4 ms·

This is the most bizarre thing that I will never understand about the US. Everything is about protecting the children from imagined harm, even if the "protectio

by mcv 4y ago

This is the most bizarre thing that I will never understand about the US. Everything is about protecting the children from imagined harm, even if the "protection" is causing much more harm, but beating kids is totally fine. CPS may take away your kids if you let them play outside, but not if you beat them.

Wyoming23 4y ago
Spanking a child and beating a child are two completely unrelated things. It's my understanding that spanking isn't the optimal way to discipline children and still shouldn't be done, but conflating it with beating a child is ridiculous and offensive.
- tsgagnon 4y ago
  Spanking a child and beating a child are two completely unrelated things. Yes, striking your child to teach them a lesson is definitely completely unrelated to striking your child out of anger/frustration. Definitely no connections there at all.
  - coryfklein 4y ago
    I guess folks have different definitions of the words? To me, a "spank" is usually a mild to moderate slap on the rear, a part of the body particularly well cushioned that can handle it just fine without physical trauma, not to mention psychological trauma. When I think of a child who has been "beaten", I imagine repeated bludgeoning across the body, often with a tool, and usually with visible bruising and possible laceration and bleeding. If you've ever been a parent, regardless of whether you think spanking is OK, you know that there is a huge difference between these two activities. I personally avoid physical discipline myself, but I can understand a parent who decides to give their kid a spank on the rump after the child did something where they didn't understand how seriously negative the implications were. For example, if 5 year old runs out into traffic on a busy road and you pull them back, which form of discipline is more likely to negatively incentivize the impulse to dash into the street to get a penny? I can see why someone would think that the short – but sharp – pain of a quick spank is more effective at protecting the child's short and long term health.
    - tsgagnon 4y ago
      To me, a "spank" is usually a mild to moderate slap on the rear, a part of the body particularly well cushioned that can handle it just fine without physical trauma, not to mention psychological trauma. When I think of a child who has been "beaten", I imagine repeated bludgeoning across the body, often with a tool, and usually with visible bruising and possible laceration and bleeding. "Spanking" can definitely include implements, though that's less common nowadays as people have started to view the act in a less positive light overall. And the "without psychological trauma" is one aspect where it isn't really that clear if there is a level of spanking that avoids that whole issue.
      - coryfklein 4y ago
        > it isn't really that clear if there is a level of spanking that avoids that whole issue Exactly, which is why I myself choose to play it safe. But it's kinda like the, "No evidence that parachutes save lives" thing, where because you don't have a double-blind randomized controlled study, we have to end up relying on our intuition. And – unlike with parachutes – everyone has a different intuition as to whether spanking is actually going to result in trauma. Lots of, "I'll never hit my child" going up against, "I was spanked as a child and I'm just fine" so its all back to personal judgment.
    - mcv 4y ago
      My oldest son once accidentally ran out in traffic, and he was practically traumatised just by the way I shouted "stop!" at him. He never did it again. I think by using violence, the main thing you teach kids is that using violence is an option. I prefer to discourage violence. I'm not saying I never grabbed or held them a bit too roughly, but I think they learn a lot more from me talking to them and explaining why it's wrong, than from pain. > When I think of a child who has been "beaten", I imagine repeated bludgeoning across the body, often with a tool I see people talk about belts far too often. I would consider that immediate grounds for losing custody over your child.
    - dTal 4y ago
      The trouble is, you are describing different points on a scale with no clear boundary. As anyone into BDSM can tell you, an open handed slap on a bare buttocks is quite capable of inflicting severe pain - and therefore, psychological trauma. Imagine being made to wait for the spank, in a vulnerable and humiliating position. Imagine if it were accompanied by mind games. In short, imagine what a sadist hell bent on inflicting trauma on a child could do if you permitted them to strike their victim, provided they left no permanent marks. It is true that a malicious parent is capable of mentally damaging their child without recourse to violence, but it does not follow from that that we should shrug and permit it. Violence is an overwhelming force multiplier in an abuser's toolkit, and also strictly unnecessary for good parenting.
- nasmorn 4y ago
  Spanking and beating your employees are two entirely different things.
rayiner 4y ago
Lots of people believe that not using physical discipline is ultimately harmful to kids. Their brains aren’t fully developed until age 25, so it can’t be assumed that children can learn proper behaviors entirely through reasoning. The empirical evidence is mixed. The best behaved kids in the world are in east Asia, where physical discipline is still quite common. Physical discipline was widespread in the west during the very timeframe that contemporary civilizations developed. America as you know it today, with all its prosperity, was created by people who were spanked as children.
- toomanyrichies 4y ago
  > America as you know it today, with all its prosperity, was created by people who were spanked as children. I mean, I guess it could have been worse- you could have said "America as you know it today, with all its prosperity, was created by people who burned witches" or "...who practiced chattel slavery." Those same people also practiced bundling [1] as a courtship ritual, and used mercury as a treatment for melancholy [2]. Out of all the practices you could have cited, why on Earth would you pick beating kids as a factor in America's success, instead of something more benign? You're smart enough to know the difference between correlation and causation. Do you have evidence that physical discipline was the reason America became the country it is today? If you don't have such evidence, how do you know that we wouldn't have been even more prosperous without corporal punishment as a child-rearing method? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(tradition) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(tradition) 2. https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2017/10/22/mercury-was-considered-a-cure-until-it-killed-you.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2017/10/22/mercury-was-...
  - rayiner 4y ago
    It’s not an incidental correlation—something that happened to exist at the same time as contemporary societies were being built. Cultures all over the world came to the conclusion that physical discipline produced better behaved kids. Europeans only changed their view in the last generation or so, and in Asia, it’s still the dominant view. By contrast, cultures that stopped using physical discipline are almost universally in decline. On the European continent, for example, post-Christians who don’t use physical discipline are being outcompeted by Muslims who do.

by mcv 4y ago

Wyoming23 4y ago

Spanking a child and beating a child are two completely unrelated things. It's my understanding that spanking isn't the optimal way to discipline children and still shouldn't be done, but conflating it with beating a child is ridiculous and offensive.

tsgagnon 4y ago
Spanking a child and beating a child are two completely unrelated things. Yes, striking your child to teach them a lesson is definitely completely unrelated to striking your child out of anger/frustration. Definitely no connections there at all.
- coryfklein 4y ago
  I guess folks have different definitions of the words? To me, a "spank" is usually a mild to moderate slap on the rear, a part of the body particularly well cushioned that can handle it just fine without physical trauma, not to mention psychological trauma. When I think of a child who has been "beaten", I imagine repeated bludgeoning across the body, often with a tool, and usually with visible bruising and possible laceration and bleeding. If you've ever been a parent, regardless of whether you think spanking is OK, you know that there is a huge difference between these two activities. I personally avoid physical discipline myself, but I can understand a parent who decides to give their kid a spank on the rump after the child did something where they didn't understand how seriously negative the implications were. For example, if 5 year old runs out into traffic on a busy road and you pull them back, which form of discipline is more likely to negatively incentivize the impulse to dash into the street to get a penny? I can see why someone would think that the short – but sharp – pain of a quick spank is more effective at protecting the child's short and long term health.
  - tsgagnon 4y ago
    To me, a "spank" is usually a mild to moderate slap on the rear, a part of the body particularly well cushioned that can handle it just fine without physical trauma, not to mention psychological trauma. When I think of a child who has been "beaten", I imagine repeated bludgeoning across the body, often with a tool, and usually with visible bruising and possible laceration and bleeding. "Spanking" can definitely include implements, though that's less common nowadays as people have started to view the act in a less positive light overall. And the "without psychological trauma" is one aspect where it isn't really that clear if there is a level of spanking that avoids that whole issue.
    - coryfklein 4y ago
      > it isn't really that clear if there is a level of spanking that avoids that whole issue Exactly, which is why I myself choose to play it safe. But it's kinda like the, "No evidence that parachutes save lives" thing, where because you don't have a double-blind randomized controlled study, we have to end up relying on our intuition. And – unlike with parachutes – everyone has a different intuition as to whether spanking is actually going to result in trauma. Lots of, "I'll never hit my child" going up against, "I was spanked as a child and I'm just fine" so its all back to personal judgment.
  - mcv 4y ago
    My oldest son once accidentally ran out in traffic, and he was practically traumatised just by the way I shouted "stop!" at him. He never did it again. I think by using violence, the main thing you teach kids is that using violence is an option. I prefer to discourage violence. I'm not saying I never grabbed or held them a bit too roughly, but I think they learn a lot more from me talking to them and explaining why it's wrong, than from pain. > When I think of a child who has been "beaten", I imagine repeated bludgeoning across the body, often with a tool I see people talk about belts far too often. I would consider that immediate grounds for losing custody over your child.
  - dTal 4y ago
    The trouble is, you are describing different points on a scale with no clear boundary. As anyone into BDSM can tell you, an open handed slap on a bare buttocks is quite capable of inflicting severe pain - and therefore, psychological trauma. Imagine being made to wait for the spank, in a vulnerable and humiliating position. Imagine if it were accompanied by mind games. In short, imagine what a sadist hell bent on inflicting trauma on a child could do if you permitted them to strike their victim, provided they left no permanent marks. It is true that a malicious parent is capable of mentally damaging their child without recourse to violence, but it does not follow from that that we should shrug and permit it. Violence is an overwhelming force multiplier in an abuser's toolkit, and also strictly unnecessary for good parenting.
nasmorn 4y ago
Spanking and beating your employees are two entirely different things.

rayiner 4y ago

Lots of people believe that not using physical discipline is ultimately harmful to kids. Their brains aren’t fully developed until age 25, so it can’t be assumed that children can learn proper behaviors entirely through reasoning. The empirical evidence is mixed. The best behaved kids in the world are in east Asia, where physical discipline is still quite common. Physical discipline was widespread in the west during the very timeframe that contemporary civilizations developed. America as you know it today, with all its prosperity, was created by people who were spanked as children.

toomanyrichies 4y ago
> America as you know it today, with all its prosperity, was created by people who were spanked as children. I mean, I guess it could have been worse- you could have said "America as you know it today, with all its prosperity, was created by people who burned witches" or "...who practiced chattel slavery." Those same people also practiced bundling [1] as a courtship ritual, and used mercury as a treatment for melancholy [2]. Out of all the practices you could have cited, why on Earth would you pick beating kids as a factor in America's success, instead of something more benign? You're smart enough to know the difference between correlation and causation. Do you have evidence that physical discipline was the reason America became the country it is today? If you don't have such evidence, how do you know that we wouldn't have been even more prosperous without corporal punishment as a child-rearing method? 1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(tradition) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bundling_(tradition) 2. https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2017/10/22/mercury-was-considered-a-cure-until-it-killed-you.html https://www.thestar.com/news/insight/2017/10/22/mercury-was-...
- rayiner 4y ago
  It’s not an incidental correlation—something that happened to exist at the same time as contemporary societies were being built. Cultures all over the world came to the conclusion that physical discipline produced better behaved kids. Europeans only changed their view in the last generation or so, and in Asia, it’s still the dominant view. By contrast, cultures that stopped using physical discipline are almost universally in decline. On the European continent, for example, post-Christians who don’t use physical discipline are being outcompeted by Muslims who do.