Did your parents beat you when you were a kid?

[rachmaninoff_forever]

I agree with Deidre! I don't think it does any good to beat kids! I did get slapped just a few times (like 3 to 5 in my whole life till now) acros my face or hands or mouth. But that's just cause my parents lost their nerves cause sometimes I can be kinda stubborn and start yelling or talking back. My dad looks like he's going to slap me a lot of times but when I'm very angry I don't even care! I start yelling even more. I don't know what would happen if my parents were beating me, I think they would have to beat me to death or at least until I was unconscious... I don't know.
Even though sometimes I have been thinking if maybe getting beaten would be easier than having to listen to hours and hours of talks over and over again about how you're a bad kid and how your parents are working so hard and you're not doing what you should be doing the way you should be doing and making them sad and embarrassed (and I know my dad doesn't mean anything bad, he just doesn't know at all how bad his talks can hurt and he doesn't know what else to do).

But I really don't get the idea about scaring someone into being good or doing the right thing... maybe it can seem to work for a while but if you want to teach someone how to do the right thing you have to show them how to think for themselves and how to know what's right and what's wrong, not just doing something so they don't get punished.

You only got whooped 3-5 times.  And at a late age because you remember them enough to count how many.  So you can't really say that getting a talk is worse than a whooping.  Getting a talk is WAY better than a whooping.  I had an aunt (other aunt) that didn't believe in whoopings and at first I acted up hella bad at her place because she just gave us talks.  But then she would tell my parents and they would whoop me so I stopped.   

Starting whoopings at age like 7 or 9 is WAY too late.  The moment we learn how to walk and talk was when we started getting whoopings.  And there's a difference between knocking out your teeth and taking out the bealt.

If you're gonna teach them the right thing, how are you gonna get their attention?  They don't respect you anyways, so they'll just spit in your face and continue to run around.  My parents would whoop me and then force me to sit down and listen to why they beat me.  They're not savages, they have communication skills.  

[rachmaninoff_forever]

 
Just saying, if I were the child that had been assaulted I'd take the phone and make the call in front of my parents.  

And the lie detector test determined...

that was a lie!

[rachmaninoff_forever]

Most people who end up in prison, were beat as kids. Goes to show, if all you do is teach kids to fear punishment for a wrong doing, they will grow up not understanding consequences to their actions and learning how to make appropriate decisions. They will do just enough to not get in trouble or they will adhere to the laws out of fear.

That's not true.  It's actually about 14% of males for physical AND sexual abuse.

It's almost half for women but the vast majority of that abuse is sexual and sexual + physical, not just physical.  

But let's say that it was true.  Most of the American (just assuming you're talking about America) population believe in spanking their kids.  So naturally most of the people in jail would be spanked as kids, because the jail population should be proportional to the free population (just for the purposes of this argument) and if it's proportional, than it has nothing to do with the amount of people in jail who have been spanked as kids.

But let's ignore proportions for a sec.  Correlation doesn't equal causation.  If 10% of the population were spanked as kids  and 90% of the jail population were spanked as kids, that doesn't mean that being spanked as a kid makes you more susceptible to committing crime and going to jail. 

Most of the jail population is black, and it's WAY disproportionate to the free population, so does than mean that black people in general are just criminals and it's just in our nature that we commit crime and go to jail?  No.

[outin]

Solving problems with physical action is a pattern. It will be learned pretty quickly by children. Much later when their own kids/spouses are being a pain in the a** it's a high probability that they will revert to similar patterns. It would not be such a huge problem if people were able to stay rational in those situations, but quite a few people are unable to control their actions when stressed. So they end up doing things they regret later. It's also quite common to justify violent behavior towards children by "I was spanked a lot as a kid and look how well I turned out", when it actually comes from an inadequacy in using other means of education.

IMO one-sided violence should be reserved to situations when one really wants to hurt someone, not as a way to teach someone a lesson, also because it isn't a very effective way. Most often it only teaches one to be more careful about not getting caught.

[oxy60]

Violence is never the answer. Turning off their tablet a/c might work better. If you need to take a swing at your kid you screwed up as a parent when they were just born. If you give in (loose) the first confrontation you will never win again.

[j_menz]

Violence is never the answer.

[lostinidlewonder]

It has only been recently that people cry about spanking your kids. There has been generations after generations after generations who have used spanking. Why didn't society go downhill? Because there is nothing wrong with it!!! Those politically correct psychologists who sit in their office writing up papers about spanking need to be spanked themselves a bit more.

[outin]

It has only been recently that people cry about spanking your kids. There has been generations after generations after generations who have used spanking. Why didn't society go downhill?

You obviously weren't around 100 years ago...

It really didn't matter as much how masses were brought up before, they had little chance of making a mess unless they were rich an influental. They were forced to work in the mines or field to avoid starving to death and were too tired to give trouble to anyone.

It's different today, anyone can cause a lot of havoc (even kids) because there are so many means and so much extra time available...

[deidre]

I think that some have a hard time looking back at their childhoods and realizing that what their parents did was wrong, when it came to discipline...if the following was used: spanking/smacking/hitting/beating/whipping/whooping, etc ...

I still love my mom and dad, but I was spanked hard...often...and it was wrong. It taught me nothing except to fear being spanked. I didn't always stop the bad behavior, either.

Do you hit your pets too? Should wives hit their husbands and husbands hit their wives?

Say whatever you like...justify it however you wish. Kids deserve the same amount of respect as your pet does...or your spouse does. If you wouldn't smack/hit, etc an adult or your own pet for pete's sakes, why hit a kid?

To those who say it didn't hurt the prior generations...I think that's untrue. Just because something was 'accepted' for a long time, doesn't mean it was right or ethical. Racial discrimination went on for generations too...so did slavery. It was ''business as usual'' for a long time...but obviously, it was very wrong.

Again, I don't think all spankings are abuse, but I think that there's a better (more respectful) method of reasoning with children, and gaining their compliance.

[timothy42b]

It has only been recently that people cry about spanking your kids. There has been generations after generations after generations who have used spanking. Why didn't society go downhill? Because there is nothing wrong with it!!! Those politically correct psychologists who sit in their office writing up papers about spanking need to be spanked themselves a bit more.

With a lot of care and restraint, you can discipline a child with good results by using violence.

You can also discipline a child just as well without violence, as many of us have demonstrated.

The choice is yours.

If you're the kind who chooses violence, that says more about you than about the effectiveness of discipline. 

I'm not opposed to the use of force when necessary; it was part of my work for a time.  But why on earth would one choose it when not? 

[swagmaster420x]

With a lot of care and restraint, you can discipline a child with good results by using violence.

You can also discipline a child just as well without violence, as many of us have demonstrated.

The choice is yours.

If you're the kind who chooses violence, that says more about you than about the effectiveness of discipline. 

I'm not opposed to the use of force when necessary; it was part of my work for a time.  But why on earth would one choose it when not? 

because of frustration - being angry and having no idea how to handle a child => resorting to just hitting child

[deidre]

I'd like to know who started this notion that discipline is somehow the byproduct of corporal punishment or hitting a kid? When I was a kid and practiced piano...no one hit me to do it, yet I managed to form a discipline around it. I realized that if I don't practice, I won't learn much, if I do...then I will. Voila! I didn't need to be hit to be disciplined.

Please stop using the terms spanking and discipline interchangeably, for they're anything but.  Spanking, hitting, grabbing a belt and whipping a kid, etc...has no disciplinary effect. It is a method of instilling fear in someone to get him/her to comply. That is not the same as discipline.

That is what we have been brainwashed to believe, but it's just not so. Again...would you hit your dog if it peed on the carpet? Would you hit your spouse because he/she burned dinner?

Kids deserve the same respect. 

[littletune]

YOU devilish teen!!!!   not so good behaviour!!... tsk..tsk..tsk..tsk 
Thanks for what you said .... I have always admired not only your depth of understanding of the English language, but more so of human situations. You are an atypical teen when it comes to those. No worries at all ...  your post is well taken.

Thank you Emill!!  Well I know I know I'm working on that "getting too angry and screaming" thing  Well actually I don't think I'm a typical teen in anything  Well I guess you could say that arguing thing is a kinda typical teen thing, but I did that even before, I mean that hair combing thing with my mum happened when I was about 8 or 9. So I can't really see myself as a teen... it's like in some ways I see myself as a very old person and in some other ways like a little kid.  I'm just not interested in any teen things  it's weird. And it's funny cause that's how people (who don't know me) usually see me too, some people think I'm much older and some people think I'm younger, like not in high school yet. So it can get confusing.     
I am very glad you don't mind my posts!    Thank you again! 

[thalbergmad]

Those politically correct psychologists who sit in their office writing up papers about spanking need to be spanked themselves a bit more.

Or perhaps they need their office invaded by a hoard of ill disciplined brats.

When our previous government outlawed corporal punishment in schools, it was the start of a downhill trend. Now we have 5 year olds attacking teachers and telling them to f*** off as they know they cannot be touched.

Our state schools turn out barely educated pond life, whereas our private schools with their canes and slippers, produce the next generation of leaders.

Thal

[littletune]

You only got whooped 3-5 times.  And at a late age because you remember them enough to count how many.  So you can't really say that getting a talk is worse than a whooping.  Getting a talk is WAY better than a whooping.  I had an aunt (other aunt) that didn't believe in whoopings and at first I acted up hella bad at her place because she just gave us talks.  But then she would tell my parents and they would whoop me so I stopped.   

Starting whoopings at age like 7 or 9 is WAY too late.  The moment we learn how to walk and talk was when we started getting whoopings.  And there's a difference between knocking out your teeth and taking out the bealt.

If you're gonna teach them the right thing, how are you gonna get their attention?  They don't respect you anyways, so they'll just spit in your face and continue to run around.  My parents would whoop me and then force me to sit down and listen to why they beat me.  They're not savages, they have communication skills.  

Well actually the first things I remember are from when I was about 1 and a half to 2 years old and I did get a slap acros my hands at about that age cause I threw a glass (or a jar) acros the whole kitchen... I don't remember the slap, my mum told me about it, I just remember the feeling of really wanting to do something (which was feed the birds) and not being able to (cause there was no bird food left in the glass) which made me so angry I threw the glass.

But no of course I don't think your parents are savages! I am completely sure that they did/do everything because they love you and want all the best for you. The thing is just that a lot of times people just do what they're used to or what they learned when they were kids. It's like it becomes a part of them and they don't ever even think about it or question it. It's like people who are born in a very religious family, they usually don't think much about what if they belonged to a different religion, they just don't question it. And it's usually the same with people who were raised in a certain way, they don't think about what if there's another way of raising kids, they just do what they know. And of course if you like the way this world is now, then that's totaly the right thing to do, but if you would like this world to be a nicer and friendlier place where there would be more respect for everyone, then maybe beating kids for every little thing they do (or even just in case they would do something) is not the best thing to do.
You learn respect (real respect, not respect out of fear) by being respected, you learn to care about the feelings and wishes of others when others care about your feelings and wishes. If your parents respect you and your feelings and wishes from when you're a baby you are going to respect them and their feelings and wishes too, not because you'll be scared but because you won't want to make them sad or angry. So you'll try your best to make them happy. And if everyone in the world would have that kind of respect for others this world would be a much much nicer place. And I know that you would need A LOT of time for such a big change in the whole world, but if you never take the first step you'll never get there at all. 

[ahinton]

My answer to this is no (and, for the record, vice versa too); they did what I presume that they wanted to do and I did what I wanted to do once I finally found out what that was - and I just got on with it as best I could.

Best,

Alistair

[oxy60]

All this physical punishment is happening too late in life. The first issue in life is bedtime. One way or the other you either got your way and stayed up or were forced to go to bed on time. It was and is a power play. That win or loss sets the theme of life. You will either grow up as a cooperative individual able to work in a team or a rebel (or worse).

I spent a lot of time in one of the PIGS countries and noted how badly behaved the children were. The adults couldn't work together and it is one of the worst performing countries of the EU. I keep thinking there might be a connection...

[j_menz]

The first issue in life is bedtime.

You started rather late! 

[lostinidlewonder]

You obviously weren't around 100 years ago...

I didn't have to be around 100 years ago, I can look at the amount of brilliant minds of the past and how much people achieved, they didn't become dysfunctional because they where beaten.

It really didn't matter as much how masses were brought up before, they had little chance of making a mess unless they were rich an influental. They were forced to work in the mines or field to avoid starving to death and were too tired to give trouble to anyone.

The mass are still beating their naughty children. That doesn't mean beating them till they bruise and bleed, but a smack is very common practice.

[lostinidlewonder]

With a lot of care and restraint, you can discipline a child with good results by using violence.

You can also discipline a child just as well without violence, as many of us have demonstrated.

The choice is yours.

I agree, except I don't believe that smacking your child for being naughty should be connected with violence. Violence is uncontrolled anger and rage, smacking your child can be done in a controlled manner if it isn't you shouldn't be choosing to use it.

[lostinidlewonder]

Or perhaps they need their office invaded by a hoard of ill disciplined brats.

When our previous government outlawed corporal punishment in schools, it was the start of a downhill trend. Now we have 5 year olds attacking teachers and telling them to f*** off as they know they cannot be touched.

Our state schools turn out barely educated pond life, whereas our private schools with their canes and slippers, produce the next generation of leaders.

Thal

You have a good point there Thal. In my town we have a problem with young kids throwing rocks at cars, the police can do nothing because they are so young and the public are too afraid to restrain them because they fear legal action. The political correctness of this 21st century has certainly its major downfalls.

[outin]

I didn't have to be around 100 years ago, I can look at the amount of brilliant minds of the past and how much people achieved, they didn't become dysfunctional because they where beaten.

Statistically, the brilliant minds were really rare 100 years ago, the majority of people were pretty ignorant. While a lot of people became dysfunctional from their childhood experiences, transferring this to future generations.

But as I said many posts ago, depending on the individual, beating may not cause much visible harm. But I doubt the ability of a parent to judge the results when they start beating their child.

One can try to make reasonable sounding excuses but generally people use force when they run out of other options. Just like in playing the piano

The mass are still beating their naughty children. That doesn't mean beating them till they bruise and bleed, but a smack is very common practice.

Don't think you got my point.

[lostinidlewonder]

Statistically, the brilliant minds were really rare 100 years ago, the majority of people were pretty ignorant. While a lot of people became dysfunctional from their childhood experiences, transferring this to future generations.

Plenty of brilliant people in the past who have changed the world a great deal.

Don't think you got my point.

It doesn't matter I said what I wanted to say

[outin]

Plenty of brilliant people in the past who have changed the world a great deal.

You think there are less brilliant minds today? Just look at Youtube!  

[oxy60]

You started rather late! 

So, what other issues are there when you are a baby? Isn't that the first problem? The baby must learn to sync up with society from the first night at home.

[timothy42b]

. Violence is uncontrolled anger and rage, smacking your child can be done in a controlled manner if it isn't you shouldn't be choosing to use it.

Smacking your child is done when their behavior irritates you sufficiently, depending on your mood at the time.  It is not a controlled choice, it is just a reaction in almost all cases. 

That's one of the reasons it is so ineffective.  Children quickly pick up that their transgression can be earthshaking but if the parent is in a good mood they may escape punishment, whereas a minor fault on a bad day may result in broken bones. 

Any parent with enough control to really choose how to discipline usually finds it easy to do so without force. 

I worked with problem children in an institution where physical punishment was forbidden.  Most of us staff were able to handle the children with the allowable methods;  those who couldn't would not have done any better if they'd used corporal punishment.

My wife worked in a social program destined to teach problem parents how to handle their kids.  These parents were marginal enough their children were about to be taken away.  Physical punishment was forbidden for these, too, because there was no way these parents could do it effectively.   

[j_menz]

So, what other issues are there when you are a baby? Isn't that the first problem? The baby must learn to sync up with society from the first night at home.

Food, attention and one's trust fund. 

[oxy60]

Food, attention and one's trust fund. 

so, do you sleep at night?

[j_menz]

so, do you sleep at night?

Better if I'm well fed, doted upon and financially secure.

[lostinidlewonder]

Smacking your child is done when their behavior irritates you sufficiently, depending on your mood at the time.  It is not a controlled choice, it is just a reaction in almost all cases. 

Irritates is also not what I think should be a reason to smack your children, I think it can certainly be done in a controlled manner. Uncontrolled smacking causes real physical harm which should not be condoned no matter where you come from.

Any parent with enough control to really choose how to discipline usually finds it easy to do so without force. 

The terminology of "force" makes smacking seem brutal and uncontrolled where indeed it has been used in a controlled manner for generations on end.

I worked with problem children in an institution where physical punishment was forbidden.  Most of us staff were able to handle the children with the allowable methods;  those who couldn't would not have done any better if they'd used corporal punishment.

Institutions should never smack because they do not spend day in day out with the same child, the relationship is totally different.

My wife worked in a social program destined to teach problem parents how to handle their kids.  These parents were marginal enough their children were about to be taken away.  Physical punishment was forbidden for these, too, because there was no way these parents could do it effectively.   

I think to teach people have an OPTION, not THE ONLY WAY to deal with your children.

[timothy42b]

Irritates is also not what I think should be a reason to smack your children, I think it can certainly be done in a controlled manner. Uncontrolled smacking causes real physical harm which should not be condoned no matter where you come from.

You're misinterpreting what I said, probably because of your background. 

The difference between controlled and uncontrolled smacking is NOT whether it causes physical harm.  The difference is whether the smacker did it completely calmly with an understanding of why and how much, or whether the smacker did it out of irritation.  Irritation can quickly build into rage, which DOES lead to physical harm, but that's not the relevant point here.  Parents that smack do so because it's quick and easy, and they're at least mildly upset.  The act of smacking reinforces that arousal in the parent and produces more.  The act of controlling the emotions long enough to not smack does the opposite. 

If you've paid the slightest attention to parents disciplining children in public with a smack, or if you've been a parent or a child yourself, you know the smack out of irritation is at least 99% of them, and by the way rarely works as intended. 

The terminology of "force" makes smacking seem brutal and uncontrolled where indeed it has been used in a controlled manner for generations on end.

It IS force.  That doesn't make it brutal and uncontrolled.  But I gotta throw the BS flag on your claim of much use in a controlled manner.  It has not been, that is the rare exception not the rule. 

Institutions should never smack because they do not spend day in day out with the same child, the relationship is totally different.

And that's completely irrelevant.  We spent more time with those kids, and knew them better than working parents would ever have time for.  We used the nonviolent methods because in the long run they were more effective.  And, of course, because kids who are locked up have a right to humane treatment. 

I think to teach people have an OPTION, not THE ONLY WAY to deal with your children.

We've had this conversation before.  It's wrong on two counts, at least.  The people who advocate spanking and other corporal punishment do not really believe there is another option.  You are most likely in that camp.  Most of you really believe in a dichotomy - either you can spank, or you can let them run wild; no other option.  I'm sorry to say that teaching often arises in church. 

The other count is that there are a substantial number of people who simply cannot ever discipline with force successfully.  They will always lose it.  Those people do not have all the options a more stable personality would have, and they never will.  Yet they can learn to discipline their children quite effectively without it, with assistance of course. 

[lostinidlewonder]

You're misinterpreting what I said, probably because of your background. 

How do you know anything about my "background" ? eheh

The difference between controlled and uncontrolled smacking is NOT whether it causes physical harm.

For me there and many others is a big difference in the physical harm caused by uncontrolled smacking compared to controlled.

If you've paid the slightest attention to parents disciplining children in public with a smack, or if you've been a parent or a child yourself, you know the smack out of irritation is at least 99% of them, and by the way rarely works as intended. 

The threat of a smack is usually enough and the threat is meaningless if they have no experience of the sting of discipline that can come!

It IS force.  That doesn't make it brutal and uncontrolled.  But I gotta throw the BS flag on your claim of much use in a controlled manner.  It has not been, that is the rare exception not the rule. 

Argument over semantics is boring.

We've had this conversation before.  It's wrong on two counts, at least. 

Based on your background but not everyones.

[oxy60]

The child must be raised correctly from the first night home. Allowing children to just run wild and then when they do something out of line get out the belt won't work. It's too late.