If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
Smacking Children
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
I was shopping today and I saw a woman hit her son in public. It wasn't just a tap, it was a full blown smack across the face. She hit him because he wouldn't stop crying (hmmm, the logic!).
Do you think you should be allowed to hit your children?
When do you cross the line?
How are you to know what is enough force? Who decides this?!
I was never ever hit as a child. My mum and dad would tap my hand lightly but they were aware that when I was naughty I would be less likely to do it again if I had something I wanted taken away from me (toys, activities, biscuits etc).
I think smacking children teaches them not to do something in the short term, but the pain goes away, whereas taking something away lasts longer.
Were you hit as a child and if so how did it affect you?
Will you hit your children?
Do you think you should be allowed to hit your children?
When do you cross the line?
How are you to know what is enough force? Who decides this?!
I was never ever hit as a child. My mum and dad would tap my hand lightly but they were aware that when I was naughty I would be less likely to do it again if I had something I wanted taken away from me (toys, activities, biscuits etc).
I think smacking children teaches them not to do something in the short term, but the pain goes away, whereas taking something away lasts longer.
Were you hit as a child and if so how did it affect you?
Will you hit your children?
0
Comments
The line is quite simple. Its the line between smacking your child and abuse. Any sensible person knows where that line is.
I was smacked as a child. Only when I was being a right little fuckhead though. When my parents had tried everything else to make me stopping doing what I was doing. Even when they did smack me, it wasnt ever serious. Sharp smack on the back of the legs..Stung like a fucker for a minute or so and then went away. It really wasnt about the amount of pain though, it was the feeling i had when i realised id been such a little git to cause my parents to smack me.
I think it affected me in a good way. I stopped being a little bastard and the fact that ive only ever hit someone once, when i was 11, goes to show that im not a violent person. I always hear that argument about how it teaches the kids that violence is right but frankly, thats total crap.
I actually spoke to my mum about this a while back..We were talking about my grandad who used to beat my grandma and somehow we got onto smacking..Turns out she had been holding in an amazing amount of guilt about smacking me and my sis for 15 odd years.:eek: ....She thought i was gonna be emotionally scared from the smacking but id never even given it a thought and certainly dont have a problem with it...She actually cried when she heard that cos she was so happy
Anyway...Yes if i ever have kids, i will probably do the same thing. Obviously i wont be happy about it, nobody likes smacking their kids. It will be the absolute last resort and will only be used when everything else has failed.
I disagree there I have to say. I know of people who ritually hit their children just 'because', such as my grandfather.
Also, if you're hit as a child (I mean really belted) I don't think this will make you a 'bad grown up' but I think you'll grow up to resent your parents (all of my grandfather's kids resent him)
I wouldn't favour a law against it, but think I probably wouldn't smack my kids.
Of course it can be argued that for those capable of reasoning and percieving the consequences of their actions don't need to learn through associating pain with a dangerous or 'naughty' actions, however, I think upon examination those cases where a child needs to be protected then restraining the child from harm, rather than smacking must be the better option. I certainly find that smacking a child for reasons of disobedience or basically anything other than the protection of the child should not have a place in our society.
I largely agree with vox that a law against smacking may not be favourable but I think there is a strong case for finding ways of supporting parents to find alternatives to physical punishment of children. An interesting alternative however, and one I think might be favourable is the explicit extension of the laws on assult to all ages and thus apply these pre-existing laws to deal with problems where children are abused under the guise of discipline.
Obs
Such as ?
Then that would be called abuse rather than smacking. The distinction needs to be made.
Firstly, looking at restraint instead of a smack. If a child is about to run out into a road, surely it is better to hold the hand of that child and restrain them than to hit that hand.
Secondly, equipping parents to assess whether a child action was active disobedience or a result of a lack of knowledge of the concequences of their actions. Teaching parents to avoid 'reflex smacking', by perhaps such simple steps as pausing and counting to ten when tempted to smack their child could greatly help prevent the smacking of children in anger, which is where great harm can quite easily be caused.
Thirdly, teaching parents how to reason with their children and identify when a child will be able to have the consequences of their actions explained to them. Obviously reasoning with a very young child may not be a viable option, but equipping the parents to teach their children that there will be harmful consequences to an action without resorting to violence would greatly help in many cases.
There are already projects such as some of the parent mentoring schemes happening through the governments Sure Start programme that are working along these lines of equipping parents to deal with the fact that parenthood will sometimes be stressful and supporting parents.
There are alternatives to hitting a child, its just the idea of smacking has become to a greater extent engrained in our culture as a result of the way we view children.
Obs.
how on earth would smacking a child, stop it from crying????
it would make the child cry more. Im not sure what reasons your neighbours have for letting their children cry, but i assume you mean crying themselves to sleep at night, which a lot of parents do to teach the child to sleep through the night - ie the child learns that just because it cries, its not going to be allowed to stay up late. I let my son cry sometimes because i dont want him to think crying is a good way of getting attention. im not sure what this has to do with the smacking debate but never mind.
Who on earth would smack a child who was about to run into the road? That is not a situation where you would smack. Thats only common sense.
Reflex smacking? Anyone who smacks on reflex or out of anger, is abusing their child. If your child gets you angry enough to lash out in anger, then you need to go to anger management classes or something. Smacking should only be used as a calculated last resort action.
Reasoning with a child is extremely hard in some cases which is why the need to teach the child not to do something exists in the first place. If children were capable of advanced reason then there would never ben any problems with kids.
Do you have children yourself?
It worked for my sister, my 3 cousins and myself...If the child is that young as to not realise the purpose of the smack then they shouldnt be smacked.
Ok, that example was perhaps not the best chosen. The point was saying in those situations where a child is putting themselves in danger I would think it is a better sollution to restrain the child from being in danger rather than as does happen, trying to 'teach the child' through the assotiation of pain with a dangerous action.
Agreeably reflex smacking seems to constitute abuse, however, is 'calculated' smacking any better? If smacking is a form of abuse then isn't premeditated smacking of a child even worse than reflex? (not neccessarily a point I agree with, but worth consideration)
Would it be acceptable to hit an adult with a mental difficulty that meant their capacity for advanced reason was similar to that of a child?
I don't. I'm a 17 year old invovled in various childrens right work. To clarify, I'm not neccesarily always putting in my own view, some points are made just to explore the issue.
Obs
Not at all...Regardless of what some may believe, most parents who do smack, do it out of concern for their child. To teach them whats right and whats wrong. If you smack a child in anger then you are far more likely to hit them hard. You should never get to the point of hitting your child out of anger, thats just beyong contempt IMO. The vast, vast majority of parents do not smack their child for the fun of it. In many cases, including my mothers, it hurt the parent a hell of a lot more than the child. If you derived some kind of pleasure from smacking your child then premeditated would be worse than reflex smacking.
Are you talking about an adult with the mind of a child? If so then it is unacceptable for the simple reason that they are mentally disabled and will not learn, grow up, etc like a normal child and therefore teaching them through smacks wouldnt work.
But that wasnt really my point. The idea that you can avoid having to discipline a child through smacking by reasoning them is flawed. The very fact that it had gotten to the point of the child needing to be disciplined or taught shows that the child doesnt respond to reason. Otherwise they would have stopped doing whatever they were doing the first time you asked.
My mother(dad too...but only saw him a few times a year anyway) used to hit me, burn me, cut me, etc...until I was about 7 when she stopped drinking. Then she realised that taking things away was much, much more effective. Sometimes I would tell her I'd rather have a beating than for her to take away privileges...not sure how sane I was during these moments.
How did it affect me?
1. I get really angry and emotional(want to cry or something, but I don't show it) if I see someone else hit their kids.
2. I know I won't hit my kids.
That kind of thing has been condemned by everyone ive ever heard arguing in the pro smacking camp.
You were abused, not smacked.
Some of the things I've picked up from your posts have really made me laugh - have you ever tries to reason with a two-year-old, or tried to explain the consequences of their actions? You obviously don't realise that at that age they have no concept of consequence...
Let me give you a story of two families...
I have two children, both boys, from when they started cralwing (and therefore getting their fingers into things they shouldn't) I have used "physical restraint" (or smacking) to prevent them from doing certain things. But only as a last resort.
Before I get to that extent I try other forms of punishment - sitting on stairs or sitting on the floor next to me, but sometimes smacking becomes necessary. I don't like it, I get no joy out of causing my child pain, nor from the cry that follows. What I can see is the BIG picture, and a few seconds of tears or pain is a price worth paying. My In-laws don't have the same approach to child care that I do. They used to criticise me - until recently that was. They took my children out for the day and returned home telling me how well behaved they were, how they said "please" and "thank you" and how you didn't really know that you'd got them. To me this was prrof that I had achieved what I set out to do. My children know respect and know that life has boundaries.
The second story is about my brother in-law, who also has two children approximately the same age as mine. He and his wife don't believe in physical punishment and try to reason with their children.
We spent the day together recently and you could see a marked difference between the behaviour of the children. His kids don't share, aren't polite and laugh at their parents when they are chastised. They wouldn't sit down to eat, were foul mouthed and broke many of my in-laws ornaments, as well a some of my kids toys. No apology, no acceptance that they had done anything wrong - and their misdemenors were met with their Mum say "Oh, Harvey...". In fact one of them wandered down the road urinating. He's six.
Throughout their lives their parents have made excuses for their actions. In six years my nephew has had an allergy to coulourings, dyslexia and recently tourettes. At least if you believe his parents he has, of course there is no medical back up.
Two familes. one set of children behave, the other doesn't. One set of parent smack, the other doesn't. I'm sure that you could find similar stories from around the country.
As Balddog says, there is a big difference between discipline and child abuse, unfortunately I fear that the liberals will get their law to ban smacking and to be honest I fear for our society of they do.
I fully understand and realise that a young child doesn't have a developed concept of consequence, the point I am advocating is that there are better ways of instilling a concept of consequence without needing to use hitting a child.
To be fair, I have been advocating from the point of view of an idealogy, which I accept may not always work in practise, as is the case with most ideologies. The ideology is comming from the point of view that hitting a child is wrong, because you should not hit an adult, therefore if hitting an adult amounts to abuse, even if to teach that adult a lesson, then so does hitting a child.
I've already said I do not advocate a law against smacking, as I see that this would differentiate adult and child in that respect and thus defeat the basis of the above idealogy. However, what I am advocating is support for those who may not be as equipped to be as measured and balanced in their aproach to their children as the parent posters here have suggested they are.
The simple issue remains that in some cases (a minority) children are abused and this is defended under guise of smacking. If there are alternatives to smacking it seems logical, due to the fact that in the majority those who have posted in favour of smacking of talked of it only as a last resort, then these should be taken in preference to smacking. Of course, the upbringing of every child will be totally unique, and the methods needed to ensure the safety and education of that child will vary greatly, and the point (if any) at which a parent feels that for a particular child there is a need to use physical discipline, will vary depending on both child and parent. However, perhaps bringing the ideology into practise, then the aim should be to push that point back as far as it can go.
As balddog also says:
The line is quite simple. Its the line between smacking your child and abuse. Any sensible person knows where that line is.
Alas we don't live in a world where everyone is a sensible person.
I was smacked as a child but only when I had really really pushed the line with my mother. Did it work? I don't know really to be honest. When things were taken away when I was being punished, it was then I had a chance to think what I had done.
I think age is a bit of a concern for me. I mean, when does a child really really know what they are doing is good or bad? I would have thought age 2 or something?
For example, I was watching Kilroy when they had a debate on smacking children, and this guy said to start off with he would give the children a tap on the hand to show that they had done something wrong. He then went on to say he did this to his 6 month old baby who bit his wife whilst she was breastfeeding him. I thought that was unfair, I mean it's a baby! He doesn't know or care if he bit in a reflex or whatever, he didn't mean to!He is just concerned about his milk!!
I don't think I was badly abused at all...there are far worse things that can happen to children. My mother raised me the best way she knew how. Not that I approve of her methods in any way...I hold a lot of resentment for her and will probably never forgive her. But I do love her. And, it may sound cocky, but I have grown up to be a fine young adult as a result of my harsher upbringing.
I do think you should be allowed to smack your children.
It's not just a short term solution as, I think, someone said. With smacking, whatever the reason for being smacked, you realise your behaviour was wrong. When I was smacked my parents would say why they did so and tell me what I did wrong.
Like everyone else smacking with my parents was often a last resort. Most of the time just their shouting at me was enough to put me off so if I got a smack then I was obviously out of line. But it would work. I'd realise that I'd done something wrong and afterwards I'd think why I was smacked. Making me realise that my behaviour was wrong.
I'm not sure whether I will smack my children or not. I suppose I will realise this if/when I have any.
But you should always be prepared to take that ultimate step. Let me liken it to international politics, when nations rule out the use of force they are walked all over. Whilst I will alwyas advocate the use of non-violent forms of punishment, I will never rule out a smack on the back of the legs as the ultimate deterrent.
and the people who abuse children will do so whether a law exists banning smacking or not. Afterall, isn't child abuse already illegal.
NB I am talking about physical abuse here rather than sexual abuse.
You're right. Neither do we live in a world where children automatically know wrong from right.
Do you think it is just a conincidence that school room behaviour has gone downhill since corporal punishment was abandoned?
NB I don't advocate coporal punishment, but it is a useful example of reduced discipline bring poor behaviour.
As an aside I would also say that the initial comment about a smack across the face is also unacceptable, as is the use of an implement (slipper, belt) in order to meet out the punishment. As Balddog says, there are degrees of acceptability.
...BUT, look at the changes that have taken place in parenting.
Think back to the black and white television shows. Children did not dare talk back to their parents. There was the "don't speak unless spoken to" rule. They walked to school, did the chores, ate what was put in front of them. You can't tell me that the more liberal way children are raised today doesn't play a role in the regression of classroom behavior?
I totally agree, in previous posts here I have advocated that parents are responsible for how their children grow up. Many of the problems we encounter today are due to a lack of discipline and respect.
I was just using the school punishments as an example of something which all children we once faced with, regardless of parental approaches to discipline.
Used rarely, that hit may be more effective than it would be if it was used regularly as a form of punishment.
It should always remain an option because different children respond to different things, but it should be like the emergency button in an elevator.
If misused and implemented as a primary from of punishment, I then disagree with its use.
While I do agree with stricter punishment in schools, I do not agree with allowing administrators to implement corporal punishment on students. There is a thread on corporal punishment in schools here.
I think that the major problem is that everyone does not have the line drawn at the same place. Some people think that implements are fine, while others are staunchly against them, an accepted age is debated, severity, manner, and reasons are debated. What constitutes as abuse in one camp is acceptable in another.
Is my almost obsessive adherence to rules a result of the harsh discipline meted out by my parents?