What are the opinions on smacking?

[ihatecbeebies]

I personally don't smack and use the naughty step and take away privileges but a few friends smack if it is something serious the child has done and sometimes I've wondered if the naughty step is enough, what are everyone else's thoughts?

I think there's a definite difference between using smacking to teach a child who is too young to explain things to associate a dangerous activity with a unpleasant experience and smacking older children, who could be reasoned with.

I understand what people are saying about it being the parents responsobility to watch their child. But, really, there are times that kids do get one over on you or do something you wouldn't expect. DS once let himself out of a locked front door while I was in the loo ... the last thing I could have predicted is that while I was in the loo my (around two and a half/three at the time) DS would get a chair, put it by the door, undo the bolt and open the door and make a bid for freedom! In that kind of situation, the one thing any parent wants to be sure of is that their child won't do it again. If they can't explain it, what is the alternative? To me, smacking a child on the legs in that situation is reasonable, if it's being done specifically to teach them not to do that again. If it's hitting them really hard because you're angry, that's a different thing. Although, in that case, as much as I might not approve I can understand why sometimes parents hit kids harder than they meant to when they're scared, fear and adrenaline override all our usual responses and nothing's as scary as watching your child run into the road, or finding they've disappeared from the house while you're in the loo!

I'm not saying that I believe smacking is the best method of teaching kids to behave, only that I don't think it should be simply equated with desperation and abuse, because there is evidence it can be a useful method at certain ages and in certain circumstances.

I have a totally different tone of voice for "Stop that incredibly dangerous thing" and "stop that naughty thing", and the first one brings my 2.5 year old to a screeching halt because it's the only time she hears it.

One of my many issues with smacking is that it's the nuclear option. Once you've gone there, what do you do if/when the child does something worse next time? As Jareth says, kids become immune or decide that it's worth it. So do you escalate to a belt, or what?

Tortoise I too have "that" voice that has always stopped mine dead in their tracks As you say it's rarely used but totally effective.

Maybe it is a useful method at certain ages, Elen, but generations of my countrymen have got by without it and have seen no surge in toddler deaths, so it's clearly not the only way of keeping children safe. I just wouldn't see any reason to resurrect it when other methods have proved to work equally well.

And I just couldn't bring myself to smack a child for something they didn't know was wrong. i.e. a situation I hadn't foreseen; it would go against my natural sense of justice. I'd rather just invest in a childproof lock for next time.

Just to add my "vote", we don't smack and we don't use the naughty step, star charts or anything. Unfortunately I often do shout when DD (5) hits DS (2). It definitely doesn't have any effect - except for releasing my anger. I'm trying to work on that - and I say to DD that we both have to work out what to do when we're angry...
When you ask if the naughty step is enough, I would say no. You have to have more effective strategies in place to teach the children to get through life without the undesired behaviour (eg. hitting DS). Just looking at the example of hitting DS, what is working really well with us at present (my attempt to get away from shouting!) is that whenever DD gets cross, I try to get a piece of paper and a crayon into her hand as quick as humanly possible. She then draws how incredibly cross she is. The second time I did this she drew the most amazing picture of her smashing DS's head with a heavy object, with tears streaming down his face. In her other hand she was holding a glass of juice which she was pouring on the floor, with a grin on her face. She then drew me standing next to her with a big frown on my face. She then turned the piece of paper over and drew a picture of her patting DS's head and me patting her head with us all with big smiles on our faces. After she had drawn these two pictures, the anger and frustration had all gone and I will put the pictures away for posterity! :)
Nowadays she tends to just write "aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" or draw herself with a "cross face". But, I think it is our responsibility as parents to teach children ways to deal with their anger rather than just inform them (in whatever way) that it's wrong to be angry. I now just have to start drawing my own pictures rather than shouting when DD DOES hit Ds...
I've taken "anger at younger sibling" as my example here. But it is worth thinking about what you're trying to achieve and how you could really achieve it with all other "undesirable" behaviour.

"Pre-verbal children aren't subject to humiliation or intimidation though. They haven't developed the understandings necessary to interpret the experience of being smacked in those terms. They simply associate it with the action they've just taken. Which makes it an effective teaching tool at that age."

I don't agree with this, it seems to underestimate the emotional life of a child who can't yet speak. It's definitely possible to humiliate or intimidate a pre-verbal child. Toddlers can be scared and intimidated and feel bad about themselves. It's not ok to smack them because they can't understand anything else - they can understand other things, a lot of other things, if we take the time to show and explain them.

In my opinion our job as parents our job is to keep them safe (sockets, roads, kettles of boiling water) and help them to learn how to behave by explaining and modelling every single day. How can you ask a child not to whack another child who does something they don't like if you are whacking them for doing something you didn't like? I don't think smacking actually teaches anything about behaviour, other than to know something horrible will be done to you by someone you love if you do a certain thing.

Sorry, I hadn't read the whole thread properly. I agree that smacking pre-verbal children only serves to teach them that if you don't like what someone does, you hit. Furthermore, smacking - as well as time-out and the naughty step and everything else we do - is an expression to the child of the parent's feelings towards the child - is that really the relationship you want with your child???

I agree with ElenStone, I did smack my children very rarely and for very specific things. Once they were verbal then other sanctions could be used. We never used the 'naughty step' or 'go to your room' as generic punishments. We would send a child to their room if their room needed tidying of course! We would tell DS to go somewhere to calm down when he needed less input by having no one around.

DCs are now of an age where everything is discussed and opinions are shared. We treat each other with courtesy and respect. This isnt incompatible with how we dealt with them when they were toddlers.

It is too easy to "not" smack or otherwise punish a child. Children do need punishments and a punishment needs to make a child unhappy, otherwise it is not a punishment. It is lazy parenting not to punish and it brings up spoilt and entitled children. A child is destined to push boundaries and, by getting punished, discovers where the boundaries are.

As for what kind of punishment, I think it totally depends on the individual child. I was very pro smacking before I had children, but have not smacked my oldest child to date (22 months). However, I do shout loudly and in an intimidating manner when he behaves really badly (manhandling his little brother or teasing/hitting our cat) and he does get "time outs" which work (up to a point...when threatened with a time out, he does walk out of the room himself, turn his back and then come in 2 minutes later, giggling). I think the important thing is consistency. A child has to know that he is doing something wrong and the same behaviour has to consistently lead to the same punishment. In that sense, a child "chooses" to be punished, it does not come as a surprise. I remember the few times I was really upset and humiliated about getting smacked when I was a child was when there was a misunderstanding and I was not aware that what I was doing was naughty. The rest of the time I was kind of "happy" to take my smack.

On an objective level, I cannot observe any difference at all in children that are smacked and children who are disciplined in other ways. As long as the parents are loving, playful and consistent, they have happy well behaved children. If they are lazy parents, uninterested in their children and inconsistent in their punishments, they have badly behaved, not very happy children.

I was smacked (a lot) and indeed with a cane more than once. I am no advocate of smacking HOWEVER - I do not recall ever being shouted or sworn at. My parents were always, without fail, in control. I remember the first time I saw a parent of a friend lose their temper and howl at their child and I was horrified. I had no idea adults could behave like that.

Not sure what this proves other than that to lose one's temper and shout and possibly swear is arguably more damaging than a controlled smack?

I don't agree that not smacking is somehow an easy option - as if someone who didn't smack, or didn't like the concept of punishment, or deliberately making a child unhappy, was therefore abdicating responsibility for their child's behaviour and development.

I don't smack and I never would. I would no more smack my children than I would anybody else who had done something wrong!

I would imagine in part it's a generation thing - most of the parents I know in my age group have similar views to mine. However, a generation ago I would say smacking was much more accepted as a way of disciplining a child. I remember being smacked, but in no way would I say my parents were 'abusive'.

My mother would never smack my children now as she knows my views, and also accepts that the world has moved on a bit with regards to ways of raising children.

Anything uncontrolled is scary and wrong. Shouting can be effective in a controlled manner. Everything is a matter of proportion.

I have never smacked either of my children and don't know anyone else who does either. Am kind of surprised to be having this debate tbh.

I dislike the behaviourist approach (eg naughty step) as as it seems to create a relationship based on power and humiliation. We have tried time-outs in the past (not very successfully) - I find it escalates things as DS feels backed into a corner and gets very angry with us, and we all end up stressed and resentful. Generally, I find that avoiding the behaviour in the first place, like taking DS's magazines with us when out and about, or distracting him when he starts to get restless, work much better.

DS wants to feel like a big boy and I find giving him a 'special job' to do (such as laying the table, pouring drinks etc) is good to engage him when he is getting restless and make him feel more grown-up and responsible.

However, I do find DS's behaviour infuriating at times and it's hard to avoid shouting and losing it on bad days. I see this as my parental failing and am trying to be better! I find that if I stay calm and in control then DS responds much, much better and will apologise rather than getting angry in return.

Ursula,

Sorry, but I beg to disagree. I have seen far too many parents who "do not believe in punishment" going around willfully ignoring their children's appalling behaviour. A parent is not a mate and part of being a parent is discipline. No kind person likes making a child unhappy and that is why it is the hardest part of parenting.

Not smacking a child does not automatically equal permissiveness.

Permissiveness is not good for children and yes, I would agree that is lazy parenting.

But using means other than punishment to discipline your child is definitely not lazy parenting. It takes a bit of imagination to step outside a way of doing things that seems "natural" because one has grown up with it. It is not the easy option.

As I say, I would never smack but I do believe that I (and DH) do hold the power in our household, as we are the adults and our children are children! Therefore I have no problem pulling them up on their bad behaviour. It's not difficult to have control and 'power' over children without humiliating them. I believe children are much happier with firm boundaries anyway.

OK - but don't assume that just because I don't like punishing children and I don't like smacking children that I willfully ignore appalling behaviour or am a lazy parent. My children are very well-behaved on the whole, and when they are not I address it. But while they occasionally go wrong, neither of them (2 boys, 12 and 2.5) has ever behaved appallingly, and the external feedback I get (friends' parents, school, and so on) is that they are both well-behaved, well-mannered and compassionate children, so I am happy that my approach is working for them.

I appreciate that you have a different view of what works, and I wish you and your children well.

Inmaculada,

Ultimately what you are saying makes no sense. Of course explanations, game playing, positive reinforcement etc are one's first port of call as a parent. However when a child deliberately misbehaves (and most do) they are testing boundaries. To the best of my knowledge, this is not really disputed, or am I wrong? The point of testing a boundary is to confirm where it is and a child finds out by being punished. An explanation or chat does not suffice as the child already knows what they did is wrong, they are "asking" for you to reinforce the boundary. And, if you do reinforce the known boundary, you are using punishment. You might have another word for it but that is what it actually is. If you do not punish, you are being permissive, in that you are letting a bad behaviour go.

larrygrylls i am very happy to say you and i could not be more different on our views of children. "lazy parenting not to punish" I could not disagree more. Punishment to me is a short cut to compliance without understanding.

Simic, ursula and moomoo...yes yes yes.

Perhaps our understanding of "punishment" is different in that case, larry.

I certainly agree that children push boundaries and as parents we need to make sure they understand what those boundaries are and that they should not cross them. Children should definitely not be allowed to willfully misbehave.

I do not agree with permissive parenting as an alternative to not using naughty steps, punitive time-outs, smacking etc. I think there are other ways.

Also, with a very young child, why use violence against them for a failure in adult supervision? Once you have smacked your toddler for running into the road a couple of times, will you then allow them to be near a road unsupervised because they have "learned" that running into the road = something horrible will happen?

In fact on a related matter I was reading the other day about the differences between the penal justice systems in e.g. Norway and the US. Norway's system is based on a positive model of rehabilitation, while in the US it's all about punishment. Norway has something like 20 per cent recidivism while the US has over 60 per cent.

I know I am straying slightly away from the smacking debate!

Moonface,

Explain first, warn second (and maybe more depending on what it is), punish third. In addition, a lot of a child's behaviour is built up by repetition. Have you watched how a young child learns to sort shapes. The first behaviour is pretty random, then they gradually, by trial and error get it right (and they are thrilled to do so). They have no concept of geometry but they can still sort shapes and, guess what, when they learn geometry, the concepts are almost instinctive.

When I make sure our 22 month old does not smack his four month old brother in the face by shouting at him loudly and removing him (none too gently) he is learning not to hit his brother. I don't really care whether he gets why he shouldn't be hitting his brother. I think psychiatrists would tell you that empathy comes later, anyway. I am sure that by the time he can understand a verbal empathetic explanation about why you do not hit other children (I do also explain even now) he will find it much easier to understand than if I just let him hit his brother now until he could understand why it is wrong.

Finally, I have seen very very few professionals in childcare who did not believe in some sort of punishment as an adjunct to positive reinforcement, be it the naughty step, removal of privileges etc. Are all of you who do not believe in punishment going to select non-punishing schools for your children too?

I am sure that by the time he can understand a verbal empathetic explanation about why you do not hit other children (I do also explain even now) he will find it much easier to understand than if I just let him hit his brother now until he could understand why it is wrong.

Absolutely. There's no point using complex verbal explanations with concepts like empathy contained within them when trying to discipline a toddler. I couldn't agree with you more. And he definitely should NOT be allowed to hit his brother, I couldn't agree with you more.

We're not so far apart, really larry. You remove the toddler from the situation immediately, saying very firmly "Hitting is bad". You leave your toddler in no doubt that the behaviour is unacceptable. And you repeat every time you have to. Eventually, he'll get it. Meanwhile you supervise carefully and try and minimise the circumstances that lead to hitting wherever possible. Because toddlers haven't learned to put a brake on their violent impulses. So, we agree, they must learn to behave in a socially acceptable manner. And the way you do it is virtually the same as the way I do.

But where was the punishment in that scenario? And where the permissiveness?

Raised voice, clear parental disapproval and removal=punishment.

We are not so far apart, it is more definitional.

I do, however, think that avoiding situations is a bit of a cop out. We deliberately allow him access to his brother and nine times out of ten he is lovely to him. I think the odd hit is a price worth paying so he feels his brother is not out of bounds. And the reward, of course, is that the more he learns to behave well, the more access he gets and the more praise for being a "lovely big brother".