The UK has been urged to ban the smacking of children.

October 4, 2002 2:16 PM

The UK has been urged to ban the smacking of children. We signed the UN convention on the rights of the child eleven years ago, but have since failed to condemn the practice, leading the UN in turn to condemn us. Some armchair pundits on BBC Online are saying they'll continue to smack even if it's illegal - have the UN overreached, or this really as bad as they say it is?
posted by bwerdmuller (40 comments total)

I agree!
No smack for kiddies!
posted by bonehead at 2:28 PM on October 4, 2002

To smack a child is not inherently wrong - it only becomes so if the parent is lashing out in anger rather than it being done in a controlled manner to discipline the child. If done correctly, with plenty of forewarning, often just the threat alone is enough and the child will stop whatever they were doing. - Kirstine, Scotland

Kirstine has a point.
posted by falameufilho at 2:33 PM on October 4, 2002

"often just the threat alone"
- but not always.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:35 PM on October 4, 2002

It's really as bad as they say. Even if "smacking" is done only in what might be considered reasonable circumstances (punishment for serious transgressions), it messes with childrens' ability to resolve problems in a non-violent matter in the future. If one's parents are unable to solve problems with anything other than "smacking," what kind of message does this send to a child?

"Smacking" breeds resentment and fear, rather than respect, for authority figures. As a parent, you owe it to your kid to come up with a better (and more effective) method of punishment.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:36 PM on October 4, 2002

As a parent, you owe it to your kid to come up with a better (and more effective) method of punishment.

I agree if a parent is going to go off and whack their child for any minor infraction they commit. Yet I would rather be swatted on the butt for some disobedience I understood I had committed as a punishment than going to bed w/o dinner.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:47 PM on October 4, 2002

I'm not sure I'm getting the full picture. In local context, does "smack" refer to general striking, a slap on the butt, or something else entirely?
posted by Galvatron at 2:57 PM on October 4, 2002

NewsFilter
posted by walrus at 2:58 PM on October 4, 2002

If one's parents are unable to solve problems with anything other than "smacking," what kind of message does this send to a child?

You might have a point if that's the only method that a parent uses to discipline a child, but most employ a variety of techniques, many that involve no violence at all. Wouldn't this, by your own reasoning, teach a child that there are several different ways to deal with problems?

And I don't agree that a spanking necessarily equates with violence.
posted by MrBaliHai at 3:16 PM on October 4, 2002

Galvatron, what fucking difference does it make. In what context does violence against children become acceptable?
MrBaliHai so you spank or get spanked for fun, so long as it's among consenting adults, ok. But suppose a beautiful, innocent child unknownigly tips your dinner (or some such) Does she deserve a spanking?
Does she fuck. Nippers are innocent, if you can't keep your hands to yourself you should be ashamed of yourself.
I shall issue a standing invitation. Anyone who thinks assaulting kids is acceptable, contact me, I will be a surrogate, but I might fight back, you cunts.
posted by Fat Buddha at 3:30 PM on October 4, 2002

Seems someone has some issues....
posted by rushmc at 3:36 PM on October 4, 2002

To put the question in another light: Should parenting techniques, whether or not supported by research, be enforced by government?

Seems like a slippery slope to me. The lines between "don't beat your child", "don't smack your child", "don't criticise your child", "don't let your child watch violent cartoons", etc., are blurry. The distance between extremes is great, but it's easy enough to move from one to other a step at a time, if it's allowed to continue.

At what point do we step back from attempting to legislate everything and simply allow people to do one of the few things that humans are naturally suited to do: Be parents.
posted by oissubke at 3:36 PM on October 4, 2002

Lets not have laws against forms of parenting. Lets just have laws against hitting people.
posted by grumblebee at 3:45 PM on October 4, 2002

*sigh*
Buddha, you're in the wrong thread. I thought we had all agreed that unprovoked profanity and juvenile insults were to be directed here today.
posted by Galvatron at 3:52 PM on October 4, 2002

Fat Buddha, I don't really know where you're going with your references to S/M, but I certainly don't believe in spanking children for unintentional mistakes.
posted by MrBaliHai at 3:53 PM on October 4, 2002

Honestly, to say that the occasional, deserved smack can psychologically damage a child is quite ludicrous. As a child I knew that when I was smacked it was because I really had crossed the line, and it was time to learn the lesson without yet another lecture.

oissubke has a point, parents have their ways and should be left to raise their children how they please. Anything taken to the extreme will be noticed.

Still, thanks to the Internet, "kids practically raise themselves nowadays." [Homer Simpson]
posted by Resonance at 3:54 PM on October 4, 2002

When I was at Eton I was flogged by the top form boys every Saturday morning and it didn't do me a bit of harm.
posted by crunchburger at 4:25 PM on October 4, 2002

Why am I always wary of the obvious, "it happened to me, I'm a good person, therefore it's justified." approach?
In some arguments, an experience that negates the question is worthwhile. When talking about spanking and discipline, it always comes off as macho posturing. MY parents surely raised me good'n proper.

That said, this is certainly an overreach.
posted by kid_twist at 4:51 PM on October 4, 2002

When I was at Eton I was flogged by the top form boys every Saturday morning and it didn't do me a bit of harm.

Don't laugh. I once spent 24 hours at Eton while trying to work out whether or not to take them up on a free scholarship (I didn't); it's more like the stereotype than you might imagine.

Seeing as I started this thread, I might as well add my two cents: I think this isn't an overreach, and given that the UK ratified the Rights of the Child, they should be made to enforce them. I have yet to see any real evidence to prove that smacking is either harmful or not harmful, and given this I don't see why it should be done. There have to be other methods, right?
posted by bwerdmuller at 5:34 PM on October 4, 2002

Well, sometimes a personal experience is all we can draw upon, Mr. Twist. Its not macho posturing, its simply an endorsment, for one side or the other. I was smacked and spanked as a child, never hit. The point is to cause pain, maybe even relate it to what a child does. No, a child should not be smacked for an accident, no one said they should.

I probably will never smack my child; I just don't think I could, and would probably have to deal with other tools of parenting. However, am I trying to outlaw the ability for everyone? Certainly not.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 5:34 PM on October 4, 2002

bwerd...

"I have yet to see any real evidence to prove that smacking is either harmful or not harmful, and given this I don't see why it should be done. There have to be other methods, right?"

Not only does this explain the English view on parenting, but also their views on many other subjects, from GE food to globalization to "cancer-causing" mobiles, and the vast American difference of opinion.

Do I think you should beat your child? No. Do I even think that you should necessarily spank your child? No. Do I think it's anything of the government or the UN's concern how I decide on the subject? Certainly not.
posted by Kevs at 5:44 PM on October 4, 2002

I'm not a parent, and becoming a father scares me senseless The best analogue I have for parenting is raising litters of cats or puppies.

In college, I lived in a house with 4 other good-timers and we had a litter of kittens. Handsworth, the alpha kitten, ran for the road one day and I grabbed him and stuck his cat-face within about 18 inches of a UPS truck. I hate UPS like the Pope hates sin, but I was happy to use their truck (the wind the bad noise against little ear drums the cardiohydric stench) to physically discipline Clara's cat.

You can't legislate morality, but you can try.
posted by crunchburger at 5:59 PM on October 4, 2002

Not only does this explain the English view on parenting, but also their views on many other subjects, from GE food to globalization to "cancer-causing" mobiles, and the vast American difference of opinion.

I don't speak for the English anything.

Do I think it's anything of the government or the UN's concern how I decide on the subject? Certainly not.

Are you allowed to hit a person? No. Are children people? Yes. Therefore, you shouldn't be allowed to hit a child. That's what it comes down to; the rights of the child are meant to guarantee things like that.

It just sounds like common sense to me.
posted by bwerdmuller at 6:20 PM on October 4, 2002

Well, maybe its not common sense to the rest of us. Maybe we have different views of parenting than you, sir.
posted by Lord Chancellor at 6:23 PM on October 4, 2002

As Lord says, Parenting allows you different responsibilities. You can't make your neighbor go to bed without either, but you can sure have your kid do it. The rights of the child are to ensure that the child is not seriously traumatized - I would say things like spanking that inflicts lasting damage would qualify. Certainly not spanking as a whole. I was spanked when I was kid if I did something like lie to my parents. It taught the lesson pretty quickly.
posted by Kevs at 7:05 PM on October 4, 2002

IME many people who want to defend spanking their kids say "I was spanked as a kid and it did me no harm". I'd say if you think hitting children is okay, it most certainly did harm you.

It's just lazy parenting, surely you can use your giant brain and imagination to come up with something that teaches the child things you want them to learn, not things you don't (like using violence to solve problems and get your own way) and that's reflective of being a thinking animal. Educate them, don't hit them. If you don't have to hit a dog to educate it you certainly don't have to hit a child. I'm usually pretty libertarian, but I'd like to see a law against spanking children, I don't believe that people who want to hit their children are acting in the child's best interests, and the child should be protected from that.
posted by biscotti at 7:27 PM on October 4, 2002

I remember life before children. I remember thinking and arguing about the best ways to raise/teach/discipline a child.

I've realized two things since then. 1) I didn't know what the hell I was talking about, and 2) what works for one child may not work for any other child and vice versa.

I've got three kids now, and I hate arguing with people who were like me before I had children.

I'll put in my two bits for "outlaw abuse, and leave the debatable parts out of legislation."
posted by Lafe at 8:09 PM on October 4, 2002

You say that the child understands what is going on, that he did something wrong, and that he is paying for it. What if, in the child's eyes, he did something you didn't like and is being hurt for it. Sure he will learn that he should no longer do the things you don't want him to, but he will also learn that violence is a way to enforce your will upon those you can.

You say you were hit as a child, and you're ok for it. That statement is untenable. How can one compare themselves to what might have been? You can say that you're not damaged significantly more than average.

You say smack, as if that is something other than hitting or beating. Smack is not a word people often use. When you smack a child you're hitting a child, or beating one. Use the word that is standard. And you say you don't associate hitting with violence. What, exactly, do you associate with violence?

I say we should raise children in such a way that violence against other people is not taught, accepted, or tolerated. Neither violence, nor the threat of violence should be used should be used as a tool to mold the minds of children, or anyone.
posted by rhyax at 8:13 PM on October 4, 2002

MrBaliHai so you spank or get spanked for fun, so long as it's among consenting adults, ok.

MrBaliHai - are you holding back on us about your recreational spanking? Tsk.

To the issue at hand (no pun intended), I favor not disciplining children by physical force, although I had a few rare hand slaps and bottom swats as a child and I don't think they were damaging to me or my six siblings in the least, perhaps because my parents were so unquestionably loving and suppotive of us. Still, I think there are better ways.

I have friends who never got a slap, but their parents punished with coldness, guilt-infliction, seeming withdrawal of love or some other psychological form of beating - you can't legislate to prevent things like that, and yet those kinds of punishment can be extremely damaging and inflict lifetime scars. So hopefully the "better ways" don't simply substitute other cruelties.

I feel must self disclose however -- I do occasionaly desperately yearn to spank other people's kids. I have restrained myself thusfar, but next time your child is running amuck in a restaurant, think of psychos like me who might be among the other patrons.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:50 PM on October 4, 2002

Here's a study that shows that a scolding can do as much psychological damage as a spanking. I don't know about the UN intervening in family life but I think it's got to have a positive effect generally for people to hear it said that brutalizing their kids is deprecated.
posted by zadcat at 10:12 PM on October 4, 2002

Good parenting shouldn't have to involve the choice of beating as a way of disciplining a "stubborn" child. All too often, parents use physical force (whether as a last resort or not) to get the kid succumbs to certain standards of behaviour or just to get a point across to the kid.

While there may have been some "success" stories in occasional/mild-beating-type upbringing, it cannot be a yardstick for good parenting.

Every child deserves the kind of care and guidance in which violence should be excluded under all circumstances. Even when a parent momentarily thinks it will do no lasting harm to the child.
posted by taratan at 10:20 PM on October 4, 2002

Frick'n, it's not beating as much as sending a child to bed without dinner is starving. What bothers so many people out here, the physical pain aspect of it? Is emotional and mental displeasure the only way to correct a child?
posted by Lord Chancellor at 2:54 AM on October 5, 2002

There is still no definition for what a "smack" is, exactly. If I swat my child's hand away from a knife or something burning hot, is that a potentially life-damaging, soon-to-be-criminal smack? If I give my child a swat on the bottom when they've repeatedly pinched their baby brother after being told repeatedly to stop, is that a should-be-outlawed-smack? There are as many variables on when a parent might employ such techniques as there are parents. Who defines? And moreover, why should this be a matter of law, anyway?
posted by Dreama at 3:38 AM on October 5, 2002

As a child I was hit by my parents maybe twice, to teach me a lesson. As the old cliche goes it never did me any harm. However, I have worked in Child Protection for the last few years and my experience of what parents believe to be appropriate chastisement is particularly varied. The issue is that to hit anyone in anger is wrong, doublely so if it is a child. You cannot test peoples feelings at the time in a court of law and therefore saying it would be illegal to hit a child in anger would not be enforceable so I agree with the UN that the simplest route is to ban smacking all together. I have seen too many cases where smacking has got out of hand. Then it does nothing to reinforce boundaries and merely leads to the child being oppositional and with poor self esteem. To tackle this problem we not only need to ban smacking but enable parents without the resources to manage their children without resorting to violence how to do the right thing.

On the same subject, my wife is a broadcast journo. Yesterday she did a package on the UN report. She interviewed the headteacher of a christian school who was pro-smacking. How this person is allowed to work with children I'm not sure. It would be a different matter if he advocated sex with children so I guess the common perception is that physical abuse of children is more acceptable than sexual abuse. He also stated that he had hit children with a "paddle". So this guy uses weapons against children. But I guess there are precedents there, Idi Amin didn't have a problem with this, and is Texas it is still legal for the state to execute children.
posted by cohiba at 4:54 AM on October 5, 2002

No, madamjujujive, I much prefer Food Porn to spanking. Methinks Fat Buddha was engaged in a little post-pub, drunken ranting last night.

IME many people who want to defend spanking their kids say "I was spanked as a kid and it did me no harm". I'd say if you think hitting children is okay, it most certainly did harm you.

Well, that ridiculous bit of circular logic certainly put me in my place.
posted by MrBaliHai at 5:35 AM on October 5, 2002

Spare the rod, and your children will hopefully not turn out to be amoral socialists, willfully trying to destroy or belittle everything you've worked your entire life trying to provide for them.
posted by hama7 at 7:45 AM on October 5, 2002

Here in the United States, one might wonder about this rule. Don't worry, the US (along with Somalia) haven't even ratified it yet.
posted by ALongDecember at 8:43 AM on October 5, 2002

For all those proponants of using physical violence against children or any living creature as a form of punishment. Consider this - punishment teaches nothing except fear of punishment. No true learning can take place in any situation where any type of punishment is in place.

We have laws that say it is wrong to use physical violence against adults, it's about time this was extended to include children. If you hit children you irreparably damage the adult the child becomes.
posted by Arqa at 9:16 AM on October 5, 2002

MrBaliHai: I recognise that it's circular logic. That doesn't really change the fact that people who were hit as children learned that hitting is an appropriate way to discipline a child (ye olde "cycle of abuse" in effect). And there's a fair bit of evidence that it can have many and varied far-reaching negative effects. And there are better, non-violent, ways.

I find it surprising that so many people seem to think that the only possible alternatives to spanking are equally harmful things like withholding affection and emotional abuse. Discipline does not have to be negative, there's evidence that positive reinforcement is about the most effective way to achieve lasting, positive behavioural change. I also find it disheartening that so many people think you can't reason with children. You absolutely can, you just have to find ways to communicate with them which are meaningful to them, and there's no shortage of good literature out there to help you. Many people do all kinds of research on which dog they want and which car to buy, but so few people do parenting research.

I see what Dreama's getting at, I think smacking a child's hand away from a stove is probably acceptable. As for baby-brother pinching, why not a time out? Why not remove the child from the situation rather than hitting them? Trying to teach non-violence with violence seems counter-productive. And as for why this should be legislated, what Arqa said.
posted by biscotti at 10:32 AM on October 5, 2002

Children aren't dogs, if your kid is doing something mean to another kid, why not explain to them why they shouldn't do that. Perhaps use your religious background, or humanist reasons. These are not beyond the grasp of children. I am not saying go into detail about the philosophy, but a discussion about the golden rule isn't too hard. Sure it takes more time than hitting your kid, but don't you think they would come out better for it?
posted by rhyax at 2:50 PM on October 5, 2002

Hama7! That was very funny. I don't know what all this parental research stuff is about. Is that like a subscription to Anxious Mother magazine? It's all OJT as far as I'm concerned.
posted by BinGregory at 2:53 PM on October 5, 2002