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?

Of course you should allow him to have access to his brother, larry! He has to learn to socialise with other people and to develop a good sibling relationship. Keeping them apart would not be the best way to avoid occasional lapses in toddler behaviour, either.

But as their parent, you know them best and you can probably spot a situation that may escalate into violence - that's where distraction techniques etc. are good to try and divert things before it gets to the point when one brother attacks the other. It's not always possible to get in there in time, but when it is that seems a good way of avoiding problems before things get out of hand.

"Kind but firm" is the mantra in the Positive Discipline books. The idea is that you don't scream at a child and treat them roughly when removing them from a situation where they have misbehaved. Humiliating them and upsetting them is not the idea.

Modelling behaviour that rough physical treatment and screaming and yelling is OK will bring about its own problems. Have you heard of "mirror neurons"? It's about people learning things by mimicking what they see/experience.

But we all lose our tempers sometimes, it's not easy to remain patient with a toddler pushing away. It's not the end of the world. But it's better to try not to.

I'm not anti-punishment per se. I'm anti-punishment because I'm not convinced it's necessarily the most effective approach. But I admit, that will also depend on the individual child's temperament.

I have never smacked and never would. That is not to say that I haven't felt like it on occasion, I just choose not to. From my own experience, it wasn't effective for me, just made me resent my parents.

I don't use one-size-fits-all punishments either, I don't see how it helps a child to learn how to deal with the situation.

I think the whole question of testing boundaries is a complicated one. Firstly, it is often an assumption that children do it and that bad behaviour is usually testing boundaries. I must say that through carefully observing my daughter over the last 5 years, I can count the number of times she was actually testing boundaries on the fingers of my two hands (!). Almost all the time, when I looked carefully for the real reason behind the behaviour, it was very different.
But, I still have the odd occasion where she really wants to see how much power she has, how I will react if she does something "not allowed". I find it useful to put myself in her position, to think about it carefully and for us to talk it through together - and for me to imagine how I would deal with it, if it were an adult friend. Someone said that they're our children, not our friends. But even still, they don't deserve to be confronted with behaviour from us which we would be embarrassed to use on our worse enemies. Just because they're small and we feel that they are somehow our possessions or a part of us, doesn't mean that we don't have to behave with the same measure of respect that we would use automatically with a complete stranger.

Yes, indeed Simic.

And how would smacking be justified to a child (you don't want them copying that behaviour and using it on other people, surely?)
"It's alright for mummies and daddies to smack..."?

Er, no it isn't.

I'm against smacking and I'm living now in a country where hitting a child is illegal.

I was hit plenty of times when I was a kid and like a previous poster, all it taught me was how to deceive. If I accidentally broke something, I sure as hell was owning up to it as it'd mean I'd be hit. Honesty was not the best policy.
I remember my mother hitting me when I was a teenager and it was humilating.

Pre-verbal years, I think they are curious and have innate sense to explore and touch everything. Having to smack them in order to teach them not to run out on the road is ridiculous. They shouldn't be left unsupervised beside a dangerous road or the fireplace or whatever.

Ursula, I wasn't saying that pre-verbal children lack the emotions to feel shame or fear. My point was that they don't have the experience to fear some things - things like fear of falling are innate, things like fear of kettles/ovens/roads aren't and it's our responsobility to teach our children to avoid those dangers. When they're at the point where explanation doesn't work, we have limited resources with which to do so.

To be intimidated, children need to have an understanding of self as an individual, as the parent of an individual and a framework within which to interpret the action of the parent as intimidation or humiliation. Unless you've bullied and demeaned your child from birth, they will not have learned to think in those terms at such an early age. They'll simply associate the action they've performed with a specific consequence.

And if a pre-verbal child copies this type of parental behaviour and hits someone? What would be the best thing to do in that situation, Elen?

Well, I smacked mine, very rarely but I did do so when they were too young to be reasoned with. They werent wacked or beaten. Once they could be reasoned with even at the simplest level that is what we did. It was a natural evolution. I cant now remember when I smacked any of them.

We didnt shout at the children and dont now. We have never used the naughty step.

They are at secondary school age now so all of this is a long time ago. They are growing up into confidant young adults. On the whole I am happy with how we are raising them.

Immaculada, it'd depend on whether there's evidence to suggest that they had actually learned that behaviour from the experience of being smacked. I'm not sure children that young are influenced by social modelling and I couldn't really answer without looking that up.

Smacking a child is actually assault. You can get knicked for smacking your child.

Fabby - it is illegal to smack your child hard enough to leave a mark (graze, bruise, swelling).

Smacking random children is an assault. I can 'reasonably chastise' my own child but not someone else's (Children's Act 2004).

Elen my 13m old knows what hot means. He is never near anything hot enough to burn without us present. When told that something is hot he moves away from it. He has learnt this through being allowed to touch things that are hot, but not hot enough to burn such as radiators.

Between this reasoning at this tender age and my duty as a parent to watch him i genuinely can not understand under what circumstance i might hit him in order to teach him to avoid hot things. I really can't.

He also copies things he has seen us do. Even things he has seen us do once. Is this not social modeling? I have no doubt that if he were hit he would copy this behaviour too. Why wouldn't he?

Yes, it's those "mirror neurons" in action apparently MFM.

That's what bothers me about using violence against a small child in the name of "reasonable chastisement". They mimic what they see other people do, especially their parents. And they don't understand the concept of "reasonable chastisement".

MoonFace, I used the same practice when DS was small, but with dangers he couldn't be taught, I used smacking. I don't think there's a ethical line between allowing a child to touch something hot and smacking - both have the same result. Pain, shock, avoiding doing that again.

Infants can imitate behaviours, but imitation and understanding are two very different things. AFAIK, social modelling of violence has only been demonstrated in older children and only in relation to responses to inanimate objects, not other people. It doesn't make sense to me that infants would copy that behaviour, as they tend to imitate behaviours which facilitate social interaction and, even with older children, the behaviour tends to be imitated when it's actively encouraged by a same-sex model.

so what dangers that can't be taught" did you use smacking to teach elen? I am genuinely confused.

As touching hot things and running in to roads are the only things i can recall mentioned as reasons for smacking, i'm gonna stick with the touching hot things. Mostly as i still can't fathomm why anyone would let a small child be alone by a road.

Our radiators are not hot enough to cause shock or pain. Ds experimented with touching them several times. He decided when to touch them and when not. When he did we said and signed hot and if associated the discomfort with the word. This is nothing like hitting him and expecting him to infer "don't touch"

Things that are hot enough to burn are kept out of reach.
So would a pro hitter hit a child that touched something hot, in order to teach them not to? Redundant surely?

If not do you hit them before they hit the hot thing? If so how do you make sure they associate the pain inflicted by a care giver with touching an object that they may or may not have been about to touch!

What about if the hot thing is turned off? Still hit?

And at what age should someone be allowed to touch something hot?when you are on longer responsible for their safety... 18? At which point of course hitting them would be common assault.

"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."

Totally disagree. Smacking is the first resort of the lazy parent in my opinion.

I was smacked a lot as a child, by both parents, and I can say without doubt it made me an angry, aggressive, badly behaved child and teenager. My mum would warn me that I was about to get a smack and I'd reply, 'How hard?'. She had nothing to fall back on then. I admire the parents writing here who say they use a particular tone or other techniques to teach their children how to behave, and have well-behaved children as a result.

All smacking taught me was a lack of respect for my parents and other people, and that violence or aggression is an appropriate way to treat others - not much use in school or work environments. I also felt a lot of unhappiness because my parents were people I feared. Now that I have my own baby I hope I will never resort to physical aggression. It's a sign of weakness, not strength, and I know that I don't want my baby to feel about me how I feel about my parents.

PS I'm not having a dig at the parents who use smacking for pre-verbal children, by the way. Only people who think that it's an effective parenting tool for all sorts of behaviour.

I have smacked my DS a few times. Am totally against it, though, and have felt ashamed of myself afterwards. When I have smacked it has been out of anger and loss of self control, and that is a shit way to parent, imo. I don't want to have to resort to physical violence to get my kid's to behave. There has to be a better way.

"I admire the parents writing here who say they use a particular tone or other techniques to teach their children how to behave, and have well-behaved children as a result."

They like to think they do but often they don't or they have a well behaved only daughter who requires no real discipline at all. And some are truly amazing parents who do manage it perfectly, but many are not.

The prerequisite of any good parent is being involved, caring and fun. Smacking is only effective if the child respects the parent and thus cares about the discipline. It should not be about inflicting real pain. I have met what I call "arms race" parents whose children laugh when they get smacked and say "that didn't hurt", then they get really belted and start crying. I was once given a wooden spoon when babysitting someone else's children "in case they misbehaved". I quite pointedly said that I thought I could manage three girls without recourse to beating them. Smacking when used as it ought to be is a firm reminder to a child that they are out of line. Used in isolation it is clearly a disastrous tool for discipline.

And, as I would say to anyone who does or does not smack, my own observations of a large number of families is that there is ZERO correlation between whether parents smack and how the children turn out.

*"I admire the parents writing here who say they use a particular tone or other techniques to teach their children how to behave, and have well-behaved children as a result."

They like to think they do but often they don't or they have a well behaved only daughter who requires no real discipline at all. And some are truly amazing parents who do manage it perfectly, but many are not.*

Well I have five children, three of them adults, two with autism, they are all well disciplined but never smacked.

I wouldn't smack anyone , much less a child, there are better ways that are equally effective but don't humiliate or distress a child.

I have just read a really good book on discipline. It basically says you should encourage good behaviour by rewarding it (seems obvious to me) and that you should also punish bad behaviour.

I have to say that now I have experience of disciplining a toddler I can say that if he is determined to do something naughty he will do it despite any attempts of mine to divert him. In this case, he needs discipline. He does get warnings and explanations as to why he should not do the behaviour but if he ignores then it will either be time out or a smack depending on the circumstances. Out of both methods of discipline I find time out the worst. He cries his heart out for the full 90 seconds and then I have to calm him down afterwards. With a little smack he cries for about 10 seconds and then stops doing whatever it is. I feel time out is more cruel because of the fact it drags on.

Secondly, in the book I read it says you should not ask a child why they have done something. It is giving them an opportunity to justify a behaviour which is not acceptable and in this case how do you proceed with a punishment if the child has said "he started it". The behaviour was still wrong and he still needs to know it was unacceptable. The book I have read says once they are at an age they are able to communicate it is better to ask "what have you done wrong?" as then it gives them a chance to acknowledge their behaviour and that they have done something naughty.

ali that book sounds about sixty years out of date imo.

"Smacking is only effective if the child respects the parent"

Respecting the hand that beats you? You might toe the line because you don't want to be smacked, but still I think smacking is a sign of weakness (not that I might not fall into doing it myself in the heat of the moment, only human an all that, but I really hope I don't and will try not to.

I would lose all respect for anyone who raised a hand to me as an adult, and didn't feel any different as a child. If my parents hadn't smacked me as much as they did I probably wouldn't live on the other side of the world today.

Yes it's easy to say they respect you today, when you have all the power, and they have no choice, but let's see how they feel about you in 20 years. Children have long memories.

Yes, Ali, punitive time-out isn't a particularly great method of discipline, you're quite right.

But I think you haven't grasped one point: the word discipline does not mean punishment. It is about teaching/following (think of the word "disciple").

But as a parent, you do what works for you. Personally, I still don't understand how hitting a child is a good tool for discipline.

I don't smack, but sometimes I think I should. Nothing works on my dc's, time-out (can't get them to stay there), bribery or withdrawal of toys is all laughed at .