Smacking 'does no harm if a child feels loved': do you agree?

[HelenMumsnet]

Hello.

We're wondering how you feel about new research that suggests smacking does children no harm as long as they know it is for the right reasons and feel loved.

The publication of this study - which focused on teenagers, it must be said - is causing quite a stir, with, according to the Telegraph, 'parenting groups and charities [reacting] angrily to the findings, [and] maintaining that a child can suffer long term damage from physical discipline'.

In Britain, parents are not banned from smacking their children but it is illegal to inflict injuries causing more than a temporary reddening of the skin.

So, do you agree that smacking is fine, as long as it's tempered with a backdrop of love and affection? Or do you think that smacking is never the answer? Please do tell.

The smacking was cathartic yes. But it usually signalled to the children that their behaviour had gone beyond the bounds of what I was able to cope with. And it did usually draw a line underneath the situation for the time being.

It was pretty much always followed by an apology and an acknowledgement from both of us that this is not a good way to be as a family.

Should add, that my children's peers at school are predominantly from immigrant families, mostly African and Caribbean. Smacking is considered to be non-problematic in many of these families and is often considered part of normal parenting practice. Many of the mothers at the school gate would be deeply offended and angry on reading this thread.

Thanks for responding, Shagmund. I know I'm far more sympathetic to someone reacting in that way during a difficult time than sitting down in a quiet, contemplative (perhaps even pre-children) moment and positively deciding on smacking as a discipline strategy. The latter gives me the creeps.

I can acknowledge that a smack can have a desired effect at a particular time - whether it has other unintended consequences as well is another matter. In some cases it will genuinely be the difference between Mummy Losing Her Shit or not, or Johnny Electrocuting Himself or not, or whatever.

It's smacking as a permanent strategy that baffles me. Surely the expectation or repetition would lessen the impact.

Incidentally I've heard adults say they preferred to be smacked than eg grounded because it was over sooner. I'd say that's an argument against efficacy too...

If it worked you would do it once.

You can't tell a child not to hit if you do. The only message they get is 'those that are bigger and stronger can do it'.

I agree with most of the arguments against smacking children. But for me, the main reason I choose not to physically hurt my children is that it normalises doing that. So when a child makes a parent really angry, it will seem normal to really hurt them. The physical violence will become a habit.

Both of my parents hit me when I was a teenager (15 or so). I am sure I could be very annoying. But hitting was the only weapon in their arsenal, as it were. They hadn't thought up any other suitable strategies to encourage me to behave well. And by then, they had lost control.

I remember my mother speaking to a woman at the church about how she had lost control, and banged my (5 yo?) sister's head against the chest freezer. But that it had been a good thing, in the end, because the children all behaved really well then for the rest of the afternoon. (Well duh!) Would she have banged her head if she hadn't started off with "little smacks"? I don't think so!

i think children (and people as a whole) are capable of more nuanced thinking than that. my son knows the difference between a parent smacking a child who is being naughty and a big person smacking people smaller than them 'because they can'. i think all children do.

however i agree with all this logic if you are talking about beating children or using children as ways to feel big and powerful or are generally a bully as a parent.

i don't think it applies to a few taps on the hand as a toddler.

There is no difference

I don't have a single friend who wasn't smacked by their parents. I am of that age where smacking your children was quite normal, but using things like belts or a spoon would have been considered too much (so 1970's).

Even my mum, who was very much of the non-violent parenting approach smacked me on the back of the legs once. I was being very cheeky. I only remember it (when threads like this come up) but honestly, it's just insignificant and trivial compared with the things that I remember defining my childhood, and I'm extremely close to my mum and see her every day.

I did feel sorry for some of my friends whose parents were much more of the smacking/hitting variety. Having said that, we have all stayed close to our parents and continue our relationships for 40/50 years, so I'm not sure that a few smacks in childhood really do define those relationships for everyone, although I feel there is a big difference between some of the abusive behaviour described which doesn't seem to me similar to the odd smack, but is hard to define what that difference is in words.

Some of the stories of abuse make my blood curdle and are just so far removed from my own childhood which was very happy (with the odd smack) which is quite a different thing. I think there is a good argument for banning smacking on this basis (that some parents are unable to rein it in or use it as a basis for abuse) even though I don't personally feel the odd smack aged 2/3 is a big deal in a loving parenting relationship (or makes it not loving).

V good and balanced post Mumsy.

Oh my living Lord...YAWN!

Why do these threads keep coming up again and again? Why are Mumsnet starting them, when they know full well that the smacking thread comes up routinely on here (the last one was only about 8 weeks ago and was Discussion of the Day la la la), with some of the same views again and again and the same arguments. And often the same people. Although, as usual, swallowedafly, I like your views.

Every time a new thread starts there are rows and comments deleted and people getting upset, so Mumsnet, why start it up? Glad to see though that Mumsnet don't delete comments simply because they are reported.

Stupid question perhaps but why on earth does smacking a child who puts fingers near a plug socket prevent them being electrocuted?

If your in the uk and your plugs are legal fingers won't fit in and they have a safety feature that prevents electrocution.

So a stern no and removal of child is fine because no urgent omg your about to die is happening,

And the road thing why wouldn't you either hold hands or use reins

And here we go with 'if it worked you would only do it once.'

I'm not a fan of smacking (although I have done it) but isn't that the same with any form of discipline? If there was any one thing that 'worked' then the lucky parents stumbling upon this formula for effective discipline/punishment would have kids who never cross any boundaries ever, after that first administration of wonderfully effective but gentle chiding.

I'm sure someone will pop up now and say they in fact never discipline at all, simply reward good behaviour. And as a result their children are never cheeky, or backchatty or rude, or mean to another child. Not ever, in 365 days of every year. And that is bollocks of course.

So we are back to this 'smacking does no harm' in xyz proscribed extremely limited circumstance and is therefore ok. Nevermind that being hit, no matter how minorly, may well affect feelings of being loved.... Nevermind that the possibility that smacking may not harm some children in some circumstances is not an argument in favour of it.

Simply put these arguments are about justifying the ownership of children as property by adults and I completely agree with shallishanti. Asking teenagers? It was not until I became an adult and a parent myself that I fully identified the lasting damage done from being smacked, how can you identify the damage done by parents you are still living with, nevermind express it?

When we are thinking about appropriate and healthy ways to raise children the debate should be entirely focused on the overall benefits od various approaches. There is no evidence to suggest that smacking is in any way beneficial and there is plenty to suggest that legal smacking such as we have here contributes not just to individual but societal harm.

I think the concept of 'harmful' is interesting though, especially self-reported harm. For example my friend who grew up in violent circumstances would not consider himself harmed by being punched in the face during an argument because his margins have been adjusted to consider violence as par for the course. He is chronically drug addicted, long term unemployed and struggling with normal life. I would suggest the fact he does not consider being punched as harmful to himself is because he is harmed. Although this is an extreme example clearly children who are socialised to accept violence of whatever level are not going to identify that violence as harmful to themselves at the very least until they are extricated from that social environment. If it is the wider culture then they may never be, if it is the family they may be when they achieve independence but this (subjective perception of having been harmed) is not relevant in any way to a productive debate on what the law should say about smacking, that needs to be looked at more objectively. Clearly.

thanks dilys - i didn't check back to see if i'd been deleted.

I do think there is a bit of confusion on here sometimes about what constitutes abusive language or personal attack, and therefore which comments should be removed. Simply not liking it when someone doesn't like your username doesn't really count

shagmund The afro caribean families you're mentioning are VERY interesting in that they often (not always of course) are religious and think that to 'spare the rod is to spoil the child' I'll never forget seeing twin girls of about 7 with their father on a railway platform, they were literally standing dead still and mute due to their fear of their father. Who had raised his fist at them when one of them just spoke quietly to him.

It made me feel sick and I was thinking how could I or should I report this?

blimey now special needs adults are just like three year olds AND black people beat their children and are mostly religious.

But lots of black people do 'beat' their children.

It is much more accepted in caribbean and african culture to physically chastise your child.

Being scared to mention it is why it is rarely challenged.

Yes its true Amber and if swallowed had read my post correctly she would 've noticed I said 'not all'.

The adolescents in gangs both black and white have probably come from violent backgrounds so growing up with beatings doesn't seem to keep them under control does it?

In fact in the 50s and 60s when corporal punishment was accepted as a correct form of education there were many violent mods and rocker and teddy boy gangs about.

I get why people sometimes lose their cool and smack a child's hand away from an electric socket etc. It's not really a choice then it's a reaction.

But I absolutely don't see why or how smacking could be justified as a positive or healthy choice where discipline is concerned.

Nope. Have tried to understand, and don't. I think it's lazy and potentially damaging.

" I think it's lazy and potentially damaging."

As are your generalisations. Gang culture is as old as human civilisation, it didn't start in the 1950s with corporal punishment and teddy boy gangs or with black people coming off the boat from Jamaica.