BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Conversation >

Smacking Children

  
  

Page: (1)234

 
 
Jub
12:07 / 16.12.05
Where do you stand on this?

The usual arguments for smacking children centre around the idea that you have to be cruel to be kind so that they learn what behaviour is and isn't acceptable both in terms of interaction with others and safety. The main argument against smacking children is that hitting anyone is wrong, full stop.

The new English law on this says if it leaves a mark then it's illegal.

Is the statement "I was smacked as a child and it didn't do me any harm" really true? And does this give a green light to smacking a whole new generation? Children that had corporal punishment back in the day, turned out okay but that's not really the point.

People smack their children in the streets / supermarket wherever, and I wonder how necessary it is. It used to be acceptable for men to beat their wives, then government legislated it (rule of thumb etc), then banned it outright and it's now seen as a terrible thing. How has wife beating become unnacceptable in society's eyes and yet smacking a child, who is more defenseless, is still acceptable?

I'm also interested to know what other non-western cultures' views are on smacking, especially tribal groups.

Obviously there are degrees of smacking, and that's what the new law attempts to legislate. Is there ever a need to hit children or will this legislation go the way of rule of the thumb?
 
 
Char Aina
12:22 / 16.12.05
How has wife beating become unnacceptable in society's eyes and yet smacking a child, who is more defenseless, is still acceptable?

perhaps because you are responsible for a child's development and socialisation? to be in charge of your child's actions would seem more acceptable than being in charge of your partner's, and backing that up with force is therefore going to seem more valid.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
12:29 / 16.12.05
You mean like.... Iraq?
 
 
Evil Scientist
12:34 / 16.12.05
Surely it's acceptable if it's talking during a film? Even if the horrible thing isn't yours.

People? Surely?
 
 
Char Aina
13:09 / 16.12.05
i think iraq has suffered hir way through more ruined movies than ze has ruined them for others.

are you republican?
 
 
Evil Scientist
13:20 / 16.12.05
I'm a pelican!
 
 
The Natural Way
15:02 / 16.12.05
Interesting question this. My g/f's Dad occassionaly spanks and shouts a lot at his mentally disabled Grandson, in order to stop him repeatedly hitting himself. Now, not only does this strategy work, but the kid seems to adore his Grandfather above anyone else. Also, the child exhibits an incredible calm around him - he laughs and smiles more and is basically, well, stiller. I think something about the structure his Grandfather provides makes him considerably more comfortable and settled, and while I understand that there may be other methods to achieve this, something about the Grandad's really semms to work. The boy is definitely at his least fucked up (and he is a VERY unhappy child) in the man's presence.
 
 
Spaniel
15:20 / 16.12.05
I'd be interested to know whether any Barbeparents smack their kids. I don't plan on hitting my child - I'm opposed to it, as if my partner - but I'm also aware that the reality of being a parent if significantly different from the fantasy.

I'd also like this thread to up it's game just a little. It's not often we get something meaty to talk about in the Convo, so I think we should make the most of it, and keep the silliness to sillier threads.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
15:32 / 16.12.05
Nuke them from orbit. Only way to be sure.
 
 
HCE
15:38 / 16.12.05
No.
 
 
electric monk
16:02 / 16.12.05
Wifey and I have agreed that, while we're both against spanking, we'll leave the option open to ourselves for serious infractions. What those infractions may be, I cannot say, but I do know that Elliot will have to go quite far off the straight-and-narrow before I raise a hand to him.

I got my share (and his share and her share and your share) of the belt and wooden spoon growing up, and don't think it really taught me anything other than fear. I don't fault my parents for this, mind you. They were working with the tools they had at their disposal and within a familial climate that encouraged spanking as pretty much a cure-all. I'm sure our position on spanking will be met with derision, and just as sure that other members of the family will speak in hushed tones about what a godawful shame it is and how Elliot will surely come to a bad end. Bullshit, of course, and the whispers will end without comment when the boy turns out happy and healthy.

wedding - Thanks for sharing that. You raised my liberal ire and tamped it down in the space of a minute, and have given me something to think about.
 
 
alas
16:06 / 16.12.05
I was a foster parent under the supervision of a British Council and was, therefore, absolutely forbidden from "smacking" the children (which we generally call "spanking" in the US). I went into parenting as a good liberal who was only very rarely physically punished as a child, and thought it would be easy to avoid physical punishment. But I found that it's actually pretty tempting when you are tired and the child is simply not cooperating or being willfully disobedient and you're in a rush...it's really hard to be patient and firm yet gentle 24/7. To give clear boundaries that are not policed by physical violence.

I agree that children really do need clear and consistent boundaries, as has been remarked. The calm that they get from a sense of having a clear sense for the rules and consistent behavior by the adults around them helps them to feel free to explore and, if they need, press the boundaries for reassurance and clarity. I suspect that the biggest problem with physical violence is that it is rarely employed in a predictable pattern: it's often a blast that's unpredictable--here resulting from spilling milk, there resulting from an action completed two days ago and almost forgotten, and yet again from, say, running out into a street. And then the same infractions may be ignored, encouraged, laughed at, at other times, and the child can't find a pattern. (This kind of inconsistency can also happen without physical punishment being a part of the equation, but I do suspect that it's less terrifying for the child.)

I didn't smack the children, but I confess that I am certain that I did occasionally use a little more force than was absolutely necessary--grabbing a hand to stop it from pounding the piano, say, and holding the wrist a little too hard. And then suffered liberal angst, barely being able to admit to myself that I was physically punishing the child, because that was, of course, forbidden by the State and, more importantly, counter to my own ethos and sense of myself as a hip liberal.

An alternative to physical brutality that is differently but perhaps equally problematic is the bourgeois use of emotional manipulation, guilt-tripping, etc. This is the kind of thing that parents who want to see themselves as non-violent but who have, of course, a need to force children to do things they don't want to do, tend to use. It's cloying and, most importantly, involves the child in her own punishment in a way that can be sadistically employed.

Arguably, middle class Western parenting is all about disguising and renaming force, some of which is no doubt motivated by a desire to protect children, but some of which is about maintaining/reifying one's own adult middle-class identity/ bourgeois aspirations, as against, say "white trash" identity (in the US, anyway), which here is associated with a propensity to physical violence.
 
 
Scrambled Password Bogus Email
16:16 / 16.12.05
Hmmm...smacking is definitely a last, last option, but totally unavoidable in certain circumstances to really make a point, as far as I'm concerned. My little boy is unusually rugged, though, and basically never cries at anything, he can fall and scrape all the skin off his hands and knees and just doesn't bat an eyelid...Everyone has commented on it, he's indestructible.

He gets spanked if, and only if, he is disobedient or wilful in a manner which is placing him or other children in actual physical danger...It's extremely rare, like maybe twice in the last (nearly) 4 years (sheesh, I'm getting old). Both times around busy roads, with other children. Had to be done, had to make a point and make it completely solidly. Spoke to him at length about it afterwards, immediately followed the physical bit with tender words and serious discussion about the whys and wheretofores, etc...but the reality of parenting is not always idealistic.
 
 
grant
16:17 / 16.12.05
Sometimes, the little creeps just need to be whacked. In much the same way that sometimes some of my friends need to be whacked. Upside the head. This isn't really the same thing, except, you know, you're hitting someone who is a child. Insouciant whelps.

This is punitive, I suppose, but it doesn't really result in tears. Falls in the same category as poking in the ribs, tickling, and (possibly) doing the "chicken head." (A sort of pinching motion with stiffly held finger and thumbs along the rounded back of the victim's skull, so that the victim is forced into a quick, poultry-like nod.)

The fact that this is what my home life is like might also explain why I came really close to knocking my darling toddler's head off her shoulders when she decided it'd be funny to sneak up behind me and sink her teeth into my leg. I believe I still have the scar. The physical one, the emotional one I know I still have. Biting, we already knew, was against the rules. And now we know that that's not one of the rules that bends.

And thank god I didn't whack her.
 
 
■
16:17 / 16.12.05
While the probability of my becoming a parent is laughably remote, my position has always been that you should never do it, but letting a child know that you can't or won't means the ultimate sanction is removed which might lead to their being a little less respectful.
The analogy is with teachers who, for a few years until recently, weren't even allowed to touch a child. The kids knew this and frequently used the prohibition as a weapon against them. So, the possibility of the threat should remain, the threat itself is a very bad idea, and the act is a total no-no. Does that make sense?
The only times I ever remember my parents using physical force (once and only once per sibling, and pretty much by accident) it shocked the crap out of all of us and led to an understanding that it should never happen again.
 
 
grant
16:25 / 16.12.05
Wow -- spend a few minutes writing that and two more replies sneak in.

alas sed: This is the kind of thing that parents who want to see themselves as non-violent but who have, of course, a need to force children to do things they don't want to do, tend to use. It's cloying and, most importantly, involves the child in her own punishment in a way that can be sadistically employed.

What exactly are you describing here? I'm not sure I get it.

alas also sed: Arguably, middle class Western parenting is all about disguising and renaming force, some of which is no doubt motivated by a desire to protect children, but some of which is about maintaining/reifying one's own adult middle-class identity/ bourgeois aspirations, as against, say "white trash" identity (in the US, anyway), which here is associated with a propensity to physical violence.

We're pretty much a "time out" household, as far as serious punishment for the little one goes. With the bigger one, groundings. Both of these are feared more than threats of violence, I think. Especially with the little one -- put her in time out, and you'd think her hand had got caught in the blender. Pain! Screaming!

Is this the kind of thing you're talking about? It can be sadistic, that's for sure, but I don't know about self-implicating or cloying.
 
 
The Natural Way
17:19 / 16.12.05
One thing that occurs to me: the intention behind the smack may well inform/compound its impact. Looking back, it seems to me that both my parents generally struck me out of rage - the look on their faces (my Mum could get slightly hysterical and strange), the apparent randomness of my Father's physical outbursts. It was all slightly unpredictable and kind of vicious. And I felt that. It upset and confused me - there wasn't anything to learn there (either emotionally or intellectualy), apart from a frightening instability. In the case of my G/F's dad, this definitely isn't the case. He's forceful, yes, but there's boundary and structure to that force, and - and I know some of you will find this weird - love.
 
 
electric monk
17:34 / 16.12.05
"I think your dad and my dad should go bowling."
 
 
electric monk
18:04 / 16.12.05
Seriously tho, I know where you're coming from and I definitely agree that intent is everything. Children pick up on things a lot better than some adults give them credit for. My own lil nipper is already proving this to me at the tender age of seven months. When I get frustrated with him, his agitation is likely to increase. Conversely, if he's upset and I'm cool & collected, he seems to settle a little easier.

He's forceful, yes, but there's boundary and structure to that force, and - and I know some of you will find this weird - love.

Not weird at all. Quite moving, actually.
 
 
Jack Fear
18:07 / 16.12.05
I very, very rarely hit my kids. I rarely even threaten it ("If you don't stop that, you're going to get a spanking"), and I always feel vaguely sick when I do either.

Violence is the great interruptor—it's the ultimate tool for changing the subject or breaking the pattern of destructive behavior, and it's an undeniably useful coercive tool for enforcing those time-outs.

I've got a mental flowchart, here.

Child is engaging in behavior that jeopardizes life, limb, or property. Parent requests a stop to said behavior.

Does behavior stop? If YES, return to equilibrium: if NO, repeat request.

Does behavior stop on second request? If YES, return to equilibrium: if NO, go to ESCALATION PROTOCOL 1—declare time-out.

Does child move to designated time-out area? If YES, proceed with time-out routine—two minutes of isolation, followed by admonition, affirmation, apologies, and return to equilibrium: if NO, go to go to ESCALATION PROTOCOL 2—repeat declaration of time-out with added proviso—Get on the naughty step for a two minute time-out, or there's going to be trouble.

Does child move to designated time-out area on second request? If YES, proceed with time-out routine: if NO, go to ESCALATION PROTOCOL 3—repeat declaration of time-out with added proviso—If you're not on that step by the time I count to five, you're going to get a spanking.

Does child move to designated time-out area on third request? If YES, proceed with time-out routine: if NO, go to ESCALATION PROTOCOL 4—begin counting to five slowly, in as deep and authortative tone as you can muster.

Does child move to designated time-out area during five-count? If YES, proceed with time-out routine: if NO, go to ESCALATION PROTOCOL 5—say "All right, you had your chance" and grasp the child firmly but carefully.

Does child express a desire to move to designated time-out area after being grasped? If YES, proceed with time-out routine: if NO, go to ESCALATION PROTOCOL 6—administer one (1) swift, sharp, open-handed slap to the clothed buttocks. Then proceed IMMEDIATELY with time-out routine.

In ordinary circumstances, we won't proceed above Esclation Level 2, and very rarely to Escalation Level 5, and then very very rarely past the count of three.

Further rules: One slap only. Buttocks only. Bare, open hand only. And—most importantly—never, ever hit a child in anger. The escalation process outlined above gives the child ample opportunity to comply with your requests, but also gives you, the parent, a moment to cool off and deal with the situation dispassionately.

It's a drastic measure, yeah. But it is a cutter of Gordian knots of recalcitrance. However, I do feel strongly that it should only ever be used as a momentary corrective, and not systematized or drawn out: "Wait 'til your father gets home" or "Report to me at 0900 hours for your spanking," or "Go out in the back yard and cut me a switch with which to smack you" are not only cruel but ineffective, as they isloate the punishment form the infraction, obscuring the necessary relationship between the two—and, in so doing, defeating your purpose in punishing the child in the first place: all s/he'll remember is the beating, and not the misbehavior that ostensibly led to it.
 
 
Spaniel
18:27 / 16.12.05
What about consistency, guys? Do your partners administer physical punishment, and, if so, do they administer physical punishment under the same circumstances?
 
 
grant
19:14 / 16.12.05
Spouse definitely more punitive than I. She gets *mad*. I don't know about consistency, but she also gives plenty of warnings. "Do you want to go in time out?"
 
 
Spaniel
20:56 / 16.12.05
I have to say, I'd be very concerned if my partner dished out physical punishment inconsistently. I think if we're ever to go that route we need to set some ground rules and try damn hard to stick to 'em.
 
 
Bard: One-Man Humaton Hoedown
00:13 / 17.12.05
To be honest...I was spanked a few times as a child. I can remember each instance, and I can remember EXACTLY what I did to deserve it. And to be honest, I think that it worked for me in the same way that a kid needs to touch a hot element to learn "OW! It burns! I shouldn't touch it!": it firmly associated the punished action with being bad. Given that one of those actions broke a few antiques and could have led to me falling out a window, I think that was for the best.

I really think that children do need boundaries. I'm very liberal, and I'm essentially a pacifist, but I think that spanking used very infrequently is a useful tool for correct behavior. Striking out of anger is NOT a good idea, and I'm the first to admit that when I was spanked by my late stepfather he was pretty damn pissed off. However I think that the threat of spanking was a useful deterent from doing stupid things again.

While I'm one of the first to say that "kids should be allowed to be kids", I think that society in general is far too willing to denounce any corrective behavior of a child's actions. Limits and punishments need to be set, and "go to your room" just doesn't cut it sometimes.

I'm babbling at this point, without a really clear thesis to all this.
 
 
Spaniel
07:56 / 17.12.05
But being bad isn't enough, IMO. When I was smacked as a child I'd invariably been very bad, but I'm pretty sure smacking didn't help matters in that it was usually very confusing and frightening. As far as I'm concerned a parent who smacks out of anger and fails to explain their actions and calm the situation subsequently has acted in an abusive manner*. The important point here is that parents need to set strict boundaries around the act of physical discipline in order for the child to understand the purpose of the punishment, and the reason for it. I also believe that physical discipline - if used at all - should be treated as the ultimate sanction, and used very, very, very sparingly. Breaking antiques doesn't cut it in my book, threatening life and limb does.


*Note, I'm not suggesting that one abusive action makes for an abusive parent
 
 
Katherine
13:03 / 17.12.05
I can also remember each I was spanked as a child, in our house my parents had a three 'strike' rule.
If I was naughty (ie throwing sand in my little sister's eyes/face), I was told not to do it and why. I was also told it was my first warning. (strike one)
If I did it again then I was told in no uncertain terms to stop it now, and again the reasons were explained at greater length, I was also told one more time and I would get a smack. (strike two)
If I did it again then I got a smack.(strike three)

I can as I said remember each occasion I got a smack and yes I deserved each one. My parents usually only had to go to the first step in that program. Both my sister and I knew exactly we had done and it was explained why it wasn't acceptable.

I do believe it works but yes I agree there has to be perfectly explained levels. Did I fear being smacked? I don't think so I hated the explanations as to why something was wrong though.

Would I smack my own child? I can't answer that as I'm not likely to have any.
 
 
Our Lady Has Left the Building
14:23 / 17.12.05
I feel it's less about the smacking, more about the moral environment that the parents place around the child. Working in a library I'm forced to see tons of the little fuckers, some kids misbehave a lot and the parent is obviously not in control, hitting them does no good. Families where the parent is in control, the kids misbehave a lot less and some of those parents do whack 'em.
 
 
ibis the being
15:05 / 17.12.05
I have to say, I'm rather surprised at how many people here favor or at least allow for spanking as part of disciplining children.

I don't have any children yet, so I know that I'm one of those people parents the world over sneer at for thinking I know how I will raise children... I just don't understand, etc. However, I'm the oldest of six kids, worked in schools, done a lot of nannying, so I'm not just passingly familiar with young children.

It's funny, I was recently in a similar discussion about spanking on another forum - but it was about hitting dogs. I'll say here what I said there - I just don't see spanking as a meaningful communication. It doesn't say anything beyond "no," and I can say "no" with my mouth. Disciplining children should teach more than yes/no... that's not to say you have to get in a lengthy discussion about why your son can't, for example, draw on the wall with a permanent marker. But he can be told that permanent markers are not for kids, and redirected to a more appropriate use of his creative abilities (Crayolas on paper).

I also don't see how you can employ spanking as a punishment without painting yourself into a sticky moral corner. Most parents teach their kids it's not okay to hit when they're angry, frustrated, or not getting their way - so if you turn around and spank your kid when you disapprove of their behavior, you're forced to either be a hypocrite (do as I say, not as I do) or craft some kind of clumsy parameter like kids are not allowed to hit but grownups are.

Recently a study came out that showed children who were spanked had higher rates of anxiety and aggression - even when spanking was a cultural norm in a given region. The study was worldwide and attempted to include groups from varying economic backgrounds, degrees of conversatism, etc. I will try to locate that reference and post it.

I was spanked as a child and I remember the feelings I had about it at the time. Even at a young age my brothers and I were aware of the hypocrisy of our parents spanking us... we were not allowed to hit each other, of course, nor even to argue. Our parents tried never to spank while angry, but it was never lost on us that they spanked out of frustration. We knew they were only venting and demonstrating their power. It didn't matter if it hurt or not (it usually did) - there was only one clear message in our spankings, and that was "this is our ultimate power over you." I remember being filled with rage when I was spanked - of course they could overpower us, we were children - it went way over the top in underlining our helplessness. I don't even remember what I was spanked FOR, but probably, ironically, for fighting with my brother. We channeled all that unexpressed rage at our parents into fighting each other, which we did ALL THE TIME. Probably the warmest memory I have of childhood is when my dad sat down on my bed a few hours after spanking me and told me that he was sorry - he had been angry at me, and knew it was wrong to spank me. I loved him so much in that moment.

Again, I'm sure this seems silly, but there are a lot of comparisons to be drawn between animal training and child rearing. Recent research has shown time and again that non-violent methods of training such as operant conditioning and positive reinforcement training produce better, faster, longer-lasting results, and happier, more secure animals with better relationships to their handlers. Given that I have tried these methods with my pet and had great success, I can't imagine why I would do anything less with human children.
 
 
Smoothly
00:50 / 18.12.05
I don't think the harm or benefit to the child is the only concern here. I think I'm more worried about the effect on adults of having a culture that tells parents that it's okay to hit children. To be frank, I found reading some of these descriptions of child spanking nauseating.

One slap only. Buttocks only. Bare, open hand only.

*shudder*

No offense meant, and I have a lot of respect for everyone who has not only admitted they do it, but has described what it actually involves. But I can't read those descriptions without feeling repulsed.

I'm not a parent and reading this thread I can't help concluding that it must be pretty brutalising. I think of myself as an ordinary person, but I just can't imagine slapping a child. There is just something unambiguously 'not-for-slapping' about them, to my eye. It sounds like that would change if I had some of my own. And that thought scares me; I don't think it would be good for me. I don't believe it can be good for anyone.
 
 
Ganesh
01:05 / 18.12.05
I feel, pretty strongly, that this is one of those subjects in which the gulf between theory and practical experience is huge - possibly huge enough that those child-rearing theorists among us ought to SHUT UP (or at least spend some time considering our basis for commenting before commenting). It's one of the things that made me really uncomfortable when I did my Child Psychiatry stint: I'd never been in the position of these parents, and likely never would be, so I was uncomfortably aware that any opinions or advice dished out would necessarily be rather glib.
 
 
Triplets
01:30 / 18.12.05
And that thought scares me; I don't think it would be good for me. I don't believe it can be good for anyone.

Oh, fuck off, Weaving. You're making it sound like anyone who smacks their kids turns into some kind of monster from the underdeep or, at least, suffers some kind of irreperable psycho-troma. My dad smacked me as a kid but he's still is/and was a good bloke.
 
 
Smoothly
01:44 / 18.12.05
Triplets, you little turd, I just said how I felt about it. I didn't say people who smacked their children were any kind of 'monster from the underdeep', or that they suffered some kind of 'irreparable psycho-troma' (whatever that is). I said that I would have to be in some way brutalised in order to hit a child.

I'm very happy that your dad is and always was a good bloke in your eyes. But I'm afraid I have mixed feelings about that in the same way that I have mixed feelings about this:

Probably the warmest memory I have of childhood is when my dad sat down on my bed a few hours after spanking me and told me that he was sorry - he had been angry at me, and knew it was wrong to spank me. I loved him so much in that moment.

I'd quite like to talk about it, but I accept that perhaps the non-parents should maybe shut up and fuck off out of this thread. I know I hate it when people who don't know what it's like to be married to my wife raise their eyebrows at the things I do to her.
 
 
Mourne Kransky
01:46 / 18.12.05
My mother beat the shit out of me and she was, frankly, unhinged. It was very damaging and I've unpicked it over the years in various therapeutic situations. However, in essence, I would echo some others in saying that all this Ideal World scenario of child rearing is fine and dandy but unrealistic for most people. They will do the best they can when Junior is screaming hir face off for hours on end or insists on setting fire to hirself.

We return repeatedly to the concept of "Good enough" parenting in psychoanalysis and counselling. Anything more is a counsel of perfection and, because it's unrealistic, largely unhelpful.

If, God forbid, a Cruel Deity should send responsibility for the care of a small child to me, I'll be e-mailing grant and Jack Fear for advice because they seem to be giving sound, practical advice that's "Good enough" and not mere wish-fulfilment.
 
 
Ganesh
01:57 / 18.12.05
I know I hate it when people who don't know what it's like to be married to my wife raise their eyebrows at the things I do to her.

I think that's a slightly unfair analogy, Smoothly, even if consciously facetious. It's not a case of people 'raising eyebrows' at a specific individual situation; here, people who have never been in the generic situation (parenting) are not merely 'raising eyebrows' but expressing shuddery horror at the (theoretical) actuality of situations of which they have no direct experience.

As I say, it made me uncomfortable when, as a Child Psychiatrist, I was expected to supply advice to parents when I'd never been a parent. Initially, I thought, "fuck, I have no right to comment on this" - until I started encountering people whose parenting skills were so unbelievably deficient that I felt that even I was sufficiently qualified to advise.

Perhaps you feel this is the case with regard to smacking children, in which case I can see your point. Personally, however, I don't consider this so massively beyond the pale, in terms of child-rearing, that I'd feel comfortable expressing generalised disgust at the possibility that smacking might happen. That's just me, though.
 
 
Smoothly
02:05 / 18.12.05
Sure, I appreciate that, Ganesh. I didn't mean to condemn so much as express how the situation makes me feel as a non-parent. I honestly believe that it's quite likely that if I did have children, I'd probably end up hitting them. I take this thread and my knowledge of the people who have contributed to it as evidence of that.
And I said that the thought of losing my child-hitting virginity scares me. A loss of innocence thing maybe.

But I do think that there are considerations to this question over and above the effects on the child. Smacking clearly isn't an action without a reaction.
 
  

Page: (1)234

 
  
Add Your Reply