on the child?s skin, including
bruising, scratching and reddening. Also unlawful is any act which may be
said to cause cruelty to a child, which may include the use of an instrument to
smack a child."

It is a huge step forward if the majority are against. I agree that instinct kicks in if a child runs in the road - but it is an easy one to explain and apologise for afterwards. Of course there are lots of things that it is inappropriate for anyone to do for the child other than the parent- but that is from the child's point of view. In what way is it appropriate to smack them? Other than you are bigger and stronger and the law lets you?
Teachers and other child care professionals have training and procedures in place because they don't have the option of hitting into obedience.
If it was against the law for parents to smack then they too would have to use different methods.
I find it strange that you might smack your 3 year old but if granny has her for the day then granny has to have other methods - even though she may be elderly, have had a sleepless night, be taking important phone calls and trying to do six things at once.

Parents alone can do - and indeed, must do - all sorts of things for and to their children because they have parental responsibility and must ensure their upbringing, well-being, education and safety.

Why pick on smacking as a form of "abuse" to be banned without banning other forms of abuse? Only because smacking is visible and concrete...

Bonsoir you can see the error of your post by using wife instead of child though...

"Why pick on smacking as a form of "abuse" to be banned without banning other forms of abuse? Only because smacking is visible and concrete.."

In many countries husbands may beat their wives. In the UK it is illegal and we do not lobby for its return on the basis that husbands also shout at wives and frighten them with words.

Bonsoir,

Yes, I think that "in loco parentis", despite its literal latin meaning, does not actually mean that someone in this capacity should act the same as a parent. If I employed a nanny and came home to find both my children running around naked with one snuggled naked on the nanny's knee, I would be a little perturbed. However, that is a pretty normal day here at home en famille.

To be honest, I would be very comfortable with my mother smacking my children if she were to care for them for long stretches of time. However, she would no more do this than change nappies. Her feeling is that she did the tough part of parenting as a parent and she intends to enjoy the nice bits as a grandparent. Given her age and condition, I think that is pretty reasonable. And with anyone other than blood family, yes, it is a question of trust.

Xenia et al,

For those so keen to outlaw smacking, in the (rather unlikely) theoretical position that you could ever police this, how would you like it to be done? Children removed immediately? A series of warnings to the parents. And, if the latter, how would it be policed? Mandatory webcams in homes? And, most importantly, if loving parents did continue to use the occasional smack for discipline, would you really want the children forcibly removed? And, do you want to use the law only for smacks or other forms of inappropriate discipline or parenting, such as inappropriate diet? She's eating a third chocolate biscuit, this is a police matter....

"In many countries husbands may beat their wives. In the UK it is illegal and we do not lobby for its return on the basis that husbands also shout at wives and frighten them with words. "

I don't think giving a wife a time out or physically restraining her on a naughty step is legal in the UK, is it?

lg it is not against the law to shout at or tell off your partner, whether male or female.

I am not keen to outlaw smacking - it is already outlawed in most cases. Those still doing it often risk police involvement and I hope this thread has given them all a bit of a wake up call. The fact very few parents support smacking is a sea change over the last 210 years so it smackers will have to keep it as their dirty little secret which is looked down on by most normal parents.

How is it currently policed? Not hard. Teachers and parents report it. If you think smacking is always legal and is not at present policed you need to do some research. Almost every week someone will report a smacked child to police and they do get involved. Someone on another thread whose ex boyfriend has said he will smack the 8 month old baby when it is resident mentions a contact whose father was taken into police custody. Smackers be warned - we are all watching you.

Indeed if any smacker on the thread goes beyond what I have set out above as lawful then there would be case for the CPS requesting the IP address and then identity details from mumsnet to mount a prosecution. If you ensure your smacks do not leave marks you might be safe, but not otherwise.

Xenia - no, you are wrong to pick on my logic. In Western Europe, adults in a relationship are equals and are responsible for themselves (husbands are not responsible for the behaviour of their wives, or vice versa).

Exotic I don't smack so I can't answer the question as I don't know - I'd be happy if someone else replicated my discipline techniques. However I do recall a debate about it some years ago on a US-based site (where smacking is much more commonly accepted, at least in certain parts) and there were various reasons given as to why/why not on there. I'll see if I can find it, but it was years ago now.

Hmm... I think this one might be the one... it certainly has the same question, and seems to have a lot of answers.

booju-newju.livejournal.com/1010947.html#comments

booju_newju, BTW, was my introduction to the world of parenting forums. When I found mumsnet, AIBU seemed like a breeze in comparison

For those so keen to outlaw smacking, in the (rather unlikely) theoretical position that you could ever police this, how would you like it to be done? Children removed immediately? A series of warnings to the parents. And, if the latter, how would it be policed? Mandatory webcams in homes? And, most importantly, if loving parents did continue to use the occasional smack for discipline, would you really want the children forcibly removed? And, do you want to use the law only for smacks or other forms of inappropriate discipline or parenting, such as inappropriate diet? She's eating a third chocolate biscuit, this is a police matter....

Your paradigms always seem to involve some form of force, Larry.

Following is the Swedish approach (from here):

' "Children are entitled to care, security, and a good upbringing. Children are to be treated with respect for their person and individuality and may not be subjected to physical punishment or other injurious or humiliating treatment." [wording of the 1979 Swedish ban]

The goal of the ban was to alter public attitudes and acknowledge children's rights as autonomous individuals, not to criminalize parents (Sverne, 1994). As the legal amendment was made to the Parents' Code, it carries no penalties. Punishment for infraction of the law remains within the arena of the Penal Code and is administered only in cases that meet the criteria of assault. The law was intended as a guideline for parents to follow and as a means of changing attitudes toward the use of force in childrearing.

The absence of sanctions for parental transgressions provides increased opportunities for early intervention into troubled families. Generally, parents are helped through support and education, rather than through prosecution. The law ensures the right of refusal to prosecute trivial acts even if they are punishable under the Penal Code, and the definition of corporal punishment does not include physical force or restraint used to prevent harm to the child or to others (Newell, 1989). The law does, however, forbid not only corporal punishment but mentally humiliating treatment as well - for example, ridiculing, frightening, threatening, or locking up a child. Therefore, the concern that mental abuse would increase in the face of decreased physical punishment was addressed by the legislation....

...The purpose of the law was to make it clear to Swedish citizens that hitting children is not permitted. It was also intended to educate parents about the importance of giving their children good care. It removed what could be construed as a silent sanction of corporal punishment and is the culmination of an evolutionary process that saw Swedish society increasingly reject corporal punishment as a means of educating children and increasingly recognize the rights of children as individuals. It was the educational component of the law that was seen as most important, rather than the potential for legal penalties. '

Sounds sensible to me. I would make the parents attend parenting classes.

Math,

The Swedes are getting laws and guidelines mixed up. The law is an ass if there is no intention to ever use it. Or, in extreme cases, special interest groups use this kind of law to further their own agendas.

As for my "paradigms" involving force, your ideas always involve hypocrisy. You never answer my question as to how you made your children sit down at mealtimes, go to bed at certain times, not be rude to other people etc etc. Did you use some form of coercion and, if not, how did you incentivise them? I know that you parent in the same way as a teacher teaches and not like a normal parent but I struggle to believe that your children were always model pupils.

"Parenting classes"

This is so typical of a certain left wing attitude. Government knows best and we are going to interfere in every area of your life, from councils employing people on £30k per annum to educate people to eat five portions of fruit per day to teaching how to discipline one's own children.

And the only people to whom it would make a difference to outcome neither care enough to attend nor are capable of implementing changes.

Parenting classes are great-I went on them and they were very helpful-in talking to other parents as much as anything. I remember one of the teachers at schools asking who was on the course and then said 'oh, all the good parents then' -the ones who really need it are the very ones who don't do it-because of attitudes like larrygrylls. They were nothing to do with the government, they were not interfering or condescending -they were full of good, easily workable ideas that you could use or not use-according to what suited you. Sometimes different wording is all it takes. I have done courses as a teacher and I am not going to go into it all here but a word like 'maybe' can be so much better than the word 'but'.
It is a parent with a very closed mind who won't put themselves in a position of discussing it in classes and they are the very ones who should be made to go it they resort to smacking or emotional abuse.
However I love being called 'left wing'-no one has every done that to me before!
My children sit down at meal times-are polite etc because I have had them from birth and I set by example-it is normal behaviour and does not need coercion.

Exotic,

We sit down to virtually every meal as a family. We have set an example since birth. We try to include everyone in the conversation. Sometimes they have to sit still and listen but then they can always start a conversation. They know about turns and know everyone gets a turn to speak and anyone can contribute to anyone else's conversation. They still try to leave half way through a meal and need to be physically resat down and encouraged to stay at table. Most people consider that they are pretty well behaved but they definitely need to be persuaded/gently co-erced to sit throughout a meal. I know a fair few families with children of similar ages. I don't think I know of a single one where children do not have to be encouraged to stay at table, sometimes by picking up and being put back into their seats.

It is only on forums like this that people claim to have children who learn perfectly merely by example. If I did not know any real life families, I think I would be despairing of our children by now if my main reference was MN.

I take your point about parenting classes. However, I do discuss parenting with many people and am always happy to listen to others. I guess I prefer listening to real parents of slightly older children who seem to be doing well than a teacher who has been taught a set of instructions to give. I think there is a huge difference, though, in being there voluntarily, which implies an open mind, and being coerced into being there, which means you are just ticking off the minutes.

There was no teacher who has been taught a set of instructions - they were led by parents - we had all different ages of children. The best parts were the discussion and role play and other people's suggestions. It was like anything else in child rearing- there is no magic 'WAY' - life would be so simple if there was! You take what suits you and your child. I have 3children and what suits one doesn't necessarily suit another. e.g humour was the best way to get DS1 out of a bad mood, it was the worst thing with DS2.
Some people might have to be coerced but they would probably find it interesting once there - everyone wants to do their best for their child- it helps to have some workable tools.

Larry - whilst we disagree on smacking, am in UTTER agreement with you re one thing that does seem to be a distinguishing factor (IMVHO and observations) in best outcomes for a child in the very 'rounded' sense. IE not 'obedient/terrified' robots but academically, pastorally, psychologically. Even if the 'stats' don't support it, agree with your point lifted from Freakonomics (have put pic up of DS's books as each of them always, always, ALWAYS has at least one book on 'the go').

Both as a parent who went in to DS's infant school to read with other children, and as an ex Governor of senior state school, the ability to read/have access to books was remarkably correlated to both behaviour and speech, as well as to those kids not immersed in books/not loving reading and stories as a very 'natural/standard' thing seeming a bit more 'heavy-hearted' (apols, can't find a better word for it) than their otherwise equal peers. I recall especially sadly the number of DCs in the infant school who made it clear they weren't read to at night, and who said they wished they were.