Punishment as a child

HigginsJ

I was going to come on and post about the time my mam chased my brother and I around the back lawn with a wooden spoon (clearly the Irish tool of choice) but it was never anything serious and was only ever threatened.

Reading some of the stories on here is heartbreaking. I have 2 small children myself and while they can certainly try your patience I would never raise a hand to them. Trying to get your 3-year-old to apologise for doing something can take 10-15 minutes of naughty step persistence!!

How people can treat their children like some of the posts earlier is saddening.

I agree with those who say that it is a lot of time tiredness and not understanding of their feelings, from a parents point of view that is rational but you still bloody want to kill them when they are having a meltdown in the middle of the shopping centre.

My wife was out shopping on her own on Saturday, trying to get a dress for a wedding. She said it is funny to look at other parents struggling and realise what they are going through. It is definitely something you learn with experience.

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

If you think slapping is the only way, or the last resort, and unavoidable then how do you explain all the professions that work with children in large groups like childcare workers, teachers, sports coaches and so on who do their job, get children to do what they need them to do, and never slap them?

I'm aware that slapping isn't the only way to instill discipline in a child, nor is any other method when taken to it's extreme the only way to instill discipline in a child.

However, the idea that the relationship between a child and their parents, and the relationship between a child and other authority figures in the child's life are somehow comparable, ignores a whole lot of context to try and draw that comparison, ie - they aren't comparable on any level other than there are children and adults involved.

Neyite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I'm aware that slapping isn't the only way to instill discipline in a child, nor is any other method when taken to it's extreme the only way to instill discipline in a child.

However, the idea that the relationship between a child and their parents, and the relationship between a child and other authority figures in the child's life are somehow comparable, ignores a whole lot of context to try and draw that comparison, ie - they aren't comparable on any level other than there are children and adults involved.

Why does a parent need slapping as part of their discipline arsenal when they would expect that another person looking after their child such as a grandmother /aunt/ au-pair/ crèche worker is not allowed to use that same seemingly essential discipline method.

gifted

Joeytheparrot wrote: »

Why did you start a discussion if you dont want to have a discussion?

If you read from the very start you will understand why I asked that question

Burzum

Wooden Spoon, Hand, Belt or kick up the backside with a size 10 pair of Army boots.

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

Why does a parent need slapping as part of their discipline arsenal when they would expect that another person looking after their child such as a grandmother /aunt/ au-pair/ crèche worker is not allowed to use that same seemingly essential discipline method.

My argument isn't that the parents need to use physical discipline, it's that they choose to. Their choice for themselves and their children, doesn't necessarily extend to them permitting other adults in authority over their children, to discipline their children in the same way.

You can surely see the difference between the relationship a parent has with their children, and to use one of your examples - a teacher, would have with the same child. The parents are held to a different standard than the teacher, and vice versa, in a number of ways.

Maintaining discipline in the classroom or the school is entirely different to a parent instilling discipline in their child and the method they choose to do so.

Whispered

I often wondered at what age parents who hit their kids as a form of control, begin doing it.

Slapping a child because they are doing something you don't want is lazy. If your two year old manages to get to the road/get a knife to a socket/flood the bathroom/whatever then you, the adult, is at fault for not properly supervising a baby who is not yet old enough to keep themselves safe.

rob316

I think we nearly all got a belt of the wooden spoon or at least were threatened with it. My Dad and Mother had fairly short fuses and would raise their voices a lot, we got slapped but rarely and nothing that actually hurt.

To be honest I could understand it back then, my dad had his own business so worked 16 hours a day and never turned a bob and the last thing he needed was us giving him hassle, my mam was left to raise 3 small children almost single handedly while working full time herself so she was stressed.

I always felt the non-physical stuff was much worse and the 2 words I dreaded most "I'm disappointed" or "I'm disgusted".
My dad was actually a very simple man, you were punished and that was it, it was forgotten.
My mam on the other hand could give you the silent treatment for days, to point you would be begging for a belt. I never liked that and I've told her the same.

I have a 7 year old lad with austism now and I couldn't imagine striking him, he's small and weak and has very little understanding of right and wrong.
He tests mine and my wife's patience and can be violent but I will always try to reason with him and physically control not strike him.

razorblunt

Usually on a multi page thread I'll jump straight in, in this case it would be the usual "clip around the ear when I was a nuisance".
So glad I started from page 1 this time. Some horrific stories being shared.
Incredibly brave too.

Riddle101

I once got grounded for a month and wasn't allowed to watch The Simpsons for 6 months when I was a kid. I lied to my parents that the pipes in school burst and I was given the day off. I lied again the next day and the day after that the school hadn't fixed them yet. They grew suspicious after the 3rd day and questioned me, and I confessed that I lied about the whole thing.

I guess they thought that the Simpsons had influenced me because of that episode when Bart ditched school. Or maybe they did it because I loved watching the The Simpsons. Either way I never ditched school or lied to get off of school ever again.

bobbyss

Peregrinus wrote: »

No, you're misreading him. Re-read the OP more carefully. He disciplined his children with a combination of (a) withholding of treats that would otherwise have been given, and (b) grounding, and he found that this strategy worked.

You refer to 'this strategy', meaning what?

Two strategies were mentioned. Not one.

Maybe you have misread him?

gifted

bobbyss wrote: »

You refer to 'this strategy', meaning what?

Two strategies were mentioned. Not one.

Maybe you have misread him?

Nope, Peregrinus is spot on.

Neyite

One eyed Jack wrote: »

My argument isn't that the parents need to use physical discipline, it's that they choose to.

My point exactly - there is no need for a parent to hit a child. It's a choice. They choose hitting over alternative methods of discipline for their own reasons and likely the main one is "sure it did me no harm".

There are very few parents who hit a child with a totally cool head. Mostly it's because they are at the end of their tether. They have lost patience with the child. They have lost control of the situation. That's a piss-poor justification for slapping a kid, because its not then about teaching a kid, but a punishment based on a parent's temperament at that given moment.

One poster earlier in the thread said that the reason they slap is because they have three under 4 and they need to slap, the implication being they've no time to spare on other methods. That's making it about the fact that it suits the parent as a quick and instant method of punishment rather than the fact the slap is the most appropriate form of punishment for a given mistake a toddler will make.

Punishment should fit the 'crime'. I could understand a parent roughly yanking a kid away from imminent danger, or even smacking for something really serious - as in life threatening - like running into a busy road. I could understand it comes from a place of shock and fright. But to smack for routine toddler stuff is... well, I cant see how that is of any benefit to a child who is learning about the world.

andekwarhola

Mostly punished by grounding or losing stuff but occasionally got a clatter. Don't hold anything against them and have a good relationship with them. They were (and are) just people trying to muddle along and do the best job they could.

One eyed Jack

Whispered wrote: »

I often wondered at what age parents who hit their kids as a form of control, begin doing it.

Slapping a child because they are doing something you don't want is lazy. If your two year old manages to get to the road/get a knife to a socket/flood the bathroom/whatever then you, the adult, is at fault for not properly supervising a baby who is not yet old enough to keep themselves safe.

Making sweeping generalisations about parents is lazy (not to mention it does absolutely nothing to address the issue).

I often wonder myself about people who argue as though children possess the same critical faculties of reason and logical argument as themselves, yet the same reason and logical argument fails them when discussing an issue with adults?

If you can reason with a two-year old, but you can't reason with an adult, then I would have to question the efficacy of the using reason and logical argument method as though it's one that works for everyone in all circumstances. Clearly, it doesn't, nor would it work with all children as though they are all carbon copies of each other either.

Shenshen

I've always wondered, and maybe some of the parents here can tell me : Does it actually work, in your opinion? Do your children behave better after being slapped? Do they behave better than children in your extended family or circle of friends who are not being slapped?

Neyite

Shenshen wrote: »

I've always wondered, and maybe some of the parents here can tell me : Does it actually work, in your opinion? Do your children behave better after being slapped? Do they behave better than children in your extended family or circle of friends who are not being slapped?

I'm not sure about behaving better or worse. Corporal punishment was frequent in my childhood - often the first method of discipline. I turned out fine and so did siblings. But then none of us used it as a discipline method and seeing the nieces and nephews, they've all turned out lovely kids too.

What I do think that corporal punishment does is erodes the parent-child relationship and the trust a child will place in a parent, and maybe it's not apparent when they are kids, but when they are older, they will judge their parent for choosing that method over other types that could have been used.

One eyed Jack

Shenshen wrote: »

I've always wondered, and maybe some of the parents here can tell me : Does it actually work, in your opinion? Do your children behave better after being slapped? Do they behave better than children in your extended family or circle of friends who are not being slapped?

In my experience, having experienced various forms of discipline taken to their extreme as a child, it's actually what inspired me to investigate the efficacy of the various methods.

Objectively speaking, I couldn't say any one method or combination of methods is more or less effective than another in terms of setting boundaries and standards of behaviour for the child.

I couldn't say whether my child behaved better or worse after being smacked, because I have no doubt posters here will interpret smacking as being done with a malicious intent to exert complete control after having lost control, and attempting to instill fear in a child. That judgement simply couldn't be further from the truth.

You really can't simply take a behaviour in isolation like that and use backwards rationalisation to suggest that the consequences will always lead to negative outcomes. There would be far more violence in society if that opinion had any merit whatsoever.

Shenshen

One eyed Jack wrote: »

In my experience, having experienced various forms of discipline taken to their extreme as a child, it's actually what inspired me to investigate the efficacy of the various methods.

Objectively speaking, I couldn't say any one method or combination of methods is more or less effective than another in terms of setting boundaries and standards of behaviour for the child.

I couldn't say whether my child behaved better or worse after being smacked, because I have no doubt posters here will interpret smacking as being done with a malicious intent to exert complete control after having lost control, and attempting to instill fear in a child. That judgement simply couldn't be further from the truth.

You really can't simply take a behaviour in isolation like that and use backwards rationalisation to suggest that the consequences will always lead to negative outcomes. There would be far more violence in society if that opinion had any merit whatsoever.

So you're saying you can't tell if it makes a difference in behaviour?
I'm not saying that it always has negative outcomes, I've heard the "Ah, sure, it didn't do any harm" from a large number of people in the past. I'm only curious if it does actually have positive outcomes. If there is anything to be said for it other than that it does not harm? Does it improve anything for some people, short term or long term?

Realt Dearg Sec

I was never hit as a child, not once. And having an 18 month old now, I just can't understand how anybody could ever do it. I don't think it's always out of some kind of malice or sadism, but there is definitely a sense that it is a quick fix for reasserting control at times when you've lost it. I just couldn't hit my daughter and then be OK with looking her in the eyes knowing that she sees me as someone who is capable of hurting her, someone to fear rather than someone she can always trust to show her love. If I even did it once it would always be part of my relationship with her and, like I say, it would always be there when I look in her eyes. I couldn't deal with that, so it won't be happening.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Neyite

Neyite wrote: »

I'm not sure about behaving better or worse. Corporal punishment was frequent in my childhood - often the first method of discipline. I turned out fine and so did siblings. But then none of us used it as a discipline method and seeing the nieces and nephews, they've all turned out lovely kids too.

What I do think that corporal punishment does is erodes the parent-child relationship and the trust a child will place in a parent, and maybe it's not apparent when they are kids, but when they are older, they will judge their parent for choosing that method over other types that could have been used.

It's different for us Neyite ... we were raised like yourself where the "go to" method was corporal punishment and we never slap our kids.

But that's thanks to the fact that we've learned different methods of managing the kids which our parents wouldn't have even considered. Slapping for them was just the done thing and we've learned that it's wrong so we don't do it.

So I don't think we judge our parents for choosing that method because we see that they simply didn't know any better at that stage.

bobbyss

gifted wrote: »

Nope, Peregrinus is spot on.

'This' usually refers to something singular.

'These' usually refer to something plural.

Peregrinus said 'this strategy'. Now I may be wrong but my reading of that suggests one strategy.

osarusan

Deleted User wrote: »

So I don't think we judge our parents for choosing that method because we see that they simply didn't know any better at that stage.

TBH I think it both does previous generations a disservice and lets them off the hook to suggest that 'they simply didn't know any better.'

I'm sure that physical punishment was more common then than now, but there were parents then who would never have done such a thing, for the same reasons parents avoid it now.

Neyite

Deleted User wrote: »

It's different for us Neyite ... we were raised like yourself where the "go to" method was corporal punishment and we never slap our kids.

But that's thanks to the fact that we've learned different methods of managing the kids which our parents wouldn't have even considered. Slapping for them was just the done thing and we've learned that it's wrong so we don't do it.

So I don't think we judge our parents for choosing that method because we see that they simply didn't know any better at that stage.

I see where you are coming from, and I do acknowledge that times changed drastically from the seen-and-not-heard way children were viewed. Their thoughts and feelings or the potential reason behind poor behaviour were very rarely given a passing thought way back when.

My parents were the only ones out of my peers parents to use corporal punishment. The norm was a grounding or other forms of punishment, such as extra chores /stopping pocket money/ confiscation of a game or gadget. So I kinda judge a little (trying not to!) - they knew there were alternate methods but felt their way was better than the other parent's methods. Having said that, my parents did see sense eventually and moved to non-physical methods with the younger ones. And I know they regret the physical punishment they doled out. So that's why I'm ok with it now. If they still stood by their view that corporal punishment was acceptable I think I would have a problem with that view.

irishman86

Shenshen wrote: »

I've always wondered, and maybe some of the parents here can tell me : Does it actually work, in your opinion? Do your children behave better after being slapped? Do they behave better than children in your extended family or circle of friends who are not being slapped?

Yes, I have two sisters. One who does and one who doesnt, its easy to see the better behaved kids

One eyed Jack

Neyite wrote: »

What I do think that corporal punishment does is erodes the parent-child relationship and the trust a child will place in a parent, and maybe it's not apparent when they are kids, but when they are older, they will judge their parent for choosing that method over other types that could have been used.

I would judge my parents, not for the physical violence they inflicted, but for the verbal, emotional and psychological manipulation they inflicted, which to me (as I can only speak for myself), was far worse than any physical abuse, and had a much longer lasting effect, much more difficult to overcome too than physical discipline taken to it's extreme.

Deleted User wrote: »

It's different for us Neyite ... we were raised like yourself where the "go to" method was corporal punishment and we never slap our kids.

But that's thanks to the fact that we've learned different methods of managing the kids which our parents wouldn't have even considered. Slapping for them was just the done thing and we've learned that it's wrong so we don't do it.

So I don't think we judge our parents for choosing that method because we see that they simply didn't know any better at that stage.

I don't agree.

My parents weren't a pair of uneducated, insular yokels that they didn't know any better. Of course they knew better. They knew too there were more efficient means of modifying behaviour and exerting control over their children than physical discipline alone, and because they were highly educated and were seen as pillars of the community, they made verbal abuse, emotional and psychological manipulation like an art form. It's one of the reasons I choose never to use such techniques on children to bend them to my will, because when they bend that way, the chances of them learning that behaviour, are more long lasting than teaching a child to be assertive.

Neyite wrote: »

I see where you are coming from, and I do acknowledge that times changed drastically from the seen-and-not-heard way children were viewed.
...

If they still stood by their view that corporal punishment was acceptable I think I would have a problem with that view.

It's interesting you should say that because my mother is very much like that now where while she was an authoritarian parent, she's a very permissive grandparent, to the point where she will berate me in front of my own child for telling him to sit down (when it was inappropriate to be running around in a hospital). Some people of course would perceive that to be her attempt to undermine my ability as a parent, but I would now see my mother as an old dear and I'm not going to be taking her opinion on my parenting too seriously when she has rarely ever seen how myself and my child interact with each other on a daily basis.

One eyed Jack

Shenshen wrote: »

So you're saying you can't tell if it makes a difference in behaviour?
I'm not saying that it always has negative outcomes, I've heard the "Ah, sure, it didn't do any harm" from a large number of people in the past. I'm only curious if it does actually have positive outcomes. If there is anything to be said for it other than that it does not harm? Does it improve anything for some people, short term or long term?

The reason I can't tell if it makes a difference in behaviour is because I don't look at any issue in isolation like that. Most of the studies I've read present themselves as already having drawn the conclusion that only negative outcomes are possible from using physical discipline. One of the major problems with many of these studies is that they all stem from one source in particular - Elizabeth Gershoff.

When people say it did them no harm, I'm willing to take them at their word. I detest the fact that some people who don't see the irony will think "But it did do you harm, you think it's ok to smack a child", is a particularly intelligent retort. To me it says more about the individual using that retort than it does the individual they're aiming it at. It says to me that in their mind, they think they know the person better than that person knows themselves. It's an incredibly arrogant statement to make, and it shows how far that person will stretch to push their own ideology in spite of evidence that suggests they may just have to admit that their ideology doesn't stand up to any objective scrutiny.

It's impossible IMO to say whether any one isolated aspect of a persons childhood could lead to either positive or negative outcomes for that individual, which is why I would suggest it's entirely down to how the individual themselves processes their experiences, and the idea someone telling me they know me better than I know myself? 'Sa bit dodge, innit?

Could they also say I wouldn't have went into social care to work with 'families in crisis' (they do love their politically correct euphemisms), I wouldn't have left home at 16 and chosen to educate myself through a process of combined self-education and third-level education? How could anyone, possibly pre-determine how a person's life could turn out, unless they had crystal balls, and it would take pretty big ones too to be so arrogant as to assume they could do that.

jpm4

Put in a burlap bag and beaten with reeds.

erica74

Riddle101 wrote: »

I once got grounded for a month and wasn't allowed to watch The Simpsons for 6 months when I was a kid. I lied to my parents that the pipes in school burst and I was given the day off. I lied again the next day and the day after that the school hadn't fixed them yet. They grew suspicious after the 3rd day and questioned me, and I confessed that I lied about the whole thing.

I guess they thought that the Simpsons had influenced me because of that episode when Bart ditched school. Or maybe they did it because I loved watching the The Simpsons. Either way I never ditched school or lied to get off of school ever again.

This made me laugh. What age were you? It sounds like your first taste of seeing what you could get away with :pac: