The Slapping Debate.

tallaght01

Mairt has put it far more eloquently than I could, with his personal example. Was a great posting, Mairt.

Obviously, the argument is going round in circles. It's always the same with this topic though. The pro-smacking lobby argue that they're a sensible bunch, and that they never go OTT. Those of us in the other camp argue that they shouldn't inflict the type of violence on a child that you would regard as assault if it were done to an adult.

Part of the problem was, I think, highlighted when earlier in this thread people were arguing about various behavioural theories. These are all just what they say on the tin...theories. Some advocate smacking, some don't. Some are off the wall, some are more sensible. But they're all theories. That's all they are.

There is no hard evidence either way. In fact, there's evidence that lower socio-economic groups hit their kids more often that those who are more wealthy. There is also evidence that the children of those in lower socio-economic groups commit more crime etc, suggesting that smacking is not a particularly strong positive behaviour modification strategy.

However, even if smacking is the most effective way to modify a child's behaviour in the world, I still think it is fundamentally wrong for an adult to strike a tiny child.

The same argument has surfaced here, regarding what constitutes smacking, and how it's not violence/abuse, because it's used in moderation.

This is a common argument, but is largely irrelevant, to my mind, as everyone has different ideas about what the limits are, and there's no way to enforce these limits, ie the person in the relationship with physical power dictates the terms of how much physical violence can be used.

People always talk about " a light smack" etc. I don't even understand what this means. I'm sure my mum would have different opinions on what constitutes a light smack than my dad, who is a sheet metal worker, so has arms like tree trunks. I'm sure I, as a toddler, would feel two very different amounts of pain, despite both thinking they were giving me a light smack.

Also, at what age should we be allowed to smack? An hour old? a week old? a month? At what age should we stop? When they are old enough to go to school? when they are mentally mature?

Is it ok to slap disabled kids? Is it ok to slap disabled adults?

I have real problems with leaving the physical boundaries up to parents. For all the sensible people out there, there are too many nutcases that take it too far.

I know this is a long enough thread already, but I was wondering what the panel thought about the following.....

I work on a childrens ward. We've made it a "No hitting place". What this means is that you are not allowed to strike your child while he/she is an inpatient with us. If you do, you get warned. If you do it again, you get removed, without the child, and are banned from returning.

The removal of parent autonomy like this was something I struggled with, but after seeing a number of kids with meningitis being slapped for crying too much, it became something we felt we had to act on.

Do people think we were too harsh?

Zulu

Ah, but it's not just "their child", it also happens to be a citizen of the state and as such should be protected by the state. You are not allowed to correct the actions of any other citizen of the state with violence (be it a light smack or not) so why should your child be outside the law??
To be honest saying it's "their child" dosen't wash, you aren't gifted a slave when you have a child to treat as you feel fit, hence physical and sexual abuse are illegal.

tallaght01

I'm inclined to agree, Zulu. That's why we implemented the policy. In fact these kind of things are a lot simpler in the UK, where I worked until recently. Over there, the childrens act enshrines in law the concept that the rights of the child come before anyone else in society.

It's still morally difficult, though,as the state, ideally, would interfere as little as possible in the upbringing of a child though.

hottstuff

There are far more damaging things out there done by parents , then a smack on the hand.
Whilst i always try the stern words method , this is not always effective with our energy charged toddlers these days.
Sometimes a smack on the hand is needed for kids that like to touch things they shouldn't , like coal on a fake fire , electricity sockets.etc
If a child wont listen to you about "No Touch" , you need to show them that touching something that they are not allowed will have a certain consequence , better than a skin burn IMO.

Having said that if i see someone going OTT , i feel obliged to inform them they are making a mistake , but no need to abuse the person as they may not realise they are damaging the child.
Just a little "you shouldn't do that" usually makes them feel bad enough.

tallaght01

The fact that there are more damaging things done by parents doesn't make smacking right.

It's also interesting that you think it's ok to slap a small child under some circumstances, where you regard it as being in the child's best interests. Whilst you are also happy to chastise other parents for using what you regard as excess force on their child.

This illustartes part of the problem. Everyone has different ideas about what is acceptable. It's all very well for us to argue about boundaries, but it's the kids/toddler/infants/babies who suffer from this inconsistency.

hottstuff wrote: »

There are far more damaging things out there done by parents , then a smack on the hand.
Whilst i always try the stern words method , this is not always effective with our energy charged toddlers these days.
Sometimes a smack on the hand is needed for kids that like to touch things they shouldn't , like coal on a fake fire , electricity sockets.etc
If a child wont listen to you about "No Touch" , you need to show them that touching something that they are not allowed will have a certain consequence , better than a skin burn IMO.

Having said that if i see someone going OTT , i feel obliged to inform them they are making a mistake , but no need to abuse the person as they may not realise they are damaging the child.
Just a little "you shouldn't do that" usually makes them feel bad enough.

hottstuff

tallaght01 wrote: »

The fact that there are more damaging things done by parents doesn't make smacking right.

It is till a fact is it not?
alcohol , bad language , buying kids games designed for an older age group.etc

It's also interesting that you think it's ok to slap a small child under some circumstances, where you regard it as being in the child's best interests. Whilst you are also happy to chastise other parents for using what you regard as excess force on their child.

Thank you Dr Phil :rolleyes:
Chastise , i said inform them it may be damaging their child.dont be misquoting you **** stirrer.

This illustartes part of the problem. Everyone has different ideas about what is acceptable. It's all very well for us to argue about boundaries, but it's the kids/toddler/infants/babies who suffer from this inconsistency.

Wow i wouldn't have realised that.
Your whole post has been to highlight the obvious.

tallaght01

hottstuff wrote: »

It is till a fact is it not?
alcohol , bad language , buying kids games designed for an older age group.etc


Thank you Dr Phil :rolleyes:
Chastise , i said inform them it may be damaging their child.dont be misquoting you **** stirrer.



Wow i wouldn't have realised that.
Your whole post has been to highlight the obvious.

So much to say, but I don't think I should reply to this

The Corinthian

tallaght01 wrote: »

In fact, there's evidence that lower socio-economic groups hit their kids more often that those who are more wealthy. There is also evidence that the children of those in lower socio-economic groups commit more crime etc, suggesting that smacking is not a particularly strong positive behavior modification strategy.

Correlation does not imply causation and the above is actually a good example of this. Physical punishment is only a tiny fraction of the environmental influence on a child in lower socio-economic group would receive, so it simply cannot be reasonably suggested that there is a direct link.

Is physical punishment acceptable? I think the real question is whether the benefits outweigh the potential damage. Even if there are no real long term physical effects to such punishment, no one will deny there are psychological effects - after all, punishment is designed to imprint certain behavior. As such physical punishment can ultimately cause more harm than good and lack thereof can also result in the old maxim of 'sparing the rod, spoiling the child' too.

In short, I don't think there is a right answer to this issue as it really depends upon both the child and the punishment.

Zulu

hottstuff wrote: »

It is till a fact is it not?

It is indeed a fact. It is also a fact that humans can not survive underwater without breathing apparatus. Both facts are completely irrelevant to this discussion. (Read the title to avoid confusion)

Thank you Dr Phil :rolleyes:

There is no need to attempt to belittle the poster because they make a strong point. It only makes it appear that you can't handle the points raised.

Chastise , i said inform them it may be damaging their child.

You know the point is correct. To me, you smacking your child because it touched a fake coal, is too harsh, yet you wouldn't be happy if I informed you that you may be "damaging your child".

dont be misquoting you **** stirrer.

There is no need to be so aggressive.

Your whole post has been to highlight the obvious.

Indeed, it highlights the obvious, and yet there are still those that refuse to acknowledge it.

tallaght01

The Corinthian wrote: »

Correlation does not imply causation and the above is actually a good example of this. Physical punishment is only a tiny fraction of the environmental influence on a child in lower socio-economic group would receive, so it simply cannot be reasonably suggested that there is a direct link.

I think it can be "reasonably suggested", but no more than that. I agree with you, by and large. That's why i made point. The point was not that smacking increases violent behaviour. I don't know for sure if it does. Nobody knows for sure if it does.

The point I was making is that the only actual evidence available to us (regardless of what grade of evidence it is) is that kids who are more likely to be smacked, are not less likely to be violent. That's why I said "there is no hard evidence either way".

hottstuff

Zulu wrote: »

It is indeed a fact. It is also a fact that humans can not survive underwater without breathing apparatus. Both facts are completely irrelevant to this discussion. (Read the title to avoid confusion)

There is no need to attempt to belittle the poster because they make a strong point. It only makes it appear that you can't handle the points raised.

You know the point is correct. To me, you smacking your child because it touched a fake coal, is too harsh, yet you wouldn't be happy if I informed you that you may be "damaging your child".

There is no need to be so aggressive.

Indeed, it highlights the obvious, and yet there are still those that refuse to acknowledge it.

I'd expect you to join in backing up a mod.do you think i care what you think.?
Your opinion means nothing to me.Anorak

tallaght01

c'mon hotstuff. Take it easy. I know it's an emotive topic. But this is just a discussion board.

Lets not turn this into a personal row. I'm as keen to hear the reasons behind the pro-smacking lobby as I am to give my reasons for being against smacking.

Let's all live in harmony

hottstuff

tallaght01 wrote: »

c'mon hotstuff. Take it easy. I know it's an emotive topic. But this is just a discussion board.

Lets not turn this into a personal row. I'm as keen to hear the reasons behind the pro-smacking lobby as I am to give my reasons for being against smacking.

Let's all live in harmony

Sorry mate , don't want to offend , but that anorak gets on my tits.;)

embee

hottstuff wrote: »

I'd expect you to join in backing up a mod.do you think i care what you think.?
Your opinion means nothing to me.Anorak

hottstuff - please refer to the chartter.

Any more abuse and you'll get banned. This is an emotive topic, but you don't have to start getting personal.

Nevyn

tallaght01 wrote: »

In fact these kind of things are a lot simpler in the UK, where I worked until recently. Over there, the children's act enshrines in law the concept that the rights of the child come before anyone else in society.

We have been waiting for the un charter on the rights of the child to be ratified there a long time and I can't see it being done with FF in government and it won't be done until the schools are sorted out as it would leave the government exposed to law suits.

Zulu wrote: »

Ah, but it's not just "their child", it also happens to be a citizen of the state and as such should be protected by the state. You are not allowed to correct the actions of any other citizen of the state with violence (be it a light smack or not) so why should your child be outside the law??
To be honest saying it's "their child" dosen't wash, you aren't gifted a slave when you have a child to treat as you feel fit, hence physical and sexual abuse are illegal.

And the state did such a good job when children were put in care and in homes in the past....

To the extent now that a a child would have to suffer sever physical abuse before it is taken away from unsuitable parents and getting slapped across the face or punched about the place everyday does not constitutes enough abuse a child would have to have reoccurring injuries that need to be hospitalized and were clearly not an accident and could not be explained away by they fell down the stairs.

While I don't think we should go down the Swedish route I do think that parenting skills and parenting classes should be mandatory.

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

And the state did such a good job when children were put in care and in homes in the past....

I won't disagree, and I wouldn't/don't advocate separating children from their parents lightly.

While I don't think we should go down the Swedish route I do think that parenting skills and parenting classes should be mandatory.

Personally I don't find too much wrong with the Swedish route. I certainly believe that if a parent is "beating" a child they should be punished themselves. Perhaps penalty points (like for driving) could be introduced!?! ...but then how do you determine between a beating (or leathering as it was called in my childhood!) or a "reasonable" slap??
The only way is an outright ban.

Nevyn

Currently in the UK a smack or slap is acceptible as long as it does not leave a red mark on the child's skin. I think this is a pretty good way of figuring this out.

There is a huge difference between phyical chastisment with a slap/smack and beating a child.

Currently I think the most prevelant forum of child abuse in the country is neglect
and that applies also to children that have all the material wants they could dream of and are left to rear themselves and very little interaction with thier parents.

hottstuff

Thaedydal wrote: »

Currently in the UK a smack or slap is acceptible as long as it does not leave a red mark on the child's skin. I think this is a pretty good way of figuring this out.

agreed. even though there will be those that argue the mental damge is more important than the physical.

There is a huge difference between phyical chastisment with a slap/smack and beating a child.

Not to those on the high hill.

Currently I think the most prevelant forum of child abuse in the country is neglect
and that applies also to children that have all the material wants they could dream of and are left to rear themselves and very little interaction with thier parents.

agreed but that's not the form of neglect people are willing to stick their noses into.

metrovelvet

Thaedydal wrote: »

Currently I think the most prevelant forum of child abuse in the country is neglect
and that applies also to children that have all the material wants they could dream of and are left to rear themselves and very little interaction with thier parents.

Absolutely.

Would you consider absentee parenting a form of neglect/abuse?

Zulu

Thaedydal wrote: »

Currently in the UK a smack or slap is acceptible as long as it does not leave a red mark on the child's skin. I think this is a pretty good way of figuring this out.

...humm, but this just open up a whole can of worms:

• if it's cold, a red mark will show easier than if it's warm.
• should I make a complaint to the police, by the time they check, the red mark could be gone
• what if the red mark is on the childs bottom, does the child need to bear his/her bottom to the police in order to prove innocence/guilt???

There is a huge difference between phyical chastisment with a slap/smack and beating a child.

I agree, but how do you define?

Currently I think the most prevelant forum of child abuse in the country is neglect

agreed

and that applies also to children that have all the material wants they could dream of and are left to rear themselves and very little interaction with thier parents.

agreed

Nevyn

What do you mean ?

I am refering to a house hold were the parents are rarely in the same room as thier child who is left infront of the tv/pc/toys for hours with out active supervision or interaction.

GreeBo

Mairt wrote: »

Smacking a child is violence, pure and simple.

You wouldn't hit an adult for not doing something you wanted him/her to do, so why should it be ok with some people to hit a child?.

Because you can explain to an adult that putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea, with a 1 year old you cannot. A child of that age cannot be reasoned with on the same level as you would with an adult or even an older child.

hottstuff

Zulu wrote: »

...humm, but this just open up a whole can of worms:

• if it's cold, a red mark will show easier than if it's warm.
• should I make a complaint to the police, by the time they check, the red mark could be gone
• what if the red mark is on the childs bottom, does the child need to bear his/her bottom to the police in order to prove innocence/guilt???

I agree, but how do you define?

:rolleyes:

GreeBo

metrovelvet wrote: »

I wouldnt lift a hand to a child and if anyone lifted theirs to mine, whether my family or not, they'd feel pain so hard they'd wish for an early death.

Ah, so you are into beating adults but not chastising children?
I see.

hottstuff

GreeBo wrote: »

Because you can explain to an adult that putting their hand in the fire is a bad idea, with a 1 year old you cannot. A child of that age cannot be reasoned with on the same level as you would with an adult or even an older child.

Others will tell you proper parenting will enable you to teach a child under 2 how not to touch dangerous things.:)
laughable IMO.

Zulu

GreeBo, you can of course put a fire guard over the fire, and plugs into plug holes. A child "who can't be reasoned with" should be supervised and kept out of harms way.

Would you not agree?

Nevyn

Zulu wrote: »

GreeBo, you can of course put a fire guard over the fire, and plugs into plug holes. A child "who can't be reasoned with" should be supervised and kept out of harms way.

Would you not agree?

Constantly ?

Even when there are other children to be considered.

Zulu seriously have you ever had to have a 2/3 year old on your own and still have to housework and get the dinner done ?

Zulu

I've had 2/3year old twin boys (my nephews) a number of times on my own. ...and I didn't try dinner. I have the utmost respect for their parents, and other parents. And I can't try to imagine how some single parents manage. Kudos.

That being said, I do see how their parents managed. The house is toddler-proofed to an extent and there is two of them (parents) for the most part. They don't slap/spank/lightly tap their children and they are doing a fantastic job - albeit hard.

It can be done without resorting to violence.

hottstuff

Zulu wrote: »

It can be done without resorting to violence.

:rolleyes:
You have just said you looked after your nephews which is a totally different thing altogether and so you have no experience of what your talking about.

*Page*

hottstuff wrote: »

:rolleyes:
You have just said you looked after your nephews which is a totally different thing altogether and so you have no experience of what your talking about.

well coming from a mother of one and also an aunty and a minder of my neighbours kid and cousins...

Hitting a child is wrong no matter how you do it, if you do it out of fear angry furstration or anything else it is wrong.
Why is it wrong because an adult is phyically abusing a child and menatly scaring them.

My father hit me once in my lifetime and boy do i remember it.

My father hit my daughter once and still to this day (3 years on) both my daughter and father remember it. and not in a gosh thanks for hitting me or that sure made you a better kid.

my daughter to this day is still emtionally hurt, my father was scared when he did, she had run out in front of a truck his reaction was a slap on the bum. He didnt hurt her phyicaly or mark her because he knew it was wrong and tried to stop his reation.

My point is no matter what a child does hitting and violence is not the answer its probably the cause though.


also i have known people raised by the grounding excersize (a slap on the bum to bring them back to earth) and they are well rounded people but if even messing (tiggling etc) it becomes out of hand and they are too rough. Not knowing that causing pain even in play is wrong. and whats worse they dont know that they are hurting.