6 ms·

Why do you assume that submission is the goal of the beating? Or that you know the best way to raise children?

ForrestN 14y ago
"Outcome: The problem was fixed. He became more subdued and never threatened to run away." What other goal would there be? The idea of corporal punishment is that child fears getting hit enough that they will stop acting on the motives they have which conflict with those of the parents. In other words, they will submit to the motives of the parents. Common sense aside, the fact that beating doesn't produce good outcomes for children is common knowledge in highly educated societies. The American Academy of Pediatrics says: "First, establish a positive, supporting and loving relationship with your child. Without this foundation, your child has no reason, other than fear, to demonstrate good behavior. [...] If you feel discipline is necessary, the AAP recommends that you do not spank or use other physical punishments. That only teaches aggressive behavior, and becomes ineffective if used often."
- elpachuco 14y ago
  >>What other goal would there be? The goal for the drastic measures my mom took was to not loose her child. That he stopped being such a big brat was a bonus. He was still strong tempered, but at least he would no longer test my mother. And the threat of a beating kept the rest of us in line. We knew not to test her. All of my brothers and sisters grew up to be decent human beings. In case you are wondering, my brother never beats his kids, is enough for them to see him mad when they misbehave for them to fall in line. I concede, had he had a mental disorder it would probably not have worked. In this case though, I'm not sure the OP really had a mental disorder which is why I suggested the beating. Some kids will go to great lengths to manipulate you as much as they can. Anyway, this is just an anecdote so take it as such.
  - ForrestN 14y ago
    I'm not saying that beating your children will necessarily ruin their lives, or that children who are beaten can't grow up to be functional adults. But two things are true, to the best of my knowledge: - Beating does a worse job of correcting behavioral problems than more humane methods - Beating contributes negatively to how your children feel, in general Again, this doesn't mean that beating makes you sick, or that it never corrects a specific behavior. Only that it's not a good idea, and, however mildly on a case-by-case basis, it probably means you're mistreating your kids. I wouldn't suggest it to anyone regardless of whether or not you consider violently threatening to kill yourself and your parents, to the point that they are afraid for their lives, to be evidence of mental health issues.
    - koide 14y ago
      But, how to act after people have tried everything they could think of to no avail? Is medication a better solution than some spanking (especially when it's unclear a mental problem exists)? I wouldn't be so sure about that.
- ampersandy 14y ago
  Beating your children isn't to manipulate them into becoming little slaves, it's to punish them for going against society's expected behaviour (which one might argue is its own form of slavery). Can you back up your claim that beatings produce poor outcomes for children in "highly educated societies?" Or that 'less educated societies" are inferior because they don't have qualms about spanking their kids when they misbehave?
  - ForrestN 14y ago
    See the quote from AAP I posted elsewhere. Corporal punishment has been shown to be less effective than alternatives, and probably harmful to children. Corporal punishment is more common in less affluent/educated societies than it is in wealthy/well-educated ones. This is common knowledge. I never said anything about inferiority. It's not about judging anyone, it's about contradicting bad advice.
    - ampersandy 14y ago
      Less effective in what setting? If physical punishment is more common world-wide, that is rather telling evidence that our forebears found it to be the most effective way to bring children in line, and it has been done ever since; at least until western civilization decided it was improper or at the very least, sub-optimal. My point is that who is the AAP to say how best to raise children? I seriously doubt the validity of any study that claims to be conclusive on how to raise children, and would make a bet that any research they did was localized to the US. Anecdotally, several of my friends were beaten as children and turned out fine. All this proves is that sometimes physical punishment works and sometimes it doesn't. But the same goes for "establishing a loving relationship with your child;" since you can hardly do that when they're threatening to stab you with a knife.
      - pyre 14y ago
        > is rather telling evidence that our forebears > found it to be the most effective way to bring > children in line Our forebears also felt that the best was to run a society included things like: - Slavery / Indentured Service as a means of generating wealth. - Punishing women for sexuality (because all women were temptresses, and a man couldn't be blamed for infidelity, rape, etc). - Torture against criminals / political prisoners. - Religious wars. I don't think that "our forebears did it, so there must be something to it," is a generally effective argument.
- 1123581321 14y ago
  The AAP quote is not based on data, just a desire for the world to work a certain way. Do not attempt to cite data to the contrary; while you will find critical studies of corporal punishment you will not find any that supports their use of the polemical word, "only."
  - ForrestN 14y ago
    You're over-thinking this, and projecting motives onto an organization of pediatricians that you can't possibly prove. Their audience here is a general one, especially parents. They are not using "only" to make some kind of absolute claim about human nature. The point is that it's commonly accepted (and supported by research) that hitting your children is unhelpful to them and doesn't work well.
    - 1123581321 14y ago
      The word only makes an explicitly absolute claim. Pediatricians have read the same studies you and I have read, so they know the data isn't absolute. Therefore, they are claiming an absolute where they know there isn't one. You are right that I can't prove why they do this, but I think I can safely say most people persuade using untrue absolutes in order to realize an ideological goal or to make money, and the AAP is a non-profit organization. The quote is not something that should carry weight in a room of scientists or parents. I don't think I am over-thinking something that you've posted, especially now that you've asked me not to think too much about it.
- kamaal 14y ago
  >>Common sense aside, the fact that beating doesn't produce good outcomes for children is common knowledge in highly educated societies. Are these societies the same societies where shoot outs happen at schools? Because I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case. Physical abuse is one thing. Disciplining is another. 'You won't get to play your video game' is not even a punishment. If you are thinking you can discipline your kid by these make believe tricks, All the best. When we talk of beating a kid, we are not talking about smashing him/her to pulp. The idea to ensure the kid is stopped when he/she is at the beginning of doing something wrong[Like stopping him when he first steals from/bullies/hits other kids]. If you let your kid grow up, carry guns and fire at people something is seriously wrong with your upbringing. And frankly speaking you can't wash your hands off by putting it on mental disease. These are not cases of mental disease, these are just unruly kids, who fear nothing[After all why should they, when their own parents can't do anything about their behavior who else will?]. These kids need to be taught how it is in the real world, and if they can't do it the easy way some minimal beating must be allowed. I would prefer that rather than watch some one grow and fire bullets at others.
  - tylee78 14y ago
    I really am surprised by most of the (young) parents I have met so far in the US. My father used corporal punishment for even little things on us and left a (psychological) scar - I could never touch my kids - on the other hand, in our home (4 kids of my own) discipline is an extremely high (positive) value. This has nothing to do with submission but with self-control - a rare quality which kids have to master. The so-called "timeouts" and disciplinary measures by our American friends don't work - resulting in children which cause so much more suffering for everybody - they don't work because the parents just do not establish a sense of authority and strict rules. Forget physical punishment for a moment but at home the parents and in school the teachers have to be able to establish their authority. I have seen so many parents, themselves using mental pharmaceutica who let their kids get away with things that were purely evil. At the same time I feel the sub-human stimulation (TV, games, etc.) many kids are flooded with over decades is considered less (negatively) habit forming than the application of simple repetitive acts of cultured manners, polite expressions and self-restraint.

"Outcome: The problem was fixed. He became more subdued and never threatened to run away." What other goal would there be? The idea of corporal punishment is that child fears getting hit enough that they will stop acting on the motives they have which conflict with those of the parents. In other words, they will submit to the motives of the parents. Common sense aside, the fact that beating doesn't produce good outcomes for children is common knowledge in highly educated societies. The American Academy of Pediatrics says: "First, establish a positive, supporting and loving relationship with your child. Without this foundation, your child has no reason, other than fear, to demonstrate good behavior. [...] If you feel discipline is necessary, the AAP recommends that you do not spank or use other physical punishments. That only teaches aggressive behavior, and becomes ineffective if used often."

elpachuco 14y ago
>>What other goal would there be? The goal for the drastic measures my mom took was to not loose her child. That he stopped being such a big brat was a bonus. He was still strong tempered, but at least he would no longer test my mother. And the threat of a beating kept the rest of us in line. We knew not to test her. All of my brothers and sisters grew up to be decent human beings. In case you are wondering, my brother never beats his kids, is enough for them to see him mad when they misbehave for them to fall in line. I concede, had he had a mental disorder it would probably not have worked. In this case though, I'm not sure the OP really had a mental disorder which is why I suggested the beating. Some kids will go to great lengths to manipulate you as much as they can. Anyway, this is just an anecdote so take it as such.
- ForrestN 14y ago
  I'm not saying that beating your children will necessarily ruin their lives, or that children who are beaten can't grow up to be functional adults. But two things are true, to the best of my knowledge: - Beating does a worse job of correcting behavioral problems than more humane methods - Beating contributes negatively to how your children feel, in general Again, this doesn't mean that beating makes you sick, or that it never corrects a specific behavior. Only that it's not a good idea, and, however mildly on a case-by-case basis, it probably means you're mistreating your kids. I wouldn't suggest it to anyone regardless of whether or not you consider violently threatening to kill yourself and your parents, to the point that they are afraid for their lives, to be evidence of mental health issues.
  - koide 14y ago
    But, how to act after people have tried everything they could think of to no avail? Is medication a better solution than some spanking (especially when it's unclear a mental problem exists)? I wouldn't be so sure about that.
ampersandy 14y ago
Beating your children isn't to manipulate them into becoming little slaves, it's to punish them for going against society's expected behaviour (which one might argue is its own form of slavery). Can you back up your claim that beatings produce poor outcomes for children in "highly educated societies?" Or that 'less educated societies" are inferior because they don't have qualms about spanking their kids when they misbehave?
- ForrestN 14y ago
  See the quote from AAP I posted elsewhere. Corporal punishment has been shown to be less effective than alternatives, and probably harmful to children. Corporal punishment is more common in less affluent/educated societies than it is in wealthy/well-educated ones. This is common knowledge. I never said anything about inferiority. It's not about judging anyone, it's about contradicting bad advice.
  - ampersandy 14y ago
    Less effective in what setting? If physical punishment is more common world-wide, that is rather telling evidence that our forebears found it to be the most effective way to bring children in line, and it has been done ever since; at least until western civilization decided it was improper or at the very least, sub-optimal. My point is that who is the AAP to say how best to raise children? I seriously doubt the validity of any study that claims to be conclusive on how to raise children, and would make a bet that any research they did was localized to the US. Anecdotally, several of my friends were beaten as children and turned out fine. All this proves is that sometimes physical punishment works and sometimes it doesn't. But the same goes for "establishing a loving relationship with your child;" since you can hardly do that when they're threatening to stab you with a knife.
    - pyre 14y ago
      > is rather telling evidence that our forebears > found it to be the most effective way to bring > children in line Our forebears also felt that the best was to run a society included things like: - Slavery / Indentured Service as a means of generating wealth. - Punishing women for sexuality (because all women were temptresses, and a man couldn't be blamed for infidelity, rape, etc). - Torture against criminals / political prisoners. - Religious wars. I don't think that "our forebears did it, so there must be something to it," is a generally effective argument.
1123581321 14y ago
The AAP quote is not based on data, just a desire for the world to work a certain way. Do not attempt to cite data to the contrary; while you will find critical studies of corporal punishment you will not find any that supports their use of the polemical word, "only."
- ForrestN 14y ago
  You're over-thinking this, and projecting motives onto an organization of pediatricians that you can't possibly prove. Their audience here is a general one, especially parents. They are not using "only" to make some kind of absolute claim about human nature. The point is that it's commonly accepted (and supported by research) that hitting your children is unhelpful to them and doesn't work well.
  - 1123581321 14y ago
    The word only makes an explicitly absolute claim. Pediatricians have read the same studies you and I have read, so they know the data isn't absolute. Therefore, they are claiming an absolute where they know there isn't one. You are right that I can't prove why they do this, but I think I can safely say most people persuade using untrue absolutes in order to realize an ideological goal or to make money, and the AAP is a non-profit organization. The quote is not something that should carry weight in a room of scientists or parents. I don't think I am over-thinking something that you've posted, especially now that you've asked me not to think too much about it.
kamaal 14y ago
>>Common sense aside, the fact that beating doesn't produce good outcomes for children is common knowledge in highly educated societies. Are these societies the same societies where shoot outs happen at schools? Because I wouldn't be surprised if that is the case. Physical abuse is one thing. Disciplining is another. 'You won't get to play your video game' is not even a punishment. If you are thinking you can discipline your kid by these make believe tricks, All the best. When we talk of beating a kid, we are not talking about smashing him/her to pulp. The idea to ensure the kid is stopped when he/she is at the beginning of doing something wrong[Like stopping him when he first steals from/bullies/hits other kids]. If you let your kid grow up, carry guns and fire at people something is seriously wrong with your upbringing. And frankly speaking you can't wash your hands off by putting it on mental disease. These are not cases of mental disease, these are just unruly kids, who fear nothing[After all why should they, when their own parents can't do anything about their behavior who else will?]. These kids need to be taught how it is in the real world, and if they can't do it the easy way some minimal beating must be allowed. I would prefer that rather than watch some one grow and fire bullets at others.
- tylee78 14y ago
  I really am surprised by most of the (young) parents I have met so far in the US. My father used corporal punishment for even little things on us and left a (psychological) scar - I could never touch my kids - on the other hand, in our home (4 kids of my own) discipline is an extremely high (positive) value. This has nothing to do with submission but with self-control - a rare quality which kids have to master. The so-called "timeouts" and disciplinary measures by our American friends don't work - resulting in children which cause so much more suffering for everybody - they don't work because the parents just do not establish a sense of authority and strict rules. Forget physical punishment for a moment but at home the parents and in school the teachers have to be able to establish their authority. I have seen so many parents, themselves using mental pharmaceutica who let their kids get away with things that were purely evil. At the same time I feel the sub-human stimulation (TV, games, etc.) many kids are flooded with over decades is considered less (negatively) habit forming than the application of simple repetitive acts of cultured manners, polite expressions and self-restraint.