When does a slap become abuse?

[TheRhubarb]

Now I realise this will get a very emotive response so if you feel that you are getting upset by this thread then please do hide it. I am not here to play on anyone's feelings but I have been wondering about something for a couple of days now and wanted other people's opinions.

I have seen a few threads on Mumsnet where a parent has become really angry with their child and slapped them in anger. They are then very remorseful, come onto Mumsnet and for the most part they are consoled and told that it wasn't all their fault, that it can happen to the most patient of us, etc etc.

Yet someone can post about their partner giving them a slap once, in anger, in the heat of an argument. That partner can be full of remorse but they are a violent bully and the other person a victim of domestic abuse.

So I wanted to know where the distinction lies? Why is it different to slap children and not adults? Is there any distinction between lashing out in rage once and repeated abuse over a period of time?

I'm not here to defend any form of violence or aggression by the way, I am just curious as to what is the difference between slapping a child and an adult and why they both get very different responses on Mumsnet.

There is no difference both are wrong. If you think its ok to express your displeasure with a child by slapping it you can't really complain if someone else sees it as fitting either to slap you!

The utterly different relationship argument doesn't stand up respect is respect and aggression aggression. You can dress them up how you like to justify

zerointerest, those are calculated punishments.

Perhaps I'm not explaining myself very well. There is a difference between a calculated punishment to make a child, say sit on the naughty step and one that results out of pure anger.

My point is that many posters on Mumsnet will sympathise with a mother who admits to hitting her child out of anger.
Less posters will sympathise with a man who admits to doing the same thing.
Hardly any posters will sympathise with a man who admits to doing that with his wife.

Noddy, I'm not arguing in favour of smacking! I'm pointing out why different rules apply. (I do not smack the kids, and I agree it is wrong to do so.)

The difference is punishment. We all accept that parents must (and should) punish children, whether it's the naughty step or a good telling off or sending to their room or taking away a toy or no pudding. Some people will argue that smacking is also an acceptable for of punishment.

However, no form of punishment is acceptable in a relationship with your partner. Whether it's the silent treatment or a slap, it's not okay, you're expected to talk it out like adults.

You never say to your DP: you didn't eat your veggies so no pudding for you. You ought to say that to your child, though.

When I sent my kids to the naughty step, it was out of pure anger.

I wouldn't have sympathy for a husband or a wife who hit their partner.

I would have sympathy for a mother or father who smacked a child, regretted it, and took steps to make sure it never happened again.

Athriticfingers, I am not debating penal reform. If you support removal of priviledges for some types of behaviour but not others where do you draw that line? How bad does an individual's behaviour have to get before you step in and control it?

My point is that if you fail remove privileges or otherwise discipline a child when they act in an anti-social, selfish or abusive way towards people or property what is to deter them from escalating this behaviour until it BECOMES criminal?

And what message is that sending? The child has never had their rights restricted or boundaries enforced by negative consequences for more minor versions of such behaviour so why wouldn't they expect to continue unchecked in ever more extreme acts of selfishness or self-indulgence?

We discipline children and show them that negative actions have negative consequences to prevent them from crossing boundaries which would lead to criminal acts as adults. To protect society as a whole.

Whether that is by hitting, grounding, naughty steps, removal of entitlements to freedom, entertainment etc. or other methods is up to the parents of course but those methods have to be effectual and practical in order to raise children who add value to society rather than are a danger to or drain on it.

I am still interested to know what disciplinary methods you DO support.

I agree with rhubarb re the double standards. The 'I just lost it" argument is used in both cases and both the 'hitters' are adults

zerointerest, that is interesting. Why would you have sympathy for one and not the other? What is different in each case? The need for punishment?

All slapping is abuse. I don't understand either why some people think that hitting a small child (more defenceless and vulnerable than an adult) is in any way acceptable. Perhaps it is habituation and because they can get away with it, and have got away with it in the past. People also repeat their own childhoods, sadly. Great post.

If you hit a small child and they hit you back then what?

Some parents want to smack their children. That became clear to me from various discussions. They will defend smacking till the cows come home, and no reasonable argument or suggestions of other things to do will change their minds. As long as it's considered ok, they will do it.

As for the difference between smacking/hitting an adult and a child, there is none, and I see no distinction. Both are wrong.

To add, parents smack their children out of anger and not their partners because the child is an easy target who doesn't have anyone to complain to. They will claim that they lost it, but the fact of the matter is everyone loses it now and again, but not everyone hits. If you are a person who can't control their temper enough not to be violent then you need to question whether your children are safe in your care.

Cailin, some people smack partners out of anger and then are full of remorse and guilt. There is little sympathy for them, even if they had never done anything like it before. Yet most posters, and I do mean most, will sympathise with a parent who smacks out of anger and shows full remorse.

In your case you believe both to be equally wrong. But I do think that perhaps you might be in a minority because even those parents who have never hit a child, can sympathise more with those who did it as a one-off than they can with people who have hit their partners.

to be fair, most people who come here to post about their partners violence against them have had much more than 'a smack' - we're often talking broken bones here, not that any kind of physical violence is excusable.
I don't think it's fair to give the impression that people coming here for support RE Domestic violence are not really in any danger.

When it was going through the courts, etc men used the exact same reasons to continue to hit their wives as parents now do to be allowed to continue to hit their children.

Dueling, I don't think anyone is saying that at all.
I made the distinction earlier between one-off slaps and continued violence and I in no way started this thread to defend domestic violence in any form and you would be very very wrong to imply that I don't think people who suffer abuse are not in any danger.

This is the trouble with Mumsnet. I have offered no real opinions of my own on this thread I don't think. Yet already it is implied that I am having a go at those who suffer DV without offering any evidence on which to base that implication.

I am interested in why there is often sympathy and support for a mother who has smacked her child out of anger, yet there is a different response for a father who smacks his child and again a different response for an adult who smacks out of anger.

The only answer to that Rhubarb is that people need to justify the fact that they hit their own children. If they admit that hitting a child is wrong then they'd have to take a hard look at themselves and not many people are able to do that. That said, I'm glad that people who have hit their children feel they can come on here and admit it. I just don't agree with them being mollycoddled and told it's ok because it's not. They need to apologise to their child and do something solid to ensure that it never happens again.

To be fair I think if an adult came on MN and said "I've hit my partner, I don't know what happened, I am so sorry about it and I want to make sure it doesn't happen again" I think most posters would say "Ok you did something very wrong but as long as you're willing to sort it out you should be ok." Hitting is wrong, always, but if you recognise that afterwards and make a very firm commitment to make sure it doesn't happen again then I think that can repair things.

Skimmed so probably a mistake to post

One of the differences surely is that children can be incredibly infuriating

With a small child you can't walk away
They won't stop even when you are totally wound up
They are capable of, as my friend puts it, "trying the patience of a saint"

I have never hit either of my children but I have really felt like giving them a good thump from time to time.

I would not be in a relationship with someone who "tried the patience of a saint" so it hasn't come up!

Plus with an adult you can walk away.

How about this: women (occasionally) make use of the law against GBH - which has always existed. Children (alone) can't. However, (and here I would dispute Rhubarb's original proposition that there is a difference in how we view impulsive violence against women and that against children) both women and children (here the similarity) lack power in society and the 'I am all powerful; cannot control myself; lost it' excuse is used in both cases without creating much scandal.

"How about this: women (occasionally) make use of the law against GBH - which has always existed"

What does this mean?

You mean that when women are beaten up they sometimes go to the police? GBH involves serious injury.

I'm mainly interested in the perceptions and not why people choose to do what they do.

I'm interested in a society that will seek to justify children being hit by pushed and overwrought parents, but will not tolerate hitting between adults who are also pushed over the edge.

I'm not saying that one is better than the other. But that distinctions are made between acts of violence depending on who is carrying out the violence and who is on the receiving end and I'm curious as to find out why.

A mother who has lashed out is treated differently than a father and adults who hit children in a temper are treated differently than adults who hit their partners in a temper.

I'm not sure you can use the argument that you can walk away from an adult. You can also walk away from a child. Yes they do try your patience but is there anything more heated and emotionally charged than a huge argument with your partner? Esp if it's an argument over betrayal of trust or a similar highly emotive subject.

I wonder if a parent is forgiven because that child grows up, changes behaviour and so it's unlikely to be a life sentence, but once you cross the line in a marriage/partnership you can't uncross it.

I was going to touch upon that Posie. If you slap a child once and are remorseful then the perception is that you will not do it again, that it was not your fault, that you were pushed, etc.

If you slap your partner once and are remorseful then many peoples perception is that one slap is the start of something more. You then cross the line to become an abuser.

Is there ever such a thing as a one-off incident? Why does it seem that there is when it comes to children but not when it comes to adults?

I think it's a power thing, parents do have power and control over their children. But power instantly shifts the moment a person is hit.