Should child abuse be allowed?

[Macroscopic]

How can a child possibly know its parent is in the wrong.I have 4 children in their late teens, they may disagree with some of my decisions.But never disobey.

So you think that all kids are incapable of questioning their parents just because yours are? You can't judge a large number of people based on only four of them. Do you think that kids think that their parents know everything? Because if you do, you're wrong. And some kids are capable of having superior judgement, and if you think none can, then you're wrong.

[-Demosthenes-]

"put that gun down James or you are in big trouble"

"no you smacked my butt for breaking the window,when i told you it was tommy tucker..and you are wrong"

BANG!!!!!!

Thats funny becuase that actually happened to me when I was a kid, except there was no gun, and I it really was me that broke the window.

 

Anyway, the point wasn't that children shouldn't obey the parents when they think that the parent is wrong, it is that they shouldn't obey the parent when the parent is wrong.

 

And another good point would be that a child who disobeys doesn't necessarily shoot people. And dude if you make a kid want to shoot you, then maybe you are doing a little something wrong.

[Nevermore]

Hoho, I know a kid who is, as you would put it "disciplened." He is abused and beaten, and as a result, is the most emotionally screwed up kid I have ever met. He lives in a violent cycle. His parents beat him

He secludes into a deep depression.

Being depressed, he does poorly in school.

For doing poorly in school, his parents beat him.

Discipline should never be physical. There are plenty of other meathods of punishment. What about being grounded? Or not being allowed to watch TV? No video games for a week? ect.

[Coral Rhedd]

Hoho' date=' I know a kid who is, as you would put it "disciplened." He is abused and beaten, and as a result, is the most emotionally screwed up kid I have ever met. He lives in a violent cycle. His parents beat him

He secludes into a deep depression.

Being depressed, he does poorly in school.

For doing poorly in school, his parents beat him.

Discipline should never be physical. There are plenty of other meathods of punishment. What about being grounded? Or not being allowed to watch TV? No video games for a week? ect.[/quote']

 

You can report it. If he is seriously depressed he may be unable to report it himself. Beating absolutely destroys people's self-esteem. After a while, they have no will to even help themselves. Sometimes reality becomes distorted for them. They think their parents are all powerful.

[Nevermore]

I'll will report it.

[reverse]

yes in both cases

 

What would you say if I told you that as a child I was so strong willed that nothing other than the threat of a good smack could slow me down.

[ed84c]

Unless, it was for reasons NOT to do with disipling you, and your parents got pleasure out of it, i see no problem.

[YT2095]

No sort of "Abuse" should be allowed, to Children or Otherwise.

 

what a Bizzare question!

[6431hoho]

People discpline their childs so that they'll distinguish between right and wrong.

If they cross the line and kept doing wrong, they ought to be taught again.

 

Having a previous experience of being grounded doesn't deter a thing. And talking to teenagers when they don't want to listen, doesn't help a thing.

 

No sort of "Abuse" should be allowed, to Children or Otherwise.

-we have too many reasonings like these please support with something

[YT2095]

my reasoning is that of definition the word "Abuse" has only Negative/destructive conotations.

 

and should NOT be confused with "Discipline".

[coquina]

My dad was, regretably, a physical abuser. But he also had unique methods of punishment that worked quite well. He kept horses and raised field corn to feed them. When we harvested the corn it was put in the corncrib, husk, cob and all. There was a manual corn grinder - it was made of iron, and had a disk with knobs on it. You husked the corn, which was hard and dry and hurt your hands, put the cob in the grinder, turned the wheel, and the grain when out the bottom and the cob shot out the side.

 

When I misbehaved, my dad would tell me how many ears of corn I had to grind in atonement. I could do it slowly and take all day, or I could do it promptly and be done with it. Considering that the corn crib was either below freezing or above 90 degrees, one did not dally.

 

I told this story to point out that if there is a particular chore a child despises, it is an effective means of punishment. My dad knew I hated to grind corn, and as long as I kept on the straight and narrow, either he or my mom would do it. But - infraction of rules inevitably earned me an appointment with the corn grinder.

[6431hoho]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Newtonian

How can a child possibly know its parent is in the wrong.I have 4 children in their late teens, they may disagree with some of my decisions.But never disobey.

 

 

So you think that all kids are incapable of questioning their parents just because yours are? You can't judge a large number of people based on only four of them. Do you think that kids think that their parents know everything? Because if you do, you're wrong. And some kids are capable of having superior judgement, and if you think none can, then you're wrong.

 

Incapable of questioning? How can one not question if one is disagreeing?

You are saying that kids know that parents don't know everything and therefore know that parent is wrong?

[Dak]

what if your kid runs out into the road without looking? i know alot of people who never smack their kids, but would do/have done in this situation (and quite hard too), under the logic that it will stop them running out into the road and geting killed by a car. shurely thats justifyable?

 

i think that with some kids, slapping them will teach them that violence is the way to deal with problems and theyll grow up violent, whilst with other kids a lack of physical disiplin will make them go off the rails, having no fear of repercussions for their actions. i guess it should be used as appropriate for the kid, and never too much or without reason and explanation.

[klanger]

There is and always will be a fine line between abuse (physical and mental) and discipline. In order to discipline any one child or adult you need to be in total control of your own feelings, to discipline when angry can lead very quickly to abuse.

 

I was disciplined as a child and other than hurt pride at the time, it never hurt me everlastingly. The discipline I got was a smack and back in those days rarely with the hand, usually a wooden spoon or leather belt if I had got really out of hand.

 

I went on and had my own children, full of the usual "I am not going to do that to my children!!" indignation that most of us have felt and said at some point in our lives. When they were crawling and becoming more mobile though, I found myself in the situation of, do I try and reason with a child that has no grasp of the language I use or do I tap their hands if they persist in trying to stick their hands in the video machine slot, or continually try to grab things from tables, ornaments drinks what ever came to hand, or do I child proof the whole house and have everything four foot off the floor.

 

Well the latter is unreasonable, the child needs to learn not to touch those things or at a later age on their first school outing they are hands on with everything they see, causing annoyance to others and possible danger to themselves and those around them.

 

So I tapped their hands, and they quickly learned that certain things were out of bounds, and as they got older and could understand more, they were able to see why those things were out of bounds.

 

I continued to discipline my children, mainly in their early years up to the age of five. I then noticed a big gap and their behaviour was really good right up until they were each about the age of seven, which is when they again tried the boundaries that I had set out, and pushed the rules laid down, and then they got their bottoms smacked (with my hand). I haven’t had to smack them since.

 

When each of them got to about the age of 13 they again tried the boundaries and strutted their stuff, much as adolescent foals do, and as the parent, I pulled them back in line, using other forms of discipline, like loss of privileges.

 

I have three pretty well behaved teenagers that have a firm understanding of right and wrong. They are well adjusted young adults with a healthy respect for authority. They aren't frightened of me or feel they have been treated wrong, we still hug each other and say "I love you". Yes I still get the occasional moment with them, but on the whole they are good kids. I get praise from outsiders on their politeness and willingness to help.

 

I do see an awful lot of children and teenagers in the Town where I live that have had no discipline what so ever either at home or at school. These children really have been "spared the rod and spoil the child". They are vulgar, abusive and have no regard for other people's property or belongings. There is a huge increase in young offenders here and repeat offenders and in most cases violence is their main stay to keep anyone from spoiling their fun.

 

These children are in part the result of the abuse crusaders, who stopped discipline firstly within the schools and swept across the country in a bid to outlaw any parent that smacks their child. Are we proud of the way things turned out by taking one extreme method of abuse and trying to levy it at the doors of those who discipline their children using a smack?

 

Abuse is a dreadful thing but abuse these days swings both ways. We now have children who regularly abuse adults and scream 'child lines' if the adult attempts to defend themselves. A child can go into any shop they please and threaten people and steal or damage goods and the police are called. If the child doesn't want to go with the police to the police station and the policeman lays his/her hand on their arm to take them, the police are in the wrong and are prosecuted for child abuse.

 

What is really scary though, is that these children will one day have children of their own

[galaxygirl]

Children may give "child lines" to get what they want, but if there isn't a legitimate reason for it it's unlikely that the parent will get in trouble. Parents usually think that if their child accuses them of being abusive, the child will be put into foster care, but that doesn't happen much. If a child says their parent is mistreating them, a mandiated reporter will call DSS or CPS for a preliminary screening to see if it's a bad enough case to invistigate. If the case is bad enough DSS will call the parents and the family will be assigned a social worker. The social worker will invistigate and in only the worst cases will the child be put into foster care.

[klanger]

Yes I can see that, but that still leaves the "power" firmly in the childs hands. Children of today are fully aware of their rights and whether using the child line as an idle threat or not, the threat is there.

 

No parent wants a social worker round their home because of the stigma attatched to it. There will be a record of the visit and word very quickly gets round that you have had 'social' on your doorstep, which immediately makes you look guilty to those around you.

 

We already had a thread on this site about assuming the guilt minus the evidence, and unfortunately this is something that is practiced on a daily basis by the miss-informed and un-informed.

 

The power and authority of the parent with regard to children has been taken and put into the hands of the government.

 

We now have children being raised by the government in effect as they have the ultimate say so. No matter if the childs complaint is valid or not the authority has been taken from the parents, ultimately giving the child the power.

 

Do you really want the government telling you how to raise your child? You are not physically damaging your child, not banging their head against the wall, not taking tools to beat them with, not starving them cos they upset you, not leaving them for hours unattended at night so you can go drinking, not using psychological abuse by telling them they are a failure or they are disgusting or stupid or a waste of space. You are guilty of merely trying to teach them right from wrong, and sometimes they may do something so dangerous or outragious that it warrants a smack, and yet you will still go through the same run of questions as the parent that did do the real abuse as mentioned above. Further more you will be tarred with the same brush as the abusive parent, in and around your neighbourhood and within the system too.

[Coral Rhedd]

In the U.S., if a parent leaves marks, scars, or bruises on their child in the course of "discipline," it is deemed abuse. Part of the reason for this is evidentiary. It is easier to prove abuse in such circumstances.

 

I agree with this point of view.

 

It is no longer acceptable in educated, developed nations for husband's to beat their wives. I see no reason why the same protection that we extend to women should not also be extended to children.

[-Demosthenes-]

I'd have to disagree slightly, whereas the wife is ands should be an equal to the husband, the children should be subordinate.

[galaxygirl]

Social services usually does well in making the investigations private, to protect the family from being looked down upon. Just because social services comes to your home doesn't mean that you'll be seen as some terrible abusive person. Most parents have hit their child at least once during their life, and I can imagine that all parents fear that social services will find some reason to take their child away. Because parents are in the same boat in regard to that, so most adults would be understanding.

 

It's important that social services invistigates every case because there will be children who are being beaten. It's sort of like airport security- it's annoying to wait in long lines to have your baggage and shoes checked, but in the long run it ensures the safety of everyone. There will be people who don't need to be checked because they don't carry knives in their bags, but everyday people are found with some sort of weapons. Thankfully, most are stopped becaue of those security checks. They may be annoying, but it keeps people safe. The same thing goes for social services- out of all the cases that are investigated, you're going to find parents who are innocent, and you're going to find parents who would have killed their child if social serviced didn't step in. I would much rather have some innocent parents be investigated than have a child get killed for not having CPS step in.

[klanger]

I dont see the connection between disciplining a child and beating a wife. There is no lesson to be taught to the wife other than an overbearing husband that wants total domanancy. Disciplining a child is not about who is dominent, it is about ensuring your child doesnt grow up to become a thug that kills indescriminately, or thinks that you working and earning money means they can take it from you.

 

Even in Educated countries where beating a spouse is a crime, it hasnt stopped those crimes taking place. Why? Because making something illegal doesn't make those sort of people comply. The wife/husband is still just as scared of their partner as they were before, the abuser is still just as controlling if not more so.

 

In england too we have that law as you stated Coral, however the difference here is that you can leave a reddened mark as long as it dissappears within an hour, how can you measure that kind of smack? You cant. So you let the child carry on as they were and hope that by some small miricle they grow up magically knowing right from wrong?

 

The long and the short of all of this is simply this:

Good parents that don't "beat" their kids are being forced to comply because of the few who do. Will those few stop what they do? Not at all, they will simply find others ways of torturing their kids without the trace of marks, those kids will still be too scared to do anything about it, some of those kids will still die at the hands of evil parents.

 

In the meantime the rest of us are being forced to sit back and watch as some children turn into something that even your worst nightmare cant conjure up, whilst preying that our own children don't give in to peer pressure and join the ever growing ranks of out of control children. After all it takes alot of self disciplin to do the right thing when doing the wrong thing is way more fun. Where does that disciplin come from in the first place? It is certainly not self taught, when a mother tells her toddler dont do that and then allows them to continue unchecked it doesnt teach the child not to do that, so when that toddler grows up a little and walks out into a busy road, why on earth would they take any notice of mum saying don't do that, when it has meant very little in the past, and had no repercussions.

 

No one should beat a child into submission, no one on here is advocating that, but to not discipline a child at times when discipline is necessary, is also a form of abuse in the form of neglect.

[Coral Rhedd]

I'd have to disagree slightly, whereas the wife is ands should be an equal to the husband, the children should be subordinate.

 

People didn't used to think that the wife was the equal of her husband.

[Macroscopic]

Incapable of questioning? How can one not question if one is disagreeing?

I think he meant they didn't want it to happen' date=' but didn't think he was wrong.

 

How can a child possibly know its parent is in the wrong

they may disagree with some of my decisions.

If he meant what you think he means, those two statements contradict each other.

 

You are saying that kids know that parents don't know everything and therefore know that parent is wrong?

No. I'm saying that kids know that their parents don't know everything, therefore they know that their parents can be wrong.

And talking to teenagers when they don't want to listen, doesn't help a thing.

It would be more effective than hitting them. That would make them more angry, and there would also be a could chance that that would ruin any possibility of fixing the problem in the future.

I dont see the connection between disciplining a child and beating a wife.

Because the discipline in question isn't disipline, it's abuse. The connection is that both are abuse.

[Coral Rhedd]

I dont see the connection between disciplining a child and beating a wife. There is no lesson to be taught to the wife other than an overbearing husband that wants total domanancy. Disciplining a child is not about who is dominent' date=' it is about ensuring your child doesnt grow up to become a thug that kills indescriminately, or thinks that you working and earning money means they can take it from you.

[/quote']

 

Some husbands used to think that there were lessons they needed to teach their wives. When laws changed that made spousal abuse illegal some more patriarchal types thought the whole world would fall apart. Well it hasn't.

 

IMO, the child is the parent's equal in value. The child is not the parents equal in development or authority. But of course disciplining a child is all about who in dominant! If you aren't dominant, they aren't going to mind. Why should they? I just don't think discipline has to involve hitting or spanking or shaking or even pinching and arm twisting. Any adult can control a three year old by being vigilant, proactive, and present. This is because the adult is bigger. If you tell them to go to their room and they don't do it, take them there.

 

If you establish authority when they are young, it will be there for you when they are older to see you through the difficult period of their adolescence. This is because they will respect you. Maybe it's because I grew up as the older sister of three younger brothers that I have had no problem establishing my authority. I think I had too much responsibility for my brother's at too young an age, but taking care of them forced me to find some good strategies. I wasn't allowed to hit them, but God help me if they misbehaved. My mother would hold me responsible. Later I decided not to hit my daughter and this decision allowed me to think of other methods of discipline.

 

Even in Educated countries where beating a spouse is a crime, it hasnt stopped those crimes taking place. Why? Because making something illegal doesn't make those sort of people comply. The wife/husband is still just as scared of their partner as they were before, the abuser is still just as controlling if not more so.

 

No women are not as afraid as they were before. I could tell you a few stories from my mother's era that would curl your hair. Yes, some men still abuse and some women still take it, but at least they know they can file charges and at least they know that if they decide to leave, the law will protect them. (Of course, sometimes the law fails. ) Because of these legal protections and better economic opportunities, women with abusive husbands can vote with their feet.

 

In england too we have that law as you stated Coral, however the difference here is that you can leave a reddened mark as long as it dissappears within an hour, how can you measure that kind of smack? You cant. So you let the child carry on as they were and hope that by some small miricle they grow up magically knowing right from wrong?

 

If you use hitting to disciple your children then you know perfectly well how long it takes that mark to fade. If it's not fading in an hour, then you are hitting too hard. If you think you cannot control the force of your blows, don't hit.

 

The long and the short of all of this is simply this:

Good parents that don't "beat" their kids are being forced to comply because of the few who do. Will those few stop what they do? Not at all, they will simply find others ways of torturing their kids without the trace of marks, those kids will still be too scared to do anything about it, some of those kids will still die at the hands of evil parents.

 

There will always be evil and we will always have to contend with it. People find it difficult to change compulsive behavior and people with little conscience are always dangerous. I think Galaxygirl summarized very well how the system works. Nonabusive parents have little to fear.

 

In the meantime the rest of us are being forced to sit back and watch as some children turn into something that even your worst nightmare cant conjure up, whilst preying that our own children don't give in to peer pressure and join the ever growing ranks of out of control children.

 

We all fear for our children. That is just part of parenting. There are no guarantees, but there are probably greater percentage people in prison who were hit than those out of prison. Violence begets violence. Child abuse has long played a role in the histories of prison populations.

 

After all it takes alot of self disciplin to do the right thing when doing the w ong thing is way more fun. Where does that disciplin come from in the first place? It is certainly not self taught, when a mother tells her toddler dont do that and then allows them to continue unchecked

 

I am not suggesting they go "unchecked." My idea of discipline is simply different from yours.

 

it doesnt teach the child not to do that, so when that toddler grows up a little and walks out into a busy road, why on earth would they take any notice of mum saying don't do that, when it has meant very little in the past, and had no repercussions.

 

It is not enough just to discipline children. We also have to teach them and we have to free them. Discipline and teaching are not mutually exclusive but they are not the same thing either. If we do not share our histories, our values, and our beliefs with our children and tell them why we think as we do, then we teach them nothing. But the goal should not be simply to stuff a child' head full of our beliefs and values and nothing else. If we do this, we leave them vulnerable to the world's temptations and defenseless to the world's brutes. We must allow them to question us and sometimes to disagree with us. Otherwise, we cannot have long and interesting discussions where they also share their viewpoint and we endeavor to show them the value of critical thinking skills.

 

To function as moral beings in this world we must develop an internal value system apart from merely obeying the rules. Sheep will herd; thinking beings will not. I wanted a daughter who could think, so I allowed her to think for herself. Thinking is absolutely the one thing that no human being can do for another. Granting a child the freedom, the power, and the self-direction to develop his/her own moral code is the greatest gift a parent can give a child.

 

No one should beat a child into submission, no one on here is advocating that, but to not discipline a child at times when discipline is necessary, is also a form of abuse in the form of neglect.

 

I am not a large woman. I do not have low or powerful voice. However, I have never had a problem establishing my authority. I simply never found it necessary to hit.

[Macroscopic]

No one should beat a child into submission, no one on here is advocating that

Actually.........

"So' date=' in other words, 'For children to avoid abuse, they must be their personal slave'. Seriously, getting abused for talking back?! You've got to be kidding me!"

 

-Well, if you know your parent well enough and think that it's a possiblity, then you should be a personal slave (that means giving up your dignity? then yes)[/quote']

[6431hoho]

"So, in other words, 'For children to avoid abuse, they must be their personal slave'. Seriously, getting abused for talking back?! You've got to be kidding me!"

Actually...

-Well, if you know your parent well enough and think that it's a possiblity, then you should be a personal slave (that means giving up your dignity? then yes)

 

Let's look who is actually encouraging child abuse right now.

I say if it's a possibility that your parent is stressed and mad at you, give up your dignity to avoide getting abused. But you say "you've got to be kidding me," which intentionnally or unintentionally shows willingness to fight back.