Is punishing a kid consider abuse?

[Clive Howlitzer]

It isn't abuse to punish your child for being a brat, it is part of raising them to have the right kind of morals and an understanding of how the world works. You can't let them walk all over you and run wild.
On the topic of the laptop blasting redneck though. He is insane. There are right ways to punish your kids and then there are psychotic ways. Blowing up her laptop because she badmouthed you to her friends is insane. That is what 15 year olds do. Guy is nuts.

 

[Sexy Devil]

So, I've been following another thread wherein the original poster argued that Tommy Jordan, the man who shot up his daughter's laptop, is abusing his daughter. Disturbingly, I found that some people had the opinion punishing a child for doing something wrong is considered a form of abuse. Some even going as far as suggesting punishing a child for doing something wrong should be considered on the same level as beating a wife.

So, Escapist, do you think punishing a child is, or should be, considered abuse?

My aunt and uncle have this naughty corner system going on where they'll make their kids sit in the corner for like ten minutes to think about what they did. Basically they do what school teachers do. It doesn't work, each of their kids are sent there like 12 times a day and they never come out learning anything. They realise the system is a bust and they know that they don't face any real repercussions so they continue to be the most annoying little dickheads I've ever seen.

The kinds of people who don't think punishing children is okay are the kinds of people who create little morons like my cousins; say what you will but punishment is absolutely necessary. Even spanking is fine as long as you don't get super into it and do it more than necessary.

 

[Evilpigeon]

So, I've been following another thread wherein the original poster argued that Tommy Jordan, the man who shot up his daughter's laptop, is abusing his daughter. Disturbingly, I found that some people had the opinion punishing a child for doing something wrong is considered a form of abuse. Some even going as far as suggesting punishing a child for doing something wrong should be considered on the same level as beating a wife.

So, Escapist, do you think punishing a child is, or should be, considered abuse?

My aunt and uncle have this naughty corner system going on where they'll make their kids sit in the corner for like ten minutes to think about what they did. Basically they do what school teachers do. It doesn't work, each of their kids are sent there like 12 times a day and they never come out learning anything. They realise the system is a bust and they know that they don't face any real repercussions so they continue to be the most annoying little dickheads I've ever seen.

The kinds of people who don't think punishing children is okay are the kinds of people who create little morons like my cousins; say what you will but punishment is absolutely necessary. Even spanking is fine as long as you don't get super into it and do it more than necessary.

The worst behaved children I know personally would be some of my younger cousins, my Aunt punishes them quite regularly, to point of occasionally spanking them and yet it does nothing. By contrast, I honestly don't know anybody who's turned out badly whose parents didn't punish them.

The kinds of people who believe that punishing children is the answer are the kinds of people who perpetuate generations of pointless, uneccessary and unproductive revenge on their own children in the name of good parenting, it has little to no long term beneficial effect. (google it and find a research paper, it's stacked overwhelmingly against arbitrary punishment)

Random generalisations can be used for both sides of the argument, at least the non-violent approach has some genuine scientific backing instead of Daily Mail-esque grumbling.

 

[Final First]

So, I've been following another thread wherein the original poster argued that Tommy Jordan, the man who shot up his daughter's laptop, is abusing his daughter. Disturbingly, I found that some people had the opinion punishing a child for doing something wrong is considered a form of abuse. Some even going as far as suggesting punishing a child for doing something wrong should be considered on the same level as beating a wife.

So, Escapist, do you think punishing a child is, or should be, considered abuse?

My aunt and uncle have this naughty corner system going on where they'll make their kids sit in the corner for like ten minutes to think about what they did. Basically they do what school teachers do. It doesn't work, each of their kids are sent there like 12 times a day and they never come out learning anything. They realise the system is a bust and they know that they don't face any real repercussions so they continue to be the most annoying little dickheads I've ever seen.

The kinds of people who don't think punishing children is okay are the kinds of people who create little morons like my cousins; say what you will but punishment is absolutely necessary. Even spanking is fine as long as you don't get super into it and do it more than necessary.

The worst behaved children I know personally would be some of my younger cousins, my Aunt punishes them quite regularly, to point of occasionally spanking them and yet it does nothing.

The kinds of people who believe that punishing children is the answer are the kinds of people who perpetuate generations of pointless, uneccessary and unproductive revenge on their own children in the name of good parenting, it has little to no long term beneficial effect. (google it and find a research paper, it's stacked overwhelmingly against arbitrary punishment)

Random generalisations apply to both sides of the argument, at least the non-violent approach has some genuine scientific backing instead of Daily Mail-esque grumbling.

For many, having a "long term beneficial effect" doesn't matter. Assuming the parent or parents are lucky and they become among the at least half of parents who have behaved children because of spanking, then it will work until the child is old enough to actually think and know when and why something is wrong without having to be told so. But hopefully the wouldn't need to wait that long to know why something is wrong, hopefully the parents tell them what they did wrong after or before spanking.

 

[Sexy Devil]

So, I've been following another thread wherein the original poster argued that Tommy Jordan, the man who shot up his daughter's laptop, is abusing his daughter. Disturbingly, I found that some people had the opinion punishing a child for doing something wrong is considered a form of abuse. Some even going as far as suggesting punishing a child for doing something wrong should be considered on the same level as beating a wife.

So, Escapist, do you think punishing a child is, or should be, considered abuse?

My aunt and uncle have this naughty corner system going on where they'll make their kids sit in the corner for like ten minutes to think about what they did. Basically they do what school teachers do. It doesn't work, each of their kids are sent there like 12 times a day and they never come out learning anything. They realise the system is a bust and they know that they don't face any real repercussions so they continue to be the most annoying little dickheads I've ever seen.

The kinds of people who don't think punishing children is okay are the kinds of people who create little morons like my cousins; say what you will but punishment is absolutely necessary. Even spanking is fine as long as you don't get super into it and do it more than necessary.

The worst behaved children I know personally would be some of my younger cousins, my Aunt punishes them quite regularly, to point of occasionally spanking them and yet it does nothing.

The kinds of people who believe that punishing children is the answer are the kinds of people who perpetuate generations of pointless, uneccessary and unproductive revenge on their own children in the name of good parenting, it has little to no long term beneficial effect. (google it and find a research paper, it's stacked overwhelmingly against arbitrary punishment)

Random generalisations can be used for both sides of the argument, at least the non-violent approach has some genuine scientific backing instead of Daily Mail-esque grumbling.

Spanking should always be a last resort; that's why I just threw it in at the end. The OP just alluded to people on here generally thinking any form of punishment is a bad thing and a few posts have backed that up. I'm all for punishment that fits the crime, but trying to talk a three year old into doing the right thing just isn't going to work.

 

[Phisi]

I don't think removing privileges is abuse, only if done in such a manner that it could cause psychological harm. That said, the idea that one shouldn't do something because they might get punished and this is what we choose to instill in our children is kinda questionable

 

[CrimsonBlaze]

Parents need to be parents and kids need to remember that they are kids and should now their f***ing place. If you do something bad or you disobey, your going to be punished.

You respect your parents, you don't bite the hand that feeds, and above all, respect and appreciate everything that is given to you.

 

[Evilpigeon]

For many, having a "long term beneficial effect" doesn't matter. Assuming the parent or parents are lucky and they become among the at least half of parents who have behaved children because of spanking, then it will work until the child is old enough to actually think and know when and why something is wrong without having to be told so. But hopefully the wouldn't need to wait that long to know why something is wrong, hopefully the parents tell them what they did wrong after or before spanking.

If you can tell them and they understand. The spanking is now totally unnecessary. All hitting does is provide a deterrant without any understanding of why something is wrong. If you're trying to teach something - your job as a parent is to teach your child how to act - all hitting them is going to do is distract from your message.

Also, don't make up statistics it makes it really hard to take the rest of your post seriously, your arguments will look more convincing without the obviously rubbish, no justification is better than false justification. Sorry, really annoys me when people do that...

 

[Andrew Drake]

I am reminded of a line said by alot of npc Lords in Mount and Blade:Warband

"Circumstance is Everything."

You cant really define abuse if you don't define what acceptable levels of punishment are. How do you select who gets to judge that? I would say that the punishment must fit the crime, and that is the entire basis for everything.

I would say the criteria is that the baseline between punishment and abuse is the line that can be agreed upon by one who witnesses the cause of the event, and the event itself, and who is not angered or made disappointed by the event.

Any action taken in anger is abuse, any "extra just in case" is abuse, and anything done to "physically express disappointment" is abuse.

 

[lacktheknack]

I've never understood spanking. "Hey, Timmy was misbehaving today. Let's beat the kid into submission." It's been proven to have no positive effect, yet people still do it. That never makes any sense to me.

Holy hell, what kind of spanking have YOU seen?

The idea is that physical pain is a particularly effective feedback that what you did was a bad thing. If a child played with a knife and cut himself, he would feel pain and thus not want to do it again. The same logic goes with spanking. And I find, from experience, that it actually works. (Don't even bother asking, since "experience isn't a valid platform to blah blah blah" and other crap the general public seems to believe just annoys me.)

However, "beating [a child] into submission" is something I've NEVER seen. A single thunk on the backside is just right - it causes some minor pain, but has nearly no risk of damage. If you think that's "beating a child into submission", I can't imagine your reaction if you saw a REAL beating.

 

[SaetonChapelle]

An example of a time of spanking, when my child was attempting to place a metal object into the light fixture. I imedietly removed said item and gave them a firm tap to the rear, informing them of what they had done wrong and of the consequences that could have occured. They associated the mild pain I had delivered to the pain they could have recieved more heavily if they had done the previous action, and have since not touched the fixture or attempted to place anything inside.

How old was your child when this happened? Do you really think it was the spank that drove the point home, so to speak, or do you think when the kid realised it might kill them they decided they didn't want to do that after all? In terms of spanking, I don't think we should be asking "Is it always harmful?". Rather, we should be asking "Is it ever necessary?"

My child was a year in a half years old. I do not believe her mental capacity was enough for her to even comprehend "death", however the factor of pain is there. Also, such a "spanking" was not enough to put her in an extreme emotional state of tears, rather mild annoyance and the internal knowledge that as perceived by some to mean "if I do this again, such will happen again, thus I probably shouldn't do it".

Some believed children do not have this mental capacity, however it is quite fascinating to find that they do, in fact, have enough knowledge and understanding to put such information together, even if it is not intentional or conscious.

Once again though this is not saying I believe slapping your child is a good method of teaching or punishing, I encourage many to not do so unless there is an extreme state. One should never hit their kid in order to get a point across. I was only featuring an example where such an action posed little to no threat against the child, whilst informing them of their own actions and consequences.

 

[Final First]

For many, having a "long term beneficial effect" doesn't matter. Assuming the parent or parents are lucky and they become among the at least half of parents who have behaved children because of spanking, then it will work until the child is old enough to actually think and know when and why something is wrong without having to be told so. But hopefully the wouldn't need to wait that long to know why something is wrong, hopefully the parents tell them what they did wrong after or before spanking.

If you can tell them and they understand. The spanking is now totally unnecessary. All hitting does is provide a deterrant without any understanding of why something is wrong. If you're trying to teach something - your job as a parent is to teach your child how to act - all hitting them is going to do is distract from your message.

Also, don't make up statistics it makes it really hard to take the rest of your post seriously, your arguments will look more convincing without the obviously rubbish, no justification is better than false justification. Sorry, really annoys me when people do that...

Well sorry about all the assumptions, I just think it's better to at least make an obvious and admitted assumption and guess than to say things like "It is scientifically proven to not work" without providing evidence. At least I have experience and have witnessed it despite the fact I have a large chance of being wrong; and at least I admit it.

 

[silversnake4133]

I think parents today seem to confuse "physical discipline" with extreme cases of "abuse". They aren't the same. The people who hit their children on more than just their bottoms, or with such intensity and frequency that it does actual serious harm, that is abuse. But if you're just swatting your child on his or her rear end as a physical reminder that what he or she did was bad or did something wrong and that the act of receiving pain will be the catalyst to prevent that child from committing that wrong-doing again, then it's not abuse.

Parents need to discipline their children again. As a society, we've given the little rug rats too much power and that's why they get into trouble just to see people of authority react without the notion of punishment looming over their heads.

 

[Canadamus Prime]

I think parents today seem to confuse "physical discipline" with extreme cases of "abuse". They aren't the same. The people who hit their children on more than just their bottoms, or with such intensity and frequency that it does actual serious harm, that is abuse. But if you're just swatting your child on his or her rear end as a physical reminder that what he or she did was bad or did something wrong and that the act of receiving pain will be the catalyst to prevent that child from committing that wrong-doing again, then it's not abuse.

Parents need to discipline their children again. As a society, we've given the little rug rats too much power and that's why they get into trouble just to see people of authority react without the notion of punishment looming over their heads.

Exactly. As a society we've crippled the ability of parents and other caregivers to properly discipline children and as a result they constantly walk all over their caregivers and never learn anything of discipline. And I have little doubt that this will negatively effect them well into their adult lives.

 

[Evilpigeon]

Well sorry about all the assumptions, I just think it's better to at least make an obvious and admitted assumption and guess than to say things like "It is scientifically proven to not work" without providing evidence. At least I have experience and have witnessed it despite the fact I have a large chance of being wrong; and at least I admit it.

It's easy to google:

http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/crc.28/SC-UK-ES-S.pdf

This is where I checked to make sure I wasn't talking total shit, check the references and look for other stuff if you aren't satisfied, I'm sure there's plenty out there.

Yours is an obvious wild guess, it's kinda pointless to add that in. I don't see the point in saying things like

"among the at least half of parents who have behaved children because of spanking"

I really, really doubt that half of all parents spank their children, let alone there being any way at all for someone to prove cause and effect. It's transparently false and just undermines anything relevant or interesting you have to say.

Asking people to cite stuff in internet arguments is going way too far, I'm happy if things at least sound reasonable but there's no point in making things up.

 

[Instant K4rma]

I've never understood spanking. "Hey, Timmy was misbehaving today. Let's beat the kid into submission." It's been proven to have no positive effect, yet people still do it.

Uh, proven? Wanna back that up there bud? I probably wouldn't believe you anyway because of personal experience, but I'd like to know who is making such outrageous claims.

We talked about it in both my Psych and Sociology courses. These are a couple of the articles that were cited:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-16/health/spanking.children.parenting_1_spanked-new-study-author-and-research-scientist?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090915100941.htm

 

[lacktheknack]

I've never understood spanking. "Hey, Timmy was misbehaving today. Let's beat the kid into submission." It's been proven to have no positive effect, yet people still do it.

Uh, proven? Wanna back that up there bud? I probably wouldn't believe you anyway because of personal experience, but I'd like to know who is making such outrageous claims.

We talked about it in both my Psych and Sociology courses. These are a couple of the articles that were cited:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-16/health/spanking.children.parenting_1_spanked-new-study-author-and-research-scientist?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090915100941.htm

Oh, toddlers.

There's a couple things wrong with the context of this study:

1. It only involves toddlers (ages 1-3).
2. It only involves low income families on the assumption that they spank more often.

I agree that you shouldn't spank a toddler, but kids aged 5-10 aren't nearly as fragile as you think.

 

[Final First]

Well sorry about all the assumptions, I just think it's better to at least make an obvious and admitted assumption and guess than to say things like "It is scientifically proven to not work" without providing evidence. At least I have experience and have witnessed it despite the fact I have a large chance of being wrong; and at least I admit it.

It's easy to google:

http://www.crin.org/docs/resources/treaties/crc.28/SC-UK-ES-S.pdf

This is where I checked to make sure I wasn't talking total shit, check the references and look for other stuff if you aren't satisfied, I'm sure there's plenty out there.

Yours is an obvious wild guess, it's kinda pointless to add that in. I don't see the point in saying things like

"among the at least half of parents who have behaved children because of spanking"

I really, really doubt that half of all parents spank their children, let alone there being any way at all for someone to prove cause and effect. It's transparently false and just undermines anything relevant or interesting you have to say.

Asking people to cite stuff in internet arguments is going way too far, I'm happy if things at least sound reasonable but there's no point in making things up.

I read some of the information in that link and I agree with it but it is concerning actual beatings. I am speaking of just light slaps or spanking on the bottom. I also don't mean to use it as the only form of punishment or the only way to teach a child what is wrong. It is good to first tell the child what is wrong whenever you can but if they don't believe you, depending on what that wrong thing they do is, let them suffer the consequences or spank them. It shouldn't be done too often or else, as that source said, one may begin actual beating.

Also, one reason why I made what I completely admit were hugely unsupported wild guesses and assumptions was because you must remember corporal punishment in it's lightest such as spanking was a common thing not long ago. You must also remember that it seemed to work. Many people say they were spanked while growing up and some say they don't want to do that to their kids because they hated it, but those people turned out OK despite how they were raised.

One last thing, I gave away my stupid sounding "sources" of my personal experiences to back my opinion because, as I said before, I thought it would be more believable. The others on the forums who say their two cents but never give a source may get their opinions the same way I did on this subject.

 

[Instant K4rma]

I've never understood spanking. "Hey, Timmy was misbehaving today. Let's beat the kid into submission." It's been proven to have no positive effect, yet people still do it.

Uh, proven? Wanna back that up there bud? I probably wouldn't believe you anyway because of personal experience, but I'd like to know who is making such outrageous claims.

We talked about it in both my Psych and Sociology courses. These are a couple of the articles that were cited:

http://articles.cnn.com/2009-09-16/health/spanking.children.parenting_1_spanked-new-study-author-and-research-scientist?_s=PM:HEALTH

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090915100941.htm

Oh, toddlers.

There's a couple things wrong with the context of this study:

1. It only involves toddlers (ages 1-3).
2. It only involves low income families on the assumption that they spank more often.

I agree that you shouldn't spank a toddler, but kids aged 5-10 aren't nearly as fragile as you think.

Ahh, and there lies our misunderstanding. I've been arguing against toddler spanking. As for spanking younger kids (ages 5-10), I'm still dubious on the subject, but I agree that they aren't as fragile (mentally and physically) as a toddler.

 

[Farotsu]

I'd even go as far as to argue that not punishing them is bad parenting unless you can get them to understand the consequences of their actions in other ways. Again I don't mean hitting the child in any way since there are other ways to make them understand that whatever they did is wrong, like taking away privilidges, grounding them, having them to take a 'time-out'... All of that.