I'm feeling conflicted and unhappy with my family situation. May I have some validation and/or advice? (trigger warning, also, I think)

[Neonatal RRT]

I imagine many children questioned these things, internally, but being powerless, what could they do?

You only question things if you are exposed to alternatives, which we were not. We never questioned things until we were adults entertaining the idea of raising our own children, and by then, we had been exposed to alternatives and decided to give it a try.

Related: Look at autocratic, closed societies. Ever wonder how easily people are controlled? How is it that so many never question? The basic answer is to remove (kill) those with alternative thoughts, control the media, and never give options. Remove any thoughts of another way.

It was drilled into our heads as children that, and I am quoting my parents, "This family is not a Democracy! What I say, goes, no questions." Now, you may be thinking, that's my family. But I had many friends, went to their homes, observed how they interacted with their parents, we talked and complained about our parents like any other kid did. It was more or less, all the same. This was the way it was.

 

[Mr. Stevens]

You only question things if you are exposed to alternatives, which we were not. We never questioned things until we were adults entertaining the idea of raising our own children, and by then, we had been exposed to alternatives and decided to give it a try.

This is simply untrue. I was hit and often ridiculed, and had these stories recounted to me into adulthood with the idea I should find them amusing. It was clear to me as a kid that these attitudes were wrong and didn't make sense.

You say it's only abuse if internalized that way, but when people internalize abuse they tend to think they deserve it. And therefor it's not abuse to them.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

This is simply untrue. I was hit and often ridiculed, and had these stories recounted to me into adulthood with the idea I should find them amusing. It was clear to me as a kid that these attitudes were wrong and didn't make sense.

You say it's only abuse if internalized that way, but when people internalize abuse they tend to think they deserve it. And therefor it's not abuse to them.

I think you are getting away from this concept of "nuance" and "grey areas". There is a difference between spanking as a form of discipline from an "unangry" parent doing what they perceive as a "responsibility", not to injure, but more or less to "scare" the child into remembering that what they did is unacceptable or wrong. So, YES, it was not internalized as abuse, because when these things happened, it was because we actually did do something wrong. Looking back, this is my truth.

My parents never ridiculed. My parents never spanked me as a small child unless I actually did something perceived as wrong and they wanted to correct behaviors. I remember these things, I've got a pretty good memory of my childhood. I played with matches, I broke windows, I lied, I hit my siblings, I raced the family car and blew out the transmission, etc. I did things that were wrong. When I was older, these punishments transitioned into chores, paying things off, working, etc. It was life lessons of responsibility. If I broke something, I paid it off and replaced it with something of equal value.

Now, what you are suggesting is a different idea than mine. They are not the same. In your case, I would consider what you experienced as more in line with what one could call "abuse".

There is a huge difference between a family that had normal, everyday, conservative values, and another family that had parents with personality disorders and/or substance abuse that left their children living with actual abuse and terror. I am not talking about the later.

 

[The Pandector]

This is simply untrue. I was hit and often ridiculed, and had these stories recounted to me into adulthood with the idea I should find them amusing. It was clear to me as a kid that these attitudes were wrong and didn't make sense. You say it's only abuse if internalized that way, but when people internalize abuse they tend to think they deserve it. And therefor it's not abuse to them.

I think you are getting away from this concept of "nuance" and "grey areas". There is a difference between spanking as a form of discipline from an "unangry" parent doing what they perceive as a "responsibility", not to injure, but more or less to "scare" the child into remembering that what they did is unacceptable or wrong. So, YES, it was not internalized as abuse, because when these things happened, it was because we actually did do something wrong. Looking back, this is my truth.

My parents never ridiculed. My parents never spanked me as a small child unless I actually did something perceived as wrong and they wanted to correct behaviors. I remember these things, I've got a pretty good memory of my childhood. I played with matches, I broke windows, I lied, I hit my siblings, I raced the family car and blew out the transmission, etc. I did things that were wrong. When I was older, these punishments transitioned into chores, paying things off, working, etc. It was life lessons of responsibility. If I broke something, I paid it off and replaced it with something of equal value.

Now, what you are suggesting is a different idea than mine. They are not the same. In your case, I would consider what you experienced as more in line with what one could call "abuse".

There is a huge difference between a family that had normal, everyday, conservative values, and another family that had parents with personality disorders and/or substance abuse that left their children living with actual abuse and terror. I am not talking about the later.

Your posts on this subject are right on. (Well, I would argue that the point isn't to scare the child but to demonstrate pain as a consequence... but that's niggling.)

Don't know if it would interest others that I was physically and emotionally abused as a child. Step dad couldn't have cared less; he beat me when my autistic mother told him to do so. But I had grandparents that used words responsibly and that helped me understand things. Mom was a whack job who made no sense other than to say,
'because I said so.'

Their style of corporal punishment was to start you bare-butt over the knee and beat your butt until they felt better. No rhyme or reason for how long or hard. No discussion other than a cursive explanation like, 'This is for that report card.' Somehow, it never occurred to them to see if I was able to learn from a chair in the back of the room. I was in 6th grade before they knew I couldn't see the freaking blackboard. And then, only because the school forced an eye exam. I could go on an on and on and on.

None of that convinced me to spank my children. I did it because it is rational, safe and effective. I tried to make family discipline match worldly discipline. We are, after all, preparing them to be responsible adults. There are other ways of discipline and anybody is welcome to them. But we don't do our society any favors by slamming all corporal punishment as abusive. Plus, it kind of bugs me.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

You only question things if you are exposed to alternatives, which we were not. We never questioned things until we were adults entertaining the idea of raising our own children, and by then, we had been exposed to alternatives and decided to give it a try.

Related: Look at autocratic, closed societies. Ever wonder how easily people are controlled? How is it that so many never question? The basic answer is to remove (kill) those with alternative thoughts, control the media, and never give options. Remove any thoughts of another way.

It was drilled into our heads as children that, and I am quoting my parents, "This family is not a Democracy! What I say, goes, no questions." Now, you may be thinking, that's my family. But I had many friends, went to their homes, observed how they interacted with their parents, we talked and complained about our parents like any other kid did. It was more or less, all the same. This was the way it was.

Would you tolerate a romantic partner treating you the same way right now, today, as your parents treated you in the past? Hitting you--not even when angry, but whenever you do something wrong, or even whenever they felt like it--and declaring the relationship a democracy?

 

[autism-and-autotune]

None of that convinced me to spank my children. I did it because it is rational, safe and effective. I tried to make family discipline match worldly discipline. We are, after all, preparing them to be responsible adults. There are other ways of discipline and anybody is welcome to them. But we don't do our society any favors by slamming all corporal punishment as abusive. Plus, it kind of bugs me.

If hitting your children isn't abuse, but corporal punishment, what is your personal definition of abuse?

 

[autism-and-autotune]

This is simply untrue. I was hit and often ridiculed, and had these stories recounted to me into adulthood with the idea I should find them amusing. It was clear to me as a kid that these attitudes were wrong and didn't make sense.

You say it's only abuse if internalized that way, but when people internalize abuse they tend to think they deserve it. And therefor it's not abuse to them.

I'm somewhat the same as you. I knew as a child that hitting your child due to your own overwhelmed emotions was wrong. The last time my father spanked me, leaving me alone and sobbing on the floor, I asked myself, "What's the point in having children if you 'have' to do this to them?'

 

[Neonatal RRT]

Would you tolerate a romantic partner treating you the same way right now, today, as your parents treated you in the past? Hitting you--not even when angry, but whenever you do something wrong, or even whenever they felt like it--and declaring the relationship a democracy?

I don't know where you're going with this. Furthermore, you suddenly introduced this concept of a romantic partner, which wasn't part of the discussion. I would rather stay on track here. Again, I think you're trying to use today's logic and judging the past, which, I repeat, is not an acceptable way of thinking. I know some of you don't have the life experience to understand this concept, but you WILL when you look at your life now, but some 40 years or so into the future. You will look back, and say to yourself, "We just didn't know." "It wasn't part of the conversations we were having at the time."

What you are describing above would fall in line with more of an abusive or controlling-type of relationship between two adults. Even back in the day, it was "code of conduct" that a man never strike a woman. If he did, and other men in the community found out, that man would be, at the very least ostracized, worse case, he got beaten up by other men. This was the way. A woman striking a man would rarely, if ever happen, and if it did, it was out of pure anger, and not to assert some level of power or control.

Now-a-days, things are quite different. Men and women physically and emotionally abuse each other because both are seeking some power in the relationship coupled with a breakdown in morality, responsibility, and a sense of "code of conduct".

 

[Neonatal RRT]

I'm somewhat the same as you. I knew as a child that hitting your child due to your own overwhelmed emotions was wrong. The last time my father spanked me, leaving me alone and sobbing on the floor, I asked myself, "What's the point in having children if you 'have' to do this to them?'

I am thinking you knew it was wrong because you had been introduced, in some form or fashion, some other ways of dealing with things. No doubt small children are observant of their world. If you were born after, say 1985, you probably were introduced to it, perhaps you heard other family, friends, the media discussing it in some way.

Like I said earlier in this discussion, I was raised one way, and I raised my children another, but I also am very keen on understanding context and perspective. The world was one way, now it is another. This is how societies progress and move forward.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

I am thinking you knew it was wrong because you had been introduced, in some form or fashion, some other ways of dealing with things. No doubt small children are observant of their world. If you were born after, say 1985, you probably were introduced to it, perhaps you heard other family, friends, the media discussing it in some way.

Like I said earlier in this discussion, I was raised one way, and I raised my children another, but I also am very keen on understanding context and perspective. The world was one way, now it is another. This is how societies progress and move forward.

Incorrect. I knew it was wrong because it hurt me, and I knew that hurting people was wrong.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

What you are describing above would fall in line with more of an abusive or controlling-type of relationship between two adults.

By that logic, there must also exist an abusive and controlling type relationship between adults and children, correct?

 

[Aspychata]

I decided not to continue the spanking as our families did with us. However , my child had freedom because l knew once she hit the world as an adult, that wouldn't exist. She now works jobs and attends the university. I basically didn't really discipline her. School was expected, getting pregnant wasn't. I didn't groom her for marriage, just groomed her to find her passion, and keep an open mind. And she has been in a long term relationship also. Some children do need consequences however, l don't advocate spankings or slappings.

 

[The Pandector]

If hitting your children isn't abuse, but corporal punishment, what is your personal definition of abuse?

I’d probably want to back away from the corporal punishment thing to take on that question. Wouldn’t want to come up with a special-case definition.

For instance, I don’t like referring to spanking as ‘hitting’ my child. While spanking is obviously a form of hitting, the latter is a catch-all word that encompasses forms far from acceptable when discussing discipline. So, I’m not going to answer a question based on that premise. Other than spanking, I would say that there is no form of hitting that would be acceptable.

That said, what is child abuse? One would be to ignore or downplay your responsibility to raise up a responsible human; that is tragically common abuse. Another would be to employ training or educational methods that demand more than the child is able to give. Another ubiquitous example is living life vicariously through your children to the point of controlling for that purpose. (Okay, you don’t like baseball. So which sport are you going to choose?)

None of those types of abuse begin to sink to the level of striking or even yelling at a child in anger or frustration. That is just raw animal bullying, taking out your own insufficiencies on a weaker person. I understand we all do bad things in the heat of the moment, but if this is a pattern then let the birds pick their bones.

 

[The Pandector]

Incorrect. I knew it was wrong because it hurt me, and I knew that hurting people was wrong.

I wonder what kind of discipline does not, in some way, hurt? IOW, I wonder what kind of discipline you would find acceptable for your parents to have practiced with you.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

I’d probably want to back away from the corporal punishment thing to take on that question. Wouldn’t want to come up with a special-case definition.

For instance, I don’t like referring to spanking as ‘hitting’ my child. While spanking is obviously a form of hitting, the latter is a catch-all word that encompasses forms far from acceptable when discussing discipline. So, I’m not going to answer a question based on that premise. Other than spanking, I would say that there is no form of hitting that would be acceptable.

That said, what is child abuse? One would be to ignore or downplay your responsibility to raise up a responsible human; that is tragically common abuse. Another would be to employ training or educational methods that demand more than the child is able to give. Another ubiquitous example is living life vicariously through your children to the point of controlling for that purpose. (Okay, you don’t like baseball. So which sport are you going to choose?)

None of those types of abuse begin to sink to the level of striking or even yelling at a child in anger or frustration. That is just raw animal bullying, taking out your own insufficiencies on a weaker person. I understand we all do bad things in the heat of the moment, but if this is a pattern then let the birds pick their bones.

Special case definition?

Too bad; spanking your child is hitting them,which is also abuse, whether you like it or not. That's like saying that it isn't murder if the person you stab doesn't die right away.

I'm not trying to be dense but I just really don't understand your logic. Hitting your child is wrong, but spanking isn't even though it's hitting?

 

[autism-and-autotune]

I wonder what kind of discipline does not, in some way, hurt? IOW, I wonder what kind of discipline you would find acceptable for your parents to have practiced with you.

I believe it's all about the INTENT to hurt your child maliciously. Yes, discipline can be shameful to experience but there's a difference between giving your kid a pep-talk, a time-out, and physically abusing them.

Personally I think there's a lot that my parents could have done to be better. If they'd taken care of their own mental health, then my sister and I wouldn't have been subject to the abuse--both physical and emotional.

 

[Neonatal RRT]

By that logic, there must also exist an abusive and controlling type relationship between adults and children, correct?

There can be. A parent-child relationship is almost certainly a controlling-type relationship. That, I think, most would agree. Parents must exert some level of control over their children, simply by virtue of the process of teaching and protecting them. "Don't talk to strangers." "Look both ways before crossing the street." "Don't act up in the store." So on and so forth. As @The Pandector suggested discipline should exert an emotional response, it's literally how the brain triggers a long-term memory. Event + emotion = long-term memory. It could be a happy memory, a sad memory, or an emotional/physical painful memory associated with some sort of disciplinary action. That's literally the whole point of the process of discipline, creating conditions in the brain in which the person will not do that behavior again, and often, it is a painful memory. Again, context and perspective matter during this discussion. We cannot get into "black and white", "if this, then that" sort of thinking here. Obviously, from all this back and forth we are having, it's not a simple discussion.

I think what we are struggling with is, at what point, does the necessity and responsibility for a parent to discipline their child, which undoubtedly causes pain in some cases, transition into physical and mental abuse? At the extremes, certainly, one is not the other, but at what point along that continuum does one become the other? I think this is more at the heart of the discussion here and frankly, I don't have that answer. Like I repeat here, one is not the other at the extremes along the continuum.

I think were parents sort of "fell of the rails" in the 1990's - present, is this idea of "the brain does not think in negatives". The idea that if you tell someone climbing a tall ladder NOT to look down, they undoubtedly will, then anxiety and fear settle in and they will not complete the climb. However if you tell them to keep looking up and to keep going, they will, as well. It doesn't have to be a ladder, per se, but could be anything. Positive reinforcement. A child does a behavior you like, you reward them, not unlike training an animal. Seems to work in some cases, but not all cases. Sometimes behaviors fall under the category of "lies and deceit", theft, property damage, maliciously hitting another person, etc. Things that could put them in jail, or worse, if they were an adult. Things that a parent has a responsibility to put a hard stop to, not with positive reinforcement of alternatives, but a painful disciplinary action. Children should be allowed some latitude to explore their world and make mistakes. Our job as parents should be there to guide them along their life path with both encouragement and discipline. Parents really struggle with this. They know darn well from their childhood that disciplinary action causes pain, and they don't want to discipline their child as a result. Then, the child grows up rather undisciplined and at the very least, they struggle with behaviors into adulthood, or worse, end up in trouble with law, or dead. Being a parent is not something one should take lightly. It's a huge responsibility raising a child into a responsible, productive, good citizen. If the parent never learned these life lessons grown up themselves, then certainly their children are going to suffer the consequences, and society does, as a whole.

 

[The Pandector]

Special case definition?

Too bad; spanking your child is hitting them,which is also abuse, whether you like it or not. That's like saying that it isn't murder if the person you stab doesn't die right away.

I'm not trying to be dense but I just really don't understand your logic. Hitting your child is wrong, but spanking isn't even though it's hitting?

On the one hand you say you don’t understand while on the other you say I’m wrong. You aren’t likely to come to an understanding with that approach.

It seems very important to you that I’m wrong, that I am a child abuser. You need me to be wrong about this; you need a bad guy to abuse. I’m not your man. As you seemed to be understanding earlier, you’re not going to get any satisfaction taking it out on me. If you think you were or are abused, you need to address that with your abuser.

Hoping here that logic is universal…. When I shoot you with a gun, that doesn’t make the gun bad; I am the perpetrator. That gun protects me and my family and provides food for us all to eat. See? Not a bad gun, but a bad gun use. But some people simply cannot look at a firearm and see something useful. Something in the sum of their experience blinds them to the positive possibilities of guns. You might argue that there are good reasons to melt every gun on the planet, but your problem is still blindness.

As long as you keep hysterically blaming the gun, you will find yourself unable to come to grips with the real problem. Hysterical, as in being in the grips of emotion rather than reason. If you want to resolve this (a big ‘if’ in my mind) then quit accusing me of child abuse and go confront your abuser. Otherwise, you’re not looking for advice, just affirmation in your hate. Which I am not providing.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

On the one hand you say you don’t understand while on the other you say I’m wrong. You aren’t likely to come to an understanding with that approach.

It seems very important to you that I’m wrong, that I am a child abuser. You need me to be wrong about this; you need a bad guy to abuse. I’m not your man. As you seemed to be understanding earlier, you’re not going to get any satisfaction taking it out on me. If you think you were or are abused, you need to address that with your abuser.

Hoping here that logic is universal…. When I shoot you with a gun, that doesn’t make the gun bad; I am the perpetrator. That gun protects me and my family and provides food for us all to eat. See? Not a bad gun, but a bad gun use. But some people simply cannot look at a firearm and see something useful. Something in the sum of their experience blinds them to the positive possibilities of guns. You might argue that there are good reasons to melt every gun on the planet, but your problem is still blindness.

As long as you keep hysterically blaming the gun, you will find yourself unable to come to grips with the real problem. Hysterical, as in being in the grips of emotion rather than reason. If you want to resolve this (a big ‘if’ in my mind) then quit accusing me of child abuse and go confront your abuser. Otherwise, you’re not looking for advice, just affirmation in your hate. Which I am not providing.

You're right; I am very confused, and angry too, which is not a good combination.

Well said; you read my mind, and what I thinking this morning. 'This guy is wrong, and there's no way he isn't,' I had thought to myself. The fact that you cannot separate a harmful action from being, in itself, actually harmful is a rather red flag. And while I do agree with you that I should be confronting my actual abusers but currently lack the balls to do so, I would like to guarantee you that your children most likely feel the same way about you as I do about my parents. Admittedly yes, there is something cathartic about arguing with somebody from the safety of a keyboard. In similar fashion there must be something pleasant about exerting one's rage, physically, on someone who is small and helpless...like a child.

The action is bad no matter what was used. Wasn't there some sort of ancient punishment long ago that if someone struck another person, the hand with which they struck was removed? Or slaves, to be deterred from escaping after an attempt, would have a foot cut off? Similarly men who forced themselves on women would be castrated. The action which has consequences results in the loss of the tool which carried out the crime.

I do not blame just guns; I blame the people behind them as well as the ease of access to weapons. It would be no different if we lived in a day where everyone had bows and arrows and swords and daggers. The person who chooses to act violently with a weapon or with their hands versus examining their own emotions and trying to work on that has resorted to a final option, rather than doing something ultimately harder.

Now can guns be necessary for one's protection? Absolutely. Can they be used for food? Absolutely. So can an arrow, a net, and other things. But just because one has the right to bear arms does not mean they are free from using them safely and responsibly. I personally cannot relate to anybody who feels that they need a firearm in everyday life.

 

[autism-and-autotune]

There can be. A parent-child relationship is almost certainly a controlling-type relationship. That, I think, most would agree. Parents must exert some level of control over their children, simply by virtue of the process of teaching and protecting them. "Don't talk to strangers." "Look both ways before crossing the street." "Don't act up in the store." So on and so forth. As @The Pandector suggested discipline should exert an emotional response, it's literally how the brain triggers a long-term memory. Event + emotion = long-term memory. It could be a happy memory, a sad memory, or an emotional/physical painful memory associated with some sort of disciplinary action. That's literally the whole point of the process of discipline, creating conditions in the brain in which the person will not do that behavior again, and often, it is a painful memory. Again, context and perspective matter during this discussion. We cannot get into "black and white", "if this, then that" sort of thinking here. Obviously, from all this back and forth we are having, it's not a simple discussion.

I think what we are struggling with is, at what point, does the necessity and responsibility for a parent to discipline their child, which undoubtedly causes pain in some cases, transition into physical and mental abuse? At the extremes, certainly, one is not the other, but at what point along that continuum does one become the other? I think this is more at the heart of the discussion here and frankly, I don't have that answer. Like I repeat here, one is not the other at the extremes along the continuum.

I think were parents sort of "fell of the rails" in the 1990's - present, is this idea of "the brain does not think in negatives". The idea that if you tell someone climbing a ladder NOT to look down, they undoubtedly will. However if you tell them to keep looking up and to keep going, they will, as well. Positive reinforcement. A child does a behavior you like, you reward them, not unlike training an animal. Seems to work in some cases, but not all cases. Sometimes behaviors fall under the category of "lies and deceit", theft, property damage, maliciously hitting another person, etc. Things that could put them in jail, or worse, as an adult. Things that a parent has a responsibility to put a hard stop to, not with positive reinforcement of alternatives, but a painful disciplinary action. Parents really struggle with this. They know darn well from their childhood that disciplinary action causes pain, and they don't want to discipline their child as a result. Then, the child grows up rather undisciplined and at the very least, they struggle with behaviors into adulthood, or worse, end up in trouble with law, or dead. Being a parent is not something one should take lightly. It's a huge responsibility raising a child into a responsible, productive, good citizen. If the parent never learned these life lessons grown up themselves, then certainly their children are going to suffer the consequences, and society does, as a whole.

Well said; control can be good if used as a means to protect them form dangers of the world. Yet teaching by example and discipline---not in the form of physical punishment alone--is probably a better way to raise your children. Get them to talk, and be able to voice themselves rather than fear pain upon doing so.

Is one disciplined in the workplace with the same method you suggest--emotional pairing to an event?

I think that the fact that there are blurry or invisible lines between what is abuse and what isn't is really the heart of the issue. Hitting your spouse is abuse; hitting your dog is abuse; but hitting a child? 'Hmmm,' some folks may say. The fact that Pandector is in the fence about this is what has me riled up.

I'm not sure what to make of your final paragraph. I trust that even if my parent's hadn't abused me and disciplined me I would not be in jail or at issues with legal authority. Your examples are very very far-reaching, perhaps because I cannot relate to your thought process. I wonder if there is correlation to parents who do abuse their children and those children grow up to commit crimes or be in trouble with the law? If this is the case, I guarantee physical discipline does more harm than good.