3 ms·
Another word for "beating" is simply "consequence". Establishing that there are negative consequences for particular behaviours is what's important (and that t
by fatbird 14y ago
Another word for "beating" is simply "consequence". Establishing that there are negative consequences for particular behaviours is what's important (and that they're consistently applied and adhered to), and clearly the mother knows that--she punished him effectively by yanking his electronics for a day. There's nothing particular about beating a child that's more effective than other punishments. Show me a child who doesn't respond to punishment, and I'll show you a parent who is inconsistent with consequences, and gives in rather than establishing that consequences happen.
That said, I'm fucking horrified by your story. If your brother is a productive man of society, then your mother got lucky. But for every productive man of society, we have a hundred fathers who beat their children senselessly because "that's how I was raised."
Violence begets violence. Abuse begets abuse. Nothing about proper, strict discipline requires behaviour that would, under other circumstances, get you locked up.
- vailripper 14y agoWhat this misses is that for many mental illnesses, is that the connection between actions and consequences is broken. My brother had EXTREME issues with oppositional defiance disorder and ADHD growing up. I can guarantee you my parents made sure there were consequences, but it doesn't matter. They simply can't connect the actions they're taking in that moment to the consequences they will receive afterwards.
- Mz 14y agoA lot of parents (and employers) come up with consequences that are not really logically tied to behavior. Often, they just try to "punish", which fails with a lot of kids, or even backfires. My oldest son has (among other things) a high tolerance for physical pain (and, as an adult, a red beard, when red hair is a trait known to be tied to high pain threshold). He could be quite difficult as a child, both because he didn't much care when his risky behaviors hurt and spanking was pretty pointless. But when designed right, consequences did work. Punishment did not.
- dkarl 14y agoI don't know about you, but there was a limit to how how bad my parents could make me feel through non-abusive consequences. There was always an emotional weighing of the impulse to misbehave versus the punishment that would follow. As with most children, the deprivation of privileges my parents could inflict on me was generally severe enough to outweigh the emotions that drove me misbehave, but when a kid's impulses are too strong, I imagine his feelings of rage and defiance can outweigh any non-abusive punishment a his parents can inflict. These days such a kid is destined for an institution, even though a few beatings might make him a functional member of society. That said, I think it's for the best that physical abuse is criminalized, because I don't think human beings can be trusted to use it judiciously. Like you pointed out, when accepted, it is used inappropriately and destructively much more often than it is used appropriately (hey, just like guns.) However, one consequence of giving up corporal punishment is that some (very small) subset of kids will be deprived of punishment that could have set them on a better course, and in the end society will resort to violence to control them, violence carried out lawfully via the justice system.
- rizzom5000 14y ago> Like you pointed out, when accepted, it is used inappropriately and destructively much more often than it is used appropriately (hey, just like guns.) What? I beg to differ. Unless hunting, competition and self defense are inappropriate uses of guns; then guns are used (or non-used)appropriately and non-destructively far more than they are used inappropriately.