Did you get hit by your parents?

ziggy23

TeddyTedson wrote: »

I'm not saying let them away with murder but hitting a child is the easy way out really.
You can punish the child in ways that the child will actually have to give some though about what it has done wrong. You might have to put yourself out to ensure the child is punished but it's what you sign up for when you have kids.
I was hit as a child and I'm not going to say it did me any harm even though sometimes, and they agree now it went too far but perhaps to somebody else it would have.
I remember after being hit just becoming more and more angry with them, and not giving a seconds thought about my own actions, building up massive rage.

I agree that just hitting the child straight away is the easy way out but by god it's not lazy parenting when you've tried reasoning with them to no avail then carried them back and forth to the naughty corner more than half a dozen times for them only to get even more worked up. It's all well and good saying I'll talk it through with them and take away their toys etc but sometimes this just does not work. Thats not to say it never works. I will always use the naughty step 1st and would never just smack my child straight off.

ziggy23

amacachi wrote: »

Odd wee cuff now and then does no harm. When you see someone in public though who makes basically no attempt to talk to a kid and goes straight into screaming at them followed by a hiding ya wonder how far they'll go when there aren't other people around.

Screaming in my opinion makes the child more hysterical and yes I agree it is horrible seeing somebody smack their kid in public. It should never get to that stage

luckyfrank

ziggy23 wrote: »

Screaming in my opinion makes the child more hysterical and yes I agree it is horrible seeing somebody smack their kid in public. It should never get to that stage

when u have ur own kids you'll never judge others

CB19Kevo

I was hit when a child with the spoon but only once or maybe twice.
But the threat was always there;) and in my view it kept me out of trouble and made me evaluate things before i made a move from a early age.

Would i do it to my own kids? - I dont think so but i would try and lay down the law and have zero tolerance for ANY lack of respect or damage.

Just look at some of the kid's out around the streets any weekend who are involved in trouble, My own view is many were not disciplined from a young age and do not recognise when the line has been crossed.
How else can they tell old people and police to f''k off when confronted, I somehow doubt that if the wooden spoon was in force there attitude would be the same.

hefferboi

^^ Dead on especially the last part.

I got a few slaps meself. When we got older the mother used to chase us around the house. I'd be ****ting meself and pissing meself laughing at the same time. She'd calm down within about 2 mins and all would be good.

We were mostly slapped by the mother for messing upstairs when we were meant to be in bed but when we would hear the father coming up instead we knew the sh1t was about to go down. He'd give us 1 fair sore slap each and we'd be crying for about 5 mins then fall asleep.

In my eyes I'd feel bad about it but if the child was acting the cnut they need 1 slap but no more.

lackofyou

sometimes it is good to educate child,but always have some bad feedback...

3ndahalfof6

I don't believe in it, start as you mean to go on and there is a good chance you wont need to,

I must of been a right handful, I was left in hospital after a good seeing to with a piece of 2x4, very badly bruised and cracked ribs, of course I fell, I did forgive the auld fella but it took some years,

I was 8 when it happened, hitting is not good.

dutopia

This is kind of a tricky issue.

My mother used to give me a few slaps on the backside if I really misbehaved, but it was over quickly. She never did it in public and she didn't do it out of anger, so I never felt much resentment about it. My dad though, he did it out of anger and made me scared... so I feared him and hated him at the time for making me feel that way. I think my mother was right in the way she did it but I think my dad was wrong.

I hope I won't have to do that with my kids.

Duggy747

Mumsie Poo was the one who dished out the slaps and the Wooden Spoon™

You knew when you got that you really fùcked up.

Still, I do get the occasional Vietnam-like flashbacks whenever a wooden spoon is produced in front of me. Impossible to watch cookery shows :pac:

Seriously, it didn't leave any effects on me and I don't think any less of my parents as I thought they did a good job raising me.

Anyways, I wouldn't resort to smacking my kid unless it was a last resort. There's no way a little punk kid is going to outsmart me, I'll just smash his Playstation 6 :P

stovelid

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Hitting kids is just lazy parenting. Or perhaps ignorant in some cases.

Do you find parenting hard?

Chuck Stone

Sky King wrote: »

You've issues Chuck.

Did you get a light smack that hurt for 30 seconds or were you psychologically and physically tortured for days?

I didn't get beaten but I got smacked. Disney matter on the point of severity. It's not much of a problem for me.

Kiera wrote: »

And no, i have no criticisms about my parents.

Maybe you should write a book then on being the first human in the world who was perfectly parented. As if.

homerjay2005 wrote: »

i was smacked, never hit. there is a huge difference.

There really isn't. If your defence in court was 'I didn't assault him I only smacked him' you'd be laughed at.

Interceptor wrote: »

. I suggest you seek counselling or advice on how to deal with it. If the punishment bordered on abuse then you need professional help and it is important to deal with it. Trust me on this one - go and talk to someone if it was extreme or constantly on your mind.

Bla bla bla unqualified medical advice bla bla bla. I need counselling because people can't accept that they were abused by their parents.

Dudess wrote: »

I found his irrational grumpiness and yelling over nothing far worse.

That doesn't make hitting children any less damaging.

Kiera

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Maybe you should write a book then on being the first human in the world who was perfectly parented. As if.

I will, after you get that aul head of yours look at.

Snakeblood

Speaking AS A PARENT*, I'm not hitting my kid and have no intention of doing so. I got a couple of smacks, not hard, when I was a kid, and it didn't teach me anything, it was obviously born of frustration from my parents at my behaviour. I'd hope I do better than them, not because they were particularly bad parents (they weren't) but I'd like to do better in general terms. I don't think hitting or smacking is a particularly good way to teach that violence is wrong, or that authority should be questioned.


*This lends me moral authority.

It wasn't me!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I didn't get beaten but I got smacked. Disney matter on the point of severity. It's not much of a problem for me.


Maybe you should write a book then on being the first human in the world who was perfectly parented. As if.

So someone doesn't look back in horror at having gotten a smack for acting the tit as a kid and they don't have any criticisms of their parents' approach to raising them, therefore they merit this sarky shíte?

Bla bla bla unqualified medical advice bla bla bla. I need counselling because people can't accept that they were abused by their parents.

Except not everyone considers themselves to have been abused by virtue of having gotten a smack or two. If I acted the tit spectacularly as a kid, I could expect a smack. If I behave badly now and piss someone off, they're probably going to give me a smack. I've received a thump or two in my time, plenty of them well deserved, and I've returned a few as well. This doesn't mean there was an incidence of abuse. You'd need to be very soft or touchy to consider this the case.

That doesn't make hitting children any less damaging.

Not everyone is damaged by it. Get over yourself.

Chuck Stone

It wasn't me! wrote: »

So someone doesn't look back in horror at having gotten a smack for acting the tit as a kid and they don't have any criticisms of their parents' approach to raising them, therefore they merit this sarky shíte?

Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. Big strong people hitting smallies because they 'own' them is pathetic.

Not everyone is damaged by it.

Humanity is damaged by it (Except Kiera)

Get over yourself.

What?

Kiera

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. Big strong people hitting smallies because they 'own' them is pathetic.



Humanity is damaged by it (Except Kiera)



What?

Where is your proof that everyone in this thread who was smacked is damaged? Can you show me this please? If not then quit spouting your crap.

/and dont include yourself as i think you're issues have to do with a lot more than smacking.

It wasn't me!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat the mistakes of the past. Big strong people hitting smallies because they 'own' them is pathetic.

Or rather, people who are responsible for the development of other people use disincentives to encourage good behaviour and prevent bad behaviour to ensure their children don't grow up to be tossers.

Humanity is damaged by it (Except Kiera)

Maybe some of the softer elements, but I think most people are pretty okay. I am, and don't know anyone who ever suffered from having a slap or two along the way.

What?

I find your parroting this crap pathetic. You've had I don't know how many people telling you they had no problem with the couple of slaps they received or their parents' having delivered them and you're telling them that they're wrong, that their parents weren't as good as they believe them to have been. You'd have them believe they're actually damaged for their experience, despite their own life experiences. It did most of us no harm, corrected our bad behaviour and I definitely think it can be appropriate. Maybe there's a longer, more awkward way to achieve the same result, but given it's not going to do lasting damage, there's nothing wrong with reinforcing your authority in an expedient fashion where appropriate.

Chuck Stone

Kiera wrote: »

Where is your proof that everyone in this thread who was smacked is damaged? Can you show me this please? If not then quit spouting your crap.

The very act of hitting or threatening children with violence is proof enough. You just can't see that big elephant standing in front of you Kiera.

I understand that it's hard for someone to look at their parents and think to themselves 'hmmm - you hit me when I was small and you were big'. Doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

/and dont include yourself as i think you're issues have to do with a lot more than smacking.

If I have issues I will seek advice from someone qualified to deal with it in a private fashion. The very act of diagnosing me on a public forum underscores the fact that you are not qualified.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

I find your parroting this crap pathetic. You've had I don't know how many people telling you they had no problem with the couple of slaps they received or their parents' having delivered them and you're telling them that they're wrong, that their parents weren't as good as they believe them to have been. You'd have them believe they're actually damaged for their experience, despite their own life experiences. It did most of us no harm, corrected our bad behaviour and I definitely think it can be appropriate. Maybe there's a longer, more awkward way to achieve the same result, but given it's not going to do lasting damage, there's nothing wrong with reinforcing your authority in an expedient fashion where appropriate.

Would you be comfortable extending that logic to society at large? Should we be allowed to hit old people?

Very very bad logic.

seamus

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Or rather, people who are responsible for the development of other people use disincentives to encourage good behaviour and prevent bad behaviour to ensure their children don't grow up to be tossers.

The question is whether disincentives are more effective than incentives. I don't think so. Incentives, used properly can be very quick to enforce discipline in a way that's enjoyable for both the child and the parent. Disincentives on the other hand are not enjoyable for either party and need to be offset later with an incentive or enjoyable activity to rebuild the fragment of trust that's been lost.

My mother took out the wooden spoon and my father took out a spare belt every now again, but I only remember it being a threat, I don't recall ever having been hit. I know one of my brothers was hit across the palm of his hand once with the wooden spoon and my mother still feels a little guilty about it 30 years later.

Hitting a child is disciplining for idiots. People who don't make any attempt to understand their children and instead treat them like automatons who should obey. "Children should be seen and not heard" and assorted nonsense like that. Not that I'm saying that everyone here's parents were idiots; they didn't know better and generally lacked the critical thinking skills to work it out for themselves.

As someone else said, you're often hitting a child to teach them that hitting someone is wrong. Logic failure.

Maybe some of the softer elements, but I think most people are pretty okay. I am, and don't know anyone who ever suffered from having a slap or two along the way.

And I don't disagree with this. I don't see any major reason why a child would be massively traumatised from a single small slap or two.
But from a utilitarian point of view, you need to look at the aim of this type of discipline. The child is being slapped in order to teach them that a particular action is wrong. If you were hit as a child; do you recall why? Or do you just recall being slapped? And did you learn a specific lesson or did you just learn that, "When Daddy gets mad, I get slapped"?

It wasn't me!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

The very act of hitting or threatening children with violence is proof enough. You just can't see that big elephant standing in front of you Kiera.

I understand that it's hard for someone to look at their parents and think to themselves 'hmmm - you hit me when I was small and you were big'. Doesn't mean it didn't happen though.

Proof of what? Damage? Physical? Emotional? It's not "proof" of anything. I can think those things. I can also think they were appropriate modifiers of my behaviour. I don't think them hitting me was wrong.

Would you be comfortable extending that logic to society at large? Should we be allowed to hit old people?

Very very bad logic.

A truly pathetic strawman. Are we now responsible for the correct development of our old people? What are we hoping to achieve by hitting them? Hitting a child can have a purpose. Hitting a dickhead can have a purpose. Hitting an old person can, at some point I'm sure, have a purpose, and I'm all in favour of hitting folk who need hit, but it's a calculated decision as to the intended beneficial result weighed against the potential negative consequences of the physical act. If you hit a kid a smack, it can correct their behaviour. This is beneficial, and therefore there can be a positive effect of greater magnitude than the potential negative consequence of hitting them a light smack, which will do no physical damage. If I hit a dickhead who's being a mouthy twat, then presumably the intention is to shut them up, and they're unlikely to suffer lasting physical harm as a result, but they might shut up and/or piss off, so there's a potential win there. If I hit an old person, since I'm presumably not trying to correct behaviour in the same formative way as I would be with a child, then presumably I'm using considerably more violence, at which point the risk of real harm escalates steeply, and therefore the circumstances in which it could possibly be appropriate become narrower. I'm not saying there aren't circumstances when it would be justifiable, but I can't think of any right now. The idea that hitting is always wrong is a gross oversimplification. The use of violence as a corrective, a modifier or a preventative is always a calculated decision, weighing the potential good against the potential bad consequences. Black and white statements to the effect that it's never appropriate fail to account for the spectrum of possible situations one can confront and are therefore useless.

Derfil

Bet around the place when warranted. Wooden spoon being the weapon of choice. Even the mention of it had me behaving.

It wasn't me!

seamus wrote: »

If you were hit as a child; do you recall why? Or do you just recall being slapped? And did you learn a specific lesson or did you just learn that, "When Daddy gets mad, I get slapped"?

Seamus, I don't take issue with most of that, but I think the violent aspect of discipline is about reinforcing authority as an element of behavioral modification. You take guidance from those you recognise as authorities and physical discipline can reinforce interpersonal roles there.

I do remember being slapped for various things I did. Some of them were bad behaviour, such as treatment of others, in which case I can recall thinking that I would not be doing that again *because my mother had said so and because she had illustrated the potential undesirable consequences*. In another memorable case, it was for endangering myself climbing a particular tree. I scared the hell out of her after a fall, and while I was undamaged, I got a slap and was told to stay away from there (There were other hazards in the specific area too). In this case, I recognised her authority, and made the decision that I was going to climb it one more time, because a point needed to be proven to myself, and then I would respect her wishes, and I did so. Those two anecdotes reflect how I feel physical discipline has a role as behavioral modifier. Maybe my perspective is partly due to the fact that I'm young enough to recall my thought processes and that I was never confused as to why this bad thing was happening to me, but I do see it clearly for that.

44leto

Yeah I got hit by my parent when I deserved it, I think it is the right way to chastise a child as long as you don't do it with to much anger.

I don't care what anyone says. with me a telling was never going to cut it, a slap and the fear of my dad kept me of the straight and the very narrow.

Pyr0

Whenever I deserved it. Never made the same mistake again! Did me no harm at all.

Chuck Stone

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Proof of what? Damage? Physical? Emotional? It's not "proof" of anything. I can think those things. I can also think they were appropriate modifiers of my behaviour.

You're getting proof mixed up with evidence.

I don't think them hitting me was wrong.

So you don't think adults hitting children is wrong? I think it's truly pathetic. I also think your attempt to rationalize grown ups hitting children is evidence of poor critical thinking. Very poor.

A truly pathetic strawman. Are we now responsible for the correct development of our old people? What are we hoping to achieve by hitting them? Hitting a child can have a purpose. iHtting a dickhead can have a purpose. Hitting an old person can, at some point I'm sure, have a purpose, and I'm all in favour of hitting folk who need hit, but it's a calculated decision as to the intended beneficial result weighed against the potential negative consequences of the physical act. If you hit a kid a smack, it can correct their behaviour. This is beneficial, and therefore there can be a positive effect of greater magnitude than the potential negative consequence of hitting them a light smack, which will do no physical damage. If I hit a dickhead who's being a mouthy twat, then presumably the intention is to shut them up, and they're unlikely to suffer lasting physical harm as a result, but they might shut up and/or piss off, so there's a potential win there. If I hit an old person, since I'm presumably not trying to correct behaviour in the same formative way as I would be with a child, then presumably I'm using considerably more violence, at which point the risk of real harm escalates steeply, and therefore the circumstances in which it could possibly be appropriate become narrower. I'm not saying there aren't circumstances when it would be justifiable, but I can't think of any right now. The idea that hitting is always wrong is a gross oversimplification. The use of violence as a corrective, a modifier or a preventative is always a calculated decision, weighing the potential good against the potential bad consequences. Black and white statements to the effect that it's never appropriate fail to account for the spectrum of possible situations one can confront and are therefore useless.

So much fail in this post I don't know where to begin except to say that children are not as cognitively developed as an adult and therefore should be protected from physical abuse rather than be subject to it.

seamus

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Seamus, I don't take issue with most of that, but I think the violent aspect of discipline is about reinforcing authority as an element of behavioral modification. You take guidance from those you recognise as authorities and physical discipline can reinforce interpersonal roles there.

The thing is, I think it's almost universally recognised now that authority is at its strongest and most enforcable when those in authority have the respect of those below them.

And that physical discipline doesn't promote respect, it promotes fear, which are not the same thing.

I would be interested to know if any comprehensive study has been done in relation to the whole thing and how people develop as adults.

My gut says that people who are quite strongly punished using violence, are those groups most likely to end up in prison, or abusive relationships or running away from home at 21 and never speaking to their parents again. Whereas people who were not physically punished (or only lightly or rarely so) are less likely to end up in serious trouble and to maintain a strong bond with their parents.

Chuck Stone

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Seamus, I don't take issue with most of that, but I think the violent aspect of discipline is about reinforcing authority as an element of behavioral modification. You take guidance from those you recognise as authorities and physical discipline can reinforce interpersonal roles there.

What? So authority should be bowed to regardless of qualification (not academic).

**** authority. Too many authorities got away with too much criminal behaviour in this and other countries.

ziggy23

luckyfrank wrote: »

when u have ur own kids you'll never judge others

Em I have my own kid I'm just saying it should never get that far. If my boy starts acting up badly in public it's into the buggy for him or sometimes I've stopped what I'm doing and gone home.
Some of the stories people have posted here are just awful parents losing the plot and just battering their kids that is just wrong. I've often felt like I'm going to lose the plot but a deep breath and just walking into another room for 5 minutes usually calms me down.

It wasn't me!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

You're getting proof mixed up with evidence.

And you have produced neither.

So you don't think adults hitting children is wrong? I think it's truly pathetic. I also think your attempt to rationalize grown ups hitting children is evidence of poor critical thinking. Very poor.

My critical faculties are fine, thanks. You wanted to get away from the amateur psychology with regard to other people, so how about you ditch it yourself? I do not think adults disciplining their children physically is wrong provided it is done in an efficacious manner. You've taken an absolutist position on the matter which personally I find very narrow-minded. I have provided my own personal experiences of having been positively affected by physical discipline as a child, and as such, your blanket statements, which clearly don't reflect my own experience, are offensively trite and ignorant.

So much fail in this post I don't know where to begin except to say that children are not as cognitively developed as an adult and therefore should be protected from physical abuse rather than be subject to it.

I've provided my own experience. I was able to make the connection between getting smacked and doing specific things. I was able to evaluate the relative worth of the experience of doing those things versus the negative repercussions. Don't underestimate your children and their ability to understand what's happening to them. You're still stuck on the idea that all physical discipline is abuse, but I disagree. "The knife that cannot cut cannot be used to heal."

It wasn't me!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

What? So authority should be bowed to regardless of qualification (not academic).

**** authority. Too many authorities got away with too much criminal behaviour in this and other countries.

Again, strawman. We're dealing here with the authority of a parent over their children, which absolutely needs to be enforced in order for the child to develop.

It wasn't me!

seamus wrote: »

The thing is, I think it's almost universally recognised now that authority is at its strongest and most enforcable when those in authority have the respect of those below them.

And that physical discipline doesn't promote respect, it promotes fear, which are not the same thing.

I would be interested to know if any comprehensive study has been done in relation to the whole thing and how people develop as adults.

My gut says that people who are quite strongly punished using violence, are those groups most likely to end up in prison, or abusive relationships or running away from home at 21 and never speaking to their parents again. Whereas people who were not physically punished (or only lightly or rarely so) are less likely to end up in serious trouble and to maintain a strong bond with their parents.

I can't say I absolutely agree with the complete disconnect between fear and respect. I think they share certain elements. I also don't think that a child, properly disciplined, fears pain, but the fact that it represents having broken the trust of the parent. I can remember one time, expecting to be slapped for something I'd done, and my mother didn't, and I was very ill at ease. The proper relationship I was used to had not been established and I knew she was just disappointed and angry and the smack would have levelled things out, but it festered instead and weighed on my mind. That's maybe fourteen years ago and I still remember it. I never feared my parents. I feared disappointing them or letting them down or breaking their trust. I never feared what they might do to me.

Chuck Stone

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You've taken an absolutist position on the matter which personally I find very narrow-minded.

I said earlier in the thread that there are life-boat type situations where physically admonishing a child is forgivable. If that's absolutist then so be it.

There is plenty of evidence out there that beating children correlates with later life problems.

I have provided my own personal experiences of having been positively affected by physical discipline as a child, and as such, your blanket statements, which clearly don't reflect my own experience, are offensively trite and ignorant.

So because I think adults assaulting children is stupid and counter-productive I'm trite and ignorant?

Oh lordy, what a strange world we live in.

Abi

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Seamus, I don't take issue with most of that, but I think the violent aspect of discipline is about reinforcing authority as an element of behavioral modification. You take guidance from those you recognise as authorities and physical discipline can reinforce interpersonal roles there.

Mouth-openly astounded at how backwards this view is.

Chuck Stone

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Again, strawman. We're dealing here with the authority of a parent over their children, which absolutely needs to be enforced in order for the child to develop.

Not physically. Try as you might there are no excuses for bullying.

JohnnyTodd

My aul lad tried to punch me last St Stpehens Day. I opened his head with a box.

It wasn't me!

Chuck Stone wrote: »

So because I think adults assaulting children is stupid and counter-productive I'm trite and ignorant?

Oh lordy, what a strange world we live in.

No, your opinion that it's inherently counter-productive is certainly ignorant, by virtue of my own experience, and your dismissive attitude to other opinions and personal experiences which differ at all from your own is both trite and ignorant. Your milage may vary, but my parents did a fine job, and they hit me, and I could care less.

beertons

Jaysus we were belted. All for doing stupid things that were never repeated. Man, we could think up of so many stupid things.

Chuck Stone

Abi wrote: »

Mouth-openly astounded at how backwards this view is.

I put it down to a denial of reality. People, understandably, find it difficult to look at their parents and find fault.

I've been repeatedly advised to seek professional help because I think that assaulting children is wrong.

Sweet sweet irony.

Abi

Chuck Stone wrote: »

Not physically. Try as you might there are no excuses for bullying.

Putting fear in a child is bully work, which teaches a child to resent, not respect.

splashthecash

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7vRhr502wIc

readyletsgo

MagicSean wrote: »

Only when I deserved it. The threat of the wooden spoon was usually enough. Didn't do me any harm.

Same for me, better for it too i think!

Parents are too frightened to 'hit' their kids as society looks done on this.
I was never beatin to a pulp or anything, but if I did something wrong when I was young like run across the road without looking I got a smack, 30 years later I still look left and right before crossing the road :rolleyes:

Kids today (i know) could use a few slaps tbh. Cheeky kids.

Chuck Stone

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Your milage may vary, but my parents did a fine job, and they hit me, and I could care less.

I too was hit by my parents. I wasn't brutally beaten by any stretch of the imagination.

I can however look back and think that getting hit by an adult as a child is very hurtful and serves no purpose other than underscoring who's more powerful.

I love and respect my folks btw.

readyletsgo

Chuck Stone wrote: »

I too was hit by my parents. I wasn't brutally beaten by any stretch of the imagination.

I can however look back and think that getting hit by an adult as a child is very hurtful and serves no purpose other than underscoring who's more powerful.

I love and respect my folks btw .

Isnt that whats needed for kids today?

Chuck Stone

readyletsgo wrote: »

Isnt that whats needed for kids today?

Showing them that being powerful is a good way of getting your way?

No. That's Darwinism.

Eventually a child will be more powerful than it's parent but that doesn't mean that threatening the parent is in any way civilised.

How many of us know people or have heard that wife beaters stop doing it when their sons grow up because the sons will beat the shit out of their Dad for it?

It's a poor form of justice.

Turtyturd

Yep, was hit on a regular basis growing up, mainly because my da felt he had some kind of reputation as a tough man. Never taught me any respect for him and while I was afraid of being hit, the result was me becoming more adept at hiding the things I had done rather than behaving. Once I got old/big enough not to be afraid of being hit anymore he had nothing to use against me. I have noticed him being the same way with my nephew which has absolutely no effect on him, if it wasn't so sad to see a grown man lose his patience with a child it would actually be funny to watch him do the same actions over and over again without learning.

With my own son my OH or I would never dream of hitting him, in the very least it is bullying and at the worst it is abuse. Yes he acts up and throws tantrums but it's what kids do and we just try to explain things to him and give him reasons why he can't have/do the things he wants, within a couple of seconds he is back to normal and running around without being afraid of us. It can be tough and there have been times where I have noticed my tone getting slightly more aggressive but I can tell from my OH's reaction and change it pretty quickly.

Pyr0

Chuck Stone wrote: »

How many of us know people or have heard that wife beaters stop doing it when their sons grow up because the sons will beat the shit out of their Dad for it?

It's a poor form of justice.

How is beating your wife the same as giving your child a clip around the ear?

coxyboy

yep.still remember some of the beatings me and my sisters got from my father.(pri*k).really only call home to see my ma,just have small talk with himself to keep things sweet for my ma.havnt forgiven or ever will.life goes on

Vicxas

I never got disciplined for no reason, i believe in discipline, but not beating....

Chuck Stone

Pyr0 wrote: »

How is beating your wife the same as giving your child a clip around the ear?

It's not I suppose because the wife can walk away in theory.

A privilege beaten children can't really avail of.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

It wasn't me! wrote: »

Again, strawman. We're dealing here with the authority of a parent over their children, which absolutely needs to be enforced in order for the child to develop.

Same principle: the adult is in a positio of authority that should neither by abused nor go unquestioned. Example - the guy who got life in prison last week for systematically raping and whiping his daughters. Not for one second connecting taht kind of abuse with physical discipline, but the point is: the children should have a right to question.

It wasn't me! wrote: »

You take guidance from those you recognise as authorities and physical discipline can reinforce interpersonal roles there.

Can you elaborate on this please? Exactly how does physical discipline reinforce interpersonal roles?

readyletsgo wrote: »

Isnt that whats needed for kids today?

They need to know that power is automatically morally wise and correct? I'll need elaboration here too, please.