Child Discipline

[Aisling]

Sorry for the double post or whatever but my human ecology teacher just shared a horrifying story with our class and I figured it was probably relevant here (trigger warning I guess is appropriate here)

Way back in the 70's when she was teaching elementary, she was supposed to paddle a row of little boys who had made a mess in one of the bathrooms, with one of the long wooden paddles that they used back then. Another teacher had instructed her to do this. She'd never paddled children before so she was very reluctant to, but she tried anyway. By that time the principal arrived on the scene and deemed her a pushover, and told her that if she didn't paddle them harder "like she meant it" they would walk all over her... and he would fire her. So she pulled back and went to swing harder, and just before the paddle struck the boy stood up and it hit him in the small of his back instead of his butt, causing him to double over and puke up blood. She had damaged one of his kidneys permanently. Since then she has never struck another child.

I was horrified and struggled not to cry. He was going to fire her if she didn't paddle him with all her might. And she ended up accidentally injuring him for life, and probably horrified the other boys who were next in line. I'm so glad times have changed... but just think, that was an accident. He would've been fine if he stayed bent over and she'd paddled his butt instead. I don't see how you could possibly justify punishment that could so easily accidentally end in permanent organ damage. Ever.

 

[kyeugh]

So I'm back.

Yeah, I'm twelve. My parents do child discipline, so I bid you kindly saying that I know what it is because I have experienced it in the past. When was the last time any of you guys got disciplined? Five, six years ago? Yeah.

Also, I agree with some of your statements, particularly with Pathos. And it really does depend on the kid. Some kids are, obviously, scarred for life by child discipline. These are the children you DON'T DISCIPLINE. For some people, it's completely neccessary- take my brother, for example. He was beat pretty bad by my mom. That thing doesn't work on him though, because the day after, he went on to steal something. So obviously child discipline doesn't affect him. Now he's grounded, and the entire time he's been grounded, he's hardly cut up.

My other brother (whom does not have an account) is quite troublesome. Yet grounding him is ineffective- frankly, he'll just find something else to do, and if you take everything from him, he'll find something. Trust me. But discipline works on him, rest assured. Still, he has a buoyancy that most children do not. Discipline does not scar him, but it sets him straight.

Part of being a parent is understanding your child, and what does and doesn't work on it. For some children, discipline is completely unneccessary. For some, it's the only way. You have to find these things out on your own. But completely erasing it is like saying you need to completely get rid of something because it doesn't benefit everyone. It doesn't matter who it doesn't benefit; it matters who it does benefit. And for some kids, it's all that works. So if that's what it takes, so be it. If you're against it, be against it. I really couldn't care less. Erase it from your life, but just because it hurt you or someone else, doesn't mean it hurts everyone.

Quite simply summarized, feel free to be against discipline, but do not spare it for others, for it is what works in some cases. Destroying the concept purely for the sake of those whom it does not affect is selfish.

 

[Autumn]

Yeah, I'm twelve. My parents do child discipline, so I bid you kindly saying that I know what it is because I have experienced it in the past. When was the last time any of you guys got disciplined? Five, six years ago? Yeah.

and they were scarred for life because of it. it was five or six years ago and they're STILL SCARED OF THEIR PARENTS AND/OR HATE THEM. So just because they're not going through discipline now, means they have no room to talk?

And it really does depend on the kid. Some kids are, obviously, scarred for life by child discipline. These are the children you DON'T DISCIPLINE.

how do you know the difference from such a young age. answer: you don't. which is why how about not hit them at all?

My other brother (whom does not have an account) is quite troublesome. Yet grounding him is ineffective- frankly, he'll just find something else to do, and if you take everything from him, he'll find something. Trust me. But discipline works on him, rest assured. Still, he has a buoyancy that most children do not. Discipline does not scar him, but it sets him straight.

what does it do to him? does it make him understand why doing things is wrong or does it just make him stop because he's afraid of the pain? even if he's not scarred it is not an effective method for making sure he doesn't do bad things because he may be just scared of the pain rather than actually sorry for what he did.

Part of being a parent is understanding your child, and what does and doesn't work on it.

um, yes
but why does discipline have to even be an option? there are SO MANY types of parenting out there. why does physical abuse need to be a type?

For some children, discipline is completely unneccessary. For some, it's the only way. You have to find these things out on your own.

so you need to run the risk of permanently scarring your child in order to figure out whether or not physically attacking them when they're defenseless works. and I repeat: WHY DOES THAT NEED TO BE AN OPTION IN THE FIRST PLACE??

But completely erasing it is like saying you need to completely get rid of something because it doesn't benefit everyone. It doesn't matter who it doesn't benefit; it matters who it does benefit.

no.
no.
no. this is such fucked-up logic I can't even najfshdkjfdhjkfdhjkfdhjfdhjfdfdjjfdkfd

And for some kids, it's all that works.

no. it's not. it's the case of parents finding a quick, easy solution and using it without looking into other solutions. THERE IS NO NEED FOR DISCIPLINE FOR ANYBODY.

Erase it from your life, but just because it hurt you or someone else, doesn't mean it hurts everyone.

kinda difficult to erase it from your life if you were SCARRED BY IT. seriously what's so hard to understand about "if it fucks so many people up DON'T DO IT"?

Destroying the concept purely for the sake of those whom it does not affect is selfish.

no, wanting innocent children to be scarred for life just because it doesn't scar everyone is selfish

 

[Cerberus87]

I'm against spanking, but then again I've always been a little rebellious...

 

[kyeugh]

no, wanting innocent children to be scarred for life just because it doesn't scar everyone is selfish

That's not true... Do you really think anyone wants kids to be scarred for life? You're speaking for the smaller party, that's what I'm saying- if you're against child discipline, don't do it. Plain and simple. But for some kids it does work, despite what you think. Someone told me to stop assuming things. So stop assuming it isn't the right thing to do for anyone! It does work for some kids! Just because it didn't work for you, doesn't mean it never does, so get your mind around that, because that's what you guys are having problems with.

what does it do to him? does it make him understand why doing things is wrong or does it just make him stop because he's afraid of the pain? even if he's not scarred it is not an effective method for making sure he doesn't do bad things because he may be just scared of the pain rather than actually sorry for what he did.

HE'S NOT SCARRED FOR THE MILLIONTH FREAKING TIME. It doesn't scar everyone. Believe it or not, just because it didn't work for you, it does for some people. Why can't any of you understand that. We have been doing this since people came around. So obviously it can't be that bad of a problem, really.

Simple concept. If you don't like it, don't do it. That's fine. But don't force other people to stop doing it. What you guys have done is bent the subject until it's become something terrible, which is what you want. You want to believe child discipline is horrible. It's really not. You guys are overreacting- and by that, I don't mean that your parents weren't that bad. I have no way of knowing that, and if it scarred you, I'm sorry. But people make such a big deal out of the most retarded crap ever! This isn't going to get someone bent on exacting revenge on the planet because their parents hit them when they were a kid one time. Or two times. Or three times. It'll be fine, and again- if you don't like it fine. But don't take the matter to heart and stop other people from doing it. It's their choice, not yours.

 

[shy ♡]

That's not true... Do you really think anyone wants kids to be scarred for life? You're speaking for the smaller party, that's what I'm saying- if you're against child discipline, don't do it. Plain and simple. But for some kids it does work, despite what you think. Someone told me to stop assuming things. So stop assuming it isn't the right thing to do for anyone! It does work for some kids! Just because it didn't work for you, doesn't mean it never does, so get your mind around that, because that's what you guys are having problems with.

You're positing that the people who are traumatized for life are the smaller party. This is factually incorrect, and you have no basis for making this statement. Here is actual evidence.

Spoiler: links

• Child Maltreatment, Youth Violence, and Intimate Partner Violence : Developmental Relationships
• Parental Physical Discipline Through Childhood Linked To Behavior Problems In Teens
• Discipline for Young Children - A Look At Discipline
• Is Corporal Punishment an Effective Means of Discipline?
• Preserving Childhood: The Detrimental Effects of Corporal Punishment
• Long-Term Effects of Physical Punishment on a Child
• Study suggests that corporal punishment may have life-altering side effects
• Corporal punishment hurts over the long run

It does not work for some kids. The reaction you think means that it is 'working' is that your brother is not doing the bad behavior anymore. Why is he not doing the behavior? Because your parents will hit him if he does it. What happens when you brother grows up and moves out? Who will hit him then? Will your parents follow him around whenever he wants to steal something, hit someone, etc.? No. He will still want to do those things because no one taught him it was wrong, they just hit him. So he both doesn't know it is wrong to do what he wants, and he knows his parents think it's ok to hit people! Especially children! This is what your parents are teaching your brother - violence solves your problems. If someone in your life bothers you, HIT THEM, don't talk to them and explain why they bothered you.

Let's assume, when he moves out, he still doesn't steal or hit people. The reason would still be because he's afraid of repercussions, not because he actually thinks it's wrong to hit or steal. In fact, for the reasons above, he has learned that hitting is perfectly fine, especially if you're an adult/parent who wants to hit a child - why not, right? Kids can't fight back and they have less rights than adults. So even if he doesn't do all the bad things he wants to do, he'd still want to do it. How is that a good way to teach and raise your kid?

HE'S NOT SCARRED FOR THE MILLIONTH FREAKING TIME. It doesn't scar everyone. Believe it or not, just because it didn't work for you, it does for some people. Why can't any of you understand that. We have been doing this since people came around. So obviously it can't be that bad of a problem, really.

You can't actually know if he's scarred for life since he's probably not full-grown and since he probably doesn't tell you everything.

'We have been doing this since people came around. So obviously it can't be that bad of a problem, really.'

Wow this is just such a terrible argument? HUmans have been murdering, raping, stealing, etc. since we've been around. ?_? Are those all a-ok with you too??

Simple concept. If you don't like it, don't do it. That's fine. But don't force other people to stop doing it. What you guys have done is bent the subject until it's become something terrible, which is what you want. You want to believe child discipline is horrible. It's really not. You guys are overreacting- and by that, I don't mean that your parents weren't that bad. I have no way of knowing that, and if it scarred you, I'm sorry. But people make such a big deal out of the most retarded crap ever! This isn't going to get someone bent on exacting revenge on the planet because their parents hit them when they were a kid one time. Or two times. Or three times. It'll be fine, and again- if you don't like it fine. But don't take the matter to heart and stop other people from doing it. It's their choice, not yours.

It's a simple concept but that doesn't actually make it right. You can't let other people do things that are harmful to others. Sure, they can do whatever they want so long as it actually doesn't affect others negatively. When they start going around hitting people that crosses a line. Even if they made those people.

Look, there is literally never a time where it's okay to start hitting someone who did not hit you first. Just don't do it. There is no reason to go to your kid and hit them. Violence should not be on the table ever. Do you realize that child discipline is not actually different than if you went to your friend and, because you were angry, you hit them to teach them a lesson? I hope that sounds utterly ludicrous to you and you'd actually talk to them about whatever they did wrong, right? The only difference is that your parents have a responsibility to take care of you, which is what makes it x100000 worse if they hit you.

 

[Minish]

If you don't like it, don't do it. That's fine.

But... it's not? This isn't that kind of thing. The point is that it's impossible to know in advance whether your child is going to end up being the scarred-for-life kind. I'm sorry but you just really can't know!! Adults sometimes can't tell! Children sometimes don't express overt signs! It's just, in general, not an obvious thing but something that develops subtly over time! a) good intentions b) being super on the lookout for bad signs c) stopping once you find signs, these things are not enough.

You can't just beat people however you like and just hope they're the kind who won't mind. There's no way to avoid a bunch of kids reacting awfully to it without stopping it entirely. This isn't as simple as leaving it up to the people who don't mind it. It doesn't matter if the adults are okay with it! We're talking about if the kids will be okay with it! And you can't tell!

 

[Autumn]

But people make such a big deal out of the most retarded crap ever!

Can we please not use the word 'retarded' to mean stupid! As a music therapy student this is the kind of word I feel has been misused, like 'fag' or whatnot! :C

 

[Flora]

Yeah, I'm twelve. My parents do child discipline, so I bid you kindly saying that I know what it is because I have experienced it in the past. When was the last time any of you guys got disciplined? Five, six years ago? Yeah.

Alright, I've been intending to stay out of this thread, but really.

The amount of time it's been since something has happened to a particular individual does not matter. Especially if it's scarring.

In fact, if it still majorly bothers them (that's bad word choice but I can't think of a good alternative!) after several years, that says something. That tells people that the way they were treated was bad enough to leave psychological scars.

I was disciplined a little bit; I got a spanking every so often, but what stuck with me was my dad grabbing my shoulders when I was acting up, because it hurt. I'd say that, and I'd be told "oh that didn't hurt Rachel you're just sensitive."

There've been times where I thought my dad was gonna hit me and I reacted pre-emptively! And all that really happened to me is that my dad grabbed my shoulders a little too harshly! That's a problem.

Like others have said, you can't know whether or not your child will "react badly" to getting disciplined (I hate the term "reacting badly" or "over-reacting" and such like that, because it's dismissive and just terrible, but that's a rant for another day). And the only real way to prevent that isn't by disciplining your child and hoping that they won't be scarred; it's making sure you don't touch them with the intent to harm them, "teaching a lesson" or not.

 

[kyeugh]

How about this- we all have our opinions, and posting in this thread isn't going to change anything. Apparently you guys hold tight to your ideals, which is great, even though I personally don't agree with them. That's a great trait, and I admire you for it. But obviously it's not going to change because obviously no words are going to sway you, so I'm going to leave and just lurk here, because none of you really care about what the twelve year old has to say. This isn't really even a debate anymore, it's just finding things wrong with what people say and then striking them on it. So I give up. I don't believe that child discipline is terrible, but it's not worth fighting for if any of you are going to be like this, so I'm out. PEACE!

 

[Hippy]

Okay. I was reading through this, and I'm sorry for all the trouble my sister CloudCat caused. But I only have one thing to say.

how do you know the difference from such a young age. answer: you don't. which is why how about not hit them at all?

Just because they are 12, doesn't mean they are wrong. There were multiple 12 year olds on this fourm, and all of them have been polite, and made a good point. You should try to at least be polite when arguing your point. I understand that this a very touchy topic, but you need to be cordial. That comment was actually very rude, and if I was twelve, I would have taken great offense to that. I'm just asking everybody of one thing: Be careful of other people's feelings.

I don't like to talk about this kind of stuff, to be honest. So you won't see me here again, but I will be watching this fourm. But, as long as I'm here, I'll just say that I'm 100% against spanking, but I'm NOT going to disrespect other people's opinions over the topic.

And with that, I bid you farewell.

 

[blazheirio889]

Okay. I was reading through this, and I'm sorry for all the trouble my sister CloudCat caused. But I only have one thing to say.



Just because they are 12, doesn't mean they are wrong. There were multiple 12 year olds on this fourm, and all of them have been polite, and made a good point. You should try to at least be polite when arguing your point. I understand that this a very touchy topic, but you need to be cordial. That comment was actually very rude, and if I was twelve, I would have taken great offense to that. I'm just asking everybody of one thing: Be careful of other people's feelings.

I don't like to talk about this kind of stuff, to be honest. So you won't see me here again, but I will be watching this fourm. But, as long as I'm here, I'll just say that I'm 100% against spanking, but I'm NOT going to disrespect other people's opinions over the topic.

And with that, I bid you farewell.

I think Poly was actually talking about the age of the hypothetical child being disciplined, not Mohacastle's age.

Well anyway, I was planning to stay out of this too, as I usually stay out of serious business, but reading some of this actually kinda upset me. I was rarely spanked as a child - I can count the number of times with the fingers of one hand - but I'm terrified of people hitting me. Once a family friend was a bit too close and raised his hand just to say hi, but I reflexively flinched back and squeezed my eyes shut. That was a more extreme example, but the fact still stands that being disciplined did scar me - I keep thinking people are going to hit me and when it seems like they are, I freeze up. So being told to "get over it" was rather upsetting.

So suffice to say that I'm 100% against child discipline, as you can't tell whether a child is going to be scarred or not, and it's better to be safe. Not to mention there are better methods to discipline, methods that teach the child that what they did was /wrong/, rather than teach that they'll just get spanked if they do a certain thing. Aaand I'm starting to sound like a parrot since everyone already said everything I wanted to, so I'll end it here.

 

[Autumn]

I think Poly was actually talking about the age of the hypothetical child being disciplined, not Mohacastle's age.

yup i was

 

[opaltiger]

Just because they are 12, doesn't mean they are wrong. There were multiple 12 year olds on this fourm, and all of them have been polite, and made a good point.

I really don't think people were discounting their opinions because of their age. Or rather, not because they thought their age made them incapable of making good points. But I don't think it's unreasonable to point out that it's strange that the only people in support of physical discipline are two twelve year olds who, I think, have both acknowledged they are subject to said discipline.

 

[Hippy]

Oh, I'm sorry! I guess I completely misunderstood everybody! I apologize completely. I hope I didn't piss anyone off.

 

[Scyther]

When was a kid and I did something spank-worthy (which was semi-occasional), my parents would tell me to go to my bedroom. After fifteen minutes or so, they would come into the room with a wooden spoon. They would ask me what I did wrong, and why it was wrong, and I had to explain it in my own terms. If I didn't know, they would help me understand.

After that, they would tell me that they loved me, then spank me, not very hard, on my rump (oh god did I just say rump). Afterwards, we would hug and they had me explain again why what I did was wrong. Then the day continued as usual. They were very methodical about it.

They didn't only spank me - this was probably the worst on the long list of punishments, and would only be employed if I did something they considered very bad (such as fighting or lying about something important, not for getting a bad grade). I would be grounded from TV or having over friends or reading if I did something they deemed not as horrible, and I was grounded much more often then I was ever spanked.

They would never spank in just a fit of anger - for example, one time I spilled Clorox all over the carpet because I was careless, and my stepmom at the time was really pissed off - but I wasn't spanked because it was it's not like was doing something really deliberate and bad. (I was grounded until I paid off the $200, though, meaning no Christmas presents for me that year except absolution. The bitch.)

Corporal punishment is a really really broad term, and I just can't write it off as a potential future option. My parents were never out of control, they never hurt me more than they meant to, and I never felt like I was in danger. Those studies almost certainly weren't specifically measuring corporal punishment done like this. In the way my parents disciplined me, they doubly reinforced the lesson. Don't do X, because not only is it morally wrong, it will result in a punishment.

I'm obsessed with parenting. My principal goal in life is to raise and have a happy family - everything else is secondary. If I'm wrong here, please please let me know.

 

[Light]

Parenting (and more generally, altering behavior) ultimately come down to psychological manipulation. Physical discipline is, in several ways, a very "brute force" method; it's not the most elegant solution.

In my opinion, Mohacastle's logic is valid: if physical punishment is the only way to get through to some children then it should be used in these cases. (It implies some qualifications, like that you would somehow have to be sure nothing else works, but it doesn't matter.)

Mohacastle, you tell people not to assume anything, but you don't realize your own underlying assumptions. For your argument to work, it has to be true that some children can only be taught through physical punishment. This is your assumption. But the overwhelming evidence from psychology says that there are many ways we can change behavior. In fact, the evidence says that punishment in general is not the most effective strategy.

Apparently you guys hold tight to your ideals, which is great, even though I personally don't agree with them. That's a great trait, and I admire you for it. But obviously it's not going to change because obviously no words are going to sway you

No, that is not a good trait. And actually, many of the people who have posted would be willing to change their opinion if they had a reason to. You assume that people are set in their ways because they don't change their mind after you have explained yourself to them, but in reality you have not made a sound case for your ideas. Your logic is valid, but your premises (meaning your assumptions) are untrue, so if you want to convince anyone, you will have to argue for your premises. In other words, you will have to prove that physical discipline is the only way to positively influence some children.

And I know this might not mean much to you, but people here are very much treating you like an adult. They are holding your ideas to the same level of scrutiny that they would expect from anyone else. (Some are doing it better than others, and some are literally just pounding on their keyboard when they don't know what to say, but the point is people are taking you seriously, instead of just passively dismissing your opinions.) If people are debating with you, that means they think you're worth responding to.

 

[Minish]

It's not valid logic at all. If there's even a 1% chance that you're going to fuck up your kid instead of making them shut up with no consequences, you don't do it.

And I don't personally even think there's a single person not negatively affected by having their parents hurt them regularly, but even if there were, you can't know! You cannot know!! You don't know if your kid is one who's going to be really badly affected because a) sometimes it's not obvious how bad it was until they're good at retrospecting, b) even if you're the best parent ever you do not know your child inside-out, c) their own opinions can change, etc. etc. etc. forever. The ones who are convinced they're doing right are the ones who cause the problems.


I don't understand why you'd be willing to take the risk unless you're just a really irresponsible parent.

 

[Light]

It's not valid logic at all. If there's even a 1% chance that you're going to fuck up your kid instead of making them shut up with no consequences, you don't do it.

And I don't personally even think there's a single person not negatively affected by having their parents hurt them regularly, but even if there were, you can't know! You cannot know!! You don't know if your kid is one who's going to be really badly affected because a) sometimes it's not obvious how bad it was until they're good at retrospecting, b) even if you're the best parent ever you do not know your child inside-out, c) their own opinions can change, etc. etc. etc. forever. The ones who are convinced they're doing right are the ones who cause the problems.


I don't understand why you'd be willing to take the risk unless you're just a really irresponsible parent.

I agree with you. Like I said, there are qualifications. So thank you for pointing out in detail what I have already acknowledged. Yes, you also have to make the assumption that you could know. And that would be another thing Mohacastle would have to prove. But you entirely missed the point of my post.

Assuming you could know that someone would not be damaged by physical punishment, and that it was the only way to get through to them, then physical punishment would be acceptable in those cases. Actually, since we're talking about last-resort scenarios here, the benefits only have to outweigh the damage. If you just leave a child to their own devices, they are not going to be adapted for society, and they're going to end up having a poor life in general. It is entirely possible that averting future and causing minimal trauma might be preferable. In fact, all that has to happen is the potential benefits have to out weigh the potential risks. We have a "press a button and have a 50% chance of killing one person or don't press the button and have a 20% chance of killing 100 people" type dilemma, and I would advocate pressing the button every time.

 

[surskitty]

Assuming you could know that someone would not be damaged by physical punishment, and that it was the only way to get through to them, then physical punishment would be acceptable in those cases. Actually, since we're talking about last-resort scenarios here, the benefits only have to outweigh the damage. If you just leave a child to their own devices, they are not going to be adapted for society, and they're going to end up having a poor life in general. It is entirely possible that averting future and causing minimal trauma might be preferable. In fact, all that has to happen is the potential benefits have to out weigh the potential risks. We have a "press a button and have a 50% chance of killing one person or don't press the button and have a 20% chance of killing 100 people" type dilemma, and I would advocate pressing the button every time.

Wait, what? I'm confused now.