Research published this month in the journal Pediatrics confirms what child advocates have long known: it’s never okay to hit children.
Study author Tracie Afifi and her colleagues investigated the link between children being hit, pushed and shoved, and the development of psychological problems later in life. They found that harsh physical punishment was associated with depression, anxiety, substance abuse and personality disorders.
The findings are important because they challenge the belief that there is a distinction between harsh physical punishment and child abuse. They also support previous research linking the physical punishment of children with harmful effects in childhood and adulthood.
Outdated attitudes toward children
Calls to ban the physical punishment of children inevitably meet with arguments that parents should have the right to discipline their children as they see fit without state interference. Such claims perpetuate perceptions of children as parents’ possessions without rights to the dignity and respect afforded to adults in a civilised society.
In the not-so-distant past, husbands claimed similar rights to “discipline” and control their wives, and teachers found it difficult to imagine how to control school children without resorting to the ruler, cane or strap.
Society has progressed – to a degree. Hitting intimate partners, employees, infants in day care centres and school children is no longer tolerated (except – incredibly – in some Western Australian and Queensland schools). A husband, boss, child care worker or teacher in most Australian schools cannot defend a charge of assault by arguing that they were just carrying out “reasonable chastisement”.
Why then is it such a big step to remove this defence in cases where a parent assaults his or her child? Why are small, vulnerable, and impressionable children singled out as the only people who can legally be hit?
The impact of physical punishment
Some adults argue that hitting children, euphemistically described as “smacking”, is not violence. Yet children, whose voices have historically been silenced, have described how smacking hurts them physically and emotionally.
Many children also experience discipline that does not hurt and they want parents to know that alternatives to hitting are effective and more respectful. As one 12 year old put it, “you shouldn’t hit people… there’s a better way than hurting someone”.
There is increasingly strong evidence that parental physical punishment may adversely affect children’s development into adulthood. It has been associated with aggression, antisocial behaviour, and mental health issues throughout life, along with a heightened risk of abusing one’s children and intimate partners. Researcher Tracie Afifi and her colleagues go so far as to argue that “reducing physical punishment may help decrease the prevalence of mental disorders in the general population”.
There are always alternatives to physical aggression in response to challenging or annoying behaviours. Power relationships, anger, frustration, and loss of self control frequently motivate violent behaviour. Indeed, many parents admit that they resort to hitting their children when they are tired, angry or distressed, and that they later feel regret and remorse. Parents may even apologise to their children.
Sadly, on too many occasions, physical punishment exceeds even socially agreed limits. Children have been seriously injured and even killed.
Positive parent-child relationships
Most parents love their children and want to be the best parents that they can be. Children are more likely to respect parents who treat them with respect and teach them constructive ways to behave. Children thrive on positive recognition that motivates the repetition of behaviours parents want to see, and also enhances children’s self esteem.
Some parents hit their children believing that it’s reasonable and acceptable. Often parents were physically punished as children, and believe it did them no harm.
Until we question this myth, without judging such parents, we will continue to deny children their rights. And we will continue to instill fear, anger and resentment, and teach children aggression and violence is a means of settling disputes.
It’s time to ban all physical punishment
As Marta Santos Pais, the Special Representative of the United Nations Secretary-General on Violence against Children, recently said, “Legislation provides an ethical and normative framework to promote values of respect, tolerance and human rights."
To date, all forms of physical punishment are banned in 32 countries, including New Zealand (since 2007). Sweden banned physical punishment over 30 years ago. Other countries in Scandinavia, Europe and Africa followed. Brazil is on the verge of enacting a ban.
Australia ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1990. Yet, over 20 years later, Australian governments have resisted adopting an enlightened, proactive stance on the physical punishment of children. This reticence has been met with international criticism.
Banning all physical punishment would reflect governments' unreserved commitment to promoting Australian children’s well-being, positive sense of self, and protection from harm. A ban would primarily serve to educate parents, and not to criminalise them. Its aim would be to promote positive discipline and to grant children and adults equal protection from assault.
Contrary to some claims, countries that have already banned physical punishment do not report a surge in criminal charges against parents.
The way forward
Few parents choose to act in ways that might unnecessarily risk hurting or harming their children. But parenting is a huge responsibility and parents need to be informed about positive, constructive discipline. Such discipline sets up and consistently reinforces the boundaries that all children need and expect.
Parents also need to be supported by governments, communities, families and friends so that they can optimally nurture and enjoy their children. Hitting children is never reasonable and can no longer be justified.
Comments on this article are now closed.
Paul Richards
strategic foresight
Bernadette & Bronwyn - ban all physical punishment? Seriously, this is not a police state.
I agree punishing by hitting your children is just exposing a un-evolved mind to damage. But 'banning' I question, surely we are developed enough not to need to regrese to lower stage of development as a culture.
Banning inferrers punitive repercussions are right good and proper. Surely anyone un-evolved enough to hit a child needs some attention as well and I mean other than 'social punishment'. We already…
Read moreSteve Hindle
logged in via email @bigpond.com
I agree with your comments.
Fortunately I also think there is little chance of any government being able to introduce laws banning smacking.
Quite simply, the general public don't have enough trust in academics or governments not to overreach and introduce a whole suite of measures to regulate how parents discipline their children.
Student behaviors in our schools is now a real issue since our teachers have been effectively dis-empowered by the bureaucratic minefield that discipline has become.
Physical punishment is the worst and last option that a parent should use. However it should not be banned.
Mark Lambley
Programmer
This whole article is based around the premise that negative discipline is bad and we should be constructive.
Yet this entire article is negative and offers nothing constructive.
It's just a verbal smack on the butt to parents, complete with a six minute video of some lady saying little more than "Buy my book".
Where is this "positive, constructive discipline" I wonder?
Philip Dowling
IT teacher
In the supermarket, the calm, logical parent who carefully explains to toddlers what they are doing wrong soon becomes the high pitched, hectoring, red-faced harridan until the toddler gives in to the verbal abuse or the mother gives in because of embarassment.
My advice to parents for what it is worth is when there has been unacceptable behaviour and this has been made clear to the child, to give them the choice of two forms of punishment.
Chris van den Bergen
OHS Consultant
What is said in the study:
"CONCLUSIONS: Harsh physical punishment in the absence of child maltreatment is associated with mood disorders, anxiety disorders, substance abuse/dependence, and personality disorders in a general
population sample."
"The term harsh physical punishment was used for this study
because the measure includes acts of physical force beyond slapping, which some may consider more severe than “customary” physical punishment (ie, spanking)." - Physical Punishment and Mental Disorders: Results From a Nationally Representative US Sample
What is said by the authors of this article:
"it’s never okay to hit children."
I am not trying to advocate violence against children, but if I was going to publish an article on the Conversation I would not go misrepresenting the conclusions of research papers to suit my own opinion.
Bruce Moon
Bystander!
Chris
I had the same thoughts when reading the article.
I am reminded by a comment in the 'Origins of Racism' article...
"Ideologues will usually grab at anything that suits their world-view and ignore whatever contradicts it."
These authors (Bernadette & Bronwyn) conclude with...
"But parenting is a huge responsibility and parents need to be informed about positive, constructive discipline. Such discipline sets up and consistently reinforces the boundaries that all children need and…
Read moreBruce Tabor
Research Scientist at CSIRO
Thank you Chris.
The editorial staff of the Conversation should not have let this one through.
Everyone has their own biases, included researchers & academics, who should strive to be objective. But it is beyond the pale when those with such entrenched biases misrepresent research in an effort to influence public policy.
We already have broken child protection systems - notably in NSW - that do far more harm than good by destroying families. As an example, more Aboriginal children have been removed from their families in NSW than was the case during the Stolen Generation. It would be the worst possible outcome to give the very people responsible for this (DOCS and affiliated police) even more power to destroy families by pursuing their own blind ideological vendettas.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
"In the not-so-distant past, husbands claimed similar rights to “discipline” and control their wives"
When?
I think this has been made up.
Scott Dunsdon
logged in via Facebook
Any basic research into the history of marital law will provide examples of where violence of husbands towards their wives and/or marital rape was considered a justifiable punishment for a wife's "misdemeanors" by the state.
I don't have access to scholarly articles myself, but this article might provide insight and references - http://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?collection=journals&handle=hein.journals/jrlsasw8&div=36&id=&page=
Or this one on the history of how rape within marriage was exempted under law: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1747-4469.1995.tb00697.x/abstract
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Excuse me, but the article refers to “husbands”, (which infers all husbands), and did not say “some husbands”, and did not say which country, and at what time?
Perhaps it was just a typo.
Paul Richards
strategic foresight
Dale - I wish you were right, you need to do a little reading of recent history.
My father was routinely caned at school placed in the corner with a dunce hat on. This is not a story he had dyslexia, and the only explanation was that he was lazy, according to his teacher in the 1930s.
There are hundreds like it, applying across genders and to all ages. Just a quick look at our recent military history is proof enough, these bullies went home and hammered their wives.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Which ones "went home and hammered their wives"?
I suppose it was husbands, meaning all husbands.
Anne Duncan
logged in via email @gmail.com
No not all husbands, but it was not uncommon. I know some of my friends' Mums were hit by their husbands - on one occasion our (female) neighbor came to our house to escape a beating. My own father was a very gentle, kind, thoughtful man but he used to hit my mother when I was young - I can remember my Mum showing me her bruises - but I wasn't to tell anyone - it was a shameful secret. When I was older, my Mum told me he stopped when the laws changed during the 1970s and it became a crime to hit your wife. Not unlike child smacking today, it was just how things were. The Church, society and the law supported the idea that family violence was a private matter and the man as the head of the household deserved obedience - remember obedience was a vow for women but not men in matrimony - and in pre-1970s Australia it was a common belief that men were entitled to use some force to assert themselves within marriage. Marital rape was also made crime in the 1970s.
Paul Richards
strategic foresight
Dale - it varied, some military guys, a lot of heavy drinkers many men considered it the right way to keep their women in line. The abuse became the biggest stimulus for the equality push in the late sixtes and early seventies, and fully justified.
They even made a comedy about hitting women, "the Honeymooners". Wife bashing was considered acceptable, hard to grasp now but it was.
"The main line in the show was Alice, one of these days pow right in the kisser"
http://youtu.be/EpHzPzjUTY8
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
Dale, I think you are misreading the article. Saying "In the not-so-distant past, husbands claimed similar rights to “discipline” and control their wives" does not mean *all* husbands did so. If I said, "In the past, knights fought in jousts" or "In the past, Romans built aqueducts to ensure a stable water supply" these would not imply that the behaviour mention applied to all knights or Romans.
Marlon Perera
-
Great response to what I can only assume was a trolling comment from Dale. Excellent points about obedience being a vow for women but not men in matrimony.. in my opinion this stems from the teaching of the church, where it was the woman's job to be unconditionally obedient to the husband, and it was the husband's job to be unconditionally obedient to God/the Church... I'm glad that for the most part we have left this archaic way of thinking behind.
Dale Bloom
Analyst
Sigh.
Use of the plural “husbands” infers all husbands. Similar to the often used “men’s violence against women” infers all men are violent against women, which is obviously not the case.
However I’m quite certain use of the word “husbands” instead of the words “some husbands” was not carried out to demonise husbands, but was a mere typing error.
Byron Smith
PhD candidate in Christian Ethics at University of Edinburgh
Sigh.
Use of plural nouns without an article can either be distributive (referring to every individual within the class) or generic (conveying something typical or common within the class).
Dale Bloom
Analyst
So it wasn't a typing error, and it didn't say "some husbands". Therefore, it was meant to demonise all husbands.
There must have been academic wives who have hit their husbands, and extra line could have been added.
Such as "And female academics hit their husbands".
Marlon Perera
-
Bernadette & Bronwyn - I agree for the most part, but banning all physical punishment is a bit much dont you think? There has to be some scope left for parental judgement. I personally have been smacked by my parents on a few occasions when I have done something incredibly wrong, most often afterward this was not needed but I would like to think this discipline helped make me a better person. Note this is a smack on the bum or something like that, not a full fisted punch to the face or anything like…
Read morePaul Richards
strategic foresight
Marion - I am offended you have lifted part of my comment" I stand by the fact I said "failure of ours to select future Australians" out of context. You have projected ont to my meaning your belief not mine.
I qualified what I said - " If we welcome people here, we have a duty of care to raise their cultural awareness and child training is one very healthy example."
I did not denigrate other cultures, but merely pointed out the stupidity of bringing people here, then punishing them because of a cultural belief and used child care as an example. If we do indeed ban hitting children, cultures that are not as evolved as ours would be in the line of fire with legislative changes.
My Fathers generation was routinely hit at school, I saw year my complete year 8, 9, 10 caned over a fruit fight during lunch. That was in the 1970s. Not long ago.
The financially advanced culture of Singapore still canes as a criminal punishment.
Marlon Perera
-
Paul, sorry if you think your comments were taken out of context, and for what it's worth, I do agree with most of your other points, but are you seriously suggesting that other cultures are 'not as evolved' as Australians? You say this as if no Australian hits their child and its only those from other, unevolved cultures that do.
I realise that this may sound like picking and choosing and taking comments out of context, but do you realise how offensive that insinuation is? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you didn't mean it that way and it just came out wrong, but if you did.. it's extremely offensive.
Paul Richards
strategic foresight
Marlon - "... extremely offensive"
If you find me 'saying' other cultures are un-evolved is offensive well, this is your perspective. My Grandfathers generation was not as evolved as my sons generation, I don't find that concept offensive.
However, I am ashamed we have an aboriginal people we enforce values on, knowing they have not evolved to the stage of development to cope with them. Are these un-evolved cultures less human or less worthy than ours, no. But they are due the respect shown by our awareness of where they are and consideration for their values.
I still don't know if this offends you, but encountering others who do not see individuals, cultures, groups people as having different stages of development is sad. How else can we understand and make allowance for people. It would mean we would only judge others only by our standards. How offensive is that?
Marlon Perera
-
Paul.. this seems to be a major misunderstanding (hence my statement to give you the benefit of the doubt regarding the unevolved comment).. the use of the word unevolved is what I find wrong here, surely you can see why? What you used in the comment just above 'having different stages of development' makes far more sense.. saying unevolved just makes it sound like others are a step down on the evolutionary ladder.. and there is a big difference between the two.
Anyway, it seems we agree on every single point except this , so I see no need for argument here.
Paul Richards
strategic foresight
Marlon - Given current genomics has proven conclusively, race is a human cultural construct and not part of evolution. It mystifies me how you could construe what I referred to as separated from or lesser genetic individuals. Essentially genetically we are no different to humans ten thousand years ago, brain, bodies, the compete physiology.
What I wrote could only be writing about 'value systems' or 'stages of development'. I can only hope you have not lost the point of what I wrote, if so that can only be down to poor writing skills.
This chart of value systems or stages of human development might clarify my meaning. Higher stages do not mean others under yours are lower, lesser people, groups, or the converse etc. etc;
http://pialogue.info/definitions/spiral_dynamics_aqal_BIG.jpg
Marlon Perera
-
Yep, makes sense..
Leonie Tarnawski
logged in via Facebook
Does this mean that every baby- boomer and earlier born adult has "psychological problems later in life" and "depression, anxiety, substance abuse and personality disorders"?
Rob Crowther
Architectural Draftsman
Of course it doesn’t.
There are a whole range of disciplinary measures available and they all have a place. The issue here is frequency and severity.
The article presents as a step function. No hitting - good, no hitting - good, no hitting - good, then bang: hitting – bad. Child punishment and its effect must be Gaussian. Must be – can’t be any other way.
On that basis this article is in two parts for me. There is the premise and its conclusions – which I view as being impossible to be correct. There is then the factual part which gives dates and numbers of countries etc which is nice to know.
Philip Dowling
IT teacher
I confess to using physical force to teach my children about appropriate behaviour near roads.
The parents of these children would appear to be better than I am.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/child-hit-by-car-was-believed-to-be-running-back-to-get-her-hat-20120424-1xisa.html
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/mother-yelled-stop-boy-6-critical-after-being-hit-by-car-20120504-1y2he.html
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8461765/boy-hit-by-car-near-school-ran-onto-road
Anthony Nolan
Ruminant
I'm on a rampage fueled by the morally worthy tone of The Conversation. Of course it's ok to hit your kids from time to time. My bloody son, 17 years old and holding a second dan black belt from a Korean Tae Kwon Do school gimme cheek one day. I offered to slap him if he spoke to me again like that. He gimme a push that near sent me through the wall. See, it's ok. But not for minors. Respect.
Philip Dowling
IT teacher
Being 17 years old the most police would have done was give him a caution.
Margaret Rose STRINGER
retired but interested
My eldest sister told me, fairly recently, that she was caned around the legs for being naughty, when very young - prefacing this by saying that she was a *very* naughty little girl.
The other four of us didn't receive any physical punishment: we were verbally lambasted, instead.
My eldest sister is the only one of the five who has never shown signs of being ****ed in the head: the rest of us have and had more than our share of emotional and behavioural problems.
Shauna Murray
Research Fellow
Thanks for a timely article.
In response to some of the comments here, there have been many studies conducted over the past 30 years that show similar results, ie negative impacts on mental health, and a low success rate in teaching children appropriate behaviour. A meta-analysis of 88 studies was conducted in 2002:
Elizabeth Gershoff, 2002. Corporal Punishment by Parents and Associated Child Behaviors and Experiences: A Meta-Analytic and Theoretical Review. Psychological Bulletin 128, No…
Read moreRob Crowther
Architectural Draftsman
Firstly, smacking for me is just part of it. It comes with an explanation when the crisis has passed and that lends itself to a topic of humour (nearly always at my expense) in the ensuing years when the memory of the event has dimmed somewhat.
For me, it works and it works beautifully. Behaviour is modified and they most definitely remember.
Either I am an outlier or these research efforts do not consider smacking in light of it being one aspect of a total package.
Tony P Grant
Neo-Mort
"As soon as your born they make you feel small by giving you no time instead of it all...they hit you at home and hurt you at school...they hate you if your clever and despise a fool...till the pain is so great you feel nothing at all"...and for some "til you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules!
Some lyrics from the John Lennon song "Working Class Hero"
We seem to be perpetuating violence in our society...more people in prisons/mental illness/underemployed 10/15%?
Paul Richards…
Read moreEric Huttlestone
Public
Coming from the old school (aged 66) and wanting to do the right thing by my young boys (age 6 and 7) I felt it necessary to attend "Positive Parenting" sessions.
Frankly, much of it was ridiculous and tutored by soft smiling "soppy" women with rose coloured glasses, living in an idealistic unreality.
It was much too formulaic and did little for the well-being of children.
Well intentioned professionals were so academic about the subject it was laughable.
"Wouldn't it be better to stop…
Read morejamie jardine
student
"Children, God bless them, learn to manipulate weakness as much as they respect good (firm) example. And if you think that's a little harsh, take off the glasses and look at real situations."
I believe it's a fallacy that all children are born the way that you state here.. For a different perspective on children and their education have a look at has been achieved at Summer School founded by A.S.Neil in 1921, makes for an interesting alternative perspective..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summerhill_School
http://www.summerhillschool.co.uk/
Joseph Mead
Senior Process Engineer
The article implies that the reason parents claim to have the right to discipline their children is that they perceive "children as parents’ possessions...". What nonsense. It's nothing to do with parents thinking they "own" their children. Rather it's because parent's are completely responsible for the behaviour of their children, and so must have methods available to keep control of them, including physical restraint and if necessary basic physical punishment such as smacking.
The argument that we are not allowed to use physical force against other adults, so why should we be able to do so against children, is specious. No adult is responsible for the behaviour, actions or safety of another adult. That's why I can't use force to make another adult do what I want or think is best. However, with my children, I am responsible for their physical actions and so have to be able to physically control them if required.
Lynne Newington
Lynne Newington is a Friend of The Conversation.
Researcher
Glad to see a lot of commonsense coming through on this.
We as parents are responsable for our children even older, depending on their maturity..
If parents were held more accountable, it would assist those who take parenting seriously trying to instil ground rules and there would lso be less crime, especially when it hit their hip pocket.
Philip Dowling
IT teacher
"teachers found it difficult to imagine how to control school children without resorting to the ruler, cane or strap."
It is ironic that the number of assaults by students on teachers has devoped from the negligible to the commonplace since the abolition of corporal punishment.
It has been suggested that corporal punishment of students by teachers has been replaced by corpoaral punishment of teachers by students.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
I have a question for the authors:
As a parent who dislikes the idea of hitting as a behaviour modification tool, I also acknowldege the fact that it was used on me, and most of my contemporaries, regularly. And yet, I did not learn the message that violence was acceptable, or that children are chattels of their parents, and nor nor did the vast majority of my contemporaries. Other than the (then) acceptable hitting, we were raised in loving, protective families.
Were either of you ever hit by your parents?
How do you reconcile the current fear about potential damage to children with the products of earlier societies - ie ourselves. Is there retrospective research showing long-term harm to baby-boomers who were hit by their parents, but were otherwise loved and nurtured?
Shauna Murray
Research Fellow
Hi Sue,
I am wondering about your comment "I did not learn the message that violence was acceptable".
It seems to me that many of the respondents here did learn the message that at least some violence is acceptable, as long as the victim is a child.
As a person who was never hit as a child, I find this illogical and inexplicable.
For many of the 32 countries that have now banned all forms of violence against children, their main policy aims were to change attitudes towards violence and in so doing to reduce the number of accidental homicides of children, and in this they have been successful according to the literature.
Sue Ieraci
Public hospital clinician
Shauna - perhaps you have missed my point.
Despite having been hit as a child, I DON'T think that hitting children is acceptable.
Many of the people who have been actively involved in banning all forms of violence against children will have been hit as children themselves - there has been a cultural/generational change.
So, my question to the authors is this: what evidence is there that current adults who were hit as children (but otherwise were loved and protected) have pro-violence attitudes as adults?
jamie jardine
student
I was smacked as a child, given the strap at school, hit across the knuckles with the sharp edge of a ruler and made to walk up and down the netball court in the baking sun (no hat of course) with my hands raised above my head (try doing that for one hour), I must've been a bad boy!
And I have never hit my children, it just hasn't ever come up. But if a school teacher ever did to one of my children what was done to me in the name of discipline, then would resort to violence - on them, it does my head in to think about it..
Tony P Grant
Neo-Mort
With you JJ...100%
Shauna Murray
Research Fellow
Oh I understand now Sue.
Yes I think its definitely true that not all people who were hit as kids think its ok to hit kids. In fact, since most of the current generation in Australia probably were hit as kids, its the only possibility of any getting any laws changed.
I'm fairly optimistic due to the experience of public support for laws changing in 32 countries now, even though probably the majority of people in those countries were hit as kids.
Gil Hardwick
Anthropologist
Sorry, Bernadette and Bronwyn, but it is the parent's job to raise children, nobody else's. Who are you to tell me how to raise my own children? I don't even know if you have any of your own, or whether you'd know from experience what you are talking about, or simply got it from some journal article or textbook somewhere. Far better to support parents than to criticise or treat them as children themselves by asserting these arbitrary theoretical abstractions.
I was a sole Dad for 15 years and…
Read moreLynne Newington
Lynne Newington is a Friend of The Conversation.
Researcher
I wouldn't have been quite so blatant, but you do have a few good points Gill.
I was reared in a girls home, thankfully one that didn't abuse us intellectally, or sexually, but we certainly received a good smack, for either disobedience or ignoring warnings.
Fear of psychological damage could bind parents, leaving children without boundaries, which causes insecurity.
Gil Hardwick
Anthropologist
You all might also like to read Daphne Bugental and Jeffrey Lewis. The Paradoxical Misuse of Power by Those Who See Themselves as Powerless, Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 55, No. 1, 1999, pp. 51-64, which deals as much with teachers as incompetent parents.
Personally I'm inclined to add moralisers, bureaucrats, intellectuals, Labor backbenchers, party apparatchiks, camp followers and the rest of them, who find refuge in positions of perceived authority rather than joining the rest of us in facing life itself, unable to muster the courage to actually do it..
vanessa B
Early Childhood
Parents, under any circumstances it is never okay to hit your kids. If your parenting style is to make your children suffer from FEAR that is the way you are heading. Children are active human beings that have rights as adults. By smacking or even verbally reprimanding your child will affect them emotionally and physically. There are ways of teaching children right from wrong and SMACKING is not one of them!!!!
Children need to feel the love and security from their parents especially their mother figure. Hitting your child is bad parenting, teaching your child right from wrong and letting them know its okay to make mistakes is crucial in childhood. Parents should be scaffolding their childrens learning and leading them down the right direction through praise and nurture.
It breaks my heart to see parents standing up for physical abuse, i find it absolutely disgusting.