Support NeoGAF

[RDreamer]

Now, none of that is to say that the same lesson couldn't have been taught without getting physical with your child, or that this is the only (or even most optimal) way to discipline/raise a child. But it's just something you should maybe consider before you point fingers and call well-meaning parents child abusers because they hit their children.

"Well-meaning" shouldn't mean you're free from any criticism whatsoever.

 

[Allonym]

You don't see the difference between possibly harming a full grown adult that has made the decision to advocate for the genocide of other humans and hurting a defenseless child that both can't understand and looks to you for their protection, safety, and to learn how to interact with humanity plus almost all available research says it has a negative effect on that human going forward?

Yes, hitting a child for misbehaving is 'somehow' much worse than punching a full grown nazi. Come on, this isn't even close.

There are legitimate arguments to why we shouldn't punch nazis, but seriously this isn't a comparison you should be making here.

I do see the difference but I also understand that children can do things as foul and evil as adults and neo nazis

 

[Grug]

I'm of the opinion that you are communicating to children that there are no consequences for their actions.

How could you come to that conclusion? All you know about my parenting approach is that I don't inflict physical pain as a form of discipline.

That doesn't equate to a lack of consequences or discipline.

 

[RDreamer]

I do see the difference but I also understand that children can do things as foul and evil as adults and neo nazis

Ok, explain please.

 

[Mifec]

It does not and if you have to hit your child you have at that moment failed as a parent.

 

[Cocaloch]

It's been said many times, but you gotta stop equating kids to full grown humans and animals. That really just makes people roll their eyes because it's always a false equivalency. The best way to push your argument is by focusing on the effects on actual children and the future effects.

Why is it a false equivalency? It's literally just because hitting women is no longer normalized and hitting kids is still normalized. In the Anglosphere the justification comes from the exact same ideology of Pater Familias.

And the justifications were often the same.

"Women can get hysterical sometimes and unable to listen to reason. A sharp slap is often effective and necessary, they need to know who is in charge etc etc."

Exactly.

 

[Cocaloch]

Do we give women time outs? Do we ground women and forbid them from seeing their friends or leaving the house? Other forms of discipline don't sound a lot better in the context of an adult relationship. I'm not sure the comparison can be made.

Because we've normalized that doing that isn't okay.

Exactly.

Men and women are both adults, with equal rights and responsibilities. Equal agency. It's not an equivalent comparison to compare women with children, or women with animals.

So the difference is just that children don't have rights? Again that's totally normative. Let's give children rights.

Again the whole point of the historical argument is to show that at one point women didn't have those rights either. Clearly we had it wrong in the past, why are you so sure we're totally right now?

 

[Velcro Fly]

Hitting your kids is dumb.

I got spanked as a kid. It was always reactionary and out of anger and never after taking the time to tell me what I was doing was wrong and why. I grew up angry. I grew up with a temper. I grew up lashing out at things when I got mad. I grew up afraid to get into a relationship with a woman for fear of lashing out at her. It is 100% destructive to physically discipline a child. I'm not saying my parents didn't love me or that they were shitty. It is quite the opposite. They were good and loving parents in spite of raising me how they were raised. I'm not sure I'd qualify it as abuse really either. I mean swatting a kid on the butt with a hand to me is small potatoes compared to what I know happens. I never felt like I was being abused but I never felt like hitting me and feeding into my anger and aggression was a good idea. I honestly consider my parents lucky I never lashed out physically at them.

 

[Messofanego]

I specifically said some people on here, I never said everyone on here. People don't seem to understand the terrible things that some kids do. If my child pours boiling hot water on a person I am beating their ass, if my child punches someone in their face unprovoked to get some laughs in with their friends, I'm beating their ass. A lot of problems happen from kids not being disciplined. You all feel like talking works, sure go ahead. I won't say that you're wrong or saying your lack of action is producing monstrous children, that's your take on parenting. I'm of the opinion that you are communicating to children that there are no consequences for their actions.

I would warn the child first and if they repeated the things they were warned about, they will be disciplined. You're also wrong , there are plenty of people saying that disciplining children is wrong/bad.

So if you don't kit kids, now that's equivalent to there being no consequences for actions. Seems very narrow-minded.

 

[Keri]

I'm surprised this thread is so long. Physical punishment only teaches children they have to listen to people bigger and stronger than them, or experience pain. It also teaches them to use physical force, to get what they want. It's not teaching an effective strategy for navigating through life. You don't want them punching a kid in the face at school, because they wanted to play with their toy at recess. It's doesn't seem that hard to think of other consequences for bad behavior, which don't also reinforce bad behavior.

 

[Always-honest]

So if you don't kit kids, now that's equivalent to there being no consequences for actions. Seems very narrow-minded.

It's complete nonsense. It proves that these people just don't know any better. And that's sad and scary.

 

[RDreamer]

I specifically said some people on here, I never said everyone on here. People don't seem to understand the terrible things that some kids do. If my child pours boiling hot water on a person I am beating their ass, if my child punches someone in their face unprovoked to get some laughs in with their friends, I'm beating their ass. A lot of problems happen from kids not being disciplined. You all feel like talking works, sure go ahead. I won't say that you're wrong or saying your lack of action is producing monstrous children, that's your take on parenting. I'm of the opinion that you are communicating to children that there are no consequences for their actions.

I would warn the child first and if they repeated the things they were warned about, they will be disciplined. You're also wrong , there are plenty of people saying that disciplining children is wrong/bad.

How exactly do you teach the small human who is apt to copy you more than anything else in the world that hurting others is bad if your response to things is to hurt them? How do you teach them the lesson that they don't harm if you do indeed harm?

I'm of the opinion that you're communicating to children that violence is an acceptable reaction to things and that you just perpetuate their actions. Perhaps they won't do it around you as much, but they certainly will learn a lesson!

 

[Ralemont]

We don't now, but yes those things actually were done when men were in absolute control of their wives even as recent as a few decades ago.

That wasn't his point. Until we arrive at a point where we don't believe parents have the ability to discipline or forcibly control their child's life in any manner, then it's a false equivalency.

I don't think you should hit children (and linked studies earlier showing why it's bad) but at the same time some of the extremism in this thread is distorting the message. Like, the ridiculous statement that a spank and a punch are the same thing. That's absurd.

 

[kewlmyc]

How is ignoring worse than physical punishment and how doesn't physical punishment count as "psychological shit"?

Since I'm don't have kids, I'm putting it in terms of what I would have preferred as a child. Getting a spanking sucked a lot, but it would be over quickly and I could go back to what I was doing most of the time. It would be an after though a mere hours later. This is your standard bottom slapping spanking that is, not like beating with objects or punching me or anything that is generally more considered child abuse. Compared to what was suggested and taking away my favorite thing and never giving it back, being ignored by my parent and being treated as if I didn't exist, or locking me in a room and not letting me out. All the options I listed sucked, but I would have preferred the spanking since at least that would have been over quickly. As a young child, the latter 3 options would have probably messed me up more. I'm sure it's different for each child, just giving what I would have preferred.

 

[Cocaloch]

That wasn't his point. Until we arrive at a point where we don't believe parents have the ability to discipline or forcibly control their child's life in any manner, then it's a false equivalency.

This is just a post hoc justification for a practice that clearly has the exact same origin.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Because we've normalized that doing that isn't okay.



So the difference is just that children don't have right? Again that's totally normative. Let's give children rights.

Again the whole point of the historical argument is to show that at one point women didn't have those rights either.

I don't think its about rights, that's not the point being made. Its about both adults being equal in the relationship in terms of dominion and control. In that context of equal adult relationship discipline is out of place, be it physical or not. You can't draw a comparison between how you would discipline a child and how you would treat a woman because it is inappropriate to discipline a woman.

 

[tonysidaway]

Sometimes I'm proud of my wee country, only sometimes mind you.

Ah, no false modesty, please. Quite often Scotland leads the way. Please don't ever leave us poor sassenachs alone to figure out all out for ourselves.

 

[LordKasual]

"Well-meaning" shouldn't mean you're free from any criticism whatsoever.

You're free to criticize all you like, it makes the world a better place. But you should probably try and fully understand what you're criticizing before you decide to label people.

To some, violence may be completely unnecessary, and to others it's an unavoidable factor of life. It may not be ideal, but life isn't an ideal thing. Some kids never learn to deal with it, and it causes psychological problems. Other kids learn too much about it, and it causes psychological problems.

I would love to say that you should never have to cause physical harm to a child teach them a lesson. But that isn't everyone's reality, and no amount of psychology reading is ever going to apply to every parent or environment.

 

[Ralemont]

This is just a post hoc justification for a practice that clearly has the exact same origin.

You still aren't addressing the false equivalency. That we believe parents should be able to punish their children in order to control them (because we don't believe children are able to make properly informed decisions to guide their actions) makes it a different case today in a culture where we have clearly recognized this belief doesn't apply to wives/women.

It isn't that disciplining wives corporeally for misbehaving is wrong. It's that we believe disciplining wives whatsoever is wrong. Because we don't believe husbands should have that power over them.

We do believe parents should have that power over children (though not necessarily, again, when it comes to corporeal punishment).

Moreover, I have no idea why this argument is being made in the first place (the comparison to women/animals) when the evidence of the negative effects is sufficient enough as to stand on its own.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

This is just a post hoc justification for a practice that clearly has the exact same origin.

Except it's false to say a grown person doesn't have control of their faculties. A child absolutely does not. Even then, we have physical consequences for adults who step out of line. Corrections and policing is full of physical violence that's sometimes unavoidable.

 

[tonysidaway]

I'm the only one who thinks the got beaten but I deserved it comments are quite disturbing?

You get used to them, but they should never be less than disturbing. The implication is that even as an adult they agree with the strong using intimidation and violence against the weak.

 

[Cocaloch]

I don't think its about rights, that's not the point being made.

That's one of the points. I stand by the idea that people have the right to not be physically struck unless doing so would directly serve to prevent harm to another.

Its about both adults being equal in the relationship in terms of dominion and control.

Right, it's about the fact that women were raised to personhood and given the rights of personhood. That's what changed historically, you're even tacitly acknowledged that here.

In that context of equal adult relationship discipline is out of place, be it physical or not.

But it wasn't before, the difference is that women came to be understood as people who deserve the rights of personhood.

You can't draw a comparison between how you would discipline a child and how you would treat a woman because it is inappropriate to discipline a woman.

Except this is exactly where the practice of doing both comes from. This isn't a vapid comparison. Historically the understanding of both acts was it was the same.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

Moreover, I have no idea why this argument is being made in the first place (the comparison to women/animals) when the evidence of the negative effects is sufficient enough as to stand on its own.

This is the main point people who try to divert away from children should take.

 

[themaskedndi]

That said, we need to do a better job here in the US of identifying actual physical abuse, and removing children from the home where abuse is occurring. There is a sickening amount of real abuse that goes on, still, and social services is often either slow or powerless to act. Focusing on this would be a better use of resources, IMO, than trying to ban spanking altogether.

It is important to remember that, regardless of your feelings about a "light swat on the butt," spanking and more severe forms of abuse are directly linked. Not all parents that beat their children are mustache-twirling monsters out to make kids suffer. Some abusers are well-meaning parents attempting to discipline your children. It is extremely easy for a spanking to turn into serious abuse, especially when emotions are running high. The legality of corporal punishment also makes it easier for abusive parents to escape punishment.

To answer the original question, no. Decades of research overwhelmingly show that spanking and other forms of corporal punishment are ineffective. They also show that spanking increases mental health issues in children. Some studies suggest it is just as damaging as other forms of child abuse. If you are not willing to trust the research on the subject, it is a good idea to ask yourself why that is. Whether it's survivorship bias, issues with the veracity of the studies, or your complex feeling about your own parents, questioning your feelings can provide valuable insight.

 

[Cocaloch]

You still aren't addressing the false equivalency.

I wasn't making a false equivalency. I was pointing out the historical development of thought on the topic. These practices share a common origin. What changed was that we decided women deserved to not be hit.

That we believe parents should be able to punish their children in order to control them (because we don't believe children are able to make properly informed decisions to guide their actions) makes it a different case today in a culture where we have clearly recognized this belief doesn't apply to wives/women.

Of course it's a different case, that's evidenced by the fact that the cultural understanding and laws surrounding both are different. But that's also totally normative. We can and should change it based on better information and a better approach to thinking about the place of force in society.

It isn't that disciplining wives corporeally for misbehaving is wrong. It's that we believe disciplining wives whatsoever is wrong.

This is historically incorrect. It became seen as problematic to beat your wife before people thought husbands shouldn't be the dominate member of the family. That's why what you were doing is a post hoc justification.

We do believe parents should have that power over children (though not necessarily, again, when it comes to corporeal punishment).

Moreover, I have no idea why this argument is being made in the first place (the comparison to women/animals) when the evidence of the negative effects is sufficient enough as to stand on its own.

Because you can make different arguments on the same subject. we can have an argument of both utility and ethics.

 

[Jon Canon]

I .. have trouble navigating this new world. Stuff like the #metoo campaign is so clear cut that it seems beyond discussion, but hitting children. HITTING CHILDREN! Thats suddenly something with pros and cons.

Not. Even. Once.

 

[tonysidaway]

Here's a nice read:
https://www.sciencenews.org/blog/growth-curve/debate-over-spanking-short-science-high-emotion

The key paragraph for me:

But I’m also not the parent of a 5-year-old who routinely runs into traffic. Maybe when I’m faced with that situation, a swat on the backside will seem like an effective way to keep my daughter safe. I don’t presume to know how I’ll discipline my daughter in the future, nor do I presume to judge other parents’ (non-abusive) discipline choices.

As I've emphasized previously, adults are big and strong and can easily overpower and restrain a child in imminent danger. At 5 you can reason with a child, and they can understand that you're justifiably concerned for their welfare. Then they are in a position to acquiesce to reasonable parental restraint such as being kept in a car seat until it's safe to leave, or holding a parent's hand while walking in the street.

 

[RDreamer]

I .. have trouble navigating this new world. Stuff like the #metoo campaign is so clear cut that it seems beyond discussion, but hitting children. HITTING CHILDREN! Thats suddenly something with pros and cons.

Not. Even. Once.

Actually, the Me Too campaign shows that we are doing a pretty goddamned shit job of treating women in society, so it doesn't really surprise me that we'd also have a large contingent of people that aren't too good at making better parental decisions.

 

[Cocaloch]

Even then, we have physical consequences for adults who step out of line. Corrections and policing is full of physical violence that's sometimes unavoidable.

This is a bizarre argument. Liberal democracies have spent the last 200 years wrestling away from the state its coercive powers. Meanwhile there's a clear difference between restraining violence and violence meant as discipline. I have no problem with someone grappling a kid to stop them from hurting someone else. I have problems with someone hitting a child to teach them a lesson or the state using physical violence specifically for discipline.

But I guess my argument might just also be me trying to "annoy people" into not hitting their children so I should stop.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Except this is exactly where the practice of doing both comes from. This isn't a vapid comparison. Historically the understanding of both acts was it was the same.

Ironically, based on your name you come from, and are defending, the culture that normalized the abuse I received as a child. When you're part of a culture where it's okay to hit children sometimes, you pay a lot less attention to the act of hitting children. They miss things they shouldn't be missing.

My user name has more to do with my favourite super hero and less to do with where I come from.

I understand historically how women were treated. In a modern, women-liberated society, it is no longer acceptable to treat women that way. Women should have equal control and dominion in the relationship and any form of discipline is inappropriate. That's not the case for children, we all generally believe it is ok for parents to control their children, make decisions for their children, have dominion over their children and discipline them in some form.

That's why I and others have said that it is more productive to discuss the effectiveness of different forms of discipline within the context of a parent and child relationship rather than make false comparisons to a completely different relationship.

 

[tonysidaway]

I'd rather my parent discipline me for what I did rather than getting beaten because of what I did and having to deal with their emotional response to it, which if you're getting your ass whooped is likely anger.

Sorry I can't parse that. I thought it was clear that I was saying that, although hitting kids is wrong, doing so in cold blood is an extra level of cringeworthiness. Does your comment address that, or did I fail to communicate my opinion adequately?

 

[Unspoken90]

All it does is teach them that violence gets results.

 

[tonysidaway]

Seriously, kids are the only ones in society who can't protect themselves, and yet they are the only ones a significant portion of society think it's okay to physically hurt.

The fact that children have no power and no voice is probably the main reason why they are the sole remaining subgroup of humans you can see being openly hit in public as a matter of routine in many countries.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

This is a bizarre argument. Liberal democracies have spent the last 200 years wrestling away from the state its coercive powers. Meanwhile there's a clear difference between restraining violence and violence meant as discipline. I have no problem with someone grappling a kid to stop them from hurting someone else. I have problems with someone hitting a child to teach them a lesson or the state using physical violence specifically for discipline.

There's honestly little difference as to the reasons why. Physical intervention always has the potential for trauma, yet we do it anyway because we think the pros outweigh the cons. You're literally admitting that violence is acceptable in some situations as a correction for bad behavior. A number of people who spank don't do it to teach, but to stop certain behavior from continuing (ie, to stop repeatedly hurting a sibling). When that occurs, it's not about teachable moments.

 

[Cocaloch]

I understand historically how women were treated.

You probably don't in the abstract. You have some understanding of how they were treated at specific times and places, but unless you've looked a decent amount into gender and cultural history you probably don't have much of an understanding of the arc of the last 300 years. That's not to belittle you or anything. It's just to be honest.

In a modern, women-liberated society, it is no longer acceptable to treat women that way. Women should have equal control and dominion in the relationship and any form of discipline is inappropriate.

Yet hitting women became significantly less normalized well before that happened. Something else actually changed both our behaviour and understanding of hitting women.

That's not the case for children, we all generally believe it is ok for parents to control their children, make decisions for their children, have dominion over their children and discipline them in some form.

18th century Britain saw a massive decrease in the cultural acceptability of hitting women, but legally married women were not people. They were totally subsumed by their husbands. Clearly something more went on than just conceptions of who should dominate and discipline. We can come to understand that the right to be in charge or discipline does not remove someone's right to not be hit.

That's why I and others have said that it is more productive to discuss the effectiveness of different forms of discipline within the context of a parent and child relationship rather than make false comparisons to a completely different relationship.

Except nothing stops you from making multiple kinds of arguments. Especially when multiple people in this thread are outright denying that utility matters or that you've actually determined it.

The fact that children have no power and no voice is probably the main reason why they are the sole remaining subgroup of humans you can see being openly hit in public as a matter of routine in many countries.

This is exactly right. No one advocates for the rights of children outside of in a silly romantic way.

 

[Ralemont]

I wasn't making a false equivalency. I was pointing out the historical development of thought on the topic. These practices share a common origin. What changed was that we decided women deserved to not be hit.

Okay, and so...what? Pointing out that the belief concerning women turned out to be flawed does not implicate another, different belief with the same origin. They have to be found flawed for their own reasons. I suppose a historical argument would counter any type of "this is tradition and has always been done, therefore it's valid" argument, which some have made in this thread, but I don't take those to be the most viable ethical arguments in favor of corporeal punishment.

This is historically incorrect. It became seen as problematic to beat your wife before people thought husbands shouldn't be the dominate member of the family. That's why what you were doing is a post hoc justification.

I wasn't making a historical argument, because we were discussing the belief that's held today. I also haven't actually justified anything in this thread (except to not hit your kids); I was pointing out why the proposed comparison is unjustified.

Because you can make different arguments on the same subject. we can have an argument of both utility and ethics.

We sure can, but for the reasons detailed above the ethical argument concerning children is best argued within its own realm, as comparisons elsewhere contain different suppositions that drastically change the validity of the conclusion.

And what I was saying was more: the utility argument is enough to overwhelm any ethical argument. If it can be proven (which in my mind, it has) that hitting children has enormous negative effects, then it quite literally does not matter whether parents have the moral right to do so.

 

[tonysidaway]

It's been said many times, but you gotta stop equating kids to full grown humans and animals. That really just makes people roll their eyes because it's always a false equivalency.

Could you elaborate, please? What is it about small, developing humans that makes them perfect targets for the infliction of pain? Why exactly is it wrong to hit animals but not children? I really haven't a clue why this is regarded as a false equivalence. Asserting that it's so isn't very convincing.

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

The fact that children have no power and no voice is probably the main reason why they are the sole remaining subgroup of humans you can see being openly hit in public as a matter of routine in many countries.

This is absolute untrue. There are a lot of vulnerable people with no power and no voice where a distinction is made. Kids aren't the only ones with no voice.

 

[Cocaloch]

There's honestly little difference as to the reasons why.

What? Why?

Physical intervention always has the potential for trauma, yet we do it anyway because we think the pros outweigh the cons.

It's more complicated than this. When decide some actions are permisiable, withing the scope of permisable actions we then should be making choices based on utility.

You're literally admitting that violence is acceptable in some situations as a correction for bad behavior.

No, I did not literally admit that. I very specifically worded that post to make it clear that I think violence is only okay in a restraining sense. To directly stop more violence from happening. That's not as a correction for bad behavior, that's to directly physically prevent someone from being hurt.

A number of people who spank don't do it to teach, but to stop certain behavior from continuing (ie, to stop repeatedly hurting a sibling). When that occurs, it's not about teachable moments.

That's teaching. I'm not sure why you would think that's not teaching?

This is absolute untrue. There are a lot of vulnerable people with no power and no voice where a distinction is made. Kids aren't the only ones with no voice.

The only other group I can think of is the severely mentally handicapped and vegetables. Both of whom are advocated for in the same way children are. By interested 3rd parties that generally have their own understanding of what's best.

 

[chaosblade]

Speaking only for my own situation, I don't know what options were left for my parents. Words were meaningless. They went as far as family counseling and medication. Regardless of intentions my ADHD basically sent everything in one ear and out the other. In the end the fear of physical punishment was the only thing that would keep me somewhat under control.

I eventually grew out of those behavioral issues around 11 or 12, and physical punishment ended too. I was the only one among my siblings to get it, the others weren't terrible demon children.

 

[mantidor]

I just wanted to chime in and say that kids are very different to one another, anecdotal evidence is pretty useless supporting either for or against this.

I'm personally on the fence, I have relatives that I feel should've had stricter parents and maybe even corporal punishment but maybe that is just me and my cultural background that find it acceptable, and I say this as someone who was never touched. What I find insane is this idea that you can discuss things with 5 year olds, you don't, you as a parent are the authority and that is the end of it, how you achieve this authority is really the question.

 

[Cocaloch]

Okay, and so...what? Pointing out that the belief concerning women turned out to be flawed does not implicate another, different belief with the same origin.

It points out thinking that we've decided was problematic was involved. It's not a case in itself, but it is indicative of the fact that this is both normative and that there might be some issues behind that normative thought.

They have to be found flawed for their own reasons.

It wasn't meant to be a case in point. It's meant to make people think about the origins of the things they think, and understand that these ideas don't float around in the aether.

I wasn't making a historical argument

Which is the problem. You weren't making a historical argument to explain a historical development. The reason that behavoir around hitting women changed is historical and requires a historical argument. The rationale you gave was simply not the operative one here even if it makes sense now.

Because at the end of the day the reason we don't hit women now is because we've normalized the idea that it isn't okay, not because people who would otherwise beat their wives sit down and think rationally about the meaning of their actions.

I also haven't actually justified anything in this thread (except to not hit your kids); I was pointing out why the proposed comparison is unjustified.

No, you justified the principle that women should not be hit. I agree that they shouldn't and I even think your logic is good. But it's a post hoc justification for why behavior changed. That's not why it changed, and that at best only plays a small part in why we currently don't see it as acceptable.

And what I was saying was more: the utility argument is enough to overwhelm any ethical argument. If it can be proven (which in my mind, it has) that hitting children has enormous negative effects, then it quite literally does not matter whether parents have the moral right to do so.

I mean they work on different levels. Sure it could do that, but it evidently isn't. Again the purpose of what I with that post wasn't to make a full rational case for why you shouldn't hit your children. It was to make people think about why they believe what they believe, and how that is connected to other historical developments.

 

[tonysidaway]

This is exactly right. No one advocates for the rights of children outside of in a silly romantic way.

Oh no, there are campaigns on this actively working in courts on test cases to make children's rights a reality. It's a fringe area now, but so were LGBT rights in my country as recently as twenty years ago.

 

[Cocaloch]

Oh no, there are campaigns on this actively working in courts on test cases to make children's rights a reality. It's a fringe area now, but so were LGBT rights in my country as recently as twenty years ago.

My issue isn't that no one does, I think too many people do in a really stupid way. My issue is that this weird romanticism always seems to come into play.

 

[Ralemont]

Which is the problem. You weren't making a historical argument to explain a historical development. The reason that behavoir around hitting women changed is historical and requires a historical argument. The rationale you gave was simply not the operative one here even if it makes sense now.

Because at the end of the day the reason we don't hit women now is because we've normalized the idea that it isn't okay, not because people who would otherwise beat their wives sit down and think rationally about the meaning of their actions.

I wasn't asked why the behavior around hitting women changed, I was asked what the justification was for it being different today. Those could be the same things, and they could not. I think that if you were to ask most people today, they'd give my answer. So the actual, full historical answer would be "it changed for this reason, and then the justification for it was this, and now people don't do it because of the justification."

So when asked to make a comparison of why someone feels such and such way about a child but not a woman, the relevant response is the justification, not the reason, because people today have been born into the justification.

Edit: I do understand what you're getting at, of course. That if we think about the reasons for change in this one topic, why can't that also apply to children?

 

[Steeped in a Sea of Games]

What? Why?

#1 It's more complicated than this. When decide some actions are permisiable, withing the scope of permisable actions we then should be making choices based on utility.

#2 No, I did not literally admit that. I very specifically worded that post to make it clear that I think violence is only okay in a restraining sense. To directly stop more violence from happening. That's not as a correction for bad behavior, that's to directly physically prevent someone from being hurt.

#3 That's teaching. I'm not sure why you would think that's not teaching?

The only other group I can think of is the severely mentally handicapped and vegetables. Both of whom are advocated for in the same way children are. By interested 3rd parties that generally have their own understanding of what's best.

For #1 and #2, any physical intervention falls into the realm of punishment, no matter the reason. Cause and effect, you do this, you will receive this negative attention. Restraint takes away agency, thus it's a negative reinforcement. Many use spanking or swatting as a stop button. Stop hitting your brother or swat. Stop putting your finger into the outlet or swat. At my job, we literally do the same thing with our residents. Stop throwing furniture or you will be put into a restrictive procedure. Stop cutting yourself or you'll be forcibly escorted to seclusion. Stop hurting a fellow resident or you will be forcibly sedated (this is always mentioned verbally by the way). Alone, it's not enough to teach a kid or adult anything. A lot of people get that. Some don't and they're incorrect in that assumption.

For #3 yes, there's no such thing as not learning from an experience, but that's usually not the intention at the time of the intervention.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

18th century Britain saw a massive decrease in the cultural acceptability of hitting women, but legally married women were not people. They were totally subsumed by their husbands. Clearly something more went on than just conceptions of who should dominate and discipline. We can come to understand that the right to be in charge or discipline does not remove someone's right to not be hit.
.

I'm going to be honest here and say that I don't understand how this is a response to what I said. I think you're trying to say that dominion in a relationship and physical discipline don't go hand-in-hand but are different things. I agree with this. Just because you have dominion over someone doesn't mean you can physically discipline them.

But it also doesn't refute what I originally said, which is a response to someone making the argument that "you wouldn't do it to a woman, so why is it ok with a child?" My response to that is "you can't make comparisons between a parent-child relationship and a woman-man relationship, parents are supposed to have dominion over the child and there are many things you would do with a child that you wouldn't with a woman" case in point non-physical forms of discipline also look bad in the context of the woman-man relationship.

The simple fact that parents have dominion over the child doesn't give them the God-given right to use physical discipline. The fact that it looks bad in a woman-man relationship doesn't make a good argument against either.

I tried to elaborate as much as I can because I don't think we understand each other. Let me know if I misunderstood something or my point isn't clear to you.

 

[Cocaloch]

I wasn't asked why the behavior around hitting women changed, I was asked what the justification was for it being different today. Those could be the same things, and they could not. I think that if you were to ask most people today, they'd give my answer. So the actual, full historical answer would be "it changed for this reason, and then the justification for it was this, and now people don't do it because of the justification."

Okay, but when we're trying to get people to change their behavior pointing out that similar behavior changed for specific reasons seems useful right? Again that wasn't supposed to be a case in point. It was a rhetorical attempt to make people think more broadly about their feelings on the topic.

So when asked to make a comparison of why someone feels such and such way about a child but not a woman, the relevant response is the justification, not the reason, because people today have been born into the justification.

Well no, the actual reason they feel that way involves that justification but is also a long historical process. Addisonian ideas of civility are just, if not more, important as that justification for why we feel that hitting women is a bad thing, at least in the Anglosphere.

 

[LordKasual]

are people really comparing husbands beating grown ass women to parents beating children?

they are not even remotely similar, unless you're comparing the cognitive competence of a woman to that of a child, or the autonomy/authority of a child to that of an adult.

this is in no way a useful comparison to make, why are you guys wasting your time

 

[Messofanego]

Speaking only for my own situation, I don't know what options were left for my parents. Words were meaningless. They went as far as family counseling and medication. Regardless of intentions my ADHD basically sent everything in one ear and out the other. In the end the fear of physical punishment was the only thing that would keep me somewhat under control.

I eventually grew out of those behavioral issues around 11 or 12, and physical punishment ended too. I was the only one among my siblings to get it, the others weren't terrible demon children.

Are you saying physical punishment was an effective solution to your ADHD?