Children are often hardest on their own caregivers though, so the more you look like a parent figure the more they rebel. Of course nowadays corporal punishment is 'child abuse' so the child is emboldened knowing they can do whatever they like, including violence, with absolute impunity from physical pain.

> Children are often hardest on their own caregivers

Hear hear! If your kids turn out good, they'll say you are lucky.If they don't, they'll say you messed up as a parent. Either way, the parent never gets any credit.

Reality is a mixed bag. There's lots of things about a kid that is very difficult to change. We've done a lot in the past to try to discourage certain bad behaviors once they developed but what mostly happened was they eventually grew out of it thanks to no particular tactic we employed.

So I mostly just try to model the behavior I want to see.

corporal punishment is child abuse.

It does not mean children can do whatever they like.

You might find it difficult to find alternatives, but better alternatives than violence exists.

Save your children the costs of therapy as adults, and focus on real emotional health.

Is there a mammal that doesn’t utilize corporal punishment to set boundaries?

Does every dog / chimp / giraffe that got nipped by mom for being a brat need therapy?

Are you comparing a human child with dogs, chimps and giraffes? Are you saying it's appropriate to communicate with physical violence in this context? What other human-to-human contexts are there where physical violence or the threat of physical violence is okay?

I'm genuinely curious about this worldview, because I personally cannot empathize with this. It's abhorrent to me and my values.

I would argue that basically every human context includes the possibility of physical violence, usually for sufficient transgression the boundaries of others.

If you walk out your door start groping people or try to run off someone's child, you will encounter violence pretty fast.

Those examples are not "every human context" and they don't guarantee violence, they're extrajudicial. Are you saying spanking a child is extrajudicial? a vigilante assault?

every human activity is in relation to possible violence. It holds relevance to basically every aspect of human life. It enables the status quo, and has the potential to disrupt it.

You couldnt make a post on HN if it werent for violence, or the threat of it. you have a computer to type on because if someone were to take it, they would risk beating or death. someone built the computer because threat of violence makes them work for a living instead of taking what they want. sometimes you can be minding your own business at a desert rave and violence comes for you anyways.

im saying all order, justice, and authority is based on violence. the only difference between an extrajudicial vigilante and a sanctioned enforcer, is that the enforcer is on the side generally considered more threating.

If you are sufficiently transgressive, violence is always a possible consequence, for children and adults. it is a simple fact of life.

Considering the behaviors children typically get spanked for, these are severe crimes. Do we have a higher standard of behavior for children?

I don't know what scenarios you are imagining but I think standard should be lower for children than adults, and the punishment less severe, but that doesn't preclude any violence.

I think your response captures it in a nutshell. Dog’s, chimp’s and giraffe’s primary concern is addressing the problematic behavior. Modern parenting’s primary concern is with congratulating themselves for their enlightened values.

As opposed to archaic parenting being about what exactly?

That's a bit of a naturalistic fallacy. At the same time, I think demonizing corporal punishment categorically is a mistake rooted in a false understanding of human nature. I see no problem caning violent criminals, for example.

What if the violent criminal is a child?

Nips are not intended to cause a meaningful amount of pain.

Also we let/cause lots of things to happen to animals that would likely need therapy if they were humans, so this comparison really doesn't work.

do you have any repoed studies that show kids who were spanked as kids (not beaten) needed therapy as adults? AFAICT, all the parents I know that don't punish their kids have the worst kids with the most problems.

I'm not saying you should spank your kids. I'm only questioning whether it actually causes any problems. I was spanked, my sister was spanked. All my cousins etc. None of us have any issues. We love our parents and loved that they loved us enough to punish us when we were bad.

Do you normally solve interpersonal conflicts in your life with physical violence?

If the answer is no: why do you think it's appropriate to do so when dealing with children?

(If the answer is yes, then consider anger management classes, I guess)

The responsibilities and duties one has to their child vs an adult are quite different. Virtually every authority charged with last-resort solving interpersonal conflict issues (government) uses violence, as when all else fails some at least respond to that.

The reason why corporal punishment isn't used privately man to man is because we've delegated that to government, who happily sends men with guns to drag people violently in for reform. Spanking a child before they get to that point would be a favor.

Normal punishments and last resorts are nowhere near each other.

And when you say "drag people violently in" I feel like very different definitions of "violence" are getting conflated here. Forcibly moving a child is needed sometimes, and is not corporal punishment.

>Do you normally solve interpersonal conflicts in your life with physical violence?

There are tons of situations where violence is appropriate for interpersonal conflict, usually when someone won't listen to reason.

If I went into your house, ignored what you were saying, and then started smashing things or molesting your children, would you just sit there and protest politely?

When they ask about conflict, they're not talking about a scenario that is already violent. And why are you going to such an unpleasant extreme?

because they dont get to define the scenario in the most favorable conditions if they are claiming violence is never appropriate. Doubly so when they include a bunch of condescension about how anyone who thinks violence has a place should seek therapy.

> because they dont get to define the scenario in the most favorable conditions if they are claiming violence is never appropriate.

The earlier poster was arguing that corporal punishment is never appropriate. When they said "better alternatives than violence", they were speaking in the context of punishment.

A scenario about an urgent intervention can't prove them wrong, because it's not related to what they were saying.

> Doubly so when they include a bunch of condescension about how anyone who thinks violence has a place should seek therapy.

Are you actually reading their comments, or are you too busy being righteously mad at them?

They didn't ask if you think violence "has a place". They asked if it's what normally happens for your interpersonal conflicts.

Those two ideas are not at all close.

Im talking about corporal punishment too, or at least im not drawing a distinction. the commonality I was illustrating is that violence can be a solution of last resort when other methods have failed, and it is possible for other methods to fail.

>They didn't ask if you think violence "has a place". They asked if it's what normally happens for your interpersonal conflicts. Those two ideas are not at all close.

I think it was an intentionally loaded and insulting question. yeah, im sure the poster normally resorts to violence interpersonal conflicts when they cant agree on a move with their partner.

Plus, it is just a crappy argument. The parent wasn't arguing that corporal punishment should normally be the tool to resolve issues, so it is a faulty comparison.

Sometimes violence is necessary in an urgent situation. This is easy to prove.

This does not prove that violence is sometimes necessary as a punishment. Punishments are very different from urgent situations.

You very much should be drawing a distinction.

"Child abuse" is a fuzzier term than many seem to acknowledge, subject to passing conventions and fads. This isn't to say there aren't obvious examples of child abuse (beating your kids, sexual abuse, gaslighting, or all sorts of emotional and psychological manipulation or whatever), but today, giving an incorrigibly disobedient child throwing an interminable tantrum a swat on the tush to shake them out of it gets CPS involved, but teaching strange ideologies approved by the state is fine (in fact, refusing to teach them is now abuse). Even worse, grotesque "medical" procedures and treatments against which that swat pales in comparison.

Generally speaking, corporal punishment as such is not abuse, either. We've just become very sentimental, operating with a flawed understanding of human nature. It shouldn't be used lightly, but it shouldn't be demonized categorically.

> giving an incorrigibly disobedient child throwing an interminable tantrum a swat on the tush to shake them out of it gets CPS involved

It really doesn't.

> Even worse, grotesque "medical" procedures and treatments against which that swat pales in comparison.

Ahh, I see what you've got going on here...

> I'm not saying you should spank your kids. I'm only questioning whether it actually causes any problem

If you're actually interested in an answer here, it's pretty easy to find people for whom it did cause problems.

If you say it works great in your family, fine. For you to extrapolate and say it's okay for everyone is not fine.

In my own experience, my parents reached for violence instead of taking the time to connect and understand. Now I know I cannot trust them to listen or to take time to try to understand where I'm coming from.

It is super easy to find people whose lives were greatly negatively impacted by domestic violence, especially coming in the form of "loving punishment." That can fuck a person up even more, leading them to believe violence is a part of love.

it’s always been child abuse, just sanctioned or commonplace.

children can be raised to do the right thing without fear/pain/trauma.

Corporal punishment is legal in the US, & practiced by many educated millennial families in my circle of acquaintance

What part? That it exists as stated?

Or do you believe that every single teacher in California should be deciding how to teach what verbs are, or how dividing works, in their own way however they choose?

Is that really better than finding the best explanation, worksheets, and using that? Because right now there's a classroom in California being taught the worst possible way how to divide, out of all the other classrooms in California. Why? Because why not, freedom!

First, I object to the idea Every teacher gets to decide what they teach. There is a very prescriptive list of what the curriculum must contain, and it is assessed by standardize tests.

Second, teachers aren't fungible robots. They are humans with personalities, interests, and passions. Education works best when teachers are engaged. I think you underestimate the value provided by flexibility. you might be able to reduce variation through standardization, but that doesnt mean you improve the mean. My very best teachers went off script, teaching more valuable information, like a 5th grade teacher that decided to teach business, html, and the scientific method.

Last, it isn't exactly anarchy. Many subjects can be taught from texts, which are organized along standardized approaches.

3/4 of teacher believe in "learning styles" which we figured out was bunk science pretty much the instant it came out. It sucks that we'll probably crush the great teacher but forcing so much standardization but the simple fact is most teachers can't be trusted to actually make good decisions or teach well.

The question then is if you expect better outcomes from the same teachers you dont trust, who cant teach, and make bad decisions if you provide them a script they hate.

Do you expect better outcomes if they quit and you replace them with training videos?

Call me a skeptic, but I dont think standard lesson plans will move the needle for a shitty teacher that doesn't give a shit. They probably wont even engage with that standard lesson plan.

> The question then is if you expect better outcomes from the same teachers you dont trust, who cant teach, and make bad decisions if you provide them a script they hate.

Yes

> Do you expect better outcomes if they quit and you replace them with training videos?

You still need someone to enforce the kids are actually doing what they've been instructed to but yes I'd expect an equal or better outcome.

"the simple fact is most teachers can't be trusted to actually make good decisions or teach well"

Another simple fact is, that despite all that effort and forced curriculum and years of attending - most people don't understand even basic science. So I question, that the current system is working efficiently at all.

It's worth pointing out that different students are different people; each person has their unique background and knowledge when they first arrive in a classroom. If you've got a student who's struggling with < versus > they're going to have a real hard time with further math if you don't provide some support for them (and even then they'll still have a hard time, you'll just be helping them - it'll be similar to someone spotting you while you do bench presses near the limit of what you can handle).

There is no "best explanation, best worksheet" any more than there's a "best shoe size, best cut/style of pants".

Hire good teachers who care about their students, and let them figure out how to best address the needs of their students in that particular classroom.