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.

I don't think this could be properly discussed on here as anyone that is in agreement would just be shot down.

I do think there are people that take smacking to the extremes of abuse - but I have seen many mothers who scream abuse at their kids, swearing at them and calling them names, but say that smacking is worse - to me, emotional abuse is just as bad.

I was given smacks as a child - as a last resort, or for really bad behaviour. I don't think it did me any harm - I had a very close relationship with my dad. I think it helped me respect my elders - something that is missing from the UK today.

Really, this pointless debate needs to stop now. Shame on Mumsnet for stirring up yet again something that gets so many of us worked up and cross, when they know it just means days of arguments.... and some people take it to heart. Anyone who uses this forum regularly knows how tiresomely often smacking comes up. None of you will ever make anyone else see the supposed error of their ways, on either side.

Perhaps if the debate ends here Mumsnet might stop trying so hard to be at the centre of controversy.

Not sure how you reason with a 2 year old especially when they decide that what they want to do differs from what you want them to do...like running across a road or doing something dangerous as children are prone to do...how do you explain dangerous to a 2 year old? Exactly how do children learn the difference between what is right and what is wrong if they arent told off and occasionally spanked! The reason you wouldnt spank a adult is because hopefully they would have learnt all of those things as a child! I think there needs to be a little bit more common sense around here!

Having your possesions taken or missing treats does not make a child feel unloved?
Why is it ok to take someones belongings or not let them take part in activities but not ok to smack?
It was more damaging the amount of time spent in time out and the social isolation and it had no effect - NONE!
Here is a bike but you cant use it.
Everyone is watching a film but you have to go to bed.
I felt like a prison warden, always watching and threatening and issuing consquences.
It was more damaging to the other two to be constantly abused, verbally and physically. To never sit through a meal without being kicked or called names.
The only thing he avoided was discomfort so I resorted to causing discomfort when his behaviour was not acceptable.
Usual methods worked with the other two but not with him.
He refused to make any attempt to earn rewards on offer.
I offered money, time and gifts.
We tried charts. We tried diet.
He has always had one to one time every evening.
It would be different if I was smacking daily but I no longer need to.
I can usually remind him what will happen and he stops .
He is much much happier and so are his family.
Why if my parenting is so bad are my eldest and youngest kind and responsive with out being smacked.

"how do you explain dangerous to a 2 year old?"
You can't.

So you keep them safe.

Thinking about why one child might decide to persecute his siblings with kicks and insults - the most likely answer is envy. If that child feels the others get more attention than him (bearing in mind a child isn't equipped to make allowances for things like their mum being overwhelmed by the birth of a younger child, or an older sib starting school) he may well feel very angry towards them.

Being naughty may succeed from his point of view - he gets full attention, albeit shouts and smacks - but it's a poor solution. The important thing about attention-seeking behaviour is that the child needs attention! Better, surely, to divert the effort expended on control & punishment into positive, one-to-one attention. That way, the child loses his fury towards his siblings and becomes more emotionally stable.

"how do you explain dangerous to a 2 year old?"

Smackers seem convinced their toddlers understand the danger of "You'll get a smack!" You can't have it both ways. Do they or don't they?

"Having your possesions taken or missing treats does not make a child feel unloved?
Why is it ok to take someones belongings or not let them take part in activities but not ok to smack?
It was more damaging the amount of time spent in time out and the social isolation and it had no effect - NONE!
Here is a bike but you cant use it.
Everyone is watching a film but you have to go to bed.
I felt like a prison warden, always watching and threatening and issuing consquences.
It was more damaging to the other two to be constantly abused, verbally and physically. To never sit through a meal without being kicked or called names."

I wouldn't use any of the punishments you're suggesting as alternatives. There is something wrong here. Your little boy doesn't need punishment after the event - you, as his parents, needed to stop the behaviour from starting, and now, from escalating. You say you felt like a prison warder, threatening and issuing consequences, but you're still doing it. It's just that the threat/consequence has changed.

Be very careful that your son doesn't become the family scapegoat; the one who is so different from your other "good" children that only the threat of physical punishment works. If that is the case, what will you do when you can't hit him, or he laughs off your threats?

The constant abuse of his siblings you describe sounds way beyond normal sibling rivalry. I think you need to look at what's behind it.

I would like to ask those who say they never smack in temper to explain why they do it then? Do you plan it in advance? IMO I think 'losing it' is the only plausible explanation for hitting out otherwise the alternative is a lot worse!

I have never met a two year old that couldn't understand danger when explained adequately. A two year old however will not always be able to apply their knowledge proactively all the time. This is why supervision and explanation are necessary for two year olds.

Everyone manages a family in various less than ideal ways occasionally or even frequently. That's not so much the issue I have with smacking, I don't think that smacking is always horrifically damaging to all children whenever and however it happens. I think it is very difficult not to do smacking in a way that is likely to lead to no problems at all and I think it has no benefit at all. An outright ban should not be intended to eradicate completely any smacking or to criminalise those who do it, but to make smacking socially unacceptable.

The very biggest reason I would like an outright ban is because of the wider effects of permitting some physical punishment. The evidence suggests less than a ban leads to more violence against children, escalation of that violence, greater numbers of child deaths at the hands of parents (and therefore criminalisation of parents), higher levels of teen self-harm balanced against no change in levels of anti-social behaviour which suggests the effect of smacking on 'discipline' is negligible if there is one at all.

Noddy, (convoluted but here you go)

I smacked my 6 y/o one slap on the leg a few weeks ago. I am happy with the choice.

She and her cousin had been calling for her two y/o sister to come into the bedroom they were sharing asking her to come and play teddies. When she came in they dropped cars onto her head from the top of the bunk-beds. I spoke to them about it. Asked them why they were doing it? what did they think would happen? how did they think it would make the 2y/o feel? what did they think would happen? They said it was a game and they didn't think about it. Fair enough. I explained why it was dangerous let them know it absolutely was not on. Explained it could really really hurt the 2 y/o. They both understood and seemed very contrite.
Normally that would be the end of it. I always use reasoning etc and it usually works v well.

Next day I was in the loo and I heard d calling her sister. Then - bang, wail. When I went in they had dropped a fire engine onto her from the top bunk.
I asked them to stay in the room and think about the crying 2 y/o.. Consoled 2 y/o with egg bump on head.
I then spoke to D and cousin. I asked them what happened? what they thought was going to happen? What were they trying to do this time exactly? Silence. I asked if they had understood what we had spoken about the previous day?
I asked it they knew they would hurt 2y/o. They said yes. They were very quiet.
I explained again that what she had done was dangerous. Reminded her that they had already been told that this behaviour was very serious and not on. As she had called her sister into a room asking her to play with a plan to hurt her I felt it was behaviour that warranted the greatest punishment I had, a smack.

She knew she was in real trouble and I explained that I was going to smack her as she had decided to hurt her sister. I smacked her on the leg.
I wasn't acting in anger I wanted her to know that what she had done had a big consequence to her too.

I think that a smack on the leg in this circumstance is a completely appropriate sanction.

I really can't get my head round the idea that to punish a child for hurting someone, they are then hurt by their parent. It just seems like double standards to me.

But then I have never agreed with smacking full stop. I would never hit an adult for doing something that upset or hurt me or for doing something wrong, so in the same vein I would never hit a child either.

My DD is 11y and I have never hit her and I have no intention of hitting her in the future either.

I feel there are better more effective forms of sanctions. So far they work for me. If they stop working, I shall look at alternatives, but I will never raise my hand to my child.

my five year old ds asked me this afternoon why does daddy smack ds1 all the time. So I asked him about it and he said I don't do it all the time I haven't done it lately o haven't smacked him today have I? So it seems the only one in this family against smacking is me!

I can't get my head around that either, a big person hitting a little person is wrong so for your punishment I (a big person) will hit you (a little person)? Not to mention that it isn't in any way connected to the actual incident and is simply a punishment which is in no way productive or preventative. I would simply have told the child that it is so important an issue that they will no longer be allowed to play in the top bunk/bedroom anymore because I couldn't trust them to be responsible.

I think that each person makes parenting decisions that another might view as questionable.
I know that my children are loved, secure and happy. I also know that this isolated smack will have no impact upon her mental heath.

As I said I'm happy with my decision.

I find this telling your chid younare going to hurt them for hurting someone a bit sinister. How do you know fr certain it won,t affect her

noddy, sinister is an odd choice of word but fair enough it's your vocabulary.

I know she'll be fine because she is a happy, secure, loved, child with lots of other support in terms of close family and friends around her who also adore her.
No element of her life is negative. She is extremely lucky.

A isolated smack as a consequence of a repeated dangerous wrongdoing isn't going to shape her life. It is nonsense to suggest otherwise. Some actions should have a consequence.

A smack (Not an uncontrolled beating or a spanking or a whipping etc.) in these circumstances is less scarring than being ignored, controlled TOLD what to do etc imo.

As I said I'm perfectly happy with my decision and its far reaching implications

I've never understood why some people think its acceptable to be violent towards children in a way they never would towards an adult.

My mum smacked me and yes she loves me but I bitterly resent tat she felt able to be violent towards me.

Well if you only plan to do it once it seems pointless. Let's hope she doesn't hurt her sibling again over the years but this isolated smack should guarantee she won't. Hides thread. And sinister is how I personally see pre meditated smacking

When adults do something that injuries or harms someone else they are punished by the law.
We fine them money, get them to work for free and or remove their freedom to teach them a lesson. In some countries we also flog or kill them depending on their crime.

A smack isn't violent. I can see escalation issues but otherwise I can see no problem at all with a smack.

It seems mad to me that you can't hit anyone else's child without consequences that you wouldn't like. You don't hit them because you would be prosecuted. The only DCs you can hit are your own because you love them. or because you see them as property, in the way wives were property and could be hit.

You either have the weird situation where you say 'you can't hit my child because I am the one that loves them enough to do it'! Or ' you can't hit them because they are mine.

Either hitting is right or wrong- I don't see why it is right for some, and I can't see that love or possessions are satisfactory reasons for exceptions.