Smacking children can affect schooling Smacking children can affect schooling Smacking children can affect schooling Smacking children can affect schooling

[papillon]

this

ok oliveoil i'm an anti-smacking parent but I certainly don't spend 30 mins explaining the whys and wherefores of everything and yep, at the end of the day "because I'm the parent and I say so" does underpin all my actions.

maybe DH and i are a bit weird (ok, we're definitely a bit weird) but we had very clear expectations of how we wanted our child to behave and how we get her there. I'm running the risk of offending people but I do find it weird taht lots of things ae pased off as "just a phase", "she's only a baby" and then some parents why their 2 year old is running wild. I caused consternation at a M&T group when DD was about 9 months old. One baby started chucking blocks, was hitting adults and kids but mother just smiled indulgently. DD joined in, I took the blocks away and told her very firmly "no throwing". I was rounded on by a couple of mothers and told "you shouldn't have done that you know, she doesn't understand" etc. I think you have to start somewhere and the earlier you start the easier it is.

Debster, the psychological theory that explains controlled crying is different to the one that explains smacking. In lab tests (admittedly using animals rather than kids!) shock reinforcers do not bring about "learning" in the way that many people assume. It's too dull to exlain and I should do some work...

Ds has never been hit (which is what smacking is) and has never had to be punished as such either. He behaves very well, we dont explain for half an hour at a time, nor does he always ask why. He does understand why he must behave and what is good and bad behaviour. We've never had to humiliate or threaten him with humiliation.

It can be done without hitting. I'm not saying this to be smug just stating how it is for us.

Thank you for responding with an apology Bloss. I am someone that really does try and rocognise another persons point of view, even when I agree or not.

I realise that it is frustrating for you to discuss this topic - but smacking your kids on any given level is condemed widely these days I sure you and other smackers realise.
The reports and recommendations concerning smacking are there to educate parents against potential dangers regarding physical disciplinary action, to try and promote guidelines for sensible and safe parenting, and of course to protect children. They are there to inform not just those families for whom physical abuse is prevalent but for all parents. I would find it very judgemental to assume that because I have a good education etc that I am above those recommendations. (not that I am putting words in your mouth - just how I feel).

Whilst you say that you do not hold any guilt about smacking your children and that it is only done in a controlled manner, in my opinion and others opinion this is not rationale enough to smack a child. The smack given may work to control the immediated situation, true, but given the number of people on this thread who have commented that they don´t like being smacked that they were smacked surely accounts for something? That a child may remember this negatively. Of course it varies according to the child and their personality child. I have never asked my brother and sister if they think it was okay by them, and my sister smacks her ds, so she must not feel as I do.

For me, Custardo and Bloss' postings sum up my approach/views perfectly.

I DON'T see what I do (or might threaten to do) as a form of abuse. I can see that ds is far more likely to be traumatised by "time-outs" or refusal/withdrawal of treats - even though these are our disciplining methods of choice.

The point is that he is a happy, well behaved kid, being taught good parameters of acceptable behaviour, with good manners (says please and thankyou - sometimes without prompting! ) and who will also say sorry (always requires prompting! ).

I am comfortable with the way that we are bringing him up. I feel no guilt about the discipling methods we choose.

But I can accept that others choose different meothds - and it's fantastic that they work for them. I'm not going to judge them - and if they want to judge me, that's their issue.

oh bloss-I'm an anti-smacker who can be perceived as smug due to my confidence in my parenting skills As I think I have said to you before () my biggest problem with smacking is that in RL i've only ever seen "bad" (i.e. lazy, lashing out etc) and I find that unacceptable.

But JanZ its not whether you see your treatment of your children as a form of a abuse, but rather whether they see it as such.

I have bad memories of being smacked as a child in common with most of the people who have posted on this thread. It was done mainly in the way you describe, controlled within a loving setting etc but I still feel that my parents totally abused their power as parents.

The only rationale I put on it is that is was viewed as being acceptable at the time. It still rankles though and it still makes me wonder how they could have possibly justified it to themselves.

You and the other pro-smackers will not have that let out in years to come. When your children look back, if they do view the smacking as a form of abuse, it will be in the full knowledge that you chose this form of punishment at a time when it was against the grain to do so.

I really think it is hard to justify on any grounds. As I said in my earlier post I just don't get it!

And I have to say, Olive Oil, your post actually scares me! You sound like you want to control your children - jump when I say jump style! I'm all for well behaved children but IMO that is going way too far!

wanted to get that last post out cause I discovered everybody else was much quicker than me and I was dwaddling over my post!

I am really not trying to judge to much here. I guess I see smacking as violence and if its used as a last resort to remedy a situation, do not like it might imply to a child. If the child is very young perhaps not too much? but if they are older then maybe it is seen as the only way to resolve a situation, or as a way to dominate others (and there has been a bullying thread running recently)
And what is our world good at doing, fighting. I just wish we would all learn to stop hitting out in all forms. So I see smacking as a whole rather than just a part. Perhaps that was what Glitterfairy was implying in her post about electric chairs etc?

Bloss, I think your analogy of smacking with wiping bottoms is way off. I think even very small children are capable of drawing simple conclusions from the way they are treated. What does a child learn from having their bottom wiped? That their parent will help them do something they can't do themselves. That they are being cared for. That they need to learn themselves and that the parent will help them. What does a child learn from being smacked? That inflicting pain on someone else is the way to win the arguement and to get someone to do what you want them to do.
And the logic of your arguement re: why children are not allowed to hit each other means I presume that if/ when your child is hit in the playground your child will be saying...'you're not allowed to do that...only my Mummy and Daddy are allowed to hit me...' Not that hitting is fundamentally wrong.

Iam with marialuisa I have only seen bad smacking or parnest using it to totall y humiliate their children - I t is great if it works for you but like controlled crying is not something to be considered in our house as in my opinion it takes away independence, personality and dignity. We do not explain things for half an hour at a time if dd can logical say why something should be how she wants then we explore that possibility if she miss-behaves she given the chance to modify her behaviour before we consider time out or no treats - this way she learns about life rather than just behaves how we want her to because she is scared of physical pain or humiliation- I am confident in parenting abilities and am doing the best for my family there is enough conflict in the world without bringing it into the home. Although if it works for you and it is in a better context than I saw in the Mall today then fair play

But Soapbox - I have said repeatedly that ds is far more traumatised by the "time-outs" (being sent to sit on the stairs) than by any of the taps that he has had. Those are the occasions when we have to give him LOTS of hugs afterwards (he gets hugs anyway after any punishment), while his crying subsides into hiccups.

And as I've said, I doubt that we will use it again, as he now has the communication skills to reason with.

I have memories of being punished as a child - including being smacked, and the even more scary threat of having our mouths washed out with soap - but don't recall it as my parents ABusing their power as parents, just simply my parent USING their power as parents. I have more rankling memories of being refused to be allowed to go to my ballet class because I had done/not done something - I can't even remember what.

As I say, I am comfortable with my choices- and that includes justifying my choices to my child in later years. I am sure we will have far more difficult problems or issues to justify/work through - especially when he enter the Kevin the Teenager years. I am sure that WHATEVER we do then is going to TRAUMATISE him forEVER (teenager style italics!)

I think that one of my main hopes is that whilst DD now does things because I say so, that ultimately she will figure out for herself why what i said was right and thus respond appropriately to situations. TBH I think this is happening already (or the signs of it developing are there). So, she recently came and asked if he was allowed to walk on a wall near my work, rather than just scramble up adding "because it's not near the road and it's nobody's garden" so had clearly thought it through. might not sound like much but it did show that explanations do get taken in.

Soapbox - of course I want to control my child, I am the parent ffs! I don't mean control in an army officer way, but control in teaching good behaviour.

and all this 'in the context of a loving relationship' makes me feel very queasy. The rule in our house is that no-one is allowed to hurt anyone else, ever. Smacking has no place if that's your parenting approach.

well said jimmychoos - it always seems to be at odds with the action I suppose time outs can be scary if it not explained why or thay are left on their own somewhere.

Befuddling my way through this parenting lark, I usually feel as if the only training / preparation I have had is my own personality, life and family, and I think the most important thing for parents and children is that their methods are responsive and right for them, together. It isn't right for me, or for my son's personality to smack him. i'm too quick tempered, he's too firece and determined. My Mum did occasionally slap me, and I can't say it impinged on my consciousness much - that was my personality. Smacking certainly was NOT all right for, say MotherInferior or Aloha because they firecely resented it for life. Perhaps the real problem was that their parents were not responding to ChildInferior and BabyAloha and their specific individualities. In principle I feel that smacking is flawed, and it isn't right for my little family, but I don't actually have judgements about Bloss and Custardo because I have respect that they are being good mums and have are parenting from their own strengths, and in response to their childrens's personalities.

Obviously no-one on MN would agree with beating children, replicating the violence meted out to some of us with belts etc, and I do feel sure that in safe families smacking can take place without escalation. And that there are far more damaging experiences for children than being hit once with an open palm on a limb, with less force than it takes to bruise or knock down.

It is important not to mix things up - but I say that as the person who 'came out' on a recent violence in relationship thread as having very occasionally (twice)erupted into fisticuffs with DP in a row. It hasn't escalated, neither of us feel bullied or frightened, no-one has been so much as bruised and it NEVER happened in front of DS- but we don't think it's right, we have both made a big effort to stop it, and I don't think i should we should be leaving each other, any more than I think Bloss and Custy should be condemned for advocating a smack in a stable healthy family. And apologies, Bloss and Custy - I don't mean to ally you with rowing adults who should know better.....but it is a tension in my mind, the way we repond to any outbreak of violence between man and woman....

Blu - that is a lovely, considered posting, respecting everyone's different circumstances.

Side issue, but to go back to MeanBean's attack on journalists, I don't think it is fair to attack the media on every given occasion. That's the way to close down public debate. We might be handy whipping boys for those in power to avoid the real issue. But, for example, it is journalists (including my magazine and Sarah Bosely of the Guardian) and one brave psychiatrist, David Healy, who have exposed the very serious problems with Seroxat. This includes a drug company knowingly peddling medicines that increase the risk of suicide (in children, FFS) as well as causing addiction and hushing up research that would have revealed the true risks. What about the researchers involved? Why didn't they blow the whistle? Why do academic journals and researchers collude in the suppression of information and the promotion of misleading information that can seriously damage or even kill patients? It's not just Seroxat, the issue is wider, and that's just one example of the sort of issue no-one else would do anything about. Remember Thalidomide? Who supported the parents? It wasn't the medical profession. Yes, journalists sometimes get things wrong like anyone else. And yes, if you are aspecialist in a particular field you may well find stories written for a lay audience oversimplified. That's because they are a lay audience and they don't have to read newspapers/magazines closely. No-one is setting them an exam, the newspapers and broadcast media have to compete for people's attention. Researchers have a responsibility to explain their work to the public but that includes focusing on what is interesting and pitching it at the right level. They also have a responsibility to be honest about the limitations of their research rather than exaggerate its importance to inflate drug company share prices, for instance.

Yes Blu that was good for you to say and it reflects alot of what I feel too but had not gotten around to writing

Eddm, I don't think my post constituted "an attack on journalists". As I tried to explain, a criticism of some aspect of a profession is not a condemnation of everyone in that profession. FWIW, I actually agree with what you say in your post (with caveats, but that would be another thread) but I certainly don't see why any profession should be immune from criticism. Sorry.

Message withdrawn

Bloss - whilst I may not agree with your conclusion - that was a bl**dy good post!!

Message withdrawn

I think you may have miss understood what people have been saying and are quick to defend something you obviously believe in. The point I get from it all is there are extremes whatever method we choose to use as parents and in part alot of it is to do with personal values but there is also a keeness to learn about different methods and how potential problems can be avoided. I think I would struggle to explain how it is ok for Mummy or Daddy to smack but no one else. I also agree that any form of dicipline /punishment that causes distress is abusive however well meaning the intention behind it. The most important thing is that there is conistency and fairness and that the hugs follow. having read this thread it reinforces my belief that as for everything there are people who follow a different route and get the same result but there are also people who push things to the extremes and give everyone else a bad name. To sum up I am sure the reason we need to discipline (hate that word) children is so they grow up in to be the best they can be and to be safe and know right from wrong. It should not be to force them to become mini me's or to stop them having their on opinions, views or values or to scare them to stop a particular behaviour and I am sure whatever form we use as kind of brillant parents (why else would be on mumsnet) we never seek to damage our children

ok bloss, in fairness distraction, games etc wouldn't have been that easy in that particular Saturday shoe shop situation. For me it comes down to the fact that I HATE the idea of using my greater stature to physically hurt someone. Similarly I don't think time-out or wahtever partiularly causes emotional distress, it just causes very angry tears and TBH that sort of wailing doesn't bother me. To me, that's very different from tears caused by pain and humiliation. I suppose I also dislike the idea of "punishing", in my own twisted way I don't view time-out as a punishment, it's more an opportunity for everyone to get their head together.

Thinking about this (and attempting to out smug you Bloss) I'm probably not qualified to have a view on this as I don't have one of those kids that cries and wails if their wishes are thwarted. On the few occasions she has been sent to her room (and it has always been for the same thing-being whiney) she has not been remotely upset, has simply had a little think, come down and apologised (with hugs all round) and got on with it.

At the risk of repeating myself, my biggest problem with smacking is that most people simply aren't equipped to treat as a tool in the way the pro-smackers on here describe. Given that, i think it is far better to get rid of it altogether.

OK MeanBean, truce. I wasn't saying journos are beyond criticisim but you did seem to be launching a pretty comprehensive attack.