Have been on another parenting forum and there has been a discussion about the issue of 'smacking'. In my opinion I think it is wrong and have never smacked my children (well, one of them is only 1) but my eldest is 8. I think there are far better ways of dealing with discipline than having to resort to smacking. I can not see what purpose it serves and really only teaches children that it is ok to use violence........
I don't agaree with smacking. How do you define a smack? And when is too hard really TOO hard? I feel smacking is the result of a parent is out of control and uses it as a way out of dealing with the situation. It doesn;t help, and it is very demoralising for the child.
Who wants to be scared of the people they should love most?
Children can understand a lot more than they can communicate. And if they are too young to communicate they muct be too young to be behaving badly. Especially badly enought to be physically abused.
I know some people feel it is perfectly ok, but that is up to them, we all have out own way of dealing with things.
Personally I could never do it. A simple explanation to my son about his 'behaviour' is usually all that is needed, sometimes he just laughs, and walks off, but he is only 2, I don't really expect much more. But with consistancy he will learn.
We all learn by our mistakes, and children are learning all the time, we have to give them a chance to do wrong from time to time.
I agree with smacking, it can be highly effective in many instances.
I don't know anyone who wasn't smacked as a child, and interestingly I don't know anyone who now suffers from any mental health issues as a result.
Used occasionally, smacking can be a very effective means of discipline. I see so many parents now using the 'ignore them and hope it will go away' 'method' of discipline. It doesn't work.
As a child, I was smacked when I really pushed the boundaries, and when other methods had failed. Generally my parents would at first ignore me, then ask me to stop, then threaten a smack, and finally, give a short, light smack if I still continued. Worked every time and very rarely did it get to the smacking stage.
Smacking can also be useful in other situations. For example, let's say a child runs into the road. If a child is small, they don't understand reason. They don't understand that running into the road = maybe getting run over. Giving them a light smack makes them associate running into the road alone with a smack: they're less likely to do it again
my mum smacked me when i was a child me dad never.i was a right b**ch with me dad wouldnt do as iwas told but if me mum was mentioned i was put right back in my place cos she just give me a royal wacking so i knew to behave. i love her yo bits and if it wasnt for her i would have went off the rails
I can't remember when I was smacked.... but then I had 'issues' so maybe they didn't want to add to my pressures. But my two brothers got a good smack now and again. But I still wouldn't like to do it to my children, as I see how it has effected my brothers relationship with my dad. Alot of the time he wasn't at work (which wasn't much) was spent attempting to have family time, but all my brothers remember is spending time in their room after a smack and not knowing why. My dad just didn't know how to deal with things. My brothers were not really especially badly behaved eitherr.
I could never bring myself to take my hand to my two girls. They are now 14 and 11 and have turned out no worse then their friends who were smacked, so I would have to say that ultimately smacking makes no difference to behaviour. It's a quick fix at the time.
Exactly. If your child comes home from school and is in trouble for hitting another child, how can you tell them that it is wrong, when they see it as perfectly accebtable behaviour. They are smacked, therfore, they will smack.
It is a simple case of parents saying do what I say.... and not do what I do.
It is to confusing for children to understand that. They need continuity.
You cannot hit a child and expect them not to hit back.
In some cases the child will hit back at the parent, and then things become very different all together.
Hitting a child is not a simle case of teaching them right or wrong, as it is not the behaviour that is being corrected, it is just the child's fear of being smacked that stops them expressing themselves.
barbie86.... a child runs into a road and may be injured, so you smack them, then maybe they forget they had a smack and do it again, next time, they remember that they went to cross when it wasn't safe... so they look at you. Do you think they look at you for guidence? Or because they are fearful of getting smacked. I know children need to be kept safe... but surely it is better for them to learn that they may be seriously injured by the cars on the road, rather that a smack from their parent?
They know when they are out with other people they will not get smacked.... so who is to say that a child's mind would not then run wild, and think... Mummy isn't here, so I won't get a smack. If they don't actually understand it is not safe to cross..... then they probably would.
I am not critasising you as a parent, as we all have our own way of parenting, and some things work people but not others. I'm not having a personal attack at you. Just speaking my mind, as this forum is intended for that reason.
Like PeggyG says, it's a quick fix. Not all children understand that 'negative behaviour' = a smack. Why should they. If I did wrong at work, I wouldn't expect a slap round the legs off my boss.
I disagree that smacking teaches a child that it is OK to hit other people.
As I said, nearly everyone I know was smacked occasionally as children: no-one I know thinks, or ever did think, it is OK to hit people. We recognise that it was a method of discipline used when we were particularly naughty.
Different methods work for different parents and different children. Hopefully when I have children I won't need to smack them; but if I find it effective, I would use it as a method of discipline on rare occasions when all other methods had failed.
A few years ago there wasn't a problem with smacking: now we seem to live in a society where kids have free reign to do whatever they choose and parents have no way to discipline them.
Smacking used as a method of discipline does not have long-term effects on a child. I think people all too often seem to confuse it with abuse which is totally different
It is not that society wraps them up in cotton wool, it is just that children are now recognised as individuals who do have thoughts and feelings, and not just little versions of ourselves who we can control for 16 years. Children have the same rights as us, like I said before, I would not expect to be physically punished as a result from making a mistake.
And when it comes to pyisical punishments how old would you think a child has to be to deserve being hit?
My son is 2, he can only just talk, and yes, he misbehaves on a regular basis, but it is part of growing up. He doesn't do it on purpouse, and I wouldn't consider him to be naughty.
If you think 2 years of age is too young then what age is acceptable? 3,4??
At 3 years of age, a child usually has the mental capabilities for you to explain what they have done that you consider 'negative behaviour'. And not to simply dish out a slap across their legs.
Lets say for example.... a child only get smacks when they are particularly 'naughty' (I don't like labelling a child though) So what do they actually have to do that deserves this smack? If it is really that dangerous and may cause them harm they shouldn't have been allowed to do it in the first place. As a parent it is up to us to provide a safe environment for our children. If that is not done, we cannot punish them for it!!
If my son was running about with a knife from the kitchen (Heaven Forbid) I wouldn't rant and rave at him or smack him. It is my fault he has been able to get it in the first place.
It depends really parents agree or disagree, kids upstairs to my parents use to scratch and pull their mums hair, i think thats terrible in my book, a telling doesnt always work as to a smacking on the bum or hand, it never harmed me whats so ever. My mum did the smacking and once was enough for me not to do it again. Kids see arguing and violence everywhere these days. But i do believe if its needed i beleive in smacking, and i don't see why someone should tell me how to raise my kids, you raise yours the way you do as the way i do which makes it my business and no one elses.
S smakc you cant really call that violence, a beating yes.
Some people will do anything for attention What southerngirl says Whoever created this ignore button can i shake your hand
I don't think this was a case of how to raise your children, just a general debate about the issue. I was occasionally smacked as a child, but can't see it made any difference to just being sent to my room.
Originally posted by Hysteria1983: I don't think this was a case of how to raise your children, just a general debate about the issue. I was occasionally smacked as a child, but can't see it made any difference to just being sent to my room.
Different children are different.
However I know that for me and several of my friends, occasionally a smack was the only thing that worked. Being sent to my room certainly didn't; if I was being particularly badly behaved I'd just refuse to go.
Don't get me wrong, I wasn't smacked regularly: most of the time a warning was enough. But when I was smacked I knew that was it, I couldn't push it anymore, and it definitely made me behave.
I know this sounds stupid..... but maybe it is hard for me to understand because I didn't get smacked very often, and when I did I just got really upset, and never understood what I was smacked for, there was never an explanation. My sister however had regular smacks... but she was the worst one and would just stand there saying ...'that didn't hurt'!! Even is she had tears streaming down her face!
I want to disiplin my children, but I don't want to be the person who inflicts pain on them and makes them cry. They will come across many other people in the world who will do that without me.
I understand that smacking works for some people, so also is can be understood that not smacking also works for some people. And can be just as effective.
I do agree with smacking to a certain extent, I was a right little horror when i was a child, my dad smacked me for backchatting and being rude (too right), I learnt never to do that again, I do not think that i am a violent person, this experience has not scarred me for life.
I would tap my child on the hand if they touched something they shouldent after i have warned them not to, and would smack on the bottom without implements with clothes on if i felt that their behaviour was unacceptable (only as a last resort after 3 warnings).
I do not agree with smacking about the head, using extreme force or implements, that is just wrong and is assult! I guess that there is always going to be debate on this issue. I think that children now, know their rights, but not responsibilities. I am seeing dreadful behaviour from children which i never saw say 20-30 years ago. They are cossetted more and wrapped in cotton wool, we are afraid of discipling them in case we damage their fragile self esteem.
I agree that if a child has been badly behaved disiplin them how you see fit.
But what I can't understand is that someone might smack a child for touching something they shouldn't..... they shouldn't be able to touch something harmful or something they may damage in the first place. That is what my argument is.
When I visit my friends flat her house is not 100% safe for my 2 year old as her 9 month old is not mobile.... so in that case he may be touching things that he shouldn't.... but he isn't being naughty. At home there isn't much of a need to tell him off as he can't do much wrong, maybe he is just well behaved and I am lucky.
If he were older I can't see that anything would be different ass he would understand that way of disiplin. If a child is smacked from a young age... then it is very difficult to back track and then use non pyhsical punishmens as a way of disipline. They are used to a smack and baing spoken to just isn't enough. In that case it is the only thing that will work, but if a child has neverr needed a pyhisical punishment... they don't need that as a form of disipline.
Maybe it is a case of wrapping them up in cotton wool, I don't see it that way though. I don't hit my child.... but I make damn sure he know what is right and wrong.
My baby is nearly one year, she does touch things she should not, that is part of her learning, i do verbally make sure that she knows that she should not do it. I would never smack her at such young age for such little things. Of course if she touched a dangerous object bleach, socket), i would tap her on the hand, i cannot reson with her, she does not understand at the moment. It is learning by association.
Even though i have tried to move all potentially dagerous objects from her reach, you can never be 100%. Later on they will find a way to get to them. Teachers cannot raise their voices to children now in fear that they will themselves be disciplined, how awful! If i was rude, a teacher raised her voice to me, i knew never to do that again. However these were in the days where we called our teacher Mr or Mrs so and so, and wore uniforms.
I recently saw a programme, set in the USA where so called Christian families were smacking, but using implements, the poor children were so scared, and crying. There was a company also that makes implements for smacking children which i felt was wrong. Would they like them to be used on themselves i wonder!
If i saw a child who was misbehaving in public, being smacked i would not report them to the police! The parents are doing what they see is fit, sometimes you cannot reason with a child who is having a tantrum in the middle of Woolies
There is never a reason to smack a child it is not a positive way of teaching a child,and this can too often get out of hand.Adults need to learn new ways of coping with challenges from their children. How individuals themselves were parented often dictates how they may react to their children and forms their views on smacking.Developing a new approach to coping may seem long winded but it will pay off in the long run and you will have a child who has not learnt negative responses to situations.
Originally posted by Hysteria1983: I agree that if a child has been badly behaved disiplin them how you see fit.
But what I can't understand is that someone might smack a child for touching something they shouldn't..... they shouldn't be able to touch something harmful or something they may damage in the first place. That is what my argument is.
In this case I don't suggest you smack a child: but I don't think a light tap on their hand is necessarily a bad idea: it reinforces that hot kettle/plug socket/whatever is dangerous and shouldn't ever be touched.
And yes of course your home should be child-proof; but occasionally accidents happen, and outside your own home you have much less control.
I recently saw a programme, set in the USA where so called Christian families were smacking, but using implements, the poor children were so scared, and crying. There was a company also that makes implements for smacking children which i felt was wrong. Would they like them to be used on themselves i wonder!
Personally I would say that this at least borders on child abuse: there is a HUGE difference between a light, occasional smack, and whacking a child with various implements.
The aspect of smacking which tends to work is the shock value: the surprise of receiving a smack often works and makes children think twice about behaving badly in the future. A smack then does not need to be at all hard to work: a light tap is sufficient. This does not harm the child physically or mentally, but rather is often an effective means of discipline.
To be honest, I would say that shouting potentially has much more negative effects than smacking does.
Originally posted by Hysteria1983: I know this sounds stupid..... but maybe it is hard for me to understand because I didn't get smacked very often, and when I did I just got really upset, and never understood what I was smacked for, there was never an explanation. My sister however had regular smacks... but she was the worst one and would just stand there saying ...'that didn't hurt'!! Even is she had tears streaming down her face!
This is an example of smacking not being used properly.
First of all, it should always be a last resort: you tell a child to behave calmly, then ignore them if they continue; if they still persist, maybe send them to their room or the 'naughty step'; then if they STILL persist, you WARN them they will get a smack if they continue. Only then should you actually smack them. And it shouldn't hurt, either; it should just shock them into realising that no, their behaviour is not acceptable and will not be tolerated.
For the most part, discipline will never get away near the smacking stage; I know I for one very rarely pushed it that far.
This is how everyone I know used/uses smacking, and this works very effectively for most children.
I still can't understand why someone would smack a child. If they are old enough to understand that they have done wrong, they are old enought to understand reasoning and an explanation why their behaviour is wrong or unacceptable.
It's sort of hard for me to post rationally on this subject, as my dad (in my opinion) over-used smacking (and didn't know his own strength). It wasn't abuse then, but it might well be classed that way nowadays! Sometimes I still flinch if he makes a sudden movement. I'm not going to be letting him babysit my son, anyway. A lot of people have said "it never did me any harm" to imply that smacking is ok. My dad would not understand that his use of smacking was any different. (And it didn't stop my naughty behaviour - just made me lie about it! I believe reasoning with me would have been far MORE effective, but perhaps that is giving my child-self too much credit!)
Hysteria, you seem to be assuming that a smack is only used as a punishment, and the child should 'deserve' to be hit. NO NO NO NO NO! A child never 'deserves' to be hit, that idea is what implies violence is an acceptable solution. IF smacking is used, it should only be used as a last resort preventative measure - a deterrent. Which means it should only be used BEFORE a child can understand that something is dangerous (not just naughty). And at that age, you are right, they shouldn't be able to get into potentially dangerous situations.
On the other hand, I'm all for making the punishment fit the crime. The only time I can actually see myself using smacking is if my son repeatedly hits other children and all other attempts to stop this behaviour have failed. And to be honest, I don't think smacking would work either. Why would it? Hopefully this will never be an issue I have to face!
Some people will do anything for attention
