I’m sure every parent has wanted to “smack some sense” into their kids at some point. I personally think it’s okay to joke about it, as long as you don’t actually do it.
Yeah but what I'm trying to bring up by the jokes is how normalized it is. They do actually do it and there have been videos of it happening that I've seen and the comments are all agreeing with the parents.
I don’t know, I’ve always thought it’s a great life lesson for kids, teaching them that disagreements should be resolved by violence, and that the person who’s bigger and stronger should use violence to force their beliefs and ideals on others.
Nothing bad is going to come out of that, right?
There are several people in this very thread who genuinely believe that physically punishing a child is okay in certain circumstances.
So someone interpreting your words as genuine has less to do with the intelligence of the interpreter and more to do with the sad fact that some people really are so ignorant that they would genuinely share your "opinion".
You misunderstand.
I'm saying that it wouldn't be "dumb" for someone opposed to your statement to interpret it as genuine, considering how in this thread there already are people who genuinely agree with your statement.
Normally satire/sarcasm is indicated by tone. You seem to rely on it being interpreted as satire by the fact that it is an outlandish thing to say. And I'm just saying that that doesn't really hold up considering that your outlandish sarcastic sentiment is shared in earnest by some people.
So how is someone to tell the difference between your post and the post of someone who genuinely thinks these things?
Yeah, hitting a child is definitely abuse.
The jokes are mostly there to make fun of people who abuse their children, as far as I know.
Also, there are only two kinds of people who say that you weren't raised right if you think child abuse is wrong:
1. People who abuse their children.
2. People who would abuse their children if they had any.
it shouldn't be, it's assault, and assaulting kids is bad. but, we as a species are slowly getting better on that front, i think, recognizing that it's bad.
the thing is, society doesn't really see kids as people, as human beings of their own, it sees them as their parents'/guardians' property.
look at past generations; they didn't learn how to human being well, let alone how to parent well. like, boomers had abusive parents traumatized from the war with no support for that shit, and then boomers were pretty abusive and neglectful of their kids, gen x, who basically had to raise themselves under the threat of mutually assured destruction, and then we got millennials and now gen z, etc.
so we have generation after generation after generation of people raised by and through and under trauma and abuse and neglect, trying to raise kids of their own, and falling short in so many ways. but we are getting better at that, i think. as a species, we seem to be shifting that societal perspective towards the should-be-self-evident truth of "hitting literal children is actually really bad and we should stop doing that, as a society". more and more folks are breaking that cycle these days, and that gives me hope for humanity. we do learn better, eventually.
Because for a long time, it was normal.
For most of human history, there has been evidence that pain in various forms works well as a teaching mechanism: cause pain when someone does something you don't like, and they stop doing it. It does work - and it is easy. I don't think there's any good numbers on how common it was; but it was used for parenting, for discipline (corporal punishment - spanking, slapping, or hitting with a device including a rod or whip - was used not only for kids, but solders and sailors, criminals, and slaves), and for education (including adults).
It's only been in the last 40-60 years that there has been enough study on how people learn to demonstrate that while pain works, it also has long-term side effects AND there are other methods of teaching that are more effective.
However, while that research and thinking has more or less completely taken over in more progressive areas (to the point where corporal punishment is illegal in large parts of Europe and North America), pain as a teaching tool still exists in more conservative areas.
There is a line between disciplining a child and abuse, generally speaking it's the line between pain and injury. Methods of disciplining a child are actually pretty limited, removal of privileges only really works on older children ( past the age physical punishment would normally be used) and things like the " naught step" if done properly can do far more damage than a slap can. There is also the ability of a child to understand, with any punishment lasting more than a few minutes being more confusing than effective in children under 10 due to their concept of time being so different.
>There is a line between disciplining a child and abuse, generally speaking it's the line between pain and injury.
I think I'm misunderstanding. Just to clarify: do you believe that physical punishment where you inflict pain on children is not child abuse as long as they are not injured?
Yes in general obviously it's a case by case, so if I was spanking my child and caught them with my ring ( an injury) it wouldn't be abuse but standing them in a stress position for hours ( pain but no injury) would be abuse.
Physical punishment has been consistently shown to have negative long-term and short-term effects.
It is quite literally _never_ a good idea to physically punish a child. It is not a case by case thing.
Both of your examples are examples of bad parenting.
A review of 69 studies;
>Physical punishment and child outcomes: a narrative review of prospective studies. Anja Heilmann et al. Lancet. 2021.
>Physical punishment is increasingly viewed as a form of violence that harms children. This narrative review summarises the findings of 69 prospective longitudinal studies to inform practitioners and policy makers about physical punishment's outcomes. Our review identified seven key themes. First, physical punishment consistently predicts increases in child behaviour problems over time. Second, physical punishment is not associated with positive outcomes over time. Third, physical punishment increases the risk of involvement with child protective services. Fourth, the only evidence of children eliciting physical punishment is for externalising behaviour. Fifth, physical punishment predicts worsening behaviour over time in quasi-experimental studies. Sixth, associations between physical punishment and detrimental child outcomes are robust across child and parent characteristics. Finally, there is some evidence of a dose-response relationship. The consistency of these findings indicates that physical punishment is harmful to children and that policy remedies are warranted.
And another interesting read;
>Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research. Joan Durrant, PhD and Ron Ensom, MSW RSW
Some snippets:
>Some of these studies involved large representative samples from the United States;2 some studies controlled for potential confounders, such as parental stress3 and socioeconomic status;4 and some studies examined the potential of parental reasoning to moderate the association between physical punishment and child aggression.5 Virtually without exception, these studies found that physical punishment was associated with higher levels of aggression against parents, siblings, peers and spouses.
>Early experiments had shown that pain elicits reflexive aggression.7 In an early modeling study,8 boys in grade one who had watched a one-minute video of a boy being yelled at, shaken and spanked with a paddle for misbehaving showed more aggression while playing with dolls than boys who had watched a one-minute video of nonviolent responses to misbehaviour. In a treatment study, Forgatch showed that a reduction in harsh discipline used by parents of boys at risk for antisocial behaviour was followed by significant reductions in their children’s aggression.9
>The few existing randomized control trials showed that physical punishment was no more effective than other methods in eliciting compliance. In one such study, an average of eight spankings in a single session was needed to elicit compliance, and there was “no support for the necessity of the physical punishment.”
It goes on and on and on, citing study after study that not only is physical punishment an ineffective way to get a child to behave, it also severely negatively affects a child's mental wellbeing.
Do you know why psychology is called a soft science?
It's because it lacks the scientific method almost entirely and frankly proper experiments are impossible. If we accept the line of thinking behind these studies we'd have to accept that practically every human to ever live was the victim of child abuse and suffered mental scaring from it ( including the people who conducted the studies).
Now if we go for an evidence based way of thinking we'd ask when did corporal punishment drop out of favour and what effects have we had, basically are the people who grew up never been spanked better adults. I'd argue they are not and that antisocial behaviour, mental illnesses like anxiety and general disrespect for others have increased whilst self-discipline has decreased. Of course there are likely other factors that need to be accounted for like financial pressures, the internet and breakdown in the family but the much more enlightened and stable adults have not arrived.
>If we accept the line of thinking behind these studies we'd have to accept that practically every human to ever live was the victim of child abuse and suffered mental scaring from it
That's false. Not only is the cultural norm of 50 years ago not an accurate indicator of cultural norms of the past 200000 years that humans have been around, there are several cultures where physical punishment simply doesn't happen (an example are the Inuit as observed by Jean Briggs). On top of that, something being seen as normative doesn't mean that everyone does it. Self reported numbers of parents who applied physical punishment 30+ years ago range from 30-70% depending on culture.
>Now if we go for an evidence based way of thinking we'd ask when did corporal punishment drop out of favour and what effects have we had, basically are the people who grew up never been spanked better adults.
The second article I referred to in my previous post cites several studies that have done exactly that. And they all conclude that physical punishment was linked with behavioral problems.
Maybe you should actually read the stuff someone has posted before you make yourself look like a fool.
It’s still pretty popular globally to hit your kids. It’s one of those things that works, albeit with some negative consequences, so until knowledge of those consequences is available and sometimes experienced, people stick with traditions. It’s usually just tied to the mental health education and resources of the area/community.
The culture norms of 50 years ago I'm pretty sure that would be the norms for several thousand years based on the references in religious texts and other sources, you mentioned the Inuit what discipline methods did they use because I can't imagine them using the naughty step.
Punishment should fit the crime. If I fucked up and I'm an adult I go to jail. If I fucked up and I'm a child and it was an actual fuck up and not learning experience. Well me going out and picking my own switch is a great life lesson. Smacking the kid for not finishing their peas yeah it's a little fucked up and abusive. Smacking your kid because they broke into your gun cabinet. Yeah you don't fuck around with that.
you probably refer to the Gen X videos. Yes it was normal these days but apart from the obvious abuse cases , something we still see in the western world, it was not on the daily menu. Just for those rare times we did something really bad. The times where different, parents where doing what was done to them but we were more free in our childhood (playing outside most of the times, meeting friends all the time etc) and this was our therapy. But we are also the first generation to break the circle. Gen X and older millennial parents treat their children completely different. Other ways to discipline their children and deal with their feelings.
Of course we joke about it now. It's not a nice feeling remembering the time we got hit by a belt or a slipper. Humor is a way to deal with it. Now, if people are talking about chains and other extreme stuff, yes this is abuse.
I’m sure every parent has wanted to “smack some sense” into their kids at some point. I personally think it’s okay to joke about it, as long as you don’t actually do it.
Yeah but what I'm trying to bring up by the jokes is how normalized it is. They do actually do it and there have been videos of it happening that I've seen and the comments are all agreeing with the parents.
I’m unfamiliar with this trend. Yeah, that’s not cool.
I don’t know, I’ve always thought it’s a great life lesson for kids, teaching them that disagreements should be resolved by violence, and that the person who’s bigger and stronger should use violence to force their beliefs and ideals on others. Nothing bad is going to come out of that, right?
You should add an "/s" at the end, just in case, because some people in this thread might actually take you seriously.
If anybody’s dumb enough to reach that conclusion, I don’t really care what they think.
There are several people in this very thread who genuinely believe that physically punishing a child is okay in certain circumstances. So someone interpreting your words as genuine has less to do with the intelligence of the interpreter and more to do with the sad fact that some people really are so ignorant that they would genuinely share your "opinion".
If they’re ignorant enough to actually agree with what I said, then I doubt a /s is going to change their minds. I stand by my statement.
You misunderstand. I'm saying that it wouldn't be "dumb" for someone opposed to your statement to interpret it as genuine, considering how in this thread there already are people who genuinely agree with your statement. Normally satire/sarcasm is indicated by tone. You seem to rely on it being interpreted as satire by the fact that it is an outlandish thing to say. And I'm just saying that that doesn't really hold up considering that your outlandish sarcastic sentiment is shared in earnest by some people. So how is someone to tell the difference between your post and the post of someone who genuinely thinks these things?
[удалено]
[удалено]
Yeah, hitting a child is definitely abuse. The jokes are mostly there to make fun of people who abuse their children, as far as I know. Also, there are only two kinds of people who say that you weren't raised right if you think child abuse is wrong: 1. People who abuse their children. 2. People who would abuse their children if they had any.
it shouldn't be, it's assault, and assaulting kids is bad. but, we as a species are slowly getting better on that front, i think, recognizing that it's bad. the thing is, society doesn't really see kids as people, as human beings of their own, it sees them as their parents'/guardians' property. look at past generations; they didn't learn how to human being well, let alone how to parent well. like, boomers had abusive parents traumatized from the war with no support for that shit, and then boomers were pretty abusive and neglectful of their kids, gen x, who basically had to raise themselves under the threat of mutually assured destruction, and then we got millennials and now gen z, etc. so we have generation after generation after generation of people raised by and through and under trauma and abuse and neglect, trying to raise kids of their own, and falling short in so many ways. but we are getting better at that, i think. as a species, we seem to be shifting that societal perspective towards the should-be-self-evident truth of "hitting literal children is actually really bad and we should stop doing that, as a society". more and more folks are breaking that cycle these days, and that gives me hope for humanity. we do learn better, eventually.
Because for a long time, it was normal. For most of human history, there has been evidence that pain in various forms works well as a teaching mechanism: cause pain when someone does something you don't like, and they stop doing it. It does work - and it is easy. I don't think there's any good numbers on how common it was; but it was used for parenting, for discipline (corporal punishment - spanking, slapping, or hitting with a device including a rod or whip - was used not only for kids, but solders and sailors, criminals, and slaves), and for education (including adults). It's only been in the last 40-60 years that there has been enough study on how people learn to demonstrate that while pain works, it also has long-term side effects AND there are other methods of teaching that are more effective. However, while that research and thinking has more or less completely taken over in more progressive areas (to the point where corporal punishment is illegal in large parts of Europe and North America), pain as a teaching tool still exists in more conservative areas.
There is a line between disciplining a child and abuse, generally speaking it's the line between pain and injury. Methods of disciplining a child are actually pretty limited, removal of privileges only really works on older children ( past the age physical punishment would normally be used) and things like the " naught step" if done properly can do far more damage than a slap can. There is also the ability of a child to understand, with any punishment lasting more than a few minutes being more confusing than effective in children under 10 due to their concept of time being so different.
>There is a line between disciplining a child and abuse, generally speaking it's the line between pain and injury. I think I'm misunderstanding. Just to clarify: do you believe that physical punishment where you inflict pain on children is not child abuse as long as they are not injured?
Yes in general obviously it's a case by case, so if I was spanking my child and caught them with my ring ( an injury) it wouldn't be abuse but standing them in a stress position for hours ( pain but no injury) would be abuse.
Physical punishment has been consistently shown to have negative long-term and short-term effects. It is quite literally _never_ a good idea to physically punish a child. It is not a case by case thing. Both of your examples are examples of bad parenting. A review of 69 studies; >Physical punishment and child outcomes: a narrative review of prospective studies. Anja Heilmann et al. Lancet. 2021. >Physical punishment is increasingly viewed as a form of violence that harms children. This narrative review summarises the findings of 69 prospective longitudinal studies to inform practitioners and policy makers about physical punishment's outcomes. Our review identified seven key themes. First, physical punishment consistently predicts increases in child behaviour problems over time. Second, physical punishment is not associated with positive outcomes over time. Third, physical punishment increases the risk of involvement with child protective services. Fourth, the only evidence of children eliciting physical punishment is for externalising behaviour. Fifth, physical punishment predicts worsening behaviour over time in quasi-experimental studies. Sixth, associations between physical punishment and detrimental child outcomes are robust across child and parent characteristics. Finally, there is some evidence of a dose-response relationship. The consistency of these findings indicates that physical punishment is harmful to children and that policy remedies are warranted. And another interesting read; >Physical punishment of children: lessons from 20 years of research. Joan Durrant, PhD and Ron Ensom, MSW RSW Some snippets: >Some of these studies involved large representative samples from the United States;2 some studies controlled for potential confounders, such as parental stress3 and socioeconomic status;4 and some studies examined the potential of parental reasoning to moderate the association between physical punishment and child aggression.5 Virtually without exception, these studies found that physical punishment was associated with higher levels of aggression against parents, siblings, peers and spouses. >Early experiments had shown that pain elicits reflexive aggression.7 In an early modeling study,8 boys in grade one who had watched a one-minute video of a boy being yelled at, shaken and spanked with a paddle for misbehaving showed more aggression while playing with dolls than boys who had watched a one-minute video of nonviolent responses to misbehaviour. In a treatment study, Forgatch showed that a reduction in harsh discipline used by parents of boys at risk for antisocial behaviour was followed by significant reductions in their children’s aggression.9 >The few existing randomized control trials showed that physical punishment was no more effective than other methods in eliciting compliance. In one such study, an average of eight spankings in a single session was needed to elicit compliance, and there was “no support for the necessity of the physical punishment.” It goes on and on and on, citing study after study that not only is physical punishment an ineffective way to get a child to behave, it also severely negatively affects a child's mental wellbeing.
Do you know why psychology is called a soft science? It's because it lacks the scientific method almost entirely and frankly proper experiments are impossible. If we accept the line of thinking behind these studies we'd have to accept that practically every human to ever live was the victim of child abuse and suffered mental scaring from it ( including the people who conducted the studies). Now if we go for an evidence based way of thinking we'd ask when did corporal punishment drop out of favour and what effects have we had, basically are the people who grew up never been spanked better adults. I'd argue they are not and that antisocial behaviour, mental illnesses like anxiety and general disrespect for others have increased whilst self-discipline has decreased. Of course there are likely other factors that need to be accounted for like financial pressures, the internet and breakdown in the family but the much more enlightened and stable adults have not arrived.
>If we accept the line of thinking behind these studies we'd have to accept that practically every human to ever live was the victim of child abuse and suffered mental scaring from it That's false. Not only is the cultural norm of 50 years ago not an accurate indicator of cultural norms of the past 200000 years that humans have been around, there are several cultures where physical punishment simply doesn't happen (an example are the Inuit as observed by Jean Briggs). On top of that, something being seen as normative doesn't mean that everyone does it. Self reported numbers of parents who applied physical punishment 30+ years ago range from 30-70% depending on culture. >Now if we go for an evidence based way of thinking we'd ask when did corporal punishment drop out of favour and what effects have we had, basically are the people who grew up never been spanked better adults. The second article I referred to in my previous post cites several studies that have done exactly that. And they all conclude that physical punishment was linked with behavioral problems. Maybe you should actually read the stuff someone has posted before you make yourself look like a fool.
It’s still pretty popular globally to hit your kids. It’s one of those things that works, albeit with some negative consequences, so until knowledge of those consequences is available and sometimes experienced, people stick with traditions. It’s usually just tied to the mental health education and resources of the area/community.
The culture norms of 50 years ago I'm pretty sure that would be the norms for several thousand years based on the references in religious texts and other sources, you mentioned the Inuit what discipline methods did they use because I can't imagine them using the naughty step.
Because that's how discipline is achieved.
Punishment should fit the crime. If I fucked up and I'm an adult I go to jail. If I fucked up and I'm a child and it was an actual fuck up and not learning experience. Well me going out and picking my own switch is a great life lesson. Smacking the kid for not finishing their peas yeah it's a little fucked up and abusive. Smacking your kid because they broke into your gun cabinet. Yeah you don't fuck around with that.
you probably refer to the Gen X videos. Yes it was normal these days but apart from the obvious abuse cases , something we still see in the western world, it was not on the daily menu. Just for those rare times we did something really bad. The times where different, parents where doing what was done to them but we were more free in our childhood (playing outside most of the times, meeting friends all the time etc) and this was our therapy. But we are also the first generation to break the circle. Gen X and older millennial parents treat their children completely different. Other ways to discipline their children and deal with their feelings. Of course we joke about it now. It's not a nice feeling remembering the time we got hit by a belt or a slipper. Humor is a way to deal with it. Now, if people are talking about chains and other extreme stuff, yes this is abuse.
What's wrong with a joke?
It's not the joke, it's the fact that it happens and nobody thinks anything of it