Do you have a feminist perspective on smacking children?

[LRDTheFeministDragon]

I was just wondering about this one. For me, part of feminism has to do with thinking about the vulnerability of other groups, and perhaps especially about bodily vulnerability. And I hate the idea of smacking children, which I could justify on that basis, but which I must admit I hated long before I had any coherent feminist position.

So I was wondering, if you see yourself as a feminist, how do you feel about smacking children? And do you feel that your position is related to the fact you're a feminist, or do you think the two aren't related?

I have smacked my children when they were very small, and consider myself a feminist. This is because I don't believe that very little people have great reasoning powers, and, very occasionally, no amount of reasoning/being put outside the room etc has worked and I've smacked them, usually in response to being smacked/hit unexpectedly myself e.g. in the face when they've thrown something or being extremely and annoyingly defiant. I don't use any of the consequences methods of discipline on my partner or work collegues either, I don't think the relationship between a child and parent has to mirror that of others in your lives.

I don't 'believe' in smacking as a discipline method, rather I think of it as something that has happened when they were small, say once every few months. However, like SGB, I don't think as children get older and can understand consequences and reasoning that smacking is appropriate and so I make sure I don't smack them (mine are 5 and 7). I wouldn't be against a change in the law to prevent smacking as I don't see it it as a desirable thing, however, I think it's interesting that there seems to be (at least for most of my friends) an instinct to smack, and I really don't know people who have either never every smacked their child, or felt like doing it even once. Only on MN.

I think people who think they are great parents because they don't smack may be mistaken; they may, they may not be great, I don't see a twice yearly smack as having anything to do with it when I look round my contemporaries.

I'm interested in this idea of legitimate authority. I have legitimate authority over my children, but I still don't think I should smack them - there are no limits to my authority at their current age, but there are limits to what I'm entitled to do in the name of that authority and my personal limit stops at screaming like a banshee at them. I stop short of inflicting physical pain.

Which doesn't mean that I've never smacked them - the last time was years ago - but if I do, I apologise for smacking them because it's wrong and I shouldn't. That goes for screaming like a banshee as well come to think of it, I acknowledge that that's a shit way of dealing with stuff as well, but I explain that we all make mistakes and do things that are wrong sometimes and at the moment they accept that (am sure that will change as they hit teenagerdom).

My notion is that at least if they know that it's wrong to do certain things - like smack, swear, call people names, bully them, wind them up etc., then although they might do them sometimes (because we all make mistakes and do things we shouldn't) they won't accept them as normal, harmless occupations which are understandable, justifiable, or just "a bit of a laugh". There are too many depressing threads on here where someone says that they're upset about something and piles of idiots tell her that it doesn't matter" that she's upset, that her feelings aren't valid and that her DH/ BF/ Mum/ whichever borderline abusive git is gaslighting or abusing her, is just having a joke or did it by accident. If it hasn't been made clear to you as a child that certain behaviours are outright wrong*, then when you are unfortunate enough to come across them in adult life, it's easier for people to force you to accept them by blurring your sense of what's what. I'm hoping that by making it clear that my or anybody else's authority doesn't extend to having the right to cause physical pain, I'll inoculate them against the temptation to do it themselves or accept it being done to them when they're older. Which isn't necessarily a feminist angle, but it does fit in seamlessly with feminism.

HerB, I can see your point but be wary of making them too saintly and passive to stand up for themselves. Sometimes you need to cause another person physical pain to get them to back off, because otherwise they are going to cause you some.

Oh yes, totally agree with that too SGB.

No chance whatsoever of that with DD, she's a firm believer in self defence and pre-emptive fisticuffs action but that's more of an issue with DS who is one of those gentle, law-abiding, rule-obeying males the patriarchy shits upon.

It's difficult to not send mixed messages to children isn't it? I have said to the kids that obviously hitting other kids is wrong, but sometimes when you are faced with people who aren't going to behave correctly and no-one else is going to force them to face correctly, then you have to use tactics which are wrong to stop them persecuting you. They're now old enough to understand that, but when they were younger, it was a much more difficult balance and I struggled with the "mixed messages" problem. It's easier to be more nuanced the older they get and the better they can enter into discussion.

yes I wonder how much the idea of smacking to control children's behaviour, came about when families/ domestic units became smaller and fewer adults were responsible for nurturing/ controlling them?

Do we know much about smacking in hunter gatherer societies?

I'm not sure children have bodily integrity in the same sense that I do though, as someone else said, no-one is going to pick me up and put me in another room which is what I've done numerous times when my dd1 went through a tantruming phase, on the basis that it was better to remove her and let her calm down. The relationship between children and their parents is physically close; you wipe their bums, you bathe them, you physically restrain them in a buggy or high-chair when they would much rather be running around. You also cuddle and snuggle them, throw them up in the air, tip them upside down and tickle them (if they like those things) and of course, if you like, breastfeed. You tend not to do those with your work colleagues.

I think the best argument for banning smacking is that lots of smacking may be related to other types of worse child abuse. I do not characterize the odd smack as abuse though, any more than I characterize a parent shouting loudly as emotional abuse (and saying parents just thought they could sexually abuse their children 50 years ago is just plain wrong, it was very hidden).

But children do need a degree of control that adults do not. They don't, when small, have the sense or the experience to understand that it's a bad idea to run into the road without looking, pull the cat's tail repeatedly or stick their fingers into sockets. They also can't feed themselves adequately, or wash themselves properly. As they get bigger and learn more, the control an adult maintains over them lessens, or certainly should do.

I think my argument against it is more that they are learning that someone has the right to hurt them in certain circumstances.

Like you, I wouldn't characterise the odd smack as abuse. It's the arrogation of the right to deliberately inflict physical pain on someone else, that makes me uncomfortable. I just don't want my kids to have any doubt that their physical boundaries, feelings etc., absolutely matter - whoever they're dealing with. That probably goes back to my own upbringing however, which was definitely damaged by the physical violence to which I was regularly subjected and which left me with extremely low self-esteem and an inability to set physical boundaries with men, which of course left me open to abuse by predators. I'm just very conscious that I don't want that to happen to my children and that's where it links into feminism for me. However, smacking alone doesn't affect self-esteem etc., I'm with you there - it's all the other, emotional abuse that may or may not come with it.

That's what I was trying to get at SGB, the whole physical relationship between parent and child is completely different than any other, probably unless you care for your dependent parent at the other end of their lives (which many people feels strips them of their dignity precisely because it breaks all those taboos and norms of not touching, not seeing certain parts of the body).

I am also interested then, if those who have never ever smacked, are happy to move their child forcefully or do other power moves on them if they are behaving in an unsafe or out of control way or does their sense of bodily integrity extend beyond smacking towards trying not to physically restrain or move in any way and depend on verbal methods of discipline only.

Oh FFS or course there are times you have to use physical force on a small child (or indeed on an adult) when that person is putting either themselves or someone else in danger and will not obey a verbal command. We put children in reins or strap them into buggies when out and about among traffic for their own safety same as adults are instructed to wear seatbelts when travelling or harnesses on fairground rides.

That is the objective of parenting I think - to help them reach independence, to the point that they no longer need to be controlled.

I have no philosophical objection to smacking, I always thought I would do it myself, however the only time I did smack, when my dd had just bitten me, it was utterly ineffective. I realised I would have to properly hurt her for it to work, and I could never bring myself to do that, so I don't think I will ever again use it as a punishment.

I observed my SIL smack her ds hard recently, when he had suddenly tried to run out onto the road and under a car. He thought it was hilarious, and I think the shock of an instant smack was the right response. It is the only time I've seen a child smacked and approved.

Yes but we're not talking about that are we, we're talking about using smacking as part of a repertoire of sanctions.

Sorry cross posted that was in response to SGB

Am off out to get all-day breakfast now, not being rude if I don't reply...

SGB, I completely agree with you about restraint, that's why I'm interested to hear from people who are really opposed to smacking (I'm not one, it's more of a 'it doesn't really work and it's not my thing') about how far their sense of trying not to exert physical power over their children extends...I have, for example, poked my dd in the stomach to get her to bend to get into a pushchair when she was doing the ironing board maneouve... which is quite intrusive.

HereIGo I think your point ties in with mine about legitimate authority - husbands are no longer in charge of wives, but parents are in charge of children. They are dependent, they are less knowledgable and they do need guidance. In that scenario the parent has both the right and the responsibility to use their superiority to discipline the child. Any form of discipline is thew parent using their power over someone weaker. Hopefully most parents are good & loving and use it well. But it's not the same as sying one adult (male) has power over an other adult (female).

Thanks - this is really interesting.

Lenin - do you think? Or maybe people would just be less bothered about hitting a child not their own?

SGB - FWIW, one of the things I find difficult about smacking is the premeditation (but maybe that's not how you use it?). I don't like the idea of doing something to a child, the only purpose of which is to hurt and humiliate. That's different from physical force that just happens accidentally to hurt, like putting a struggling toddler in his carseat or whatever.

Agree with HIG's post, and is the line I take.

I think the two issues can be separate- you can be opposed to smacking for a whole range of reasons- but I think if you do take a feminist perspective, and consider issues of power imbalances and beliefs of ownership, you wouldn't smack.

With adults you have both the ability to have a reasoned discussion, and then recourse to the law in extreme instances to get your point across, or make sure the 'right' thing happens. With children you have neither, certainly to begin with, and you also have a responsibility to set boundaries to help them grow up- therefore this demands a totally different approach to interaction. You also have to consider that you are all-powerful towards them.

However, that different approach should not, IMO, include violence. And, given a parent's special status towards the child, it feels like you have an extra responsibility not to use it. I believe in quite strong discipline, and would have no problem physically carrying a tantruming child to their room, for example; nor do I have a problem accepting that occasionally people lose it and may hit. But smacking crosses a line that I believe is unacceptable.

To paraphrase HereIgo, it used to be acceptable to own and physically beat slaves; then women; and it is still considered acceptable for some that they own and can hit their children. I hope that this becomes less and less so over time.

"the only purpose of which is to hurt and humiliate"

surely the main purpose is to deter the child from doing whatever it is they are being punished for?

a small child can't properly comprehend the risks of darting across a road, hopefully a smack will deter my dn from attempting it again.

all punishment is, by its nature humiliating. My friends use time outs as punishment, I think that is actually harsher than a smack.

"nor do I have a problem accepting that occasionally people lose it and may hit"

see, that is not a smack, losing it and venting your frustrations on a child is disgusting behaviour

we have a duty to maintain sufficient self control to ensure that does not happen, it is very different from using smacking as a technique to maintain discipline

But Chinchilla you can't compare owning slaves and women with childrearing.
Children are naturally dependent, adults naturally aren't. It's a process. I see your wider point though.

I don't like smacking. I can remember being smacked. I can remember putting books in my pants so it would hurt my parents' hands, rather than my bottom.

I think that only reason I dicsipline my children is to protect them, not to control them. So if my ds was looking like he was going to touch the iron or the cooker I would move him, as he is getting older I can warn him more. I wouldn't let him hurt himself, and I wouldn't hurt him either.