The act of smacking children has evolved over the past few years into a debate over whether it's an essential and effective form of discipline, or simply a less obvious form of physical and psychological abuse.
Decades ago, children received the whip at school if they did the wrong thing. This was not only accepted by the parents as a way of teaching the kid right and wrong in the school environment, but a necessary aspect of making sure a child knows who is boss. Not to say this form of punishment should be re-introduced (it shouldn't), but somewhere along the line, a bright spark decided that somehow the "damage" done to a child that has been given the occasional little whack on the lower half of the body equated to consistently beating them black and blue. It has become such a frowned upon act that parents who do it today feel horribly guilty afterwards.
In 2007, the Howard government offered $2.5 million dollars worth of funding to support an "anti-smacking" campaign. The whole idea is built around the belief that being smacked plants a mental seed in the child's mind that violence is an acceptable form of communication. One has to honestly ask though, in most cases, would anyone who has been smacked necessarily become a violent person through that experience alone? It's doubtful. Witnessing and experiencing brutal abuse of any kind for many years, on the other hand, is a different story - and so we are talking degrees here, rather than the act itself. When did a smack become "violent"?
The other key campaign tagline dictates that smacking undermines a child's feeling of "love and security" - but what if the parent sits down with the child afterwards and explains their actions, followed by a kiss and a cuddle? Doesn't the child then realise that sometimes their actions have not so pleasant consequences? That Mum and Dad still love them despite the things they do wrong? The whole problem is that judging parents who smack have been unfair. Shouldn't a parent have the right to use this form of discipline if they genuinely believe there is no other option and it will help, not hurt their child in the long run?
On a personal note, as a child I remember clearly feeling the sting of my mother's hand on my backside, or leg. It didn't happen often at all, but funnily enough I remember those times not with fear but with respect. I knew I had done the wrong thing, and to avoid that horrible red hand mark in the future, I thought twice before going down that path again. Even to this day, I respect my parents so much more for letting me know where the line in the sand was with them.
A few years ago, my friend was having a hard time controlling her son who was going through the terrible twos. "I've tried everything," she had complained to me over the phone. "I've sent him to the corner, I've taken away his toys, and I've raised my voice - nothing." Not surprisingly, with a newborn baby also on the scene, she lost her cool completely one day. Reasoning with a two year old was simply not working. She gave him a rather good smack on the thigh. After he'd stopped quietly whimpering, suddenly the commands to pick up his toys, be nicer to guests, say please and "ta", started being heard. As a five year old now and just started school, he is a generally well behaved and respectful kid. The occasional smack has certainly done him no harm.
This issue is timely in that yet another sad story has emerged of the Department of Community Services' failing to act when appropriate, and acting too swiftly when not. The removal of four children from their guardians because of one smack on the behind was one of those stories you had to read twice to make sure your eyes weren't deceiving you. Children can be in homes where they genuinely are being abused and mistreated, yet the system seems to fail to help them. Instances like this do nothing to help parents who believe that smacking is a sometimes necessary and perfectly reasonable form of discipline. Now they will only feel more shame.
RECOMMENDED LINKS
Printer friendly version
Comments
Evidence or anecdote based policy formulation?
The formulation of policy for safeguarding children should be of the utmost importance. There is much implied criticism in the blog of childrens policy, but to my mind, too much of it is based on anecdotes. Many of us are parents and an even larger proportion (!) were once children, so it's no surprise that everyone is an expert in this arena. But I'd really like to see a more evidence based analysis, in the interests of robust outcomes.
The disproportionate interest in whether or not a Minister and Senior Public Servant smack their kids is a case in point. While it seems distasteful and hypocritical for them to have admitted it, it's entirely a side show. Such random cases ought not to be parlayed into conclusions about policy. People should not be emboldened to pronounce smacking to be OK just because someone's anti-smacking position is exposed as inconsistent. Nor should any weight be given, one way or another, to personal accounts of individual kids who get smacked and, at age five, seem to be doing OK.
Alison remarked that "the removal of four children because of one smack was one of those stories you had to read twice to make sure your eyes weren't deceiving you". In my experience, it's more likely that the unreality of such stories is down to the journalists not the subjects. We shouldn't rush to judge this sort of case on the basis of one newspaper story. Who's to say that there wasn't a history of maltreatment, or that any number of other factors were unknown, or disregarded, by the writer? It's always likely that the case workers (no matter how overworked they may typically be) know far more about what's going on than the journalist, let alone we hapless readers.
In a similar vein, I'm very worried about the broader tendency for outsiders to summarily and harshly judge DOCS and similar agencies based on media reports. No matter the horror of recent reports of individual cases gone wrong, who can say for certain that "the system seems to fail to help [children being abused]"?
Stephen Wilson
[PS. No connection to DOCS or childrens safety at all. Thank god!]
Good points but not what I had in mind
Stephen - thank you for your thoughtful response to my blog. I appreciate your comments about DOCS and other relevant agencies associated with children - like many people and organisations they are indeed misrepresented and unfairly criticised at times.
My blog, however, was purely intended to provide a personal comment on smacking and how crazy the debate has become over whether it is a useful and fair form of discipline. It was not intended to criticise or influence new or exisiting policies in this area, but rather comment on an important social trend that has emerged recently.
The blog post did seem to be about childrens policy
Sorry Alison if I over-reacted to your post. It's just that you did seem to question the basis of the government's $2.5 million anti-smacking campaign, suggesting that an "honest" examination (your emphasis) would show it was "doubtful" that in most cases, anyone who has been smacked would necessarily become a violent person. The implied criticism of an anti-smacking government policy was backed up only by anecdotes. I just think such important issues need to be treated -- whether in public discourse or just privately inside one's own head -- more carefully and more systematically.
Stephen Wilson.
no smack is acceptable
The New Zealand case
http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1924952.htm
For interest - how our neighbours have approached the issue recently.
Reporting of cases is one issue, policy another
Alison,
I agree with Stephen that the reporting of DOCS-related cases tends to be quite sensastionalised -- as most of our news reporting is today. However, I also agree with you -- there is a limit to which the state is meant to prescribe certain behaviours to citizens, and that includes the assumption that all smacking constitutes abuse and should be banned as such, or that the parents who give an occasional smack on the bum should be considered unfit and have their children removed as a result. I believe there is a great difference between disciplininig and abusing a child, and I don't quite see it as the state's business to interfere with parenting, especially where children are healthy, happy and loved -- even if occasionally smacked on the bum.
I find it very interesting that we teach our children only about their rights, but less so about their obligations to the family, community or society. Generally, I don't see that the generations that came before us and were smacked on a bum from time to time turned into generations of violent psychopaths as a result. I believe the anti-smacking campaign is a generational preference that has merit when it comes to preventing child abuse and educating parents about violence, but policies like this can become intrusive, unneccessary and even counter-productive when taken to extremes.
Let's send the nanny state to the naughty step
Alison, as ever, is the soul of common sense on this issue.
The state should not be telling adults how to raise their children, anymore than it should be lecturing us about what to eat, drink, smoke, make love to or download from the internet. Having abandoned attempts to nationalise industry, arrogant and authoritarian politicians now seek to nationalise us and it's got to stop. It's the politically correct elitist clique in the media and government who seek to control our private lives who need a clip round the ear, or six of the best if they don't learn their lesson.
Trying to reason with a three year old is insane. Kids like having clear boundaries but actions must have consequences and five minutes of quiet time isn't going to do the trick if they've been experimenting with the cat in the tumble dryer. It's a parent's choice whether they choose to, in extremis, smack a naughty child or not, it's none of anyone else's business. Raising a generation of kids who've never heard the word 'no' is not going to do them or anyone else any good.
If a parent systematically beats up a kid they should go to jail and I don't care how 'deprived' or 'socially excluded' their lawyer pretends they've been, but the long term harm done to a child by not disciplining it is far greater than the sting of a slap on the thigh. There's nothing more charming than a well behaved child, nothing more miserable than a kid who knows they can get away with anything. It's time that parents found the guts to be parents again and the hectoring ninnies who think our lives are theirs to micromanage got the hell out of our homes.
It Seems The Government Wants To Raise Our Children...
Alison I am a big pro smacker, I belive that there is a lot of bad behaviour by teens because they know their parents are essentially powerless to do anything. Sure they can yell and scream but at the end of the day sometimes a well timed smack can be the difference between a child who knows that what they were doing was unacceptable and a child who is just going to argue back.
Asserting yourself in a position of authority can come in the form of a smack and id even encourage it right into their teens. It doesn't have to be restricted to when they are very young. This then means that what they did is not acceptable and also not up for debate. Sometimes discussing things with children and teenagers will not work. A well delivered smack may get the message across.
I have found that all anti smacking seems to do is leave us with more Corey Worthingtons.
http://vegetarianssuck.com/blog/
Great comments, thank you
Thank you for your contribution.
I think you have made a valuable point when it comes to kids manipulating their parents, once there was little to no power struggle between the two, now kids are braver to challenge any sort of authority. It goes back to Tamara's comments that kids are very aware of their rights but some aren't taught about the responsibilities associated with those rights.
I don't believe you can always explain and justify your position to a young child and expect them to understand as an adult would. The bottom line is parents shouldn't be judged as bad role models if they offer a smack now and then. That is far different to being abusive and violent.