Smacking your child - Right or Wrong?

[fatbadger]

Banning guns was the start of it. ... The less governments do the better they are IMO.

This was the "start" of the nanny state (or whatever "it" is supposed to be), was it? Jeez - and to think you have claimed in the past to be anti-statist!

Anyway, surely the point is not about quantity but quality? For instance, if the government banned theft but not murder and rape, I would suggest they would be a worse government than that which banned murder and rape but not theft, despite 'doing less'. We should judge governments not on how much they do, but the quality of what they do.

Nobody has yet managed to tell me why it is that anyone would think that acts of violence against kids should be legal but not acts of violence against adults. I have no problems in anyone thinking that violence against kids should be allowed, just as long as you are happy to say that violence against adults should be legal, too. Well, not necessarily 'no problem' - it's more that I wouldn't consider you to be a hypocrite. Unless, of course, you can come up with a damn good reason why we should distinguish between kids and adults on this issue.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Unless, of course, you can come up with a damn good reason why we should distinguish between kids and adults on this issue.

I guess the justification for hitting kids comes down to a belief that, in some mysterious way, parents "own" their kids.

They don't.

 

[shingle]

erh excuse me

But my 3 children were not brought up by the community, other children or other adults or the church for that matter. Parents have the primary responsibility of bringing up their children and to instill in their children a sense of right and wrong and a sense of proportion and to bring children up in a loving environment.

On the subject of smacking, my viewpoint changed about 4 years ago when I was at the notting hill carnival, and witnessed what amounted to an assault by an adult on a child. This parent in front of everyone pulled down his childs trousers and whacked him about 6 or 7 times on the backside. The child was sobbing hysterically and pointing at the adult and saying 'you hurt me' over and over again . The adult then pulled the childs trousers down and started to whack him again. At this point I ran over stopped it . This adult looked shocked that someone had intervened and he didnt say a word. I do remember his missus appearing from nowhere screaming 'Back off, Back off, you dont know the history.
The sight of that child has remained with me ever since and has convinced me that smacking is wrong, it just teaches children that violence is a solution to any problem

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

so-rry.

Of course parents do have the primary responsibility, but you can't be with them all the time they are growing up and it would be unhealthy if you were. My point is when the kids are being looked after by grandparents, brothers, sisters, friends, they take the parental role. As do teachers, policemen, and many others. There is such a thing as society and I am pleased about that.


And if you see my original posting I had a similar experience. Except this was not a smack but a punch, although I am sure the parent would have defended it as a smack.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

And funnily enough - I was never smacked as a child, except at school. At St John the Baptist there was a variety of straps on the hand, rulers on the back of the legs, and cane on the hands, followed at De La Salle by plimsolls on the backside, and cane (again). So parents do their best, but there are other people out there.

 

[BrightonFoxDave]

You can smack a child and make them cry, you can shout at a child and make them cry, so where does the line get drawn? is physical intimidation better or worse than mental intimidation?

Once the childs of a certain age where you can "reason" with them, then the (threat of or actual) withdrawl of privileges has to be the way, but then again, like Yorkie said, if it was electrocution or a slap, I'd slap every time and see you in court!

All you can do as a parent is try to be a better parent to your kids than your own parents were to you. If you can do that, everyones gonna benefit in the long run.

 

[berkshire seagull]

Seriously the dicipline in kids these days is zero and they rearly do need a good slapping full stop.

 

[shingle]

And funnily enough - I was never smacked as a child, except at school. At St John the Baptist there was a variety of straps on the hand, rulers on the back of the legs, and cane on the hands, followed at De La Salle by plimsolls on the backside, and cane (again). So parents do their best, but there are other people out there.

Now dkm, that slippering wouldnt have been administered by a certain Brother Gerrard would it. I was at De la Salle for only a year, but I lived in terror of Brother Gerrard. Several times I remember a lesson being interupted by a boy reporting for a slippering. and BG giving him six of the best

 

[Jam The Man]

Got clouted lots as an eldest child - never above the waist. Never did me any harm. That said I wont be hitting my own child. I think it should be left as it is...

 

[berkshire seagull]

To be honest i got slapped around the head,arse and the belt etc,so i respect people and these punishments are needed full stop.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Now dkm, that slippering wouldnt have been administered by a certain Brother Gerrard would it. I was at De la Salle for only a year, but I lived in terror of Brother Gerrard. Several times I remember a lesson being interupted by a boy reporting for a slippering. and BG giving him six of the best

The same. But also Mike Smith the Maths teacher - who used to "advertise Dunlop". Also Sadek who used to administer the ruler.

 

[Man of Harveys]

To be honest i got slapped around the head

Don't mean to be nasty or anything but I'm not actually THAT surprised...

 

[berkshire seagull]

Don't mean to be nasty or anything but I'm not actually THAT surprised...

Yeah you may say that,but i respect people and property and im not a mouth ****.

 

[Tom Hark Preston Park]

I disagree with smacking their legs

You were all infavour of smacking Bobby Zamora's legs as I recall, Yorkie

And they say Iain Dowie was so ugly when he was born that the mid-wife slapped his mother...

 

[Yorkie]

You were all infavour of smacking Bobby Zamora's legs as I recall, Yorkie

And they say Iain Dowie was so ugly when he was born that the mid-wife slapped his mother...

It was a joke, Tom, remember?

 

[SussexHoop]

It's been a long time since either of our kids have been smacked, principally because it didn't work. Chastisement these days consists of a verbal bollocking, banishing them to their rooms and removal of priviliges (tv, playstation, mobile phone, etc).

What concerns me is the Government's plans say you cannot cause your child psychological distress either ... my son gets so pissed off when I punish him, will I be breaking the law by withdrawing his priviliges?

I understand people's frustrations when they see kids/teenagers out in the streets misbehaving cos I stand there myself thinking exactly the same as a lot of others ... love to give them a right kicking, teach them some manners, how to behave etc.

But the crux of the problem imho is that their parents haven't taught them how to behave, the difference between right and wrong ... it's a lack of discipline, which should start in the home and be continued in schools that is missing and that isn't the fault of the kids.

Oh sh*t I'm sounding like a bleeding heart liberal!!

 

[Curious Orange]

Okay, here are my thoughts (not that the off switch is a bad idea (thanks Douglas Adams)):

No reasonable person wants to smack their child. The ban smacking brigade give the impression, to me at least, that because reasonable chastisment is legal that therefore all parents are beating up their children, I cannot believe that this is the case. They also assume that children can always be reasoned with, they can't because young children don't have the empathic skills of an adult, when reasoning doesn't work other methods of chastisment can be used (although these could be deemed as mental cruelty by some). Do you really want that final control tool of smacking taken away.? When I was bad as a child I was smacked as a last resort, it didn't take long for me to realise that if I was threatened with a smack it was probably best to stop whatever it was I was doing so it didn't get to that stage.

A complete ban on smacking will not prevent people of the disposition to beat up children from doing so. These people are in a minority, but a minority who a change in the law is not going to affect.

We need to realise that children need to brought up in a positive way, and that effectively all parents are in a psychological battle with their kids for control of the relationship. The patience of the adult to ignore the crying and the tantrums is the most important weapon in this battle. They cannot be allowed to dictate to the parents or be left to run wild, give plenty of love and praise for their good behaviour, and don't give attention to the bad (that is not to say it should not be dealt with, just dealt with as little fuss as possible). However, ultimately smacking needs to be a tool, the very last resort for when the tools reasonable parents instinctively prefer to use don't work.

 

[Yorkie]

We need to realise that children need to brought up in a positive way, and that effectively all parents are in a psychological battle with their kids for control of the relationship. The patience of the adult to ignore the crying and the tantrums is the most important weapon in this battle. They cannot be allowed to dictate to the parents or be left to run wild, give plenty of love and praise for their good behaviour, and don't give attention to the bad (that is not to say it should not be dealt with, just dealt with as little fuss as possible). However, ultimately smacking needs to be a tool, the very last resort for when the tools reasonable parents instinctively prefer to use don't work.

Very sound wisdom. It does help if the parents also have the help of the wider family such as grandparents to relieve the strain.
A day out or sleeping over at other relatives gives the parents a respite from day in and day out battles (which can arise from very strong minded individuals)

You also have to bear in mind that no two children are the same even in the same family. You have placid children, creative children (who will happily amuse themselves) and children who are just downright difficult (usually the very intelligent ones)

That's one of the reasons my daughter was so difficult to handle. She was bored most of the time. She ended up with 5 grade A 'A' levels despite the local education system.

 

[Carshalton Seagull]

Wrong.

I am a 'bleeding heart liberal' social worker so you would not expect me to say any different. I see the effects of physical, emotional and sexual abuse every day and have concluded that the only way to distinguish between the so called loving smack and physical abuse is a total ban on all forms of physical chastisement. I lecture in child protection and could go on at length but will settle for five arguments:

1) Many have said on here that 'it never did me any harm'. I could give the evidence of thousands of children who have suffered at the hands of their parents who had learnt that the way to bring up children is to control them by physical punishment. The evidence is that it does harm children and is more likely to lead to those children becoming abusing adullts.

2) Our Young Offenders Institutions are full of young people who were/are hit by their parents as children. It does not stop them offending.

3) Slapping children rarely stops children from putting things in electrical sockets/ their hands in the fire/running into the road. Generally adults stop the child from harming themselves by grabbing them or pulling them away and they smack them afterwards. The smack does not stop the harm, stopping the child from doing whatever it is they are doing does.

4) While some research and evidence is inconclusive, most research in countries that have banned the physical chastisement of children supports the view that a ban has had a positive rather than negative impact.

5) Please define child. Why is it ok to assault a 17 year old but when they turn 18 the next day it is a criminal offence? The 17 year old (and more importantly the 1,2, 3 year old) deserve the same or greater protection from the law than adults.

 

[El Presidente]

Fred West had the right idea, bury your own daughter under the patio if she does not eat her vegetables.