Please give me some good arguments for NOT smacking a child...........my brother has just said I am ridiculous and I am cross.

[Majeika]

My youngest bro emailed us to ask our opinions on discipline and smacking. He has a 10m old boy.

I said that I had smacked mine but that in hindsight I wouldnt again as I really didnt believe in it.

I then said, 'You wouldnt hit another adult so why hit a young child?'

My other bro (who winds me up anyway) said that was a ridiculous thing to say and that he does smack his children.

I understand the difference between hit and smack blah blah but it is essentially the same thing. Youngest bro is talking about smacking DN on the leg or hand to stop him doing something. I said you can do this in a low toned voice............

Comments please. and HELP ME get one over on my annoying arsehole brother........

Smack your brother, then say "you know, you're right, it does seem to help"

[sorry not constructive. Have had wine]

lol - I would but he is 6ft 4 and a sanctimonious sod!

Or you could respond "I stand corrected. Smacking is entirely appropriate if you are so inarticulate that when someone has a different point of view from you you are incapable of rebutting their argument, still less refuting it, and can only describe it as 'ridiculous'. Under those circumstances you're unlikely to be able to manage non-violent discipline effectively..."

stay out of it and let them find their own way

Ooh no Twig - am itching for a non violent verbal scrap with said brother!!

What Port and Stilton said.

It achieves nothing, you only feel guilty afterwards, it basically meanes you've lost control of the situation, it teaches the child that hitting is OK bla bla bla...

Turn the question round - why smack.

Anything he suggests can be done without the need to smack, so why add violence?

only answer.

it doesn't work.

it doesn't teach anyone anything. it hurts your child and it makes you feel bad.

and i've smacked mine. in temper. to stop them doing something. to try and teach them not to do something. and it really achieved noting at all.

better to explain yourself calmly with words

a kids behaviour is often a reflection of the parents behaviour

it will teach the child to hit others

Before I had DS I thought I would be ok with smacking where absolutely necessary - he is 1 yo now and I haven't been tempted yet nor should I, nor could I even contemplate hitting my PFB at this stage!

OTOH, I am trying to find a way to stop him knocking off the globe shade from the lightbulb above my bed, cos he tries to put his hand on the lit bulb, and despite having already managed this once, and suffering a burnt finger [oh the shame], I can't seem to stop him going back to it. And still I haven't considered smacking him.
Nor even when he bit me, quite hard, on the shoulder...

Not sure that's at all helpful, sorry!

There is (IMO) no difference between smacking someone and hitting someone - except in the the intention.

The result is the same - that is - a big person (who ought to be able to keep their cool and argue their way out of a disagreement) hurts a small person.

Leave it - a heated discussion isn't going to resolve anything.

The best argument against is that it's an escalator, unfortunately.

Either you've got a child with a good memory for consequences and good impulse-control - in which case you don't need to smack, as they learn the easy way from being told off once or twice ...

or you've got a child with a poor memory for consequences, poor impulse-control, poor ability to generalise - to get through to which child will demand smack after smack after smack, as the smack-requiring situations repeat themselves, and the child goes on not learning, even the hard way

You just don't want to go there. I have a child in each category, and I am quite conscious that I might have chosen to be a smacker with my son (who's the one with the difficulties) (and, accordingly, really grateful for MN helping me in years gone by to think very hard on this one).

My Mum and dad used to smack us, but from what I can remember, I got to an age where I wanted to hit back but couldn't work out why they were allowed but if I did it then I was in big trouble

Yeah, leave it be. It's one of those arguments that is destined to disappear up a series of assorted arses.

Violence begets violence.

How's this: If you use smacking as a form of discipline all your kids will learn is how to smack.

If you actually bother to engage your brain and think about what the problem is (i.e why your child is being naughty) then (a) you can identify problems which you may have caused and address them them appropriately; (b) you can teach your child not only that their behaviour is inappropriate, but why it's inappropriate. You can then help them in a constructive way to change their behaviour. This form of discipline can also boost the relationship btw parent and child, whereas a smack is just a smack.

Also children who are smacked lots frequently end up hitting back, leaving the relationship in a cycle of smacking. Pointless, stressful and miserable.

(hi, thumbelf! I'm like you - used to think I'd do it if necessary but now can't see how it could possibly help me achieve my goals as a parent - i.e. to bring up children who can think for themselves and make intelligent decisions about their behaviour). Absolutely no point in smacking, IMO.

xx

umm, except that I've never slapped my kid, and he punches the crap out of me every day.

No hard and fast rules need apply. Let him bring his kids up the way he sees fit .. and you do the same.

wish someone would tell my DS that - he just loves smacking us and we have never smacked him at all!

Most people only smack their children when they have lost their temper and can't deal with the situation a better way. So they are demonstrating a lack of parenting skills. (And I'm not being holier-than-thou because I've done it myself when mine were little.)

One day he will have to stop smacking his children. You can't very well smack a 6-foot 16 year old, can you? He will argue that his smacks don't hurt. No, they don't... what they do is humiliate.

That's not nice, is it? Why does he want to humiliate his children into behaving differently. They will just become resentful.

My 2 are 13 and 15 and I don't really punish them as such. If one of them has behaved in a thoughtless or otherwise unacceptable way I tell them why I think they are wrong and ask them to think about it. That usually 'punishes' them more severely than anything I could dish out. Sometimes I ask them to do something to make up for what they have done eg ds1 has forgotten his musical instrument several times lately, so I've had to drive up to school to collect it. The 3rd time this happened I said that I had had to waste my time going back again so I would like him to clean the bathroom for me. Bless him, he apologised and said of course he would.

If you treat children with maturity and respect you will reap the benefits. No problem teenagers in my house!

One advantage of not hitting your children is that when they do hit you you can say "we don't hit in this family" or "I don't hit you and I expect you not to hit me", or similar.

Eachpeachpearmum beat me to it It's only goimg to teach them that it is acceptable to use violence in difficult situations.

Though that said I have smacked dd1 occasionally but its only after nothing else works and she is doing something that will endanger her i.e. "pls don't walk into the road dd. ddd away from the road. DD!! ROAD!!"

I believe brothers can be arses.

but still.

Bollocks to leaving it, you are his sister and therefore able to give unwanted, (maybe life changing) advice as you see fit.

So, two options, you explain as the lovely sensible posters here describe... or

how about you smack him next time he disagrees with you and smile and explain rationally that you did it for educational purposes.

You are his big sis after all you probably should.