Men who agree with corporal punishment

monocled mutiner

Given that I am undoubtedly a good bit older than most people posting on this forum at 67 years of age I might if I please put forward my opinion on the issue of corporal punishment. Growing up in a small town in Co Mayo it was common place and no one thought it was that out of the ordinary for children to be smacked. My father was the disciplinarian in our house and he wasn't afraid at all to lash out when it was needed. I do feel that every time he smacked myself and my brothers and sisters we deserved it and we learnt a hard lesson. What amazes me today is the lack of respect for authority with our young people. The majority I am sure are good youngsters but I have witnessed at first hand a few terrorising people and causing trouble in my community and a lot of them cant be any older than maybe 15. I remember growing up in the 50's we had one garda in our town to police a community of maybe 1000 people. The young people in the town respected him and his title. I can remember a few times he may have had to have a harsh word with us and that was usually enough. If it wasn't and he felt we needed to be punished he had no qualms in doing it. What he would do is take of his leather uniform belt and with the support of our parents give us a few lashes on the behind. I remember watching the London riots on television at the time and seeing those young hooligans terrorising communites, destroying business and doing all sorts. It made me think that a return to the old values may be the best way forward. If we had those policemen in a position where they could take them off the street and birch them on take a belt to them the whole problem might not have happened at all

walshb

Assault is assault. When people are forced to resort to assault or violence or striking to discipline their children then there's a breakdown. I know well that children can really test their parents' resolve, but to physically strike or assault your child doesn't sit well with me. I was rarely ever smacked and I turned out fine. There is no proof to show that children who get smacked or beaten are somehow more "well behaved."

Hippo

Monicled,

I won't attempt to change your opinion that your father's physical abuse of you and your siblings was beneficial to you, I wouldn't know where to start really. Would all your siblings, including your sisters, agree?

Society has of course changed enormously since those days, in some ways for the better and in some ways for the worse. You can't put the cork back in the bottle though - the unquestioning acceptance of 'authority' in the past allowed institutional abuse to flourish, and that is (hopefully) no longer possible or at least seen as shameful. Of course, by the same token, a dirty look from the local Garda isn't going to put a lot of kids off any more.

I do think that the absence of proper parental supervision of kids is a huge contributory factor to juvenile 'delinquency', for want of a better word; and by 'proper' I mean genuine engagement with their children, not beating them with a belt whenever the dad thinks it's appropriate. That is, frankly, savage behaviour which advances nothing but resentment and reinforces a child's negativity, while teaching them that might is right and that it's ok to behave in a brutal fashion towards your 'loved ones'. This seems so obvious I can hardly believe I have to say it.

For the record, I'm 53 years old and have 2 grown up kids.

Waking-Dreams

Could those advocating a return to corporal punishment please demonstrate how they can determine it was the physical punishment alone which caused the desired result in behaviour? (And anecdotes are not really enough here folks).

In other words, how do you know it wasn’t the enforcement of boundaries or other non-physical consequences which had the actual impact? If things are worse today, is that because many parents don’t use physical punishment or because many parents don’t use ANY real punishment and let their children get away with things for the sake of an easy life? We also have new technology today which did not exist before. The Online Disinhibition Effect can also account for some of the lack of respect we see in teenagers (and adults too!). We also live in larger communities today where anonymity is larger than it once was.

Nowadays, both parents usually have to work, which means that there aren’t the same hours in the day to be the full-time stay-at-home parent like in years gone by. A developing child will likely push their parents’ level of patience at times and after a stressful day at work, we can all appreciate that coming home to an impulsive child can create a real challenge for parents who at times will undoubtedly look for a quick solution.

In the past, widespread physical punishment was that solution. Today, perhaps, parents just give their children what they want too often because it seems to make the children happy. Maybe the parents feel guilty about spending so much time away from their kids at work and just want what little time they do have to be as hassle-free as possible.

walshb

What I cannot fathom or tolerate is those parents who strike/smack and hit their children as a 1st resort. Any little "mistake" their child makes and they're getting smacked or shouted at. It's obscene, and IMO it's nasty!

BTW, I am not completely anti smacking. I know there are extreme times where a parent is at their wits end and resort to a short and sharp smack. Also, if a child really does something that frightens the life out of a parent, this can result in a short and sharp smack. Done purely out of fear and horror. It's those who smack for the sake of it, and those who smack/strike with real intent that bugs me something fierce. They want to physically inflict pain. I just abhor this.

Waking-Dreams

Just to return to the OP's question. According to this study by TCD, it states that:

Fathers were more likely than mothers to state that smacking should remain legal.

Parents who had been slapped themselves in childhood were less likely to state that physical punishment should be made illegal.

It also adds:

Given that parents rarely use one discipline strategy in isolation, future research that considers the effectiveness of different combinations of parental discipline strategies, including inductive and more coercive strategies, would contribute to a more nuanced understanding of these issues. More research on the links between parenting styles and discipline and child outcomes is needed in an Irish context.

So, it is likely that those remembering the days of the belt are not taking into account that that may have been just one aspect of their upbringing.

walshb

I never understood the whole "I was whacked a lot and it never did me any harm." As if harm is somehow measurable. I really doubt it was enjoyable to be whacked about as a child.

So, there is the harm straight away. What child wants to be whacked about? Or what child feels nothing emotionally or physically when whacked? Or what child doesn't fear being whacked for doing something "wrong?" To live in a house where you fear being assaulted is harm!

Littered with harm if you ask me!

Waking-Dreams

A crucial point about people claiming their own childhood upbringing, which included physical punishment, did them no harm is that, well, they have nothing else to compare it to. Unless you were raised alongside an identical twin that was treated differently, you are a product of your upbringing (nature and nurture) one way or the other.

So, if you say the physical punishment ‘did it’, you can never truly say with full certainty that you wouldn’t have turned out the same had your parents tried a different approach. This is why research is more valuable than anecdotes because it removes the appraisal process from the individual and examines the effects of parenting by comparing control groups to experimental groups, etc.

walshb

Grayfoxy wrote: »

Anyway, it would seem that the people who were smacked as a child would agree it does work (like myself)

Can I ask were you smacked regularly as a child?

mariaalice

This is from the wiki on the subject of parenting styles

.Authoritative parenting Described by Baumrind as the "just right" style, in combines a medium level demands on the child and a medium level responsiveness from the parents. Authoritative parents rely on positive reinforcement and infrequent use of punishment. Parents are more aware of a child's feelings and capabilities and support the development of a child's autonomy within reasonable limits. There is a give-and-take atmosphere involved in parent-child communication and both control and support are balanced. Research shows that this style is more beneficial than the too-hard authoritarian style or the too-soft permissive style.

Authoritarian parenting styles Authoritarian parents are very rigid and strict. They place high demands on the child, but are not responsive to the child. Parents who practice authoritarian style parenting have a rigid set of rules and expectations that are strictly enforced and require rigid obedience. When the rules are not followed, punishment is most often used to promote future obedience.[12] There is usually no explanation of punishment except that the child is in trouble for breaking a rule.[12] "Because I said so" is a typical response to a child's question of authority. This type of authority is used more often in working-class families than the middle class. In 1983 Diana Baumrind found that children raised in an authoritarian-style home were less cheerful, more moody and more vulnerable to stress. In many cases these children also demonstrated passive hostility.

Permissive parenting Permissive or indulgent parenting is more popular in middle-class families than in working-class families. In these family settings, a child's freedom and autonomy are highly valued, and parents tend to rely mostly on reasoning and explanation. Parents are undemanding, so there tends to be little, if any punishment or explicit rules in this style of parenting. These parents say that their children are free from external constraints and tend to be highly responsive to whatever the child wants at the moment. Children of permissive parents are generally happy but sometimes show low levels of self-control and self-reliance because they lack structure at home.

Uninvolved parentingAn uninvolved or neglectful parenting style is when parents are often emotionally absent and sometimes even physically absent.[13] They have little or no expectation of the child and regularly have no communication. They are not responsive to a child's needs and do not demand anything of them in their behavioral expectations. If present, they may provide what the child needs for survival with little to no engagement.[13] There is often a large gap between parents and children with this parenting style. Children with little or no communication with their own parents tended to be the victims of another child’s deviant behavior and may be involved in some deviance themselves.[14] Children of uninvolved parents suffer in social competence, academic performance, psychosocial development and problem behavior.

kellaman123

walshb wrote: »

I never understood the whole "I was whacked a lot and it never did me any harm." As if harm is somehow measurable. I really doubt it was enjoyable to be whacked about as a child.

So, there is the harm straight away. What child wants to be whacked about? Or what child feels nothing emotionally or physically when whacked? Or what child doesn't fear being whacked for doing something "wrong?" To live in a house where you fear being assaulted is harm!

Littered with harm if you ask me!

You see physical chastisement in the home and those who experienced it would have a different view. Personally I was raised with corporal punishment but it was just one small aspect of my childhood. I didnt live in fear and under threat as a child and had a very happy contented upbringing. There was clearly boundaries set and punishment for overstepping the line but there was also a lot of love and a lot of fun. It's not right or fair to say that anyone who experienced the belt, wooden spoon or whatever lived in fear and under threat that's simply not true.

Dravokivich

The problem with debates such as this, is people who are anti smacking always look at it from the point of view as it were extreme voilence. And the rest of us waste wordcounts trying to explain the difference.

A smack or a slap is nowhere near the same as hitting someone forcibly in a voilent manner.

Call Me Jimmy

late 70's early 80's? is that when hard drugs started floating into the country on a much larger scale?

monocled mutiner

Hippo wrote: »

Monicled,

I won't attempt to change your opinion that your father's physical abuse of you and your siblings was beneficial to you, I wouldn't know where to start really. Would all your siblings, including your sisters, agree?

Society has of course changed enormously since those days, in some ways for the better and in some ways for the worse. You can't put the cork back in the bottle though - the unquestioning acceptance of 'authority' in the past allowed institutional abuse to flourish, and that is (hopefully) no longer possible or at least seen as shameful. Of course, by the same token, a dirty look from the local Garda isn't going to put a lot of kids off any more.

I do think that the absence of proper parental supervision of kids is a huge contributory factor to juvenile 'delinquency', for want of a better word; and by 'proper' I mean genuine engagement with their children, not beating them with a belt whenever the dad thinks it's appropriate. That is, frankly, savage behaviour which advances nothing but resentment and reinforces a child's negativity, while teaching them that might is right and that it's ok to behave in a brutal fashion towards your 'loved ones'. This seems so obvious I can hardly believe I have to say it.

For the record, I'm 53 years old and have 2 grown up kids.

Thank you for your comments. I take on board your comments but we aren't talking about institutional abuse here more about discipline in the home. I can also tell you that my siblings were of similar opinion to myself and would not have considered our father abusive.

I am glad to hear you have grown up kids and I'm sure you are proud that you haven't used corporal punishment. I too have three grown up sons in their late 30s early 40s and I'm not ashamed to say all were smacked and on handful of occasions that I could probably count on one hand got the belt as well. They are well adjusted responsible adults and I'm proud of them and have a wonderful relationship with them.

santana75

Dravokivich wrote: »

The problem with debates such as this, is people who are anti smacking always look at it from the point of view as it were extreme voilence. And the rest of us waste wordcounts trying to explain the difference.

A smack or a slap is nowhere near the same as hitting someone forcibly in a voilent manner.

Yeah it doesnt have to be one extreme or the other, theres a middle ground and a good balance to be struck. Its not about absolutely pulverising kids and leaving them traumatised and suffering from PTSD. But its also not about allowing kids to run riot, be disrespectful to others and themselves.

tomh1736

santana75 wrote: »

Yeah it doesnt have to be one extreme or the other, theres a middle ground and a good balance to be struck. Its not about absolutely pulverising kids and leaving them traumatised and suffering from PTSD. But its also not about allowing kids to run riot, be disrespectful to others and themselves.

That's pretty much the crux of the debate Santana and I think you have hit the mail on the end. Two scenarios here and maybe someone can tell me which is acceptable if any
(1) a father smacks his child hard with his hand five times leaving marks the child is upset
(2) a father smacks his child lightly with a belt on a clothes behind about five times the child is upset
You see it's all about the degree of punishment used. No one is advocating battery of children and the problem in Ireland is that the law allows reasonable chastisement but what exactly is reasonable chastisement?

walshb

kellaman123 wrote: »

You see physical chastisement in the home and those who experienced it would have a different view. .

Some would, not all. Many children who have suffered beatings or violence or wooden spoon treatment or belt treatment are scarred for life because of it. Some children can "take" it that bit better than others. I stand by my point that no child could feel nothing (emotionally or physically) when his or her parent whacks them or beats them or hits them.

Hippo

monocled mutiner wrote: »

I take on board your comments but we aren't talking about institutional abuse here more about discipline in the home.

My point was that the institutional abuse was tolerated at a time when children/teenagers were more 'respectful' or afraid of authority - society in general was far less questioning of authority, and while that may have had its benefits (arguably in terms of youthful behaviour) it also had a considerable downside.

As with many online debates I'm afraid this one is going nowhere, neither side is going to convince the other. I'm genuinely sad that people think it's ok to hit their kids, no matter how well-intentioned, and there we are. I cannot understand your point of view.

walshb

tomh1736 wrote: »

That's pretty much the crux of the debate Santana and I think you have hit the mail on the end. Two scenarios here and maybe someone can tell me which is acceptable if any
(1) a father smacks his child hard with his hand five times leaving marks the child is upset
(2) a father smacks his child lightly with a belt on a clothes behind about five times the child is upset
You see it's all about the degree of punishment used. No one is advocating battery of children and the problem in Ireland is that the law allows reasonable chastisement but what exactly is reasonable chastisement?

To me both scenarios are weird and bad. How any man or adult would want to do that to a child is odd. That takes planning and thought.

kellaman123

walshb wrote: »

To me both scenarios are weird and bad. How any man or adult would want to do that to a child is odd. That takes planning and thought.

I think the previous poster is trying to make a distinction about the degree of punishment although he goes about it a funny way. Basically I think what he means is that there are those on this thread who have justified smacking but in some ways smacks delivered hard could cause a hell of a lot more damage than a few light strokes of the belt. The belter is however always vilified and labelled.

I think as previously said corporal punishment can be a real cultural thing. We have already mentioned how some Asian countries favour judicial bitching and caning and of course we all know of US states that permit paddling in the school system. The debate on corporal punishment in the home might be somewhat different in these countries therefore and the views very different in what's appropriate and what's not. Who is to say that try are wrong and we are right?

walshb

kellaman123 wrote: »

I think the previous poster is trying to make a distinction about the degree of punishment although he goes about it a funny way.

Certainly did go about it a funny way. I know what he was trying to convey, and I agree with the premise. The odd smack/tap here and there, not intense, doesn't bother me too much. I know parents have a very tough job. It's the deliberate and hurtful and incessant smacking that grates me. Children being smacked as a first course of action. That is not right in my view. And smacking to the level where the child is hurt. Parents smacking with intent to cause pain. I don't like that one bit.

Jiggers77

A lot of kids could well do with a couple of whacks with a belt on the behind. I was no stranger to that type of thing growing up and it really kept me on the straight and narrow!

Bring back the belt that's what I say!

AlanS181824

Although I'm still young, I often remember getting a smack with a belt if I wasn't behaving however I don't really agree with it now.

It sort of teaches children that hitting someone is okay.

I tend to just steer clear of these sort of issues, as long as you're doing your child no harm raise them how ye like!

WeeWilly

I am tired of seeing the business of raising children treated as something incomprehensible and hard to do. We KNOW how to raise children. We have known how to do this since the beginning of time ... and so does the rest of the animal world. There is little mystery! Corporal punishment, especially for boys, is quick, straightforward, easily understood, and something that the punishee typically wants to avoid. Hence it is the "behavior modification" tool of choice. The rather silly means of dealing with errant behavior suggested by child psychologists tends to be muddled, abstruse, time-consuming, ambivalent and indirect .... and quite distressingly ineffective.

My parents beat me when my behavior warranted adjustment, and I beat my children under similar circumstances. My private school engaged with enthusiasm in corporal punishment using a thin rod that was very painful! I loved the school, the teachers there, and my parents ... and I have certainly not been scarred by the process. My children think the sun rises and sets on me, today they are both doctors, and they are outgoing and confident, and we have a relationship between us that my peers have commented on with envy. Of course, I love my children, and always have. But that didna' stop me beating them when I thought they deserved it! And I never wrung my hands with guilt about it either.

So, yes I agree with corporal punishment, and indeed, I see people who not do this (when their children's behavior needs adjustment) as incompetent ... as parents, I mean. I have seen many such parents being totally dominated by their children, and it is embarrassing to observe. You have undoubtedly seen this too; else you are not a member of the human race! One example of such a parent is my daughter's colleague and friend with a PhD in psychology (who actually works for Family Services in her professional capacity as a Psychologist). Her children are unmanageable, disgusting, and utterly ugly to be around. No-one wants them anywhere near. Watching her unsuccessfully bleating out warnings, behests and muddled attempts to get her children even vaguely manageable is terribly embarrassing. Her children desperately need the sort of regular beatings that break bones (sorry, just kidding!), but she, drunk and brainwashed by her long training in fatuousness, is handcuffed and powerless to do anything about it. On one occasion, harried almost to tears, she actually asked my daughter to take over and do whatever necessary to reign the child in.

We have been overwhelmed by non-professions like child psychology, human resource specialist and grief councilor ... and we have been over-feminized, all in a society-wide fit of empty PCism. Just because a methodology is old doesn't make it bad (specially when it is also proven), and just because something is new doesn't make it right!

Anyway, that's how I see it. Cheerio.

pwurple

Historically our attitude towards children in this country has been violent and abusive. It seems this has been so deeply ingrained into our culture, it's hard to shake off.

Take the institutions set up by the irish republic to care for children... industrial schools, homes, orphanges. The 2009 report found that the children in Industrial Schools in the Republic, had been subjected to systematic and sustained physical, sexual and emotional abuse.

This may have stopped, but do we still retain the same attitudes that caused the set up of these horrendous institutions? That children "need" to be violently brought up.

Jiggers77

WeeWilly wrote: »

I am tired of seeing the business of raising children treated as something incomprehensible and hard to do. We KNOW how to raise children. We have known how to do this since the beginning of time ... and so does the rest of the animal world. There is little mystery! Corporal punishment, especially for boys, is quick, straightforward, easily understood, and something that the punishee typically wants to avoid. Hence it is the "behavior modification" tool of choice. The rather silly means of dealing with errant behavior suggested by child psychologists tends to be muddled, abstruse, time-consuming, ambivalent and indirect .... and quite distressingly ineffective.

My parents beat me when my behavior warranted adjustment, and I beat my children under similar circumstances. My private school engaged with enthusiasm in corporal punishment using a thin rod that was very painful! I loved the school, the teachers there, and my parents ... and I have certainly not been scarred by the process. My children think the sun rises and sets on me, today they are both doctors, and they are outgoing and confident, and we have a relationship between us that my peers have commented on with envy. Of course, I love my children, and always have. But that didna' stop me beating them when I thought they deserved it! And I never wrung my hands with guilt about it either.

So, yes I agree with corporal punishment, and indeed, I see people who not do this (when their children's behavior needs adjustment) as incompetent ... as parents, I mean. I have seen many such parents being totally dominated by their children, and it is embarrassing to observe. You have undoubtedly seen this too; else you are not a member of the human race! One example of such a parent is my daughter's colleague and friend with a PhD in psychology (who actually works for Family Services in her professional capacity as a Psychologist). Her children are unmanageable, disgusting, and utterly ugly to be around. No-one wants them anywhere near. Watching her unsuccessfully bleating out warnings, behests and muddled attempts to get her children even vaguely manageable is terribly embarrassing. Her children desperately need the sort of regular beatings that break bones (sorry, just kidding!), but she, drunk and brainwashed by her long training in fatuousness, is handcuffed and powerless to do anything about it. On one occasion, harried almost to tears, she actually asked my daughter to take over and do whatever necessary to reign the child in.

We have been overwhelmed by non-professions like child psychology, human resource specialist and grief councilor ... and we have been over-feminized, all in a society-wide fit of empty PCism. Just because a methodology is old doesn't make it bad (specially when it is also proven), and just because something is new doesn't make it right!

Anyway, that's how I see it. Cheerio.

Well said Wee Willy. We see the passive model of parenting in operation all around us these days and it clearly does not work. We have all rolled our eyes up to heaven at the tantruming brat in the supermarket and the distressed mother unable to cope and said nothing yet there would be plenty that would have something to say if the mother decided to smack said child. Corporal punishment has been used for centuries, it's tried and tested and gets results.

Peregrinus

Jiggers77 wrote: »

Well said Wee Willy. We see the passive model of parenting in operation all around us these days and it clearly does not work. We have all rolled our eyes up to heaven at the tantruming brat in the supermarket and the distressed mother unable to cope and said nothing yet there would be plenty that would have something to say if the mother decided to smack said child. Corporal punishment has been used for centuries, it's tried and tested and gets results.

Which is why, in families where corporal punishment is practised, tantrums are unknown.

Oh, wait a minute . . .

kellaman123

pwurple wrote: »

Historically our attitude towards children in this country has been violent and abusive. It seems this has been so deeply ingrained into our culture, it's hard to shake off.

Take the institutions set up by the irish republic to care for children... industrial schools, homes, orphanges. The 2009 report found that the children in Industrial Schools in the Republic, had been subjected to systematic and sustained physical, sexual and emotional abuse.

This may have stopped, but do we still retain the same attitudes that caused the set up of these horrendous institutions? That children "need" to be violently brought up.

I find it incredible that when the issue of corporal punishment is raised there are those that continually refer to institutional physical, sexual and emotional abuse. No one can justify what happened in the reform schools in Ireland or ever condone such abuses but I don't think it's a reason for outlawing corporal punishment. As a youngster if I misbehaved my father would have unbuckled his belt . I would have received a few smacks and that was the end of it. It wasn't abuse it was discipline and it did me no harm

kellaman123

Peregrinus wrote: »

Which is why, in families where corporal punishment is practised, tantrums are unknown.

Oh, wait a minute . . .

No one is saying that tantrums are unheard of in families that use corporal punishment but I can only imagine we don't see as much of it

strobe

kellaman123 wrote: »

No one is saying that tantrums are unheard of in families that use corporal punishment but I can only imagine we don't see as much of it

The vast majority of times I've seen a kid throw a tantrum in a supermarket they've gotten a smack. So I wouldn't be surprised to find the opposite tbh.