h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Scottish ministers have just abandoned plans to outlaw smacking children under the age of three. This is a topic which has been a news item on several occasions.

Is it OK to smack children? When & why?

Were you smacked as a child?

Is our current legislation adequate to protect children?

First things first. I was rarely smacked / spanked as a child. The only occasion that sticks in my mind is the time that I was spanked for something that wasn't my fault. But then, that's bound to rankle, even 30 years on.

My opinions on smacking or spanking (there is a difference, IMHO) are founded by my experiences as a child. My mother's father would respond to things going wrong by hitting the nearest person, regardless of whether or not they were responsible. My mother was determined that we wouldn't have to go through that, and I agree that it is wrong. I would *never* smack or spank a child, regardless of the offence. There are better ways of letting a child know that they have done something wrong and, if necessary, punishing them. I would certainly never smack a toddler. At that age, they aren't totally aware of 'right' and 'wrong', and physical punishment is not the best way of teaching them.

Having said all that, what were these Scottish ministers planning to outlaw? A slap on the leg, which I have seen some parents do, and which does little other than make the child cry a bit? Smacking, where the parent places the child across his/her knee and slaps the child's bottom? Spanking, where the child is hit with an object like a slipper or belt? Each of these is progressively more aggressive and more harmful to the child, especially to a toddler.

I suspect that the reasons for abandoning the changes in the law were less to do with whether smacking is wrong, and more to do with enforcement and penalties. How do you enforce a law like this? It's possible, though not easy, in public places, but how do you stop parents smacking their toddlers at home? Would a smacked child be able to sue its parents when it was old enough to realise that they'd broken the law? What would the penalties be? Prison is too much, but how much would you fine a parent? £100 per smack?

The people who hit their children enough to do serious damage would not be deterred by a law banning smacking. The levels of violence they use are already illegal. It's not necessarily the laws that are at fault, but the attitudes of the public and the resources available to social services and police.

I was spanked - though very very very very very very very very very very very very very rarely - as a young child. It was only when I was being unusually devious, and the only times I remember were because of such.

(this is why I'm such a good girl now. )

I think that it is okay to spank a child if they have defiantly gone against your rules as a parent - but then only enough to discourage them from doing it again, and then only if nothing else works. Never to the point of bodily/emotional harm.

My roommate was beaten up until she was around... oh... 15... and she still has scars - emotional and physical - from that.

It is possible to spank a child for being naughty without it ever becoming abuse. It's just a very very fine line.

I got smacked if I was naughty or was rude. I was sometimes "spanked" across the back of my thigh with the back of a paddle hairbrush if I was really bad. I have grown up as a law abiding person who knows right from wrong and I have absolutely no violent tendencies at all.

There are parents that take discipline too far. My parents knew what was enough to stop me misbehaving and I respect that.

What I cannot abide is seeing a child who is clearly pushing their parents to the limits with no discipline at all coming from them. Children do not understand "No, Jonny. You mustn't bite Jane" on its own - they need a short sharp shock tactic to make them realise that what they are doing is wrong is what is needed.

These are my views and I do not expect everybody to agree with them.

I think we should be talking about parent education.
Everyone's parents messed up in some way. Some worse than others.
But as creatures we learn from what we see - the old monkey see monkey do or when the parent's got it very wrong in the eyes of their childer the Monkey vows to never ever ever do.
I really think that childraising be taught to adolescents. Especially when some people start so early.
I'm 34 and I have no children because I don't think I am capable of handling such a huge responsibility without accidently scaring the children for life. I had shocking roll models. I don't want to repeat their mistakes or make even worse mistakes by doing the exact opposite.
I think buying cigarettes instead of food for your children is a much worse crime than a smack across the back of the legs.
Or getting cranky with a child when they ask for a glass of orange juice when coke is what the adult wants to drink and they are going to share.
There are many crimes worse than a smack on the back of a leg and no one is banning them.
Steps off soap box, apologises, wanders off.

As a father of 6 ranging from 18 months to 18 years I have some experience. I do not beat any of my children and have not smacked or slapped any of them. Occaisonally when they were toddlers (still are) a tap on the hand to get their attention. Against that I was guilty of bullying the older ones by shouting at them.

There are indeed worse things than slapping - demeaning a child and undermining its confidence for example.

OK, to set the scene: not got children, don't want children, never going to have children. So do, please, completely ignore all of what follows.

If you need to smack a child, you're admitting defeat. There are better ways to discipline them, as long as you start the training early.

Several years ago I was sitting in McDonalds eating breakfast. A mother of quite startlingly repulsive looks was standing in the queue behind her baby buggy, while an older toddler did his level best to systematically destroy the toy display by the counter. I became aware of this because the dumb bint's attempt at discipline consisted of murmuring, in a slow Brummie accent, "Dylaaaaan.... Dylaaaaaaaan. Dylaaaaaaan. Dylaaaaaaaan. Dylaaaaaaan. Dylaaaaan. Dylaaaaaaan. Dylaaaaaaan." Eight times she said it, with no variation of tone, no raised voice, and absolutely NO physical movement apart from her slack jaw. No attempt to actually physically intervene in the criminal damage her son was perpetrating less than five feet away. Needless to say, Dylan seemed not to hear her. I wish I could have managed the same trick.

Several years ago I was sitting in a Little Chef reading the paper and chomping an allday breakfast (gutsy git, aren't I?). A family group, apparently consisting of a grandmother, mother, daughter and son were sitting opposite me. The son made a noise of indescribably pitch and intensity, and the mother said in a stern voice "Daniel, stop it." He look her straight in the eye and did it again. And again. "Stop it now, Daniel", sterner this time. "EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEee". She picked him up, and took him outside. I don't know what she did to him, but the sound carried through the double doors from the car park. When they came back in, he was quiet, and behaved. She won the battle, but she'd already lost the war. Nevertheless, I and the other patrons were at least grateful that this person at least had the consideration to realise that her whining screaming brat was causing aural injury to others, not just herself, and took steps to shut it up. If only all parents were so considerate.

On Friday morning this week I was in a bookshop. The air was rent by a piercing scream, then another, and another. I naturally assumed that someone was performing some sort of vivisection, but looking round saw a scruffily dressed woman pushing a stolen shopping trolley with two small children in it. One of the children had on its face a look of pained tolerance, which was understandable, because it was being subjected to levels of noise which would never be permitted in an industrial environment. The other child, an odd looking creature with heavy brows and a preternaturally adult expression, was the source of this Health-and-Safety-legislation breaching row. The mother - assuming she was in any way related to the things in the trolley, an assumption I make in the teeth of the evidence to follow - paid absolutely no attention to either child whatsoever. The contents of the trolley might just as well have been fruit and vegetables for all the mind she was paying them. The little noisemaker screamed constantly as she browsed unconcernedly among the bestsellers. Against all normal laws of acoustics it managed to scream louder when she moved away into the travel section. It barely stopped for breath, and the atmosphere in the shop was noticeably tense. Eventually, I could stand it no longer. I fixed the child with a motionless, unblinking stare. For a moment, it continued looking round and trying to break the windows with its voice. Then it noticed me. Something about the look on my face penetrated its tiny mind, and it was instantly silent. It continued to look at me doubtfully, as if afraid that if it made another sound I would come over and eat it. Its presumed sibling smiled and moved slightly, distracting its attention, and for a split second it looked away and instantly drew breath, screwed up its face and looked about to start screaming again - but then it *visibly* remembered, and looked back at me and remained utterly silent. This continued, with me holding its silent attention with a stare, for about a minute and a half. I could hear a couple across the shop say something like "how on earth did he do that?", and "I don't know, but I'm glad he did". The mother, of course, was totally oblivious. She hadn't noticed that it was screaming, she hadn't noticed that it had stopped, until she decided it was time to move on. Finding she could speak to the child without shouting over it, as she had been doing when she entered the shop, she said "are you going to be a good boy now, then?". This broke the spell, the child looked away from me to her, and with a serious look on its face shook its head, informed her solemnly that no, it was not going to be a good boy, and began screaming again. At this point, they left the shop, to an audible sigh of relief from all the other customers and the staff.

It may not be possible to control all children by non-physical means like that. But as someone said, it's a very fine line between discipline and abuse. Most of the physical violence I was subjected to as a child came from other children. Most of the rest came from teachers - something that would not happen today, and a good thing too. At the age of six, I was asked a question by a teacher (something to do with planets, I think, like what was the order in the solar system or something). In retrospect, I now know that she meant the question sarcastically. What was supposed to happen was that I wouldn't know the answer and would feel suitably chastened and realise that I didn't know everything, or at least not as much as the teacher. Unfortunately, just as they don't have sarcasm on Betelgeuse, it's difficult for a six year old to spot it. I did what I thought she wanted me to do, and answered the question correctly. This resulted in my being dragged bodily to the front of the class, having the seat of my trousers pulled down and receiving three sharp slaps to the buttocks while being held almost off the ground by one arm. She dropped me there and said "go back to your seat." I am personally amazed by the fact that fourteen years later when I saw that teacher on the street of my home town all I did was stop her, wait for her to recognise me, then wordlessly spit in her eye. Every fibre of me wanted to kill her right there. Violence, especially unjustified, unjustifiable violence, breeds violence.

Only very rarely was I ever hit at home, and in every case I knew precisely what I'd done to deserve it.

Ultimately, hitting kids should NOT be outlawed specifically. What is wrong with using the existing law of assault? If you *don't* use that law, but instead make it illegal to hit children, specifically, that sends a message that children are not "real people". They are.

H.

In my opinion, smacking/spanking with intention to cause real pain isn't acceptible... as a shock tactic and a last resort it is (which rules out all but the mildest form described by Cheerful Dragon above). It certainly shouldn't be used as a threat...

I recall times when I was smacked as a child, and am sure I deserved it. Interestingly enough, my mother says she regrets doing so, and that she should have handled things differently.

That's how a parent *should* feel if they resort to striking their child... however gently.

When I'm a parent - I'll avoid it to the greatest extent possible, and hopefully avoid it completely.

And, children under three? I doubt it's any use at all at that age. I agree that outlawing it is fraught with problems, though.

I think maybe it's not so bad to smack children to startle them rather than hurt them, especially when words don't interrupt their behavior.

My parents had a method that worked pretty well. My mom was a smacker on occasion and we still tease her about the worn-out wooden spoon that my brother claims was worn out on his butt. Thing is, she used it more to scare us than to hurt us. I only remember two times she whacked me, both of them because I hadn't done anything wrong. Once when I was a toddler I got a whack on the butt because she thought I was licking the kitchen floor (and I was just looking closely) and the other time was when she was teaching me to read with a wheel that fit sounds together and I was to pronounce them. When the 'sh' met the 'it' and I said it correctly she reacted. Funny, because it was years before I figured out what I'd said wrong there.

When I was truly defiant the ultimate punishment was "Wait til your father comes home." That was baaaaad.... dad is not a reactive type, and when he got home from work and mom told him of my infraction he'd get a terribly serious look on his face and take me up to my bedroom. We'd sit on the bed and he'd ask me about the situation, why I'd done it, and tell me that it was unacceptable behavior. He'd tell me that he was terribly disappointed in me, and that was the worst. Then he'd put me over his knee and my butt would be spanked. It never hurt, was more like punctuation in the ritual. Funny, because I don't think he ever actually said that ol' line about "this'll hurt me more than it'll hurt you" but even as a little kid I understood that he REALLY disliked it when it was time for spankings to commence.

That system worked in our family and nobody was damaged by it. Also, my parents were able to take toddlers to restaurants and other public places with the confidence that we wouldn't be disruptive. People were always telling them how well behaved their children were. My mother says that the reason their discipline system worked was that they were 100% consistent with punishments. If our daily hour of TV watching was taken away for a week, that was the end. If we were sent to out bedroom for an hour 'to think about it' the hour wasn't 50 minutes, no matter how much we yelled in there. Mom has said that our punishments were always worse on her than they were on us, and I believe that. I think that when parents can't deal with the reaction to the punisments and give in to whining, nagging and screaming it reinforces that behavior on the child's part. Once that has happened the parent doesn't seem to have much authority left without hurting the child. And that's really no authority at all.

My dad used to smack us with added mental torture. I must admit, we were probably the four most unruly children that he'd ever come across, but that's no excuse for standing at the bottom of the stairs and bellowing at us to go up to our rooms when he was angry. And of course we'd all be terrified of the slap that he was going to lay on our backsides as we passed him. Which is why I never, ever smack my son when I'm angry. If he does deserve a smack (about twice a year) he gets the choice of on his backside or on his hand, so he has to think about it. Although he cries a lot less when I smack him as when we have a shouting match, make of that what you will. I think the last time I smacked him was for throwing a trowel at one of his rabbits because 'they don't have feelings'. I don't like to answer violence with violence, but I told him I was showing him exactly what his rabbit felt, and I know damn well that he knows better.

Outlawing smacking is a good idea (although admittedly unlikely to happen and unenforcable in private) - let kids be protected from being hit, just like adults. Then make parentcraft classes compulory for all parents.

Yes, we don't need specific legislation because current law on assault etc would cover it. Certainly the detail of any such law, it's enforcement & penalties would be too complex to be useful. I did wonder how they came up with the age limit. Identity cards the next step, to prove age of child?

Much better to improve the work of social services etc to be able to prevent some of the awful cases of abuse (mental & physical) that have occurred. The pity is that inadequate parents tend to pass on their inadequacy to their children. I would not like to see parenting classes imposed on selected people - better that we try to educate everyone before they reach that stage. No bright ideas how to make this effective though.

I know that I was very occasionally smacked and feel that at the time it was generally not justified, tho of course what I thought was OK to do was not necessarily in accord with my mum. I can't say if it did me any harm or not, it happened and I don't know how I'd be if it hadn't.

Confession time - I did smack my elder son when he was about 2, for not stopping doing something when I said stop. But I soon realised it was all too easy for smacking to be an outlet for my anger/frustration and not at all constructive, particularly when he once smacked me when he was cross with me. So it was a very short-lived period. But even so, I did find there were times when a sharp tap on the hand could be effective at getting a message across, especially when concerning safety or the child hurting someone else.
There are usually much better methods of discipline including removing child from situation (or removing an object from the child), setting the example, promoting good behaviour & ignoring bad (when possible) etc. Being consistent and not making empty threats are very important.
Personally I think the 'wait until your father gets home' is bad - the incident should be dealt with & then put aside.

I was a bit worried what I would do when my children got too big for me to physically move - fortunately I must have done something right, because by then words were enough!

give me physical abuse ovr mental any day, it heals easier.

however I think that generally what is needed is an appropriate, measured and quick response.

taking your frustration out on anyone or ignoring them are both fairly bad (and it applies equally well to your spouse as well as your ofspring).

placing defered punishment in context is the only effective way to defer it. otherwise it is a joke. it has the same effect as punishing a puppy when it no longer remembers what it has done to earn it.

As to getting parents educated, all you need to do is teach people how to think in schools. It has been tried locally worldwide, using debono's methods, and is quite effective at solving a lot of bad reaction type problems.

I think the most important thing children need are parameters. (after love) I try to be consistent with the children, and not set rules for them that I don't keep. I have also learnt to explain why, and found they react better if they understand.

Maybe I'm just lucky, because everyone tells me what beautiful, well-behaved, sensible children I have - strangely I always reply - "Thank you - I put it down to the regular beatings."

Well, I don't think smacking children is necessary and if done more than very infrequently it is very suspicious, BUT I don't think that the government has the right to legislate about things like this. Nor do I think the government has the right to force "parenting lessons" on people. Nobody knows what makes good parenting (although plenty of people think they do) and so nobody has the right to force their conception of good parenting on anyone else. I imagine that existing laws already cover the two cases where children do require protection - excessive smacking to the point that it becomes a regular feature of a child's life, and smacking that causes lasting damage (e.g. bruising, cuts). Anyone know if these are already covered?

They are all ready covered - the danger is that wording on laws on child protection are extremely vague. There's an entry somewhere that tells the story of how child protection in America grew out of animal protection laws. People who beat their children regularly claim to love them - and really mean it. The children in return swear love for their parents.

The injustice of one beating from my childhood, and my fear of losing control of my temper meant that I decided I would never beat my children. When I blythely decided that, I never dreamt of how children can take you beyond your limits. However I have kept to it.

The concept of seeing one child hit another and then, to show them how wrong it is, you slap them is quite laughable. It tells children that violence, even very mild violence, is an acceptible way to get someone to do what you want. More often its a reaction of the adult lashing out, and it always seems to make the situation worse - if not straight away, then later. Once you've slapped a child, merely shouting at them is not enough to get their attention.

The best idea, I think (and I learned this from my wife) is distraction. My daughter's slowly escalating cries of "I want a Freddo!" can usually be stopped by asking her to do something - can you look after your library card - or pointing out something of even vague interest - There's a picture of a spider!. Of course this doens't always work, but I'm sure it works more often that a swift slap around the legs which breeds resentment. You should ignore the bad behaviour and praise (really praise) the good behaviour, then the child knows (s)he is getting the reward (and the best reward is attention from a loving parent) for being good.

I know a couple who insist on using absolutely no physical violence whatsoever against their children. This leads to some bizarre situations. The child has his younger sibling by the throat and is wielding an axe. The father says "Can we talk about this, please?"

I was smacked occasionally as a child by both Mum and Dad. I don't ever recall an incident where I was smacked when I didn't know what the punishment was for and I don't ever recall a smack that I felt was unjustified. I don't think that the occasional smack does any real harm as long as the child knows what the punishment is for. This is one reason why smacking a toddler is sometimes ineffective. If they don't understand what they've done wrong, they won't associate the punishment with it. However at times even with toddlers it is effective in a way. Take the following two scenarios:

1. Child is in a strop and purposely throws toys out of the pram (literally, not metaphorically!) A smack stops the child from throwing toys.
2. Child is refusing to share toys with sibling. In this case a smack might be ineffective. Maybe the child doesn't yet understand the concept of sharing, in which case how can you punish it for not sharing!

The thing with a smack though, is that it will only stop the unacceptable behaviour there and then. A much more effective way to stop it permanently, is to try to get the child to understand what they've done and why it's unacceptable.

I have a major problem with the government trying to legislate against smacking. I also have a problem with the work of an organisation like the RSPCC. Don't get me wrong, the RSPCC do some great work and I think Childline has probably saved many lives (quite literally). However, I also think that the educative efforts of the RSPCC are somewhat (though not completely) misguided. It's all well and good to teach children that if they are being abused, they can turn to respoonsible adults for help. Also, it is good to teach children what abuse is so they recognise it if it happens to them and they recognise that it's neither normal nor acceptable nor is it their fault. However, it is not right to start teaching children that if they get smacked occasionally, then they are being abused. Also, it's not the society for the "identification and punishment" of cruelty to children. It's the society for the PREVENTION of cruelty to children. What are they really doing to prevent it? In my mind educating teenagers (ie potential parents) about appropriate parenting methods before they become parents is a much better approach to "preventing" child abuse. I acknowledge the earlier comment about how do you teach someone to be a parent. Certainly there are many different ideas about good parenting and what works in one family will not work in another. However, what about educating people in child psychology for example. If a parent can understand how the child's mind works and how it differs from their own adult mind, then surely they would be better placed to communicate with the child and to work out the appropriate ways of disciplining the child. A quick example:

Object Permanence - when a child is born they do not understand the concept of object permanence, ie that objects continue to exist even if you can no longer perceive them. A simple (though not entirely accurate) explanation is that the infant believes that if they can't perceive an object, ie see, hear, touch it, etc, then it doesn't exist anymore. Therefore in the infant's view of the world, objects and people are constantly slipping in and out of existence. This why the infant cries if Mummy leaves the rooms but would remain calm if she talks to him continuously from the next room. The concept of object permanence develops in stages. A good display of this is one I'm sure we have all seen in young toddlers. The toddler is sitting in his chair while Mummy is attempting to feed him. The toddler keeps taking the spoon (for example) and throwing it to the floor. Each time Mummy picks up the spoon the child laughs uproariously (if it is possible for a child to do so) and throws the spoon again. Mummy gets gradually more and more annoyed until she eventually punishes the child for this disruptive behaviour. However, if Mummy understood the idea of object permanence she would realise that the child is enjoying the activity so much, not because he is being disruptive, but because from his perspective, he is doing magic. He is making the spoon disappear and each time Mummy makes it reappear and he can make it disappear again. How cool is that! The child is at the stage where he has grasped the earliest idea of object permanence ie if I can't see the spoom, it no longer exists, but I know that it will eventually come back into existence again at some point. And he's testing this out with Mummy's unwitting help! Object permanence doesn't develop fully until the age of seven or eight when a child grasps the idea that the world existed before the child himself did. The best example of this final stage is when a child finally grasps the idea that Granny is Mummy's Mummy and that Mummy was once a child too! So, in the case of throwing the spoon, a fairly simple knowledge of child psychology would show Mummy that there is no point punishing the child for the behaviour because the child is merely experimenting with the world and in fact the behaviour should be encouraged not punished. And if Mummy is getting annoyed because this spoon throing is spreading baby food all over the new carpet, the stupid Mummy for having a new carpet around baby / feeding baby in that room / thinking she can keep a carpet stain free with a baby in the house.

So, I digress slightly, but the point is that educating potential parents could make a very significant difference and could go a long way to preventing abuse and to preventing the poor parenting that sometimes leads to anti-social behaviour in later life. In our parents generation, as they grew up and became adults, they didn't just learn paenting from their own parents but also from Grandparents, aunties, uncles, older siblings, neighbours, the "community" in general. Nowadays, with the erosion of the traditional nuclear family and the ever more impersonal nature of our society, especially urban society, the child is lacking those parental influences and so perhaps it's time for the formal educators to step in and fill that gap.

I hadn't meant for this post to be so long. Thus endeth the lesson! Thank you for joining me in Psych 101. There will be a pop quiz on Friday!

>>1. Child is in a strop and purposely throws toys out of the pram (literally, not metaphorically!) A smack stops the child from throwing toys.

So does not putting the toys back in the pram. Not really sure why a smack is suggested as the best remedy for this one.

"Something about the look on my face penetrated its tiny mind, and it was instantly silent. It continued to look at me doubtfully, as if afraid that if it made another sound I would come over and eat it."



I also pretend I'm about to eat badly behave children. One of my hubby's relatives children is very badly behaved, from spending a bit of time with him it seems to be almost entirely because he is *incredibly* inquisitive about the world and wants to know and understand everything...when he can't understand something it upsets him hugely...his mum is great but she doesn't try to help him understand and learn about the world she just wants him to sit quietly and colour in and eat his happy meal...I think this is so sad, there are so many children who dont have this inquisitive nature it should be encouraged but unfortunately his mum doesn't have the tools to explain why it rains or why grass is green or why the sky is blue etc etc. It makes me sad when I see children being treated like idiots or nuisances when they are crying out for information and understanding.