Ban smacking

Some very interesting and some wise comments made so far.

Presumably the purpose of smacking a child put forward by proponents is that it teaches the child something that is of value for the child’s development. This could encompass safety, socialisation, ‘education’ and other aspects. Smacking is easy to administer, takes next to no time and usually results in an apparently contrite child. And, from what I’ve read recently it’s in the bible so must be the thing to do according to one religiously affiliated school.

An alternative, and sometimes an addition to smacking is verbal chastisement where the child is verbally humiliated with the production of tears being taken as indicative of success.

Child psychology has made immense strides over the past 40 years in the understanding of how children develop and also in general learning theory. One of the very basic truths of the acquisition of learning is that negative reinforcement doesn’t work as well as positive reinforcement for shaping behaviour. Putting this in a parent-child context, the parent who praises the ‘good’ actions and ignores the ‘bad’, is more likely to raise a happy and well balanced child. Furthermore the child who is smacked learns that might is right, and has already been pointed out the child who is denigrated comes to believe his/hers description.

The problem with positive reinforcement or at least with soft-peddling the negative is that it takes more time, patience and a bit more thought. It’s not a quick fix though it is the one that lasts.

I’d like to say that I was smacked by my parents and belted at school and it didn’t do me any harm. It possibly didn’t, but I don’t think it did me much good either.

We didn’t ever hit either of own two children, though at times were sorely tempted, but they’ve both grown into fine adults with the right set of values, and our daughter who now had her own child is just brilliant with ‘discipline’ (horrible word). Distraction techniques are used to re-direct problematic behaviour, explanation for why mummy is upset and time out on the ‘naughty step’ followed by an “I’m sorry”, seem to be working just fine.

And as far as Clueless's account about the crossing the road goes. I bet that getting yanked backed and a talking too perhaps created a greater and more lasting impact than the wallop.

 

Well I didn't do it again.

 

Absolutely. When I first became a dad, my dad said to me, "remember, its far easier to knock the devil into a child than it is to knock the devil out". He went on about rewarding good more than punishing bad. To be honest, so far (touch wood) neither wife nor I have had need to smack our son. The approach I prefer to take is to make him feel included rather than excluded and so far it seems to be working. One piece of advice I read and immediately rejected went like this "you are a father not a friend". That's a load of twaddle. Me and my lads are best mates, and as the older mate, its my job to lead and guide. If someone's not your mate, you don't confide in them, and if my son ever decides he can't confide in me, then simply, I've failed. Wont stop me from smacking his bum though if the situation ever demands it.

 

My advice as parents of two, grand parents of one, and between Mrs W and myself as teachers of a few hundred, is think twice and don't do it. You'll lose far more than you gain.

 

I'm neutral about smacking. I think it's best if you can avoid it, but I would not like to see hard-pressed parents being criminalised for doing something that has been a natural recourse throughout history, and is a normal part of parenting in the animal world also. Particularly as legislation would do absolutely nothing to prevent serious abuse, both physical and psychological.

I agree that the approach of positive reinforcement outlined by Dave W is probably the model of good parenting, but it can go wrong, resulting in spoilt, over-indulged, self-centred brats of the kind that we all long to give a good slap to. Probably the kind that drop the litter that Yvonne Donnellon rightly hates! But that is not the fault of the method, but of the way it has been applied, I think.

Thinking of my own experience, my dad used to smack me from time to time, but always with a "this hurts me more than it hurts you" approach, never in temper and always with a clear reason. I'm not sure if it did much good, but I certainly did not feel assaulted or damaged by it. He was a good and loving father trying to do his best.

My mother occasionally smacked me, and once slapped me as a teenager. Her temper was always uncertain and she did not have the patience to deal effectively with small children so her interventions were not effective and made me angry. But again, I don't feel as though I've been damaged by these incidents, no doubt I was a very difficult teenager and my mother was at the end of her tether.

I know that physical chastisement is often much worse than this but these are examples of parental behaviour that I feel should not be criminalised although possibly sub-optimal.

 

It's been a great privilege to read all your comments about child management.
All I know ( not having grandchildren) is that schools are finding they have more and more almost impossible to "manage" children. This has increased significantly in the last 5 years and is invariably to do with them not having a stable Mum and Dad home abckground .
I do hope that your lovely, healthy views shine through - I'm certain they will for your offspring,
Jenny namaste

 

When I was a teenager in the 70s we thought disrespect of authority was cool and the only way forward. Society is paying the price of that now.

 

And look how nicely-behaved you are now!

 

When I got whacked by the mean old Welsh teacher (she taught Welsh, I'm not being racist!) my Mum said I must have deserved it. She wasn't straight up to school demanding that the teacher be disciplined and reinforcing my bad behaviour in the process.

 

I certainly put in a good effort.