No, I don't. I've threatened my children with a smack when small.(ranging from 28-17, so yes times have changed), but with warnings and depending on age, the warning has mostly been enough. It's not about losing control and smacking in temper, it might be to avoid a dangerous situation which would take too long to explain to a little child,for instance.
I don't think it should be made illegal, I think children should be brought up knowing they do not control the house, the adult, the parents and appropriate adults do. There should be boundaries and th threat of discipline and consequences.
I reckon some kids would prefer a quick smack across the back of the legs to the screaming, right in their face, mother telling them what effing little shites they are which is what I witness too often on the high Street. Although in an ideal world no child would be smacked, I'm not totally against smacking but never round the head. I was never smacked but both my brothers were and two of us grew up never dreaming of resorting to violence whilst the third was not adverse to a fight. He was the one that went to a secondary school that still used the cane. What does that all prove? Probably nothing but a light smack may assist in training in a young child but violence in adolescents can lead to violent behaviour in adults maybe? I think Larkin got it right in his This Be The Verse.
A child has to see there are real consequences if they do something bad. If they realise that they can keep pushing and nothing will happen to them it's game over for the parents.
So you can smack a child, non violently? What is the point of a smack? To inflict pain and get your own way easily.
Do you hit adults to "punish" them, or animals? Funny, that's illegal.
Don't dress it up, it's violence.
Adults tend to smack the back or palm of the hand, or if the child has been extremely naughty the backs of the legs or bottom... as to affirm discipline.
Doing the same to an adult in an altercation would be a strange thing to do in a heated moment as usually it's a slap or punch to the face...and violent.
My mother never raised her hand to me and I didn't grow up to be a disrespectful criminal.
She managed to instil respect, manners and good behaviour in me without having to resort to hitting me. And I knew growing up if I misbehaved there'd be consequences. Just that those consequences weren't a smack. There were rules and if they were broken I was grounded or my bike/books/favourite things were removed. I wasn't allowed to watch TV or had to wash the dishes (still hate that with a passion). I'd have probably been a lot less well behaved had I know all that would happen what I'd get a smack. Don't get me wrong, I was no angel but I had far too much respect for my mother to ever be seriously 'naughty'.
So to be honest I always find it really baffling when a parent has so little clue how to actually parent that their way of 'teaching' their child how to behave or that their are consequences to actions is to smack them. What does that teach a child? All it teaches them as far as I can see is that when someone doesn't do what you want them to, it's okay to smack them.
But do I think it should be banned? No. The people who make these legislations are doing it simply to be PC and not because they actually give a crap about kids getting whacked when misbehaving. If they did they would offer parenting courses and teach parents actual parenting skills. And not just lay down the law and say 'you can't do that'.
As an example. One of my cousins has three kids. So does my best friend. My best friends doesn't hit her children. Yet they have rules. And routine and consequences to actions. They're great kids, well behaved. Well mannered and generally lovely kids. My cousin does hit her kids. They are positively feral. They do as they want when they want and I've seen her give them a whack when they miss behave only to have them laugh and carry on with whatever it is they're being whacked for. They're horrid little brats. The difference being My best friend is a great parent. My cousin lacks parenting skills.
Just having a blanket ban on whacking your kids will achieve zero unless they plan to teach parents who have no clue how to actually be a parent.
Would absolutely support a ban, as long as the law was administered sensibly, perhaps along the lines of what would happen now if both parties were adults. By this I mean that if someone tapped me on the back of the hand I would not run off to the police and if I did although it is technically assault I very much doubt that any action would be taken. On the other hand, if I were to repeatedly beat someone then chances are I'd be looking at a date in court and rightly so.
Personally regard hitting children as unacceptable and an admission of complete failure on the part of the parent to deal with things properly. Am the middle child of three myself and my parents never hit any of us (I was born in the late seventies, siblings a couple of years either side) and we all have good jobs, no criminal records, etc despite not being what you'd call perfect angels all of the time as children!
So you can smack a child, non violently? What is the point of a smack? To inflict pain and get your own way easily.
Do you hit adults to "punish" them, or animals? Funny, that's illegal.
Don't dress it up, it's violence.
So when your two year old runs off the pavement into the road after being repeatedly told not to do so would you draw him or her to one side and say " there's something we really need to discuss" ?
Surely a light smack on the hand is much more effective in getting the message home. We as a nation used to be able to recognise the line between good parenting and abuse. There is no reason why we can't these days.
So you can smack a child, non violently? What is the point of a smack? To inflict pain and get your own way easily.
Do you hit adults to "punish" them, or animals? Funny, that's illegal.
Don't dress it up, it's violence.
So when your three year old runs off the pavement into the road after being repeatedly told not to do so would you draw him or her to one side and say " there's something we really need to discuss" ?
Surely a light smack on the hand is much more effective in getting the message home. We as a nation used to be able to recognise the line between good parenting and abuse. There is no reason why we can't these days.
So when your two year old runs off the pavement into the road after being repeatedly told not to do so would you draw him or her to one side and say " there's something we really need to discuss" ?
Surely a light smack on the hand is much more effective in getting the message home. We as a nation used to be able to recognise the line between good parenting and abuse. There is no reason why we can't these days.
Not the sort of thing which should be prosecuted and no, I wouldn't call it abuse, but completely unnecessary and definitely not "good parenting". There are ways of getting a point across even to a toddler without slapping them.
No smacking should not be illegal, and by smacking I mean on the hand , bum or maybe leg and not hard. Beating on the other hand is illegal and so it should be, but the type of parent who beats their child would continue to do so if smacking was illegal so all a law would do is criminalise many decent parents.
Erm, it already is illegal to hit adults. That kinda the crux of the argument, its illegal to hit anyone other than your own children.
It's also illegal to hit animals and can result in the RSPCA visiting for a inspection if reported by someone. I know this because my Mum was reported for mistreating her late rabbit Snowflake and the RSPCA visited to see there wasn't a problem.
No but adults should know better and animals wouldn't understand.
If I one day have children, I will absolutely smack them for being naughty if still legal or not because that's what my parents did.
Adults should know better? You think children understand why a "supposedly" loving parent decides to use violence against them? No they don't at all. They are bullied into submission by the people who are supposed to love them.. Is that healthy? No it's definitely not.
Adults use smacking, to physically hurt and humiliate a helpless child. They're out of control, just as they would be hitting an adult, far more able to defend themselves. Anyone who says they were smacked and it did them no harm, then think it's ok to do it to their children is clearly damaged and confused by those experiences of physical violence from any parent. They are unable to move on and see what it actually means as an adult.
Why should adults and animals have more protection than helpless children?
So when your three year old runs off the pavement into the road after being repeatedly told not to do so would you draw him or her to one side and say " there's something we really need to discuss" ?
Surely a light smack on the hand is much more effective in getting the message home. We as a nation used to be able to recognise the line between good parenting and abuse. There is no reason why we can't these days.
What? You are the adult and should have hold of your child's hand, if they're on foot, to prevent any such thing happening at all, let alone repeatedly.
Even scarier that you can't see how wrong you are but I guess being smacked or slapped or hit or beaten did you no harm and actually helped to create the person you are today.
Yes it should be as illegal to smack a child. There are effective ways of disciplining a child without giving them a demonstration that violence is acceptable.
Adults should know better? You think children understand why a "supposedly" loving parent decides to use violence against them? No they don't at all. They are bullied into submission by the people who are supposed to love them.. Is that healthy? No it's definitely not.
Adults use smacking, to physically hurt and humiliate a helpless child. They're out of control, just as they would be hitting an adult, far more able to defend themselves. Anyone who says they were smacked and it did them no harm, then think it's ok to do it to their children is clearly damaged and confused by those experiences of physical violence from any parent. They are unable to move on and see what it actually means as an adult.
Why should adults and animals have more protection than helpless children?
I think you've jumped from A-Z here. I believe that there are steps reached before a smack, warnings and the child will understand why such a punishment, which is not going to be out of control, or actually hurt is done. Of course it humiliates them, so does being told off,especially in front of others, but sometimes doesn't work in certain situations. That is the bit the important bit for me-the understanding of the need for such a punishment, which might be avoided, the child is given the chance and told off this time, but if such and such behaviour,if bad enough continues,there could be a smack. it's also the threat of punishment which can deter and that you are consistent and mean what you say.
If a situation, such as the road, something dangerous, there won't be time to explain and the child will see how you react, remember that, that's the point. It's not out of control
You think children understand why a "supposedly" loving parent decides to use violence against them?
1. It's not really violence.
And:
2. I understood. I'd been naughty. Therefore I deserved the smacked bottom.
No they don't at all.
I just proved you wrong....with my own experience.
They are bullied into submission by the people who are supposed to love them.. Is that healthy? No it's definitely not.
Yes it is. It didn't do me any harm.
Adults use smacking, to physically hurt and humiliate a helpless child.
Because the child has been naughty.
They're out of control, just as they would be hitting an adult, far more able to defend themselves.
Nope, it's only done by most people if a child misbehaves.
Anyone who says they were smacked and it did them no harm, then think it's ok to do it to their children is clearly damaged and confused by those experiences of physical violence from any parent.
Nope. If it was okay for me, then it will be okay for the next generation.
Why should adults and animals have more protection than helpless children?
Because adults know better and children understand they've been naughty if they're smacked (animals wouldn't understand that).
Not the sort of thing which should be prosecuted and no, I wouldn't call it abuse, but completely unnecessary and definitely not "good parenting". There are ways of getting a point across even to a toddler without slapping them.
If a stranger saw a child running across the street and smacked them, would that be considered abuse though?
Even scarier that you can't see how wrong you are but I guess being smacked or slapped or hit or beaten did you no harm and actually helped to create the person you are today.
How much punishment were you subjected to?
I was either smacked, given a thick ear, told to go on the naughty step or told I was unable to play a videogame because I misbehaved. There's nothing wrong with either of those things.
Comments
I don't think it should be made illegal, I think children should be brought up knowing they do not control the house, the adult, the parents and appropriate adults do. There should be boundaries and th threat of discipline and consequences.
True. And that's the thing that needs to be stopped.
Then ban beating kids, not smacking.
Erm, it already is illegal to hit adults. That kinda the crux of the argument, its illegal to hit anyone other than your own children.
Adults tend to smack the back or palm of the hand, or if the child has been extremely naughty the backs of the legs or bottom... as to affirm discipline.
Doing the same to an adult in an altercation would be a strange thing to do in a heated moment as usually it's a slap or punch to the face...and violent.
Huge difference.
She managed to instil respect, manners and good behaviour in me without having to resort to hitting me. And I knew growing up if I misbehaved there'd be consequences. Just that those consequences weren't a smack. There were rules and if they were broken I was grounded or my bike/books/favourite things were removed. I wasn't allowed to watch TV or had to wash the dishes (still hate that with a passion). I'd have probably been a lot less well behaved had I know all that would happen what I'd get a smack. Don't get me wrong, I was no angel but I had far too much respect for my mother to ever be seriously 'naughty'.
So to be honest I always find it really baffling when a parent has so little clue how to actually parent that their way of 'teaching' their child how to behave or that their are consequences to actions is to smack them. What does that teach a child? All it teaches them as far as I can see is that when someone doesn't do what you want them to, it's okay to smack them.
But do I think it should be banned? No. The people who make these legislations are doing it simply to be PC and not because they actually give a crap about kids getting whacked when misbehaving. If they did they would offer parenting courses and teach parents actual parenting skills. And not just lay down the law and say 'you can't do that'.
As an example. One of my cousins has three kids. So does my best friend. My best friends doesn't hit her children. Yet they have rules. And routine and consequences to actions. They're great kids, well behaved. Well mannered and generally lovely kids. My cousin does hit her kids. They are positively feral. They do as they want when they want and I've seen her give them a whack when they miss behave only to have them laugh and carry on with whatever it is they're being whacked for. They're horrid little brats. The difference being My best friend is a great parent. My cousin lacks parenting skills.
Just having a blanket ban on whacking your kids will achieve zero unless they plan to teach parents who have no clue how to actually be a parent.
Personally regard hitting children as unacceptable and an admission of complete failure on the part of the parent to deal with things properly. Am the middle child of three myself and my parents never hit any of us (I was born in the late seventies, siblings a couple of years either side) and we all have good jobs, no criminal records, etc despite not being what you'd call perfect angels all of the time as children!
So when your two year old runs off the pavement into the road after being repeatedly told not to do so would you draw him or her to one side and say " there's something we really need to discuss" ?
Surely a light smack on the hand is much more effective in getting the message home. We as a nation used to be able to recognise the line between good parenting and abuse. There is no reason why we can't these days.
So when your three year old runs off the pavement into the road after being repeatedly told not to do so would you draw him or her to one side and say " there's something we really need to discuss" ?
Surely a light smack on the hand is much more effective in getting the message home. We as a nation used to be able to recognise the line between good parenting and abuse. There is no reason why we can't these days.
Didn't do me any harm
Most friends I know experienced it, didn't do them any harm
theres beating your child, and then theres giving them a clout here and there, the difference is mind boggling
With how me and my Brother have turned out and been brought up....our Parents ain't done too bad, job well done Old girl/boy
Not the sort of thing which should be prosecuted and no, I wouldn't call it abuse, but completely unnecessary and definitely not "good parenting". There are ways of getting a point across even to a toddler without slapping them.
It's also illegal to hit animals and can result in the RSPCA visiting for a inspection if reported by someone. I know this because my Mum was reported for mistreating her late rabbit Snowflake and the RSPCA visited to see there wasn't a problem.
Adults should know better? You think children understand why a "supposedly" loving parent decides to use violence against them? No they don't at all. They are bullied into submission by the people who are supposed to love them.. Is that healthy? No it's definitely not.
Adults use smacking, to physically hurt and humiliate a helpless child. They're out of control, just as they would be hitting an adult, far more able to defend themselves. Anyone who says they were smacked and it did them no harm, then think it's ok to do it to their children is clearly damaged and confused by those experiences of physical violence from any parent. They are unable to move on and see what it actually means as an adult.
Why should adults and animals have more protection than helpless children?
What? You are the adult and should have hold of your child's hand, if they're on foot, to prevent any such thing happening at all, let alone repeatedly.
Even scarier that you can't see how wrong you are but I guess being smacked or slapped or hit or beaten did you no harm and actually helped to create the person you are today.
How much punishment were you subjected to?
I think you've jumped from A-Z here. I believe that there are steps reached before a smack, warnings and the child will understand why such a punishment, which is not going to be out of control, or actually hurt is done. Of course it humiliates them, so does being told off,especially in front of others, but sometimes doesn't work in certain situations. That is the bit the important bit for me-the understanding of the need for such a punishment, which might be avoided, the child is given the chance and told off this time, but if such and such behaviour,if bad enough continues,there could be a smack. it's also the threat of punishment which can deter and that you are consistent and mean what you say.
If a situation, such as the road, something dangerous, there won't be time to explain and the child will see how you react, remember that, that's the point. It's not out of control
And:
2. I understood. I'd been naughty. Therefore I deserved the smacked bottom.
I just proved you wrong....with my own experience.
Yes it is. It didn't do me any harm.
Because the child has been naughty. Nope, it's only done by most people if a child misbehaves. Nope. If it was okay for me, then it will be okay for the next generation.
Because adults know better and children understand they've been naughty if they're smacked (animals wouldn't understand that).
If a stranger saw a child running across the street and smacked them, would that be considered abuse though?
I was either smacked, given a thick ear, told to go on the naughty step or told I was unable to play a videogame because I misbehaved. There's nothing wrong with either of those things.
Yes it is violence - it is force designed to hurt and so is violent by any definition of the word.
Basically all you are saying here is that they taught you to accept violence as an acceptable way to deal with bad behaviour.
No because there's nothing violent about it.
That's like saying pushing someone is 'violent'.