smacking

[Katekoom]

im on the fence about smacking bottoms and my little one is far too young for it to even be an issue but I'm curious...

As a child i got the odd bum smack with hand, slipper, wooden spoon when my behaviour was bad. I'm wondering, are parents even allowed to smack anymore?

Do you give a smacked bum?

Interesting thread as me and my DH have conflicting ideas, i dont think there's need for it as there are other forms of discipline but he thinks a smack every now and then is acceptable . We were both smacked as kids but i cant say i really agree :s

I am utterly confused at people who believe that smacking is OK.

If you were pulled over for speeding and the police officer gave you a quick smack on the bum what would you do?

Would you say 'oh officer I realise I did wrong and promise never to speed again'

Or would you complain to the highest level, get the officer sacked for misconduct and try to get compensation out of the police?

Why, why, why do people think it's OK to hit (yes HIT, smacking is hitting) children?

Or another example...

A woman posts on MN - her DH has given her a little 'smack' for not doing what he wants her to do. What is the response she would get from MN?

'Oh well you've learnt your lesson now you will know better next time'

Or a huge LTB from everyone?

Actually there are circumstances when the police can take your phone.

But the point I was making is that it confuses me that an action (hitting) that is seen as so unacceptable in our society between adults is somehow seen as OK towards children. Who are smaller, more vulnerable and dependent than adults. Why is this?

Those against smacking deliberately, dishonestly and deceitfully use provocative language when it comes to describing parents who smack or the act of smacking itself. Terms like hit, child abuse, violence, etc. The comparison between hitting a colleague and smacking your child is likewise deceitful and dishonest. The relationship between a parent and child is one of boss, guide, authority, trainer, chastiser, endearer and is therefore unlike any other relationship. Anyone who doesn’t understand the difference really is in cloud cuckoo land. Children in the past have not suffered from being chastised by smacking. By contrast, in Sweden where smacking has been outlawed and parents criminalised, child abuse has actually increased dramatically. If anyone doesn’t understand the difference between smacking and child abuse, let me be so bold as to suggest the following. Child abuse is where parents hit their children for their own pleasure and benefit. Smacking as part of loving parental discipline is where parents smack their children for the child’s benefit to teach them a lesson they would not otherwise learn through “positive parenting” whatever that actually means. I smack my children and have no issue declaring it. I don’t do it often and reserve it for those occasions where I decide it is warranted. If you disagree, I don’t really care. My children don’t belong to the state or to you, they belong to me and my wife. If you want to take me to court, fine, I’ll see you there.

Hmm I don't know. I was smacked alongside my sister and brother growing up and neither of us feel our parents were bad ones. It happened very rarely and we must have done something very bad to deserve it. I think I got smacked once for purposely slamming my sister's hand in the door.

However I do think it signals loss of control and for that reason, I would also prefer other discipline modes. Time out works better for my son than a smack would but I certainly would not judge someone who smacked their child once in a while.

The big elephant that know one seems to talk about is; it doesn't work. I tried lots of different discipline techniques (but not hitting!) with my two but they didn't make any difference to behaviour. My mum and dad disciplined me but it didn't change what I did, I was just more intelligent about when and how I did it. I've stopped now, not because of any philosophy but because it didn't work. What have I missed?

sbeber, I am one of those anti-smacking people that you are so incensed about.

I deliberately call smacking violence and hitting because that is what it is. A smack is a hit. Hitting/smacking is violent, I cannot see how the definition doesn't apply. It is not deceitful or dishonest to state something that I believe to be true. I would not call smacking done within the current UK law to be child abuse, however I would call it very less than ideal parenting. Also, just because it isn't actually illegal doesn't mean it is desirable or a positive thing.

I fully understand the difference between the parent/child relationship and the relationship between two adults in the workplace. You'd have to be particularly dim not to spot the difference. However, I don't agree that being in that position as a parent gives me the right to use physical force with my child. In fact, as a parent, I think that it is a betrayal of your responsibilities to educate and parent your child to resort to smacking - smacking your child is worse than smacking a colleague because you are their parent.

You state that children in the past haven't suffered from being smacked. Can I ask how you know this, or what you are basing this statement on. I would disagree with you on that point, and there is some growing evidence that smacking is harmful for children (there a plenty of well references articles on line that explain the data behind this).

I'm interested in the Sweden example - could you explain where you've found information about how child abuse has increased dramatically in the years after their smacking ban?

No one can take you to court for smacking your children, as long as you are staying on the right side of the law. However, many people will put their points across on a public parenting discussion forum to explain why they think parents generally shouldn't smack and should use a non-violent parenting approach, and why this would be better for their children.

You’re absolutely right when you say that just because something is legal doesn’t make it morally right. Abortion, slavery, killing of Jews in Nazi Germany were/are legal but not morally right. So, well said on that point. However, smacking is legal because it is recognised that the intention behind it is not violence but discipline for the child’s good. I would stand shoulder to shoulder with you against child abuse because the intention behind it is violently motivated. When I smack my children however, I most certainly am not violently motivated but seeking to teach them right from wrong and demonstrating that different levels of wrong deserve different levels of punishment. We would agree on that obviously, but clearly not on the mode of punishment. Regarding Sweden, I would refer you to SWEDEN'S SMACKING BAN: MORE HARM THAN GOOD by Robert Larzelere. You can get it from Family and Youth concern. As far as I am aware, it is the only academically researched paper treating this subject and makes for rather shocking reading. E.g. after banning smacking and criminalising parents, Sweden saw a 489 per cent increase in physical child abuse cases classified as criminal assaults from 1981-1994, and a fivefold increase in child-on-child criminal assaults between 1984 and 1994. Regarding smacking being harmful to children, we need to differentiate between smacking and child abuse. I will refer you to A Reasonable Approach to Discipline, also from Family and Youth Concern.

The problem with issues like this is that they are very emotive and the facts get lost in the discussions. If it could be categorically shown that smacking really did not work or that it caused more harm than good, then anti-smackers might have a good case, but most of what I read is agenda driven views, opinions and rhetoric. So, convince by the facts. Outlawing it however, would criminalise parents and undermine parenting.

So I have had my say and will leave it at that.

Response to Larzelere

I don't assault children. Or adults.

But smacking defies logic and reason doesn't it? What do you do when your child smacks another child? Smack him? Your role as a parent is of course to set boundaries. But more than that it's about modelling good behaviour. Smacking/ hitting is not good behaviour - in anybody, child or adult.

Scone, thank you for posting that link, it's an interesting read.

I have 'smacked' once, it was part of a well thought out process.
DD was 2 years 4months and her latest new trick was undoing her car seat whilst I was driving. I had explained to her how dangerous it was, but she was to young to get it. I had tried all the standard methods of stopping her she could evade them all.
One day I caught a sight of her reaching to undo the seat, I calmly said 'if you unclick your seat Mummy will smack'. Click was done, I immediately indicated and pulled over, out of the car door open. I looked DD in the eye ' I told you if you unclicked your seat Mummy would smack' I use two fingers on the top of her hand. I then looked her in the eyes again and said ' never ever unclick your seat again'. Shut the car door, got back in and drove off.
I am not proud of what I did, however,she never ever undid her seat again. I was clear, kept the 'smack' to the bare minimum.
The whole situation of undoing the seat is so risk, child loose in car, parent distracted more likely to have an accident.

Lonecat, realistically, smacking the back of her hand with two of your fingers is not going to be a smack that is hard enough to hurt. I would suggest that it was your tone of voice, manner and firmness in addition to the surprise action of stopping the car to deal with her that made your point effectively, rather than the symbolic "smack".

The same actions without the smack would, I think, have had the same result.

Culture I had been through the routine without the smack on no less than five occasions, so no I don't believe it would have worked without the smack. I had read quite a lot of child psychology before I added the smack.

It's not possible to tell if the smack was the key point though. It may well have stopped after that repetition anyway, you will never know. It's not possible to determine.

I would not smack my child for any reason. I would have to have handled that situation differently and find a way to solve it. Probably by repeating a similar process to you, minus the smack, until my child was reliably not undoing the buckle, even if this took a few more repetitions.

i think its wrong. always.

if a smack doesnt work what do you do next time? smack harder? and if that doesnt work? a thump? punch? kick?

Ladies, if we love our children then smacking isn't an option, it's our duty as loving parents to discipline our children when they need it in order to drive out the rebellion which as human beings is sadly in us from birth. Can you ever remember teaching your toddler to throw tantrums? Of course not, but everyone of them could be awarded a BAFTA for their performances of choking, convulsions, emotional blackmail, aggression etc.

The bible, teaches - "Whoever spares the rod hates their children,but the one who loves their children is careful to discipline them." Proverbs 13:24.

Discipline isn't violence, because there isn't, or at least shouldn't be, any malice involved, in fact the quite the opposite - smacking is an expression of parental love.

In our house the rule has always been that spanking is reserved for two 'crimes', lying and rebellion. Accidents which lead to things being broken - whatever the value - have never been punished by spanking because they weren't deliberate. The state has the power and authority to punish those caught 'going prepared' to commit a crime. The law rules that it is the intent which is the primary factor in determining guilt, the act merely follows. (except 'strict liability' crimes of course)

The real test that we should apply before chastising our children is - What is my motive? Is it anger, frustration or love? If it's the first then you need to ask your children to forgive you because you have effectively abused them and that does cause real damage. If it's love then they will be very grateful that you are doing what is right for them

I hope that helps for you mums and dads who feel conflicted over the issue.

God bless you.

Janezh

Janehz, you don't have to inflict physical pain on a child to discipline them.

I'm not a Christian so what the bible says is not relevant to me, so I'm afraid I would need more persuasion than "my god tells me to smack my child".

I'm fascinated by this idea that something isn't violent if the intention isn't violent! How does anyone else distinguish what the intention is? You could easily say that you're hitting out of love (what a contradictory thought!), when actually you're smacking out of aggression or a perverse enjoyment of causing smaller, weaker people pain. How can anyone tell?

The act is violent and aggressive by definition, the intention is irrelevant. If a friend smacked me whilst we were in a pub, claiming to be doing it out of love would be no excuse at all. If it were accidental (or perhaps self defence) then it would not be criminal, unless negligent. Beyond that, the intention is irrelevant.

I don't agree that children are born "rebellious". They are developing and learning, and don't yet understand our societal rules and expectations around behaviour. When very small, they don't understand about other people as separate entities or about other peoples' feelings. The role of the parent is to nurture, guide and teach, to explain and demonstrate kindly but firmly where boundaries are as children grow and develop. It's not my role as a parent to beat my child if they don't comply.

I once smacked, and I am so ashamed of it.
My dd mid strop scratched my face and her nail caught my eyeball - i lashed out in pain and anger. It was totally inexcusable though and what did it show her? That it's
ok to retaliate to violence with violence? For someone stronger and bigger to hurt someone smaller and weaker?

I will never do it again, I think it is wrong, and people who say things like 'I was smacked as a child and I turned out ok' and condone hitting as discipline, are demonstrating that it has affected them on some level as they have grown up to think it's acceptable to hit a child.

Well said, Culture.

I was smacked as a child and only ever saw my (otherwise lovely!) parents do it when they were tired, angry or frustrated. Never as a carefully thought-out method of discipline. It was a horrible experience and I know they regret it now, I wish there hadn't been a culture of thinking it was okay at the time as I'm sure it just gave them permission to behave in a bullying way rather than dealing with it maturely. I've never hit my DC but the times when I've been tempted are when I've lost control of the situation.

I don't agree with it at all.

I got a few face slaps from my mum when I was a teenager but I'm pretty sure I deserved it

don't remember being smacked on the bum, my dad never laid a finger on me. he was more the shouty type.

the thought of hurting my son makes me feel sick. and isn't that the point of a smack? to cause pain to send a message that what they are doing is wrong?

I think if I smacked my son, and he looked at me with those big tears and fear in his eyes, I would feel I failed as his mother. as the person who is supposed to protect him from pain, not cause it.

yes it is frustrating when they don't listen, but if you hit every person in work who didn't listen, or person on the street or in the school yard, you would be done for assault! we are supposed to protect our children. not abuse the fact they are too young and small to defend themselves.

people who do smack, just think, what would you do if someone else smacked your child?