Is smacking a child ever acceptable? (3 Viewers)

*TRUE*

Tiny dancer
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,654
Location
Couch
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
Is smacking a child an indefensible act of abuse against the most vulnerable in society, or does it teach children important lessons about how power structures operate in the adult world?

It seems to me that smacking is often applied because it is convenient to the parent. It's simple, quick and sends a strong message. I've heard it argued that smacking is justified because the busy pace of a modern parents lifestyle demands that an uncooperative child's behavior be addressed swiftly.

This is a ghastly justification imo. We don't consider it acceptable to violently lash out against others who inconvenience us during our day, so why should our children be any exception? Impatience doesn't justify violence.

The implicit admission by a parent that they are too time poor or impatient to implement a gentler and more humane punishment reflects a failing on the parents behalf, or on the behalf of the systems in the world we live which are not sufficiently accommodating to the parents needs, and in no way justifies the violence against the child.

On witnessing a child misbehaving in public, we've all found ourselves thinking about how the parent is doing a disservice to that child by not correcting their behavior, and you may have found yourself entertaining thoughts of how a smack would be beneficial to the child.

There is an assumption in society that an arbitrarily determined "appropriate" level of violence against a child is a parents right.

Having experienced violence and trauma from a young age, we are all as children socialized to accept the power structures that exist in society, and that it is the right of authority figures, in this case parents, and later in life others such as teachers, the police, to violently rebuke us when we disobey their rules and systems, which we did not choose to participate in.

Because we've been hurt by this abuse, we repress our feelings of hurt towards our parents by embracing the absurd popular fantasy that this abuse was beneficial to us as a child. We are scared, threatened and jealous of the anarchic, free personalities of children, because we were abused and denied the freedom to feel that same way. Our own innocence was stolen from us, we are justifiably bitter and confused about this, so we take it out on the only people who have no power and voice to resist.

Undoubtedly hitting a child can be effective at changing their behavior. But given the number of dysfunctional adults and teens that come from families where they were regularly physically punished, it seems unreliable and dangerous as a treatment

I think the use of physical violence against children must be justified as in some way beneficial to the child, in ways that other punishments are not.

What does hitting a child really teach them? That those with power are entitled to inflict violence and control? That they are inferior to everyone else around them who is not forced to suffer physical violence?

If we accept smacking a child is wrong, it raises the question of what is appropriate punishment for a child? Can you be certain other, psychological punishments, such as sensory deprivation, are any less harmful to a child?

/here endeth the longest post
There is much merit in what you say, and child abuse is a terrible, terrible reality in our society - but I think you miss the true motivation of many parents in smacking their children. Smacking is, in my opinion, often the kindest and most appropriate form of disciplining young children.
It's not about being lazy, cruel, domineering or selfish, for many people - I think you made some somewhat unfair generalisations. I speak as one who has administered the 'dreadful' form of discipline to a much loved toddler. (Not my own, but related, with permission from child's parents).
 

sydchick

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
157
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
The logic in smacking a kid is this:

6 year old me: waa I want candy wa wa no way! get it for me! *throws tantrum in Woolies*
Mum: Narnie stop. This isn't how you ask for something. You're not getting it anyway.
me: No wa wa wa *pathetic 6 year old behaviour*
Mum: Narnie, you'll get a smack if you don't cut this shit.
Me: Pft. I don't care. I just want candy/lollies.
Mum: *smack*
Me: *thinks -- wow, better not pull anything like that again other I'll get a smack*

Simple. And a kid really does think like that. Because I thought like that and every time I've babysat a relative's kid the moment I've threathened them with a smack they started to behave.
 

*TRUE*

Tiny dancer
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,654
Location
Couch
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
The logic in smacking a kid is this:

6 year old me: waa I want candy wa wa no way! get it for me! *throws tantrum in Woolies*
Mum: Narnie stop. This isn't how you ask for something. You're not getting it anyway.
me: No wa wa wa *pathetic 6 year old behaviour*
Mum: Narnie, you'll get a smack if you don't cut this shit.
Me: Pft. I don't care. I just want candy/lollies.
Mum: *smack*
Me: *thinks -- wow, better not pull anything like that again other I'll get a smack*

Simple. And a kid really does think like that. Because I thought like that and every time I've babysat a relative's kid the moment I've threathened them with a smack they started to behave.
My logic is a little different :
Two year old has decided he likes to run out on the road.
I tell him no, in my most grave tone. He runs for it again. I tell him no and administer a sharp smack. He runs again, I smack him again, and repeat "no". Child considers running for it again but by now realises that running onto the road is associated with a painful bottom. He reconsiders his options.
IF I, instead of teaching the child that running onto the road has painful consequences, choose to distract him or just be super vigilant ( which are two things I would do anyway - in addition to the smack) the child will NOT realise that running onto the road is going to hurt him. He may choose to see whether running onto the road is as fun as he hoped. Might get hit by a car and die.

ALL ACTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES. The thing is, that some consequences are just too terrible to allow children to experience at such a young age. They ARE NOT our intellectual equals, they DO NOT understand everything, and its CRUELTY and neglect not to teach them the consequences in foolish actions. Very young children will not understand a lengthy dialogue, and are much too curious and prone to disobedience to learn from a simply spoken "no'. They need to understand consequences, remember, allowing them the natural consequences (for everything) would be cruel.
END RANT.
 

John McCain

Horse liberty
Joined
Jun 9, 2008
Messages
473
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
My logic is a little different :
Two year old has decided he likes to run out on the road.
I tell him no, in my most grave tone. He runs for it again. I tell him no and administer a sharp smack. He runs again, I smack him again, and repeat "no". Child considers running for it again but by now realises that running onto the road is associated with a painful bottom. He reconsiders his options.
IF I, instead of teaching the child that running onto the road has painful consequences, choose to distract him or just be super vigilant ( which are two things I would do anyway - in addition to the smack) the child will NOT realise that running onto the road is going to hurt him. He may choose to see whether running onto the road is as fun as he hoped. Might get hit by a car and die.
Why not just remove them from that environment? Why punish the child because you've put them in a dangerous environment?
 

jennyfromdabloc

coked up sociopath
Joined
Sep 30, 2009
Messages
735
Location
The American Gardens Building
Gender
Female
HSC
2007
The logic in smacking a kid is this:

6 year old me: waa I want candy wa wa no way! get it for me! *throws tantrum in Woolies*
Mum: Narnie stop. This isn't how you ask for something. You're not getting it anyway.
me: No wa wa wa *pathetic 6 year old behaviour*
Mum: Narnie, you'll get a smack if you don't cut this shit.
Me: Pft. I don't care. I just want candy/lollies.
Mum: *smack*
Me: *thinks -- wow, better not pull anything like that again other I'll get a smack*

Simple. And a kid really does think like that. Because I thought like that and every time I've babysat a relative's kid the moment I've threathened them with a smack they started to behave.
I think you are conflating logic with poorly written, fictional dialogue.
 

dieburndie

Eat, Sleep, Repeat
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
971
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
It's absurd to support the use of violence against the most vulnerable and impressionable humans within society if you oppose it in general.

How can you expect children to take parents seriously in saying that violence against others is unacceptable, if they display it themselves against the very same children as a form of discipline?

As for everyone saying that you cannot or should not explain the ramifications of particular behaviours to children, you disgust me. It's no surprise at all that so many adults lack even the slightest grasp of ethics, when they are taught as children that certain actions are "bad" but they are forbidden from asking why.
 

sydchick

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
157
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
My dialouge doesn't have to be stellar BOS Showcase Young Writers' material. I threw it together in an attempt to prove a point. If you think I put my best writing on a HSC internet forum then you are pretty naive.

John McCain: That situation is pretty unavoidable.
What are you going to cancel all shopping trips because Woolies is located near a carpark?
What about outings to the park? Don't go because you have to cross the ped-crossing?
I chose the Woolies-tantrum incident because it very common. The kid running across the road is common as well.
 

*TRUE*

Tiny dancer
Joined
Apr 30, 2008
Messages
1,654
Location
Couch
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
It's absurd to support the use of violence against the most vulnerable and impressionable humans within society if you oppose it in general.

How can you expect children to take parents seriously in saying that violence against others is unacceptable, if they display it themselves against the very same children as a form of discipline?

As for everyone saying that you cannot or should not explain the ramifications of particular behaviours to children, you disgust me. It's no surprise at all that so many adults lack even the slightest grasp of ethics, when they are taught as children that certain actions are "bad" but they are forbidden from asking why.
I do not know whom you refer to as saying that parents "should not explain the ramification of particular behaviours to children" but I would ask you to bear in mind that very young children do not have the capacity to understand many things that adults understand as obvious. There is no harm and perhaps much good in explaining to these toddlers why adults have set up certain boundaries for them - but I say that chances are you will be ignored in favour of a Bob the Builder promotional toy.
It is absurd to NOT explain boundaries with older children, and I do not advocate smacking as a form of discipline for them AT ALL. By this stage, children should be able to handle many natural consequences that arise from negative behaviour and for those consequences which caring parents wish to partially shield their children from( whilst still using the opportunity to instruct their offspring in making wise choices in order to AVOID such natural consequences) a punishment (consequence) similar in style but of much less magnitude may be designed.

Whoa long long post.
 

klaris

Member
Joined
Mar 23, 2009
Messages
966
Gender
Female
HSC
2011
Yeah. The 'smacking kids' debate is always a hot topic.

Almost everyone (90%) are the 'I was smacked never hurt me etc' team while the other 10% are the 'Child abuse!' team.
 

alage1

New Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
9
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
yeah i agree

i can personally never condone viloents and there are some stupi stupid people who would take it too far

but, a child is immature and needs too understand what not to do and pain is usually the best way just not too much

if a kid puts his hand in the fire and you take it out quickly before it burns do you

a) smack him/her and tell him/her it's hot and will hurt

b)tell him/her not too

the kid will understand the pain and won't do it again until he or she matures and understands why

if you don't chances are the child will learn for him or herself, but could get aaway with third degree burns
 

sydchick

Member
Joined
Sep 28, 2009
Messages
157
Gender
Female
HSC
N/A
+1.

The thought-process of a little kid doesn't understand the ramifications of sticking your hand on the stove or running in front of a car. If you give them a smack and say 'not again' etc they will learn not to do it. Hence the moderate fear of getting a smack when doing something wrong.
 

dieburndie

Eat, Sleep, Repeat
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
971
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
Yeah. The 'smacking kids' debate is always a hot topic.

Almost everyone (90%) are the 'I was smacked never hurt me etc' team while the other 10% are the 'Child abuse!' team.
Thanks for making up some useless shit for us.
 

David Spade

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
1,315
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Yeah. Statistics can be used to prove almost anything. 90% of people know that
 

DJP92

New Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2009
Messages
25
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Because we've been hurt by this abuse, we repress our feelings of hurt towards our parents by embracing the absurd popular fantasy that this abuse was beneficial to us as a child. We are scared, threatened and jealous of the anarchic, free personalities of children, because we were abused and denied the freedom to feel that same way. Our own innocence was stolen from us, we are justifiably bitter and confused about this, so we take it out on the only people who have no power and voice to resist.
I really don't wanna start a flame war here, but it's do-gooding moral guardians such as yourself that are the reason parents are becoming convicted criminals for rightly disciplining their children.

I've gotta say your post had a bit of merit, but what I've quoted above is possibly the most absurd, idiotic piece of crap I've ever heard on the topic. What you've said there sounds more like character analysis in an English essay then psychology. You're giving me the impression that if you use big words to get your point across then people will just simply believe it.

To be honest when I see a child in a supermarket screaming and yelling for something I just wish the parent will shut them up because the noise is annoying. I'm not getting any feelings of jealousy and feeling threatened.

There are plenty of people in this forum who were most likely smacked as a child, and they're now preparing to sit their HSC. You may have been traumatized and deeply hurt as a child, but that doesn't mean everyone else has.
 

David Spade

Banned
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
1,315
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Yeah. Statistics can be used to prove almost anything. 90% of people know that
 

dieburndie

Eat, Sleep, Repeat
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
971
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
I really don't wanna start a flame war here, but it's do-gooding moral guardians such as yourself that are the reason parents are becoming convicted criminals for rightly disciplining their children.

I've gotta say your post had a bit of merit, but what I've quoted above is possibly the most absurd, idiotic piece of crap I've ever heard on the topic. What you've said there sounds more like character analysis in an English essay then psychology. You're giving me the impression that if you use big words to get your point across then people will just simply believe it.

To be honest when I see a child in a supermarket screaming and yelling for something I just wish the parent will shut them up because the noise is annoying. I'm not getting any feelings of jealousy and feeling threatened.

There are plenty of people in this forum who were most likely smacked as a child, and they're now preparing to sit their HSC. You may have been traumatized and deeply hurt as a child, but that doesn't mean everyone else has.
Refer to the opinions of the psychologists and medical authorities on the wikipedia page linked. Or are you going to say that doesn't represent legitimite psychological reasoning either?

If you want to contest the science, then provide something to make your case.
 

alage1

New Member
Joined
Apr 5, 2009
Messages
9
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Refer to the opinions of the psychologists and medical authorities on the wikipedia page linked. Or are you going to say that doesn't represent legitimite psychological reasoning either?

If you want to contest the science, then provide something to make your case.
i would agree with him you may qoute Wikipedia and some "psychologists" but
oh geez hold on a sec

HAHA i am now certified chiropractor got a certificate and everything and its my personal opinion that smacking your child causes bad backs cause you have to lean over you know unless you short in which case it's because you have a bad back

made my point you opinionated fool

are you going to argue with me i have a certificate
 
Last edited:

dieburndie

Eat, Sleep, Repeat
Joined
Jun 4, 2006
Messages
971
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
i would agree with him you may qoute Wikipedia and some "psychologists" but
oh geez hold on a sec

HAHA i am now certified chiropractor got a certificate and everything and its my personal opinion that smacking your child causes bad backs cause you have to lean over you know unless you short in which case it's because you have a bad back

made my point you dimwit

are you going to argue with me i have a certificate
Okay.
 

chelsea girl

everybody knows
Joined
Oct 12, 2006
Messages
617
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
This is my experience with being punished physically and the mental affects of this form of discipline:

I have always known the consequence of "bad behaviour" to be physical pain. Both my parents used smacking often (my father was actually sadistically abusive, but that's beside the point) without any explanation of why I was being "bad". It did not teach me anything about morals or ethics or how to be a good human being, it just fucked me up so that I came to associate pain with love and punishment with affection. When your parent hurts you physically and then tells you it's because they love you and care for you and your safety, it is inevitably going to result in some warped masochistic ideas of love.

It sends entirely mixed messages to a child when, no matter what their bad behaviour, the consequence is the same: a smack. How could anyone possibly conclude that it is a productive method of discipline and parenting?
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 3)

Top