I know not every parent believes in "Physically Disciplining" your child

[Anonymous]

I don't know about all this mis-remembering the past as being a more obedient, civil time. My parents grew up in the 60's. Now, from my history classes, I seem to recall the 60's as being quite turbulent and the kids as not being particularly obedient.

Anecdotally, my own grandpa was a real ahole in his day. Would be considered a juvenile delinquent now but, then, he was just a boy.

If you're looking at crime over time as an indicator of how kids are being raised and how that relates to society as a whole, the picture is more difficult. It seems as though the 70's and the 80's saw the beginning of a real spike in violent crimes - which would be the kids raised in the beloved 50's. Now, this could be because of better reporting standards, etc., but since the height of reported crimes in the 90's, America seems to be getting less violent. When did the "no hitting" movement take hold? Maybe the 90's?

Giving a kid a swat or two isn't a big deal. But, not everyone agrees that routine physical punishment is the way to go.

[Anonymous]

"When did the "no hitting" movement take hold? Maybe the 90's? "

Good weed.

[Anonymous]

I agree that if you use physical violence to try to get people to do what you want, it is probably a good idea to stop once they become big enough to fight back.

This will also teach them the valuable lesson that you should only attack people significantly weaker than you.

Ahhh, the 50s, when you could smack the crap out of your wife for not having dinner on the table when you come back from work. Happy days.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:OP -- you don't speak English as a first language...are you a nanny with too much time on your hands? Or, are you beating your charges with one hand and typing with the other?

I'm getting a tractor pull/demolition derby vibe from OP.

[dedicateddad]

The 60's was really the break...that was when all the real idiots started seeing the positive changes and freedoms that had started coming to people who were really being treated unjustly (blacks and women primarily) so they decided that they should be able to be more "free" and really the people being born in the 50's that really grew up in the 60's would be in the real problem group for that 70-80's stat that you dropped...so it was still fundamentally a problem with a lack of discipline...parents were too busy dropping acid and "starting revolutions" instead of keeping their kids in line.

I don't know what it is about you people shitting on my english...I have gone back and re read my posts...but no English is indeed my first language, I am in fact not a nanny (nice undercover racism there btw) and I don't have too much time on my hands. I come on here when I get a free second and respond to the people who contribute to the conversation and then to laugh at all the haters with nothing to say.

[Anonymous]

dedicateddad wrote:The 60's was really the break...that was when all the real idiots started seeing the positive changes and freedoms that had started coming to people who were really being treated unjustly (blacks and women primarily) so they decided that they should be able to be more "free" and really the people being born in the 50's that really grew up in the 60's would be in the real problem group for that 70-80's stat that you dropped...so it was still fundamentally a problem with a lack of discipline...parents were too busy dropping acid and "starting revolutions" instead of keeping their kids in line.

I don't know what it is about you people shitting on my english...I have gone back and re read my posts...but no English is indeed my first language, I am in fact not a nanny (nice undercover racism there btw) and I don't have too much time on my hands. I come on here when I get a free second and respond to the people who contribute to the conversation and then to laugh at all the haters with nothing to say.

Wacko.

[Anonymous]

dedicateddad, I'm kind of on the same page as you. On time one of our boys got so out of hand that my husband basically said, "You're think you're tough, eh? Let's see how tough you really are," and fought him one-on-one. Needless to say, he's been a respectful kid ever since (my husband was a Marine).

[dedicateddad]

Semper Fi!

[Anonymous]

idiots together!

[Anonymous]

dedicateddad wrote:The 60's was really the break...that was when all the real idiots started seeing the positive changes and freedoms that had started coming to people who were really being treated unjustly (blacks and women primarily) so they decided that they should be able to be more "free" and really the people being born in the 50's that really grew up in the 60's would be in the real problem group for that 70-80's stat that you dropped...so it was still fundamentally a problem with a lack of discipline...parents were too busy dropping acid and "starting revolutions" instead of keeping their kids in line.

I don't know what it is about you people shitting on my english...I have gone back and re read my posts...but no English is indeed my first language, I am in fact not a nanny (nice undercover racism there btw) and I don't have too much time on my hands. I come on here when I get a free second and respond to the people who contribute to the conversation and then to laugh at all the haters with nothing to say.

I think that the parents and the parenting styles of the 50's were informed by their experiences being raised during/immediately after the Depression. Stability and conformity were paramount after the uncertainty of the 30's and 40's. Repression was expected. Two-parent families do help, statistically speaking, but I'm not sure I'd want to pay the price for that "stability."

[Anonymous]

Our son doesn't dare talk back now. Seems like we're pretty smart, if you ask me.

[dedicateddad]

In my world if the kid is respectful and does what he is supposed to then they get respect and they get freedoms. If the kid steps far enough out of line a good spanking works wonders on a younger child. And a single open hand smack across the face does miracles for getting a snotty disrespectful teen to remember that that isn't the way you act.

[dedicateddad]

Anonymous wrote:I agree that if you use physical violence to try to get people to do what you want, it is probably a good idea to stop once they become big enough to fight back.

This will also teach them the valuable lesson that you should only attack people significantly weaker than you.

Ahhh, the 50s, when you could smack the crap out of your wife for not having dinner on the table when you come back from work. Happy days.

And this is actually my favorite post in the whole thread so far! It addressed the issue with a good sense of humor, but you do know that you are manipulating my words. The reason I suspected my family stopped giving me beatings was because I was old enough to put up a fight. Purely speculation on my part...we never discussed why...maybe it was just because I finally stopped being an asshole! I don't think that the beatings should stop because they are getting closer to my size, I actually think that when they are smaller it is strictly viewed as discipline from a higher ranking official...I don't want it to feel like "violence" even though I have used that term in this thread. Once the child is old enough to start instinctively responding with physicality it is time to stop because this isn't supposed to be a conflict...this is supposed to be teaching your kid how to act.

[Anonymous]

"The reason I suspected my family stopped giving me beatings was because I was old enough to put up a fight. Purely speculation on my part...we never discussed why...maybe it was just because I finally stopped being an asshole"

Little.evidence.of.that.

[dedicateddad]

I have been nothing but polite to anyone who has contributed to the conversation...