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.

people always say, 'not all', along with choice phrases like, 'i'm not racist but'.

jesus you went from black people beat their children (not all of course) and tend to be religious to talking about gang violence (but said white people too so i guess that is ok). if no one sees an issue there i'm surprised.

Many have said they were smacked as children, but know it is bad to hit children, ever.

Lets remember, that while they were wrong, our parents were told to spare the rod was to spoil the child. This was the lead set at school, also. We were only one decade off of the cane. There were rulers and blackboard dusters used by the teachers. So it makes me sad to see that some feel their relationship was damaged with their parents. It was the doctrine of the day, don't hold it against them.

We just need to remember it is wrong and we aren't expected to hurt our beautiful children ever, for any reason.

The wouldn't hit an adult seems a weak one - most of us also wouldn't ask an adult to sit on a naughty step or withdraw sweeties. Of course violence is wrong - just as leaving children neglected after being sent to their room would be abuse.
I spanked my young children briefly and certainly not voilently (and for one of them it was so effective I only had to spank her twice in her life).
Discipline is good & different methods work best for diffferent personalities. I understand everyones reservations - I have them too, but the power of horrid words, condemnation & withdrawl of affection can have longer lasting concesquences than a behaviour being dealt with calmly, quickly, forgiven & sorted, which can sometimes be seen very clearly by a child who takes their punishment, it is quickly over, is repentant and moves on.

Nothing to do with smacking but
Sockreturningpixie you sound a bit laid back about sockets...
You are right - Uk sockets are relatively safe - unless something is pushed into the earth pin and live at same time ...the argument for why 'safety covers' make sockets more dangerous. But as DCs get older they are more likely to push 'things' in or half pull plugs out (although modern plugs should have pin protectors on live and neutral... and modern MCBs have RCDs that should cut out ). The danger isn't the two year old sticking their finger in a socket - it is the 3-4-5 year old with the hair slides/lolly sticks whatever ...
If you can, put heavy furniture in front of them, otherwise you have to teach them (whatever method you use) that they are incredibly dangerous as soon as they show any inclination to go near them ...with the fat fingered 2 year old you will have the chance -with the 4 year old by the time you realise they are playing with it - it might be too late...

Smacking teenagers? There are other ways to commuticate with them I would say and more effective one's.

My dad smacked me, I don't remember many occasions as such, however, I do remember that sometimes when he was upset with me he ignored me for days - never forget that.

I don't smack my DC, I use other cosequences and talking to them.

"I spanked my young children briefly and certainly not voilently (and for one of them it was so effective I only had to spank her twice in her life). "

How can you spank somebody not violently?

Personally I won't be smacking my DD - I'm pretty sure there are other methods I could use that don't send the message that hitting is ok.

However, I was smacked as a child. It was done out of love, and I haven't suffered any negative effects as a result. I was a wilful child and sometimes just pushed things too far. I deserved every smack I got.

I would also just say that I think it is probably just as humiliating to be told to sit on a naughty step. That was the thing about being smacked. It wasn't the fact it hurt (which yes, sometimes it hurt a little). It was the humiliation. I'm pretty sure being marched to a naughty step is equally humiliating.

There is a huge difference between smacking and abuse.

I guess though, overall, I would say that some people do take it too far, and it's not a smack, it's definitely a hit. For that reason alone, I think smacking should be banned.

seeker:
My definitions:
Violence either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury.
Spanking causes brief temporary pain (or shame)- a training tool for disciplining an individual.

"Spanking causes brief temporary pain (or shame)- a training tool for disciplining an individual."

So long as that individual is a child?

I have absolutely no issues with smacking whatsoever. I think its a tool in the parenting toolkit but shouldn't be considered the only option. There is a difference between discipline (with love) and child abuse. The law acknowledges this.

"I love you sooooo much I'm going to hit you"

Domestic law might recognise a parent's right to discipline a child physically but english law goes against evidence and also against international recommendations. Allowing some physical discipline has been linked with escalation of violence and in Sweden which has had a ban longest banning it did not result in criminalisation of parents, reduces child deaths at the hands of the parents to zero and did not result in any change in anti-social behaviour. A German study found no measurable effect on anti-social behaviour of most children but certain children were very negatively affected by it if I remember correctly. I just think why? There are risks of it, without being dramatic and there are no measurable benefits on an individual basis or a societal one, the ONLY argument is one about parents being allowed to do what they want to a child and that's no better an argument than men being allowed to do what they like to their wives and daughters is it?

I'm going to be honest here and I will probably be flamed. I have on occasion smacked my children, it was something I said I would never do. The first I did it I was mortified, my DS was then 3 and he ran off and was missing for 5 minutes. I was beside myself with panic and worry and when he turned up I smacked him. Others may frown on this, but he has never done the same thing since. I was smacked as a child occasionally and I don't believe that it did me any harm. Personally I think society is far too child centred these days and there are occasions when smacking can be the only way to get through to children in situations such as the one I described above. Children seem to think they rule the roost, whereas back in the day we had to fit in with adults and if you ask me we had a lot more respect. Sometimes I think there is a time for saying enough is enough, the way you are behaving is completley unacceptable and letting that be known. Back in the day people were allowed to trust their own parenting instincts and there wasn't nearly as much self-analysis and discussion, not to mention pressure. I can't help thinking that parents (hey we do matter) and children were happier and better behaved.

There are risks of it, without being dramatic and there are no measurable benefits on an individual basis or a societal one, the ONLY argument is one about parents being allowed to do what they want to a child and that's no better an argument than men being allowed to do what they like to their wives and daughters is it?

Well said. This is indeed the heart of it for me.

Well perhaps my children and step children are just unbelievably dull because not one of them have ever attempted to stick anything other than a plug into a plug socket.

I've posted a few pages back, but to summarise I think any form of physical discipline is a no-no. I've seen a few posts along the lines of "smacking is ok before age 5/6/7 etc" - what changes when the child of a smacking parent has their xth birthday? Having been on the receiving end of slapping, grabbing, dragging by hair, scratching etc I feel I can say with some conviction that my age at each particular point had not crossed the mind of the parent responsible, and during such episodes they almost certainly were not capable of rational thought. Admittedly I'm describing what could potentially be at the more extreme end of the spectrum, but I would be concerned that if a parent smacked up to a certain age there is no reason not to continue beyond it perhaps into early adulthood should the circumstances present themselves.

^Working9while5, I cannot tell you how much your comment about denying personal responsibility has pissed me off. Whilst I may be responsible for my actions, the reason behind them is a mental illness, and the reason behind that is partially due to my parents smacking me.

That's not denying my responsibility, that's not refusing to grow up. It's having lived with a severe disorder for many years, without understanding why I act the way I do, then spending a long time rationalising my own behaviors to find the root cause.

It's fantastic for you if your past doesn't define you, but some of us are psychologically incapable of dismissing our pasts, and to make those comments is an insult to the way we struggle. Be it with a diagnosed disorder, or with the relationships with our parents, or anything else.^

Nobody is psychologically incapable of dismissing their past and if anyone has told you this in the course of treating your illness they should be strung up.

I have a "psychiatric disorder" too. I don't believe that way of viewing human suffering is helpful. I prefer the newer literature on Acceptance and Commitment Therapy and Mindfulness which frees people, regardless of diagnosis, from the belief that they are defined by mental illness. This includes psychosis, schizophrenia etc and there is good research evidence that it works.

The simple question is, has thinking this way made you feel better? If not, then what have you got to lose by loosening your grip on the story that it led to your disorder?

To be fair, I have been clear I am not talking about sustained physical/emotional/sexual abuse.. I am talking about the sort of smacking that most people experienced in the 70's and 80's. I don't know your story, but I think if that fits you and you think that mental illness arose out of that, that particular story is not helpful and it might be harmful to you and prevent recovery.

I'm really pleased that there is a move towards recovery in mental health because it is just awful for anyone to believe they are psychologically incapable of being able to live their lives with their actions not defined by fear, hatred or past hurts. What's not to like? What's to like about believing that because you experienced x, y or z a gazillion years ago you are not "psychologically incapable of dismissing your past"? That language is trapping you in disorder NOW.

I'm not sure the above makes much sense...I'm sleep deprived...what I'm trying to say is - I'm not sure I understand how a parent can hit their child only up to a certain age, and beyond that use non-physical discipline on the basis of their age alone. If a child is hit for, say, knocking over the 5foot marble run when they are 5, what happens if they knock it over age 7, or 9, or 11? Is the parent who was so riled they slapped their own child when they were younger and smaller going to refrain from hitting their older, bigger child just because they are older? the mind boggles