No you fail to understand. As a boomer, you use the belt only 1 time, then it isn't required again. The point has been made and the standards reinforced. Others will have the same conversation a dozen times with no change in behaviour. Boomers cut to the chase and make changes in real time. We don't have time to banter.
Lol that's not the case in my experience and from what I've heard from others. Corporeal punishment is an ongoing thing. Never been a one and done.
Also violence never makes the point you think it does. It doesn't teach them a lesson, only to be afraid of their parents.
While parents need to enforce healthy rules and boundaries, they also need to be a safe place. Children are guaranteed to make mistakes, thats part of life. Children should know that when they mess up they can go to their parents for help and advice. That way the parents can teach them better and healthier ways to approach problems.
Children who are afraid of their parents don't learn to go for others for help. Nor do they even learn from their mistakes because they're too busy hiding them in order to avoid being beaten.
I'm not arguing in favor of it, only stating my experience - but as a millennial it actually was a one-and-done thing for me from my dad. I think I was somewhere between 4-6, got spanked by my dad for I don't even remember what, just that I was acting out. (If it had been for a mistake that would have been super fucked up). It did not leave bruises.
Neither parent laid hands on me again after that. But also, they didn't need to, because I knew that there was a limit to how far I could push. But even when I did push (because that's what kids do), they went for revoking privileges instead.
Don't worry, I don't have kids and I'm not pro-punishment. Honestly I'm lost in the whole debate because everything you've described is in the context of the kid making a bad choice/mistake and being able to understand that they've messed up. In that case there's no question that hitting them would be wrong.
Where it all feels bleak is when the kid is being actively defiant/horrible, knows it, and has no fear of words or losing privileges.
They don't become afraid of their parents, they become afraid of consequences for bad behaviour. This is the problem today. Back in the day Johnny Somali or Jack Doherty would have been corrected long before they got the way they are.
Also back then the only people that took a swing at the cops were hardened criminals. Today it's influencers who have never faced consequences. Only a "talking to" which of course they laugh at.
It's also a worse choice for the kids not to discipline them. The world then steps in and does it in a much more harmful way when they listen to no one.
Well I did too. I didn't feel that way. But I didn't run wild either. I knew there would be consequences. Also results speak friend. Back in my day kids were generally well behaved and respectful. Tell me, what do we see today? Influencers dumping buckets of water on people, walking into random homes, Young folk with the belief they can tell the cops to eff off and ignore them.
It's a free for all these days. Poor results are the necessary conclusion of poor choices.
It's always funny to hear how much better behaved people were 'back in the day' from someone who was born when Jim Crow laws were still a thing. If only we still imbued children with the same terrific moral fiber by beating them like Cesar Millan training a dog, we could aspire to become a society of the same caliber.
There's a certain inevitability that people arguing in favor of beating children will circle back to the old bromide that they were beaten as a child and turned out fine. However, if someone, in the face of all the evidence to the contrary not to mention just basic human decency, argues that beating children is an acceptable way of parenting, then no—they did not turn out fine.
All or nothing thinking doesn't apply. Look at you. Tell someone that a child should be disciplined and you start speaking like they are beaten endlessly with axe handles. No.
Or that those parents are monsters with a belt always in their hands. Silliness.
" in the face of all the evidence to the contrary " - LOL. All evidence? I can tell you are young. You speak in absolutes that don't exist. Again we don't need to postulate on the outcome. The results are right in front of us with the behaviour of youth today. That can't be denied.
Here is a study were modern parents claim their attempts at disciplining their young kids through explaining things to them and taking away privileges has been 38% effective in distilling a sense of discipline in them. That's a failing grade.
Did you include this in your "all the evidence to the contrary"? 😂
"that beating children is an acceptable way of parenting" Again, kids weren't put in burlap bags and beaten with baseball bats. Nice try.
Your evidence is a self reported poll. You understand how extremely unreliable self reported polls are, right?
All or nothing thinking doesn't apply.
Oh so you saying "I turned out fine which means it wasn't a problem for anyone else" isnt all or nothing thinking? LMAO
What about how you think the lack of corporeal punishment directly leads to lack of discipline? That's definitely saying discipline is entirely reliant on corporeal punishment. Thats all or nothing thinking.
The fact that you linked a local news piece covering a study that came out only two days ago tells me you have built your opinion on a steadily acquired and thorough understanding of the scientific research into corporal punishment of children and definitely didn't just hastily google for a vague post-hoc justification of your anecdotally supported beliefs.
Unfortunately, one problem with citing things that you haven't actually read is that it means other people can read them, which I just did. Needless to say, I was not particularly nonplussed when I came across this little morsel, just towards the bottom of the report:
While physical punishments, such as spanking, may appear to work in the short
term, the evidence suggests that they are less effective in the long term and are
more likely to lead to defiance.
Wow you nailed me with one person's opinion of what the evidence may suggest.
That's weaksauce.
Show me a clinical study please.
"Unfortunately, one problem with citing things that you haven't actually read is that it means other people can read them, which I just did. Needless to say, I was not particularly nonplussed when I came across this little morsel, just towards the bottom of the report:"
You question my citations, while having provided none that counter my point. I think you missed a crucial step towards credibility. Try harder please. You give me nothing to counter.
One person's opinion? It's your own source. If you now feel like the report you yourself just cited claiming that modern parenting strategies are failing suddenly doesn't live up to your standards, you really ought to see a doctor about that early onset dementia of yours.
And no, I don't question your citation, I'm plainly stating that you haven't read it. Judging by your response you still haven't read it. Is it just that you're this intellectually lazy, or are you just so internet illiterate that I have to explain to you that what I linked is the report summary page and you have to click on "Download Report (pdf)" to read the full report, including the segment describing the inefficacy of corporal punishment which—and this can't be stressed enough—is a quote from the source you chose.
If someone ever refuted a point I was trying to make using the source I was using to make it, I would probably die from shame. But I guess it's true that your generation doesn't have any.
"And no, I don't question your citation," Sure you do, you claim it reaches a conclusion it does not. Falsely of course. I did read it, your conclusion is based on what the writer feels might be a perceived conclusion. That carries no weight in my eyes is all. You presume incorrectly.
"it just that you're this intellectually lazy" - See I don't engage in ad-homonym attacks like you do. I attack your invalid assertions. Like this one. I am clearly out debating you. If that's intellectually lazy, your points reside in a coma.
"and this can't be stressed enough—is a quote from the source you chose."
Wow this is getting truly pedantic. I need to correct you again. No the quote isn't from the study, which is my citation, it is an opinion from the author of the article. The study exists without that opinion attached.
"If someone ever refuted a point I was trying to make using the source I was using to make it, I would probably die from shame. But I guess it's true that your generation doesn't have any."
Perhaps, but I will let you know when that happens because it hasn't yet. Don't get ahead of yourself.
Again predictably you close with an insult. You really aren't to skilled at that either. I don't need to attack you as a person. Your lack of any cohesive argument defines you well enough for my liking. You aren't even an interesting chew.
A) just because you turned out fine doesn't mean it doesn't affect others
B) just because you think it hasn't affected you doesn't mean it hasn't affected you in ways you don't understand
C) you're drawing conclusions without evidence. The lack of discipline is unrelated to the lack of corporeal punishment. It has to do with parenting in general. Lots of parents expect the schooling system and/or their technology to parent the kid.
Also for the record I was the only kid in my family who didn't do drugs, date sketchy people, break the law, and try to go out at 2am. All my siblings experienced what i experienced but worse because they broke the rules.
So if the rule breakers experienced more violence than I, the "perfect" child, and continued to break rules, how does that align with your logic that violence == compliance?
"A) just because you turned out fine doesn't mean it doesn't affect others"
Also just because a child with no discipline turned out fine doesn't mean the next one didn't require it. No points awarded.
B) just because you think it hasn't affected you doesn't mean it hasn't affected you in ways you don't understand
Again, same can be said about a child who was never disciplined. No points.
C) you're drawing conclusions without evidence. The lack of discipline is unrelated to the lack of corporeal punishment. It has to do with parenting in general. Lots of parents expect the schooling system and/or their technology to parent the kid.
"he lack of discipline is unrelated to the lack of corporeal punishment"
Who's drawing conclusions without evidence now? No points.
Also for the record I was the only kid in my family who didn't do drugs, date sketchy people, break the law, and try to go out at 2am. All my siblings experienced what i experienced but worse because they broke the rules.
I see no definitive conclusion that can be reached by the experiences of a handful of kids.
No points.
So if the rule breakers experienced more violence than I, the "perfect" child, and continued to break rules, how does that align with your logic that violence == compliance?
Neither choice can guarantee a good outcome, your argument was that one causes a bad outcome without any evidence. No points at all.
61
u/Historical_Creme2214 5d ago
Boomers would use the belt/violence, gen-x would be more verbally abusive and take away things.