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
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
Apologies if this has been posted, I did a quick search and didnt find a specific topic on it, so here goes
Is smacking a child ever ok?
GO!......
x
Is smacking a child ever ok?
GO!......
x
0
Comments
Yes I think smacking is an acceptable way of disciplining a child as long as the mother doesn't repeatedly slap or use excessive force.
like i said, I did have a quick look :banghead:
I'm not harmed, metnally or physically from being smacked. There's a difference between a smack on the bum and abuse.
I will treat my kids the same way.
jus recently i saw a young mum slap her 3 yr old child across the legs and then after it say "oww, that hurt my hand!". disgusting.
It isn't acceptable to smack a child for the simple fact it doesn't work. Belting your kid doesn't make him understand what he's done wrong, it just teaches him that mummy and daddy have their way because they can hit him.
I can appreciate that with very young children you can't reason with them about their behaviour, but smacking doesn't exactly teach them better either. I can see the need if the kid is in danger, but smacking repeatedly is utterly pointless because it loses all its shock value.
Same here.
It may not work for all children but if it's used sensibly and rarely and works for your child, I don't see the problem.
Sometimes a tap on the bum is needed, especially with young children who are hard to reason with and are hard to sanction in other ways. But at the same time ignoring them works very well too- put them on the naughty step, or ignore their tantrums, and they get bored. Boredom is the worst thing for a young child.
The odd tap doesn't do anyone any harm, but if the only way you can control your kids is with your hand then you're not a very good parent.
Perhaps we need a definition of smacking to work from, I wouldn't call a disciplinary smack "belting" for a start, belting would be abuse.
Also, I think smacking can work, though ths depends on how it is used and what is trying to be achieved.
ETA: simultaneous post. agree with post above. an occasional smack can bring a child round- if you've ever seen a kiddy so engrossed in thier own tantrum that you can't comunicate with them and they might injure themselves I'd be sympatheti to the parent who smacks to bring them out. I think/hope this is why the supermarket is a typical place to see a smack, were the same behaviour that resulted in a smack, happening in the home- other tactics like ignoring could be used, whereas the behaviour might need to be stopped quickly in outside situations.
I do think, however, smacking is demonised far too readily and that people equate a smack with a beating. This is a fallacy. A controlled smack is no more a beating than the removal of a favourite toy or grounding is mental torture.
I also think that people who have actively chosen not to smack their children, whatever the situation, often become preachy and arrogant about their “morally superior” methods of discipline.
So long as it is done very occasionally and as a last resort when the child is being an utter prat (and let's face it, kids can be uber prats when they want to) and that it is not done with force I don't disagree with it.
I was 'smacked' as a child and although I did not question it at the time, I can now remember the odd time when it went beyond smacking. Not abuse but actually belting. I have recently questioned my Mum on it - as she has never and also said she would never smack my sister. Her reasoning behind not smacking her is that 'she (my mum) has learnt a lot over the years' but then when I say 'so you knew it was wrong to smack me then?' she goes into a rant saying that 'you make it sound like you were beaten ffs!!' From this I think she knows that she was in the wrong but does not want to admit it because it says something about her as a mother. Anyway I digress...
I will not smack my children in the future as I know of more effective ways of dealing with behaviour that could result in it
Watching all these programmes like Super Nanny, I spend most of it thinking, what that fucking brat needs is a good smack and you could do away with the naughty step and all that shit and be done in a matter of minutes.
I was smacked, my parents and their parents were and I will smack my children if the occasion merits it. I'm not having any fucking government telling me how to raise my kids.
(Incidentally, I don't actually have any kids yet so all this is hypothetical).
Perhaps, but in terms of Pavlovian conditioning, surely the child just learns not to get caught by mum or dad performing a certain action, rather than learning not to act in that way at all?
I used to be more in favour of smacking and when I was doing my A levels we had a debate about it in class. The teacher recognised that the main argument for smacking is "it never caused me any harm", but he asked "has the fact that you were smacked actually psychologically damaged you to believe that smacking a small child is an acceptable thing to do?"
I think the majority of people agree with smacking in extreme circumstances, but there are those that would do it just because the child was pissing them off, eg. interrupting conversation with another adult. I wonder if the latter group would be willing to smack another adult for performing and similar behaviour, or whether it is just a control thing and a way to vent frustration?
I am not 100% against it, but I think it is a difficult issue and I know that if I did end up smacking my children I would feel guilty, as I think I would have done it due to my own frustration with them rather than believing it is going to have beneficial consequences.
Only if you've got a dog.
Smacking a child is always wrong - not because it will unavoidably traumatise him/her (wich many times does), but simply because it is an abuse of power. It is unfair and therefore a situation of humiliation for the child: he/she cannot defend themselves as they are smaller, younger, and in a position of dependence in relation to an adult. Simply because you are a parent it doesn't give you the right to be violent, even if it is "for their own good". (:rolleyes: )While there's an alternative for discipline (which I believe there always is), then smacking is always wrong.
The other one is reflected in these comments: Which is the most dangerous one since it involves an ideology behind it supporting the behaviour, and therefore it can develop into more and more violent conduct (since if it isn't wrong to smack him a little, then why is it wrong to smack him a little harder then?)
And this is exactly what happens with violent behaviour - it gets passed on from generation to generation.
Well that's not really your choice is it? The fact that you are raising a child doesn't mean you own them. He/she has rights of their own and thankfully society has evolved enough to realise that sometimes children need protecting from their parents when these aren't willing to respect their rights.
And you're basing this statement on what evidence/literautre may I ask? If you know best than all child psychologysts then surely you have studied the matter further...
Perhaps it can develop into more violent behaviour but I feel that the experience of being smacked lightly as a child (it was never more than lightly), I am in a better position to determine the necessary degree of punishment. Please don't believe for one minute that I am advocating belting the kid, but a short sharp smack to the backside meant I was always on the straight and narrow.
And this progression only if you don't have the control and judgement to realise that there clearly is a line when it comes to smacking where it changes from mild punishment to abuse. Light smacking is the complete extent of 'violent behaviour' in my family so I don't agree at all with your point.
You misunderstand me. I didn't say that parents own their children. Of course they have rights and of course sometimes they need protection from their parents. However, as legal guardians of their children, it is their duty to protect them and protection sometimes involves punishment to discourage children from actions that may be harmful to themselves, others and society as a whole.
And yes, it is my choice as a parent. Who would you listen to more; the government sitting in Westminster who make the laws or the actual parents who are charged with caring for and raising their own children? Perhaps if the government took custodial charge of every single child in the UK then they could tell us that smacking is wrong but they don't.
When did I say that I knew best or that I knew better than any child psychologists? I really advise you read my posts better in future.
The child psychologists I was referring to were the ones whom the Government consulted in drawing up this law. I doubt it was done without some professional opinion.
And yes, Pavlovian conditioning does work to children as well as dogs. Now before you write a reply about how I'm saying that children and dogs are the same thing, ask yourslef how well you can actually reason with a child of say, 4 to 8 years old? Their capacity for logic and reason much less developed and the fact is that if you associate the child doing something bad with a mild sensation of pain, caused by a light smack, the child is far less likely to repeat his or her action that caused the smack than any amount of reasoning or naughty steps ever could. The bad action and the small pain are ingrained in the child's brain and thus the action and the consequence are mentally associated and thus less likely to be repeated.