|• Why do people object to smacking?
Posted: 17 Jul 2009 04:43 PM PDT
The comments button is at the bottom right of this post.
• “Smacking” here primarily means a swat on the rump steak or similar given for the purposes of correction/training. In some circumstances greater force is reasonable, e.g. when a thirteen year old is smashing up your lounge. Proportionality is the key.
The upcoming referendum has seen the anti-smacking brigade in full voice again, and their strong desire to control how parents respond when children misbehave provokes a question…
Why do people object to smacking? The full answer to that would take thousands of words because there are many reasons why people object to smacking, so today I’m going to concentrate on two of those reasons.
*****Reason 1-> I believe that many people object to smacking because they have been smacked by inconsistent parents. Inconsistent parents will punish the same offence in different ways at different times, so the child does not know that a smack will be the consequence of the offence before he commits the offence. Indeed, he may have breached the parental rules without even knowing that what he was doing was “illegal”. Children need clear boundaries and routine in order to feel safe and secure, so naturally inconsistent parenting will make the child feel anxious: think about what it’s like walking on thin ice or an ice-covered footpath and you don’t know what’s going to happen next. A child raised by inconsistent parents who smack is likely to grow up and have negative associations with smacking.
*****Reason 2-> I believe that many people object to smacking because they have been smacked by angry parents, therefore they understandably associate smacking with a scary – even terrifying – event.
Now, let’s have a very brief look at how things should be done:
*****A-> As I said, children need clear boundaries and routine in order to feel safe and secure, so parents need to tell children what the rules are and the reasoning behind those rules (just explain the rules, you should not attempt to justify them unless you want your children to rule over you. There’s no problem with respectful questions from children who are seeking clarification).
The parents also need to tell the children what the consequences will be for various types of offences. That way a child knows that “If I set fire to the cat I will get a smack” and there’s no surprises, so the kid can feel safe and secure when smacked by a calm parent. Yes, he’ll be distressed, but that’s something different: effective correction/training requires distress (e.g. a fine causes distress, as does “time out”), which is different to the fear caused by an angry parent and the anxiety caused by an inconsistent parent.
*****B-> Smacking should not been done by an angry parent under any circumstances. The parent should be calm and smack with the intention of delivering the consequences of the child’s actions, usually minor and transitory pain (this is consistent with the laws of nature: if a child touches a hot stove he feels pain and learns that touching a hot stove is the wrong thing to do). The smack should be followed by a quick hug or something that signals to the child that his relationship with the parent is intact (not a pity party or a bag of lollies as an apology for the smack).
That is a very simplistic explanation of a very complex topic and I haven’t attempted to look at how things work at the different stages of child development, but I’m sure that you get the general idea.
Although some people have understandable negative associations when it comes to smacking, that does not excuse them when they attempt to control how other people raise their children.
What do you think about the points I have raised here?
How would you answer the question “why do people object to smacking?
Arrant arrogance (summary of the issues)
John Key shows his arrogance (he is the paternalistic enemy now)