Is hitting children really the worst thing? (trigger warning)

[johnd2]

So I know this is going to be a controversial topic with an avalanche of triggered replies, so please read carefully to avoid flying off the handle without reading properly!

Before I had kids I assumed that hitting was the ultimate bad thing against a child and everything else (that's legal) that a parent could do would be less bad. I'm not talking about escalating to broken bones or other things, I'm meaning the traditional smacking/slipper/belt or whatever they favoured in times gone by. I'm calling it hitting because that's basically what it is.

But since being a parent I can't really work out why hitting is such a taboo, when there are so many other things that are acceptable but surely do more damage to the children long term?
For example demeaning/shaming your child, controlling them by rejecting them based on whether you approve of their behaviour or not (aka ignore the behaviour you don't like, praise the behaviour you do like), etc etc.

So my question is, is hitting worse or is the associated rejection worse, even if imposed without hitting?

You're simply comparing different forms of abuse.

And no, ignoring an undesirable behaviour isn't rejecting them or controlling, it's a neutral response to behaviour that wants a reaction.

I agree. I was occasionally smacked as a child and have no lasting trauma from that, but I do find myself still affected by my mum's (relatively low-level - she certainly wasn't doing it on purpose) emotional manipulation and parentification of me now two decades later. I don't think she should have done either, obviously.

Hopefully it's not that people think one is okay and other isn't, but that the physical harm element of hitting children was easier for people to get their head round being 'wrong', whereas people are just a bit behind of the potential negative effects of other methods of punishing children. I would hope we'd catch up eventually and realise (on a collective scale) that there are lots of ways to fuck your kids up that you should probably avoid.

The thing is, parents that liberally smack/smacked are more likely to use use other forms of abuse too like shaming,name calling,shouting,silent treatment etc.

The other issue is that approving of smacking in x,y,z conditions does provide a degree of protection and confidence for parents that are/could become abusive.

No smacking as a rule is easier to comprehend ,follow and prevent than where on the body was it, how hard, open hard or with an object, did it leave a mark etc.

I thought ignoring the bad behaviour and praising the good was what you were supposed to do - no?

To answer the question: I don't think hitting is the worst thing but it's the easiest to define/very black and white, whereas "shaming"/"rejection" is often quite a grey area (see above!)

Seriously: can someone please tell me if I'm doing something wrong by ignoring her behaviour?

When I was a child I preferred the beatings to the psychogical abuse and neglect.
Mental torture is worse than violence.

I really dislike the threads on MN asking for advice on 'punishing' and 'disciplining' children. Schools don't talk about punishment anymore but about behaviour management. That is the right way to look at helping children make the right choices with regard to behaviour

What's funny?

It's not clear, but actually that was directed at my previous post which restated my OP in a more straightforward way

I'm meaning the traditional smacking/slipper/belt or whatever they favoured in times gone by. I'm calling it hitting because that's basically what it is.

It's never been 'traditional' or 'favoured' in my family/my own childhood. I was never hit, let alone with an implement. It always made be feel really upset when I heard of others being hit like that. It was never okay, really - just allowed.

Hitting your wife used to be allowed too, but that was never really okay either.

And no - it's not the only way to abuse a child. The emotional and verbal abuse of children is also unacceptable. But none are actually necessary or examples of good parenting, now or back in the history tbh.

In the behaviourist school of thought that is correct, basically positive and negative reinforcement to control their outward behaviour. so the traditional super nanny type of thing.
That is considered outdated according to the literature nowadays. As it leads to internal anxiety and stress and is linked to people pleasing and mental health issues in adults.

However nowadays the internal state of your child, and their relationships with you are the primary target, so behaviour is considered communication of their internal state rather than something to control.
So you would be more like "ok you're whining, sounds like you need a hug and a little chat"

The modern way is a lot more work and requires much more skillful parents with lots of emotional energy, whereas the old way was more of a question of do you like it, yes/no, ok follow this procedure, so very convenient for busy parents.

Hope that helps.

Ignoring behaviour is fine. It's not outdated. Yes there are other parenting styles which don't do this (though all of them do to some extent!) but planned ignoring is specifically a part of positive behaviourism which is still considered a good, evidence based parenting style.

The main argument against behaviourism is that it only addresses the surface behaviour and doesn't look to the root eg that behaviour might be communicating an unmet need, or discomfort, or difficulty in some area.

But if it's working well for your child and you're not using harsh aversive punishment then this might not be a problem.

Yep totally agree there is loads of very solid and repeatable evidence all the commonly known behaviourist strategies work really well for controlling behaviour.

More recent evidence also associates overuse with long term problems, but it's much easier to find short term than long term evidence. I don't have access to link any studies at the moment but maybe someone else would have them handy.

Behaviour management is very fashion driven and also a very personal choice, so it's hard to argue which is right. I guess when I said modern I should have said latest fashion!

It comes down to whether you want well behaved children or go for the "All behaviour is communication" route.

Somewhere in the middle is probably more sustainable for most real families.

I agree with this. I would never hit my children, but I am not traumatised by the times I was hit as a child.

I wouldn't hit my children because I don't think it's very nice, I don't want to teach violence, and I don't think it's effective either. But there are some horrible things my mother did when I was a child that upset me far more to think about now.

So true, and adults timed-out as children just find it embarrassing and really silly.

So my question is, is hitting worse or is the associated rejection worse, even if imposed without hitting?

It’s all BAD and TABOO.
As to which is worse, it depends on how often and how deeply you physically, vs verbally vs emotionally vs psychologically abuse the child as to particular mess of a life you will create.