Anti-Smackers Wanted

[Xenia]

As a long term lobbyist against smacking children, spanking, slapping, etc etc whether a "little tap" or anything, I know there are lots of anti-smackers on Mumsnet too.

If you do share that view then respond to this consultation
www.homeoffice.gov.uk/publications/about-us/consultations/definition-domestic-violence/dv-definition-consultation?view=Binary

on that issue - where it talks about violence against those under 18 there is no reason at all why the bill (which in some aspects I do not accept which is why I happened to be looking at it) should not be a great vehicle to get all smacking banned, not just smacking which leaves a mark which is the current ridiculous English law and is a typical British fudge.

You can respond direct to the consultation and/or ask your MP to take a particular stance on it.

On the other proposals in the consultation I would be against legal changes as there is too much scope for abuse of the proposed new law.

The more intlligent the parent and the more middle class the less likely to they will resort to any kind of smacking or violence and surprise surprise the better our children do.

I agree entirely on the 'no smacking' but I think that anyone is very blinkered to believe this. They are just better at hiding it-it goes on.

The more I think about it, the more I get annoyed with that statement. It makes it very difficult for the DC who has an abusive parent who is a middle class 'pillar of the community'-BECAUSE 'they don't do it'. (sadly they do)

MollyTheMole Thu 15-Dec-11 10:42:37
"Cory - I was having a bit of a laugh about my request for stats, but if they are difficult to find, how do you know your statement is true?"

Because I remember living in Sweden and reading the newspapers assiduously during this period. They published things like statistics of traffic deaths and reports from Trafiksäkerhetsverket; it's the kind of thing you tend to find in Swedish papers round about Christmas time. If there had been a sudden rise in accidents it would have got into the papers. The trend for the period was definitely a steady decrease in accidents, leaving Sweden as one of the safest countries in the world. Obviously those papers have long gone in the bin. But I am absolutely sure I would have noticed if there was an increase in accidents involving children; in a culture as child obsessed as that it would have made headlines.

I am sure I could access the stats if I took the time.

In reply of Mollie.

"Please tell me how you can restrain a toddler from running into the road when you dont know he is going to run ito the road?"

If he was on reins then I would have thought it was obvious that you held onto the other end of them or wrapped them round your arm while you were seeing to your niece in the pushchair. I thought the whole point of reins was that you had constant control even when you were busy with something else. I'd have thought them a total waste if I hadn't held onto them at all times.

""Why do the smacking supporters always think non-smackers are wimps who spend their time nicely telling their children please not to do something in a sweet ineffectual voice. I don't do sweet and ineffectual. I don't do smacking either." Where has this been said?"

here: "I cannot afford to waste time talking to my children so their eyes glaze over with boredom..."Not all parents are alike, there are those that spend hours gazing and talking to their kids and there are those, like me that spend loads of time working and really treasure the time with their kids. I don't want a day spoilt by gazing and talking" (courtesy of MrsCrafty, but I have never known a smacking thread on MN where someone doesn't bring up ineffectual talking as the only alternative to smacking)

If you have to waste hours telling your children off, then I think ineffectual is probably the correct term.

cory's absolutely right. Long-winded lectures and discussions have been shown to be ineffective disciplinary tools too.

Permissiveness is also an unwise approach.

Parenting books like How To Talk So Kids Will Listen..... Positive Discipline and Playful Parenting all offer lots of alternatives to hitting or lecturing, if anyone is wondering what other techniques are worth trying.

I've found a lot useful ideas which work by reading up on the subject. I know a lot of people say "throw away the books", but personally, I'm not a natural expert on what makes children tick, how they think and how to promote harmonious relations with them, so I thought I'd better do some research. It's helped me feel much more confident about dealing with my DD and indeed other young children.

"If he was on reins then I would have thought it was obvious that you held onto the other end of them or wrapped them round your arm while you were seeing to your niece in the pushchair. I thought the whole point of reins was that you had constant control even when you were busy with something else. I'd have thought them a total waste if I hadn't held onto them at all times. "

Thanks for the instructions Cory, I didnt know how reigns operated . However as I said earlier he had on one of those back pack things on and he slipped out of it. Dont know how but needless to say I have thrown it in the bin.

Like I said earlier, we are never going to have a sensible debate about this sort of thing when people cant even see that accidents and mistakes and 'dashes' can happen to the best of us. Its all "well its never happened to me" or patronising remarks about how to operate a set of reigns.

Its ironic really that some of the anti-smackers on this thread have shown less empathy, tolerance and understanding. Go figure.

Immaculada - I may try looking at those because DS does most of the time on occasion just totally ignore me if I am asking him not to do something, no matter how I ask. Am willing to look at any other ideas of how to handle it.

The more intlligent the parent and the more middle class the less likely to they will resort to any kind of smacking or violence and surprise surprise the better our children do.

I agree partially. Anyone who thinks that smacking is the best form of discipline is as thick as pigshit. However lots of poor people parent properly.

Parenting is hard and when a toddler does something dangerous our amyegla (sorry can't spell) takes over. The amyegla controls our brain when we are in a dangerous sitution. It allows fast decision making, but unfortunately its tiny. It is why when parents are under extreme stress they make stupid decisions like smacking.

If you think about it smacking a child in nappies is a pointless. If a kid hasn't the cognitive understanding to use the toilet then they wont be able to link the smack with the misameanor. They just learn that hitting is how to show someone you are angry.

Well. Molly, if you claim that smacking is necessary for your toddler because his backpack wasn't working, then it is hardly patronising to point out that there are other solutions that do work and that therefore smacking is not in fact necessary in this context: you could choose another solution (reins) instead.

I would never have criticised the situation arising if you hadn't claimed that it proved something it doesn't.

Of course you can still choose smacking because you want to: I am just pointing out that it is not the only possible response. Other people might have thought: next time I will use something that works so I don't need to smack him now, because I will make it my responsibility that this won't happen again.

Of course I too have had near misses, haven't we all? But I have seen them as my near misses, that I needed to learn something from. not a reason for smacking a small child.

The chimps at the local zoo use smacking.

IMO anyone that uses smacking as a regular form of discipline needs to learn how to parent better. Its nothing to do with class or intelligence.

If the remark about the amyegla (I cant even suss out what its meant to be sorry) is true I wonder why I didnt smack DS the first two times he ran out into the road when I was just as scared shitless as when he did it the third time? Or how come I havent smacked him before or since? Weird...

Cory - "Well. Molly, if you claim that smacking is necessary for your toddler because his backpack wasn't working, then it is hardly patronising to point out that there are other solutions that do work and that therefore smacking is not in fact necessary in this context: you could choose another solution (reins) instead."

i dont claim its necessary for my toddler, Ive done it once. I didnt smack him because the backpack thing failed, that was one of the other times. The time I smacked him was as I took him out of his buggy and put him down, kept hold of his hand but while sorting the car seat out for him one handed he broke free (because accidents DO happen). If he dashes out into the road again I personally wouldnt smack him again as clearly the one time I did smack him didnt work (its been around 6 months since Smackgate and its not happened since, thank god). You werent suggesting an alternative at all, you thought I had used reigns incorrectly hence the 'lesson' on how to use reigns.

"I would never have criticised the situation arising if you hadn't claimed that it proved something it doesn't. "

What? I honestly cant make out what you are trying to say here, Ive only had about 3 hours sleep

"Of course you can still choose smacking because you want to: I am just pointing out that it is not the only possible response. Other people might have thought: next time I will use something that works so I don't need to smack him now, because I will make it my responsibility that this won't happen again.

Ive said more than a few times that I personally wouldnt smack him again if he does his great escape as obviously the first, and only one, hasnt worked.

Of course I too have had near misses, haven't we all? But I have seen them as my near misses, that I needed to learn something from. not a reason for smacking a small child.

TBH if it was just that, near misses, him meandering into the road not really noticing what he was doing or if I truested him to walk without holding onto my hand etc then yes it would be my fault. However both times I had him reasonably restrained and under control (but as we all know,mistakes and accidents do happen) and he found it all vair amusing when I explained why he shouldnt do that, or for angry with him. So the only other option I had to try in this instance was t deliver a shock to him. Others may be willing to take the chance of their toddler being flattened whilst trying other techniques, I wasnt.

But can I ask how come you have had near misses? Do you not follow your own instructions about the reigns or having the kids under total control?

Sorry I can spell. The Amygdala is part of the brain that controls our bodies in life/ death situations. It is literally the part of the brain that makes do things on impluse. If a life or death situation we don't use our full brain to comtemplate decisions as time is of the essence.

I feel that a good parenting course should focus on controlling stress levels. It is very hard to think with a clear head.

MollyTheMole don't be hard on yourself. We all make mistakes. I am not in favour of parents being criminalise for a small mistake. That is inhumane and does little to help child welfare.

There aren't enough social workers for REAL child abuse. I see little point in calling out SS just because MollyTheMole has given toddler Mole a tap on the bum.

Reallytired - Im not hard on myself, I would be if I twatted DS everytime he did something dangerous as I would absolutely be a poor parent. Its just the running into the road thing is in my mind, the most dangerous thing a toddler can do as theres not much margin for survival if he was to be hit by a car. I still dont see it as a mistake as it had the desired effect, I supposse if he did it again then it would in hindsight be a mstake IYSWIM?

There aren't enough social workers for REAL child abuse. I see little point in calling out SS just because MollyTheMole has given toddler Mole a tap on the bum.

Thats what worries me about a TOTAL ban on smacking, people like me (ie smack once for one incident, wouldnt do it again) could be dragged off to the local station or have their kid taken off them along with seasoned smackers.

The best idea for those struggling is to go onto a parenting course. There are lots of simple little tips on language. You do not have to give long lectures.
You need to work with the brain. If you say to someone 'whatever you do in the next minute I do NOT want you to think of a tiger'. Everyone will automatically think of a tiger!
You therefore don't say 'I don't want you to run in the road' because that is what the brain picks up. It is much better to say 'stay on the pavement' and have a bit of incentive i.e. avoid the cracks so that they think it fun.
You don't want to say 'if you don't put your shoes on we won't go to the park'-keep to the positive of 'when you have your shoes on, we WILL go to the park'. Avoid confrontation. Don't get into arguments. The word 'maybe' is valuable as in if they are justifying something you can say 'maybe... BUT just now I need you to' and you are not dismissing whatever it is-you can discuss it later.
Language is very important, as is body language.

Everyone is human-if they do smack they can apologise. (however you do not want to say -you made me do it-you are responsible for your actions)

Molly I don't think you would be the type of parent who would be balled out by the legal system for an incident such as the one you describe.

In fact, given that we're even having this discussion and that you suggest in your posts that smacking isn't something you would want to do very often if at all - but reserve the right to react with a smack in a life or death situation - well, it suggests that even discussing the possibility of a outright ban on smacking has focused a lot of our minds on how useful or otherwise it is as a disciplinary tool (or how humane).

A law would raise a lot of awareness on the effectiveness/kindness of disciplinary techniques and perhaps those who smack out of desperation or just because it's lazy parenting ("it's what my mum did and it never did me any harm, so it must be ok yada yada....") would be inclined to at least consider other means of encouraging their children's co-operation.

I hugely sympathise if your patience is being tested by your DS being willful or ignoring you at the moment. To me you sound like a perfectly decent parent, but if you feel you could do with a few more tools in your disciplinary toolbox, then the books I mention are definitely worth checking out for ideas.
Positive Discipline 0-3 is aimed at toddlers. The next in the series is for pre-schoolers.

Totally agree with your comments above Immaculada. Discussion about this is essential for people to understand all sides,not to necessarily change opinions, but understand WHY someone might smack a child - I was getting frustrated that it didnt seem to be much of a discussion or empathy, just alot of 'you cant have been restraining him right' or 'my kid never did this' etc.

The running into the road does give me nightmares though. The other reaosn why I get a bit about people saying hold on to him tighter, use reigns etc is that I am not the only one who takes him out. We all hear AIBUs about MILs, DPs etc ignoring the paranoid mothers safety requests so even if I demand that whoever takes him out uses the reigns, holds on to him etc I cant guarantee that they will so that is anothe reason for me to make sure he at least appreciates that running into the road is very dangerous, whether it means he gets hit by a car or, dare I say it, has a bit of fear that he might get a smack again. (although as I say he is pretty proud now of his little road safety running commentaries when we are out )

Interestingly, from what you say Molly, it sounds like the smack gave him a shock on the day the incident happened, but it's been conversations with you about road safety that has heightened his understanding of the situation. That's what will keep him safe in the long run.

I don't agree with smacking, even in the example you give, but I accept that things like that happen. We'll just have to agree to disagree on that one

I hope so, maybe it was just coincidence that the smack err...coincided with him being more aware, I'll never know. It does feel a bit wrong to be pleased, for want of a better word, that the smack seems to have worked, if thats what did it. Hopefully I'll never find out otherwise.

If you substitute wife for child on the thread you realise how abusive the smackers are.

Wife does something husband doesn't like. Husband smacks her. Wife does not do that thing again. Are we saying ergo smacking works?

Or wife slaps husband in heat of row or vice versa. Criminal offence may have been committed. Ergo a law banning such smacking is therefore wrong as the police would be at many couple's doors when it wasn't a hard slap and no one was hurt?

There is no case to be made to allow assault short of actual bodily harm by parent on child and yet English law allows it. You can smack a child but no one else. Those who are weakest we protect least. It's appalling.

I imagine this will be the one and only time, but Xenia, I agree.

I agree with Xenia-except that I don't think the middle class and/or the educated are exempt-just better at hiding it.

Yep, that statement ^^ I can entirely agree with, Xenia.

Xenia, I do agree with you , but I am not sure the answer is more legistation. The situation is completely different in that it is far easier for a battered wife to leave her violent husband and go into a woman's refuge than a two year old. Putting a two year old into care because of a smack on the bum is likely to be far worse than an occassional smack.

I also think if the law was stricter then parents would be far less likely to admit to losing their rag and smacking their tot. I want the UK to have an atmosphere where parents can safely admit mistakes and be helped. I want parents to be able to ask for help with anger management without fear of being criminalised.