Reluctant Parents and Child Abuse

This is a follow-up to my previous post.  I just had a few more questions for Grok.

For people who do not really want children, or who are ambivalent about having children, why do they then have children anyway?

People who are genuinely strongly childfree, that is, I never want children, full stop, very rarely end up having them intentionally.  When it does happen despite that stance, it is usually due to extreme external overrides, contraception failure plus refusal/pressure against abortion, religious/cultural mandates that forbid contraception/abortion, or very controlling family/partner dynamics.

Far more commonly, the people who didn't really want kids / were ambivalent / weren't sure and then had them anyway fall into several overlapping categories. These are drawn from personal accounts, sociological patterns, psychological studies on parental regret, and common real-world reporting.

Here are the most frequent reasons:

1.  Partner pressure or relationship compromise

One partner, usually but not always the woman, is lukewarm/against, the other really wants kids, then the ambivalent/reluctant one concedes to keep the relationship/marriage.  Many people view having kids as a non-negotiable part of a lifelong partnership in their social circle.

2.  Accidental pregnancy plus it's too late to terminate

Contraception fails, they discover the pregnancy relatively late, or they go back and forth until past the point where abortion feels feasible, emotionally, legally, logistically, or morally for them.  Once the baby is born, abstract I don't want kids often turns into concrete love/attachment to this child.

3.  Societal/family/cultural/religious expectations

Strong pronatalist pressure:  You'll change your mind, Who will take care of you when you're old?, parents/grandparents begging for grandchildren, religious communities viewing childlessness as failure or sin, or simply it's just what people do.  Many people absorb this so deeply they override their own ambivalence.

4.  Ambivalence itself plus why not? reasoning

They are not strongly against children, they are neutral/fence-sitters.  Life progresses (stable job, house, age pressure, friends all having kids), so they think maybe it won't be so bad, everyone says it's different when it's yours, or I don't have a better plan for my life.  Biological clock anxiety or fear of future regret, What if I regret not having them?, often outweighs the current reluctance.

5.  Change of heart after the fact; sometimes genuine, sometimes post-hoc rationalization

A meaningful minority do report that once the child arrived, their feelings shifted dramatically and they became glad they did it.  Others say they love the child deeply but would not choose parenthood again if they could rewind.

6.  Lack of access to reliable long-term contraception or abortion

In many parts of the world, and increasingly in some U.S. states post-2022, people who would prefer to remain childfree simply cannot prevent pregnancy reliably over decades, or cannot safely terminate if it happens.

Regret rates among parents who were ambivalent or mildly opposed beforehand appear substantially higher than among those who actively wanted children from the start.  Studies and anonymous forums show recurring themes of burnout, loss of identity/autonomy, financial strain, and resentment, especially when external pressure, rather than internal desire, was the main driver.

In short:  Very few people who are truly certain they never want children end up as parents by choice.  Most of the cases you notice are people who were somewhere between meh and probably not rather than a hard no, and then life, love, pressure, accidents, or inertia tipped the scale.

Are the people who really did not want children, or even ambivalent about it, more likely to engage in child abuse?

Research indicates that parents who have children from unintended or unwanted pregnancies, often tied to initial reluctance or ambivalence, are indeed more likely to engage in child maltreatment compared to those with planned, wanted pregnancies.  This correlation is supported by multiple studies, though it is important to note that correlation does not imply causation for every case; other factors like socioeconomic stress, parental history of abuse, or lack of support often interplay.  Maltreatment here includes physical abuse, neglect, emotional abuse, and sometimes shaking/smothering behaviors.

Key Evidence from Studies

• Unintended Pregnancies as a Predictor:  Longitudinal research has identified unintended pregnancy as one of the earliest risk factors for child maltreatment.  For instance, a study using both parental reports found that children from unintended pregnancies face elevated risks of abuse or neglect, with the pregnancy intention from either parent influencing outcomes.  This predictive value holds across demographics, though it's stronger in contexts of economic hardship or prior parental trauma.
  
  
• Quantified Risks:  Children born from unplanned births are approximately 4.6 times more likely to experience abuse compared to planned ones, according to analyses of family planning and maltreatment data.  Another study of low-income families showed that the number of unplanned pregnancies a woman has directly increases the probability of both abuse and neglect for her children.  In Japan, unintended pregnancies combined with young motherhood synergistically raised risks of infant shaking and smothering.
  
  
• Ambivalence and Parental Satisfaction:  While direct studies on ambivalence are fewer, related research links lower parental satisfaction, often stemming from ambivalence or reluctance, to higher child abuse potential.  For example, assessments across multiple satisfaction domains showed negative correlations with maltreatment risk, suggesting that ambivalent feelings can erode parenting quality over time.  In child protection contexts, parental ambivalence toward proceedings or support can exacerbate risks, though this is more about ongoing dynamics than initial intent.

Contributing Factors

The link is not solely about not wanting kids; it is often amplified by:

• Socioeconomic and Support Issues:  Unwanted pregnancies are more common in resource-strapped environments, where stress heightens maltreatment risks.
  
  
• Intergenerational Cycles:  Parents with histories of their own childhood abuse are more prone to unintended pregnancies and subsequent maltreatment of their kids.
  
  
• Broader Outcomes:  Unwanted children may face not just abuse but also neglect, poorer health, and developmental delays, perpetuating cycles.

Not all reluctant or ambivalent parents abuse their children, many develop strong bonds post-birth, and protective factors like positive relationships or interventions can mitigate risks.  However, the statistical association is well-documented, emphasizing the importance of family planning access to reduce unintended pregnancies and associated harms. 

If parents are reluctant or ambivalent about having children, surely they are ambivalent about the all-encompassing project of childrearing?

Yes, that's a reasonable inference in many cases, and research on parental ambivalence supports the idea that initial reluctance or uncertainty about having children often extends into ongoing ambivalence about the full scope and demands of childrearing.

What the Evidence Shows

Ambivalence in this context is not just a fleeting maybe before birth; for many parents, it persists or resurfaces as a mixed set of feelings:  Deep love for the child combined with resentment, regret about lost freedom, identity erosion, exhaustion, or a sense that parenthood does not align with who they are or want to be.  This is not universal, some reluctant parents fully embrace the role once the child arrives, but it is common enough to be a recognized phenomenon in psychology, sociology, and personal accounts.

Key patterns from studies and reports include:

• Ambivalence as a Normal but Under-discussed Part of Parenting — Many parents experience mixed emotions about the all-consuming nature of childrearing, constant responsibility, loss of autonomy, financial strain, identity shift.  When the pregnancy was unintended or reluctantly accepted, this ambivalence tends to be more intense and persistent.  It is often described as loving the child while regretting the life change parenthood brought.
  
  
• Lower Parenting Satisfaction and Engagement — Parents who were ambivalent or reluctant beforehand frequently report lower overall satisfaction with parenting.  This can manifest as reduced emotional investment, less proactive involvement in developmental activities, or feeling trapped in the role rather than energized by it.  Some studies link this to poorer parent-child interaction quality over time.
  
  
• Regret as an Extreme Form — A subset openly expresses regret, for example, I love my kid but would not choose this path again.  Anonymous forums, books, and interviews reveal recurring themes: the daily grind of childrearing feels overwhelming precisely because it was never a strong personal desire.  This regret correlates with higher burnout, mental health struggles, like depression or anxiety, and sometimes strained family dynamics.
  
  
• Not Always Detrimental — Importantly, ambivalence does not automatically mean poor parenting.  Many ambivalent parents still provide stable, loving care, they just carry an internal conflict.  Protective factors, strong support networks, therapy, financial stability, can help resolve or manage it.  In some cases, the ambivalence fades as bonds strengthen.

Why This Extension Makes Sense Logically

If someone was neutral-to-negative about the idea of children in the abstract, the reality of 18+ years of intensive, irreversible commitment, sleepless nights, career trade-offs, constant emotional labor, etc. often amplifies that original hesitation.  The all-encompassing project you mention, shaping a human being's values, managing crises, sacrificing personal goals, is far more demanding than pregnancy itself.  When the motivation was external, partner pressure, societal norms, accident, rather than intrinsic desire, it is harder to sustain enthusiasm through the tough parts.

In short:  Yes, reluctance or ambivalence about having children frequently carries over to ambivalence about raising them.  It is not inevitable doom, plenty of parents navigate it successfully, but it is a real risk factor for ongoing dissatisfaction, lower engagement, and sometimes regret.  Open conversations about these feelings, without judgment, are increasingly seen as helpful for mental health and family well-being.

It seems to me that this would manifest mostly in the earlier years, when children are loud, smelly, messy, needy, etc.?

Yes, your intuition aligns well with a lot of the available evidence and parental accounts:  The most intense manifestations of reluctance, ambivalence, regret, or burnout do tend to peak during the early years, roughly infancy through toddlerhood/preschool, ages 0–5 or so, when the demands are most physically exhausting, constant, and all-encompassing in the ways you describe, non-stop caregiving, sleep deprivation, mess, noise, tantrums, total dependence, and little personal space or autonomy.

Why It Often Peaks Early

• Physical and Logistical Load — Newborns/infants require round-the-clock care, feeding, diapering, soothing, with severe sleep disruption that is biologically taxing.  Toddlers add mobility chaos, constant supervision to prevent danger, defiance phases, terrible twos/threes, and emotional volatility.  Many ambivalent parents describe this era as feeling trapped or overwhelmed precisely because the child is so needy and the parent has so little control over their own time/energy.
  
  
• Burnout Patterns — Parental burnout, a state of chronic exhaustion, emotional distancing, and reduced sense of accomplishment, is frequently reported to be highest when children are young, especially under 5–6.  Studies link it to the sheer intensity of hands-on demands, which ease as kids gain independence, for example, self-feeding, toileting, sleeping through the night, school routines.  Once children hit school age, around 5–12, the daily grind often lightens, more predictable schedules, some self-entertainment, less physical labor, making the role feel more manageable even for reluctant parents.
  
  
• Regret and Dissatisfaction — Anonymous forums, for example, regretful parents communities, and some surveys show peaks of raw regret or I can't do this feelings during the infant/toddler years.  As kids age into middle childhood or adolescence, many ambivalent parents report the ambivalence softening, not disappearing entirely, but becoming more tolerable, because interactions shift toward conversation, shared interests, or independence rather than constant physical management.  Some even find enjoyment in older kids' personalities, humor, or companionship that wasn't possible earlier.

But It Doesn't Always Fade Completely

While the acute intensity often decreases after the early years:

• Ambivalence can persist or resurface in new forms during later stages, for example, teen rebellion straining the relationship, ongoing identity loss, financial burdens continuing, or lingering resentment about life trade-offs.
  
  
• For some, the early overload creates lasting emotional distance or lower engagement that carries forward.
  
  
• A few studies on intergenerational ambivalence, mostly with adult children, suggest it can decline over decades as kids become independent, but that is a much longer timeline.

In summary:  Yes, the loud, smelly, messy, needy phase is when reluctant or ambivalent parents are most likely to feel the full weight of regret or dissatisfaction, it is the period where the mismatch between expectation/desire and reality hits hardest.  Many describe it as the survival mode years, after which things often get noticeably easier, even if the underlying ambivalence does not vanish.  This is one reason early-years support, postpartum resources, childcare access, realistic expectations, is seen as especially critical for preventing escalation into burnout or poorer outcomes.

And yet, these are the primary years when self-esteem is developing?  My understanding is self-esteem develops before the age of ten?  So do children of reluctant parents suffer more self-esteem issues long term?

Yes, you are touching on a critical point:  The early childhood years, roughly birth to age 5–10, are indeed when foundational aspects of self-esteem, or global self-worth, begin to form and stabilize in significant ways.  Research shows that by around age five, children already exhibit a sense of self-esteem comparable in strength and stability to adults, it is not fully mature yet, but the core feeling good or bad about oneself is already emerging and can be measured reliably.

Self-esteem development is gradual and ongoing:

• Infancy to toddlerhood (0–3):  Basic sense of self as separate, secure attachment forms the foundation (for example, feeling worthy of care and love).
  
  
• Preschool/early childhood (3–5/6):  Explicit self-evaluations emerge; kids start describing themselves positively or negatively, and this tracks with parental warmth, responsiveness, and consistency.
  
  
• Middle childhood (6–10/12):  Self-esteem becomes more domain-specific (for example, academic, social, and more stable, but early experiences still exert strong influence.
  
  
• It continues to evolve through adolescence and adulthood, with dips and rises, for example, often lower in early teens, then rising again, but the early years lay a durable groundwork.

Do Children of Reluctant/Ambivalent Parents Suffer More Long-Term Self-Esteem Issues?

The evidence suggests yes, there is an elevated risk, particularly when parental reluctance manifests as emotional distance, inconsistent warmth, harsher or neglectful parenting, burnout-driven withdrawal, or lower engagement during those formative early years.  However, it is not automatic or inevitable, outcomes vary based on many factors.

Key findings from studies:

• Children from unintended/unwanted pregnancies, a proxy for initial parental reluctance, have been found to show lower self-esteem in adolescence and even into adulthood, for example, one longitudinal study tracked lower self-esteem 23 years later when the child was unintended by the mother.  This link often ties to poorer parent-child relationships, less nurturing environments, or authoritarian/harsh styles that can emerge from unresolved ambivalence.
  
  
• Parental burnout, common in the intense early years for reluctant parents, correlates with negative impacts on children's emotional development, including harsher parenting, neglectful behaviors, reduced responsiveness, and higher child mental health problems, all of which undermine self-esteem.
  
  
• The family environment in early childhood has enduring effects on self-esteem trajectories; warm, supportive parenting buffers against low self-esteem, while emotional unavailability or mixed signals, for example, love mixed with resentment, can contribute to insecurity.
  
  
• Some data show that psychosocial issues, including self-esteem-related ones, are more pronounced in early/middle childhood for children of unintended pregnancies but may fade by adolescence in some cohorts, suggesting resilience or compensatory factors, for example, school, peers, later parental adaptation, can help.

Protective and aggravating factors include:

• If the reluctant parent manages to provide consistent warmth, attachment security, and positive mirroring, even amid internal conflict, the impact can be minimized.
  
  
• External supports, extended family, therapy, childcare, often help parents overcome early burnout and engage more positively.
  
  
• On the flip side, if ambivalence leads to chronic emotional distance, criticism, or withdrawal during the needy years, it heightens risks for lower self-esteem, poorer emotion regulation, and related issues that can persist.

In short:  The early years are pivotal for self-esteem foundations, and reluctant/ambivalent parents face higher odds of challenges in providing the consistent, attuned caregiving that builds it strongly.  Many children still develop healthy self-esteem, thanks to resilience, other caregivers, or parental growth over time, but the statistical association points to increased vulnerability, especially long-term when early patterns are not addressed.  This underscores why support for new parents, especially those who were ambivalent, is seen as preventive for both parental well-being and child outcomes.

And do these parents resort to shortcuts, as in beating their children for perceived misbehavior, to lessen their burden?

Yes, research indicates that parents who were initially reluctant, ambivalent, or dealing with unintended/unwanted pregnancies, often overlapping with reluctance, are at higher risk of using harsher disciplinary methods, including physical punishment like spanking, hitting, or beating, in response to children's misbehavior. This can serve as a perceived shortcut to quickly control behavior and reduce the immediate burden of demanding, ongoing parenting, especially during the high-needs early years.

Evidence Linking Reluctance/Unintended Pregnancy to Harsher/Physical Discipline

• Unintended pregnancy as an early risk factor — Multiple studies identify unintended or unwanted pregnancies as one of the earliest identifiable predictors of child maltreatment, which includes not just severe abuse but also harsh parenting practices and physical discipline.  This association holds after controlling for other factors like socioeconomic status in many cases.
  
  
• Elevated use of corporal punishment — Parents reporting higher stress, burnout, or lower satisfaction, common in reluctant/ambivalent cases, tend to endorse and use harsher discipline more frequently.  For example:

• Parental burnout and chronic stress correlate with punitive, reactive responses to misbehavior rather than patient, proactive strategies.
  
  
• In contexts of high parenting demands without strong intrinsic motivation, physical methods can feel like an efficient way to enforce compliance and regain some control/autonomy quickly.

• Mechanisms at play — The shortcut dynamic often stems from:

• Exhaustion and low tolerance — When daily caregiving feels overwhelming, especially in toddler/preschool phases with frequent defiance, patience erodes, leading to quicker resort to physical responses.
  
  
• Perceived effectiveness — Some parents view corporal punishment as a fast way to stop unwanted behavior, reducing short-term chaos, even if long-term evidence shows it often backfires, increasing aggression, fear, or relational strain.
  
  
• Intergenerational patterns — Parents with their own histories of harsh upbringing, more common in unintended pregnancy cohorts, are likelier to replicate physical discipline.

Important Caveats

• Not all reluctant or ambivalent parents use physical punishment, many do not, especially with access to support, education on positive discipline, or personal motivation to break cycles.
  
  
• The link is probabilistic, elevated risk, not certainty, and it is amplified by compounding factors like poverty, isolation, mental health issues, or lack of non-physical discipline tools.
  
  
• Corporal punishment itself is associated with poorer child outcomes, for example, increased aggression, lower self-esteem, higher risk of future violence, creating potential feedback loops where misbehavior escalates, further straining the parent.

In essence:  Yes, the burden of unwanted or reluctantly accepted parenthood can push some toward shortcuts like physical discipline as a way to manage overwhelming demands more immediately.  This is one reason experts emphasize preventive supports, access to family planning, parenting education on non-violent discipline, mental health resources, and early intervention, to reduce these risks and promote healthier family dynamics.

I did not use the phrase perceived shortcut.  I used perceived misbehavior.  The shortcut is real, the misbehavior is mostly perceived.

Yes, you are right, I appreciate the clarification on the phrasing.  The shortcut, resorting to physical discipline like beating, hitting, or severe corporal punishment, is often very real in its intent and effect for the parent:  A quick, decisive way to stop disruptive behavior, enforce compliance, and momentarily reduce the overwhelming load of demands.  The misbehavior itself, however, is frequently perceived or exaggerated through the lens of parental stress, fatigue, low tolerance, or unresolved ambivalence, meaning what might be normal developmental testing, tantrums, boundary-pushing, messiness, noise, gets interpreted as deliberate defiance, disrespect, or badness warranting strong correction.

How This Dynamic Plays Out in the Research

Studies on unintended/unwanted pregnancies, parental burnout, and harsh parenting consistently show patterns where:

• Heightened perception of misbehavior — Reluctant or highly stressed parents, often overlapping with unintended pregnancy cohorts, tend to view typical child behaviors more negatively.  Normal toddler defiance, crying, or mess can feel disproportionately threatening or burdensome, lowering the threshold for what counts as misbehavior that needs immediate, forceful response.
  
  
• Real shortcut via physical methods — When patience is depleted, parents are more likely to use corporal punishment, including beating in severe cases, because it can produce rapid short-term compliance or cessation of the behavior, providing temporary relief from the chaos.  Evidence links unintended pregnancy and related factors, for example, maternal stress, lower parenting satisfaction, to increased use of harsh or physical discipline as a reactive strategy.
  
  
• Mechanisms — This is not usually premeditated cruelty but a reactive shortcut driven by:

• Chronic exhaustion and burnout eroding emotional regulation.
  
  
• Lower intrinsic motivation making non-physical strategies, time-outs, redirection, explanation, feel too effortful or ineffective in the moment.
  
  
• Cultural or personal beliefs that physical correction is a legitimate, efficient tool, especially when the parent feels out of control.

• Outcomes — While it reduces immediate burden, it often backfires long-term:  Escalating child aggression, fear-based compliance, damaged trust, and cycles of more misbehavior that reinforce the parent's negative perceptions.

Key Distinctions from the Data

• Not every reluctant parent crosses into physical abuse or even regular corporal punishment, many stick to milder forms, for example, yelling, threats, or none at all.
  
  
• The risk is elevated, statistically significant in multiple studies, but mediated by factors like access to support, mental health, socioeconomic stress, and prior experiences with violence.
  
  
• Prevention focuses on breaking the perception-reaction loop:  Teaching positive discipline alternatives, reducing parental isolation/burnout, and normalizing that early-childhood behaviors aren't personal attacks.

In essence:  The shortcut is real and functional in the short term for the overwhelmed parent, but the misbehavior triggering it is often amplified or misread due to the very reluctance/ambivalence that makes the parenting load feel so heavy.  This mismatch is a core reason why early support for ambivalent parents can prevent escalation into harsher methods and protect child well-being.

If we could return to the reason that reluctant people ultimately do choose to have children, is there an element of vanity involved?

Yes, vanity, or elements closely related to it, such as ego, social image, status signaling, legacy desires, or a need for validation, can play a role in why some reluctant or ambivalent people ultimately choose, or allow, parenthood, though it is rarely the sole or dominant factor for most.  It is more often one thread woven into a larger tapestry of pressures, inertia, and cultural norms.

Where Vanity Shows Up Most Clearly

• Social status and "proof of adulthood" — In many social circles, having children is still seen as a marker of maturity, success, or normalcy, settling down, building a family, leaving a legacy.  For someone ambivalent, the prospect of being viewed as selfish, immature, or incomplete without kids can tip the scale.  This ties into vanity via external validation:  The photos of family milestones, the social media glow of parent life, or the subtle bragging rights at gatherings.  It is less about deep love for hypothetical children and more about not wanting to be the outlier who failed at a core life script.
  
  
• Legacy and genetic/immortalizing ego — Some people frame having biological children as passing on their genes, name, values, or essence, a form of vanity rooted in self-importance or fear of oblivion.  This can appeal even to the reluctant:  At least part of me lives on, or My family line continues.  Evolutionary psychology and some pronatalist rhetoric amplify this, portraying childlessness as a kind of personal extinction.
  
  
• Narcissistic or image-driven cases — In more extreme examples, for example, discussions of narcissistic parents, children become accessories or extensions of the self:  Symbols of fertility, attractiveness, I created this beautiful person, or moral superiority, I'm selfless enough to sacrifice.  Reluctant narcissists might have kids for the social halo, being seen as a good parent, or control, mini-mes to mold.  While this is not the norm, it is a documented motivation in psychology lit on narcissism and parenthood.

How It Intersects with Reluctance/Ambivalence

For truly ambivalent people (not hard-core childfree), vanity often acts as a tie-breaker rather than the primary driver:

• It combines with partner pressure, They really want this, and I don't want to seem uncaring, fear of future regret, What if I look back and feel empty?, or societal pronatalism, Everyone does it; I'll be judged otherwise.
  
  
• Once the decision is made, vanity can help rationalize it post-hoc:  Focusing on the cute baby phase photos, the pride in milestones, or the narrative of personal growth through sacrifice.
  
  
• In anonymous regret accounts, some parents later admit elements of ego were involved, I wanted to prove I could do it, I liked the idea of being needed, It made me look accomplished, even if the day-to-day reality crushed that illusion.

But It is Not Universal or Dominant for Most

• The bulk of evidence on reluctant/ambivalent parents points more to external pressures, partner, family, culture, religion, biology clock anxiety, accidents, failed contraception plus late decision, or passive drift, Life just happened, than overt vanity.
  
  
• Many who concede to parenthood do so despite vanity concerns, for example, fearing they will lose social cachet or identity.
  
  
• Pronatalist movements sometimes lean on vanity-adjacent appeals, legacy for society/nation, status as a real family, but individual reluctant cases are usually more mundane.

In short:  Yes, an element of vanity is often present, subtly in social validation-legacy desires, more overtly in ego-driven cases, but it is typically secondary to compromise, fear, inertia, or cultural default.  When it dominates, outcomes like regret or poorer parenting engagement seem more likely, as the motivation was not child-centered to begin with.

And are these parents more likely to compare their children with other people's children, even if done so internally and quietly?

Yes, parents who were initially reluctant, ambivalent, or dealing with unintended-unwanted pregnancies appear more likely to engage in social comparison of their children to others, including quiet, internal comparisons,even if not always verbalized outwardly.  While direct large-scale studies specifically measuring comparison frequency in reluctant versus enthusiastic parents are limited, the pattern emerges consistently from related research on parental regret, burnout, stress, lower satisfaction, and parenting dynamics in unintended pregnancy cohorts.

Why This Tendency Is Elevated

• Lower intrinsic satisfaction and higher regret — Reluctant or ambivalent parents often report reduced overall fulfillment in the role, which can fuel a subtle, or overt, benchmarking against happier or more successful families.  When parenthood feels like a compromise or burden rather than a chosen joy, seeing other children excel, academically, behaviorally, socially, can highlight perceived shortcomings in one's own child, or in one's own parenting, intensifying internal dissatisfaction.  Studies on parental regret link it to poorer psychological health, higher burnout, and contextual stressors, for example, lower partner support, all of which correlate with more frequent upward social comparisons, measuring one's family against better ones.
  
  
• Burnout and stress amplification — Parental burnout, more common in unintended or reluctantly accepted parenthood, is associated with negative, reactive parenting mindsets.  In this state, everyday challenges, for example, a child's slower milestones, tantrums, or average performance, feel more burdensome, prompting quiet comparisons to peers who seem easier or more advanced.  This serves as a coping mechanism:  Other kids aren't like this; maybe it's not just me/the circumstances.
  
  
• Threat to self-image and validation — As discussed earlier, elements of vanity, ego, or status can play a role in the decision to have children, for example, legacy, social normalcy.  When outcomes do not match idealized expectations, internal comparisons become a way to process disappointment or defend one's choice, My kid is smarter/more behaved than X's in some ways.  Regret accounts, from forums, qualitative studies, often include themes of envying other parents' seemingly smoother experiences or resenting perceived gaps in achievement/behavior.
  
  
• Developmental milestone sensitivity — Comparisons often center on areas like school performance, behavior, independence, or social skills, precisely the domains where early parental engagement, or lack thereof, influences outcomes.  Reluctant parents, facing higher risks of emotional distance or harsher reactions in the formative years, may quietly track how my child stacks up as a proxy for whether the sacrifice paid off.

Evidence Patterns

• Parental social comparison, especially upward, is linked to lower child self-esteem and higher parental stress/guilt in general research, and reluctant cohorts show elevated baseline stress/regret/burnout.
  
  
• Qualitative accounts from regretful parents frequently describe envying others' family dynamics or children's traits/behaviors, often framed as Why can't mine be more like that?, even if kept internal to avoid judgment.
  
  
• No study claims this is exclusive to reluctant parents, social comparison is near-universal among parents, but the intensity and negativity appear higher when motivation was extrinsic, pressure, accident, rather than deep desire.

In short:  Yes, these parents are more prone to such comparisons, often silently and internally, as a byproduct of unresolved ambivalence, higher regret risk, burnout, and unmet expectations.  It can become a quiet feedback loop:  Comparison heightens dissatisfaction, which reinforces negative perceptions of the child/parenting experience.  This is not deterministic, many overcome it through reflection or support, but it's a documented risk factor in the broader profile of reluctant parenthood.

And are these vanity children seen more as accessories to the parents' egos than as individuals with their own needs and desires?

Yes, in cases where vanity, ego, legacy desires, or social status play a significant role in the decision to have children, what we have been calling vanity children, research and clinical observations indicate that parents are more likely to treat their children as extensions of themselves, accessories to their self-image, or props for validation rather than fully autonomous individuals with their own independent needs, desires, and identities.

This pattern is most pronounced in narcissistic parenting dynamics, but elements can appear in subtler, non-clinical forms among parents driven by extrinsic motivations like image, legacy, or status.

Key Patterns from Psychology and Accounts

• Children as extensions or mirrors — Narcissistic parents, or those with strong narcissistic traits, classically view children not as separate people but as reflections or continuations of their own ego.  The child's achievements, appearance, behavior, or even failures are internalized as direct commentary on the parent's worth.  Successes become bragging rights, Look what I created/produced, while perceived shortcomings threaten the parent's self-image, often leading to criticism, control, or rejection.  This is well-documented in clinical literature on narcissistic abuse, where parenting revolves around the adult's needs for admiration, control, or supply rather than the child's emotional well-being.
  
  
• Accessory-like treatment — In more image-driven cases, children can function as social accessories:  Cute photo props, symbols of fertility/success, or markers of having it all, family, normalcy, legacy.  This shows up in pronatalist rhetoric that emphasizes reproduction as a status or civilizational imperative, but also in everyday vanity-driven parenthood, for example, pushing kids into activities, appearances, or paths that enhance the parent's narrative, My child is gifted/talented/beautiful because of me/my genes. The child's own preferences or inner world become secondary if they do not align with the parent's ego-boost.
  
  
• Link to reluctant/ambivalent origins — When parenthood stems partly from vanity, for example, avoiding the stigma of childlessness, securing a legacy, proving maturity, rather than deep intrinsic desire for a relationship with a unique person, the child is more likely to be objectified.  Reluctant parents motivated by ego may initially see the baby as a win, validation, social approval, but as the reality of individual needs sets in, resentment or detachment can emerge if the child does not fulfill the expected role.  Unintended pregnancies in narcissistic contexts sometimes serve as entrapment tools or power plays, further framing the child as a means to an end.

Outcomes for the Child

Children in these dynamics often face:

• Conditional love, based on how well they reflect/validate the parent.
  
  
• Pressure to perform or conform to parental expectations.
  
  
• Difficulty developing a secure, independent sense of self, since their identity is tied to the parent's ego.
  
  
• Higher risk of emotional neglect, enmeshment, or scapegoating if they deviate from the script.

Not every vanity-influenced parent crosses into full narcissism or overt objectification, many still provide love and care, but the risk of seeing the child primarily through an ego lens, rather than as a separate person with their own agency, is notably higher when the core motivation was not child-centered.

In essence:  Yes, vanity children are disproportionately at risk of being treated more as ego accessories, status symbols, or extensions than as fully individuated people. This is not inevitable, but it is a recurring theme in accounts of narcissistic or highly extrinsic parenting, and it underscores why intrinsic desire and readiness matter so much for healthy parent-child relationships.

Given the parent's reluctance and childrearing shortcuts, surely these factors hurt the child's development and success, and therefore hinder the child's ability to enhance the parent's vanity?

Yes, the combination of initial parental reluctance, or ambivalence/unintended pregnancy, associated childrearing shortcuts, for example, harsher discipline, emotional distance, reduced engagement, and any underlying vanity/ego-driven motivations often creates a counterproductive cycle that hinders the child's long-term development, achievement, and success, thereby undermining the very vanity or status boost the parent may have sought from having a child.

How These Factors Typically Impair Child Outcomes

Research on unintended/unwanted pregnancies (a strong proxy for reluctance) and related parental states consistently links them to elevated risks across multiple domains of child development and adult success:

• Early developmental setbacks — Children from unintended pregnancies show higher rates of behavioral/emotional issues, ADHD/ASD symptoms, motor/social delays, and poorer overall well-being in early/middle childhood.  These stem partly from delayed prenatal care, less nurturing environments, authoritarian/harsh parenting styles, and reduced parental responsiveness, patterns amplified by reluctance and burnout.
  
  
• Academic and cognitive impacts — Lower engagement, harsher discipline, or emotional unavailability in formative years correlates with poorer educational outcomes, including reduced school readiness, lower academic performance, and higher behavioral problems that affect learning.  While some effects attenuate by adolescence in certain studies, for example, psychosocial issues fading by ages 11–16, others persist into adulthood, for example, lower educational attainment in some cohorts.
  
  
• Socio-emotional and mental health — Higher risks of mental health challenges, depression, anxiety, poorer self-esteem, strained parent-child bonds, and delinquent behaviors.  Parental burnout and regret contribute to detachment or inconsistent warmth, which erode secure attachment and emotional regulation, key foundations for social skills, resilience, and later success.
  
  
• Long-term adult outcomes — Evidence points to increased likelihood of poorer physical/mental health, lower income/occupational success, and challenges in relationships or independence.  While not every child is severely affected, resilience factors like supportive extended family, schools, or peers can buffer, the statistical associations show elevated disadvantage compared to children from planned/wanted pregnancies.

The Irony for Vanity/Ego-Driven Motivations

If the parent's underlying drive included elements of vanity, legacy, status, social validation, proof of success, or seeing the child as an extension/accomplishment, these impaired outcomes directly sabotage that goal:

• A child struggling academically, socially, or emotionally is less likely to deliver the bragging rights, reflected glory, or legacy fulfillment the parent envisioned, for example, My child is thriving because of me/my genes.
  
  
• Instead, challenges can become sources of disappointment, shame, or further resentment for the parent, Why aren't they more successful/special?, amplifying internal comparisons, criticism, or withdrawal, feeding a negative loop.
  
  
• In narcissistic-leaning cases, parents may double down on pressure/perfectionism to force success, for example, pushing high achievement for validation, but this often backfires:  Leading to child burnout, rebellion, underperformance, or mental health issues that make the child even less of an impressive accessory.
  
  
• Long-term, the child may achieve less outwardly, or achieve despite the parent, reducing the parent's anticipated ego-boost or social capital from parenthood.

In essence:  Yes, these dynamics frequently create a self-defeating outcome.  The shortcuts and reduced investment born of reluctance/burnout tend to limit the child's potential in ways that prevent them from becoming the vanity enhancer, high-achieving, well-adjusted, status-reflecting offspring, the parent might have subconsciously hoped for.  This mismatch contributes to higher parental regret in hindsight and underscores how extrinsic motivations, versus genuine child-centered desire, often yield poorer results for everyone involved.  Supportive interventions early on can mitigate much of this, but the pattern holds across multiple studies.

There is a slightly different class of parents.  These people finish high school, then college, then get married, and find jobs, etc.  Then they simply have children because it is what's next.  I am not sure how much thought they actually give it?

Yes, this describes a very common pathway to parenthood, especially in middle-class, educated, heteronormative contexts in many Western, and some non-Western, societies.  These parents often follow a normative life script:  High school → college/degree → stable job/career → marriage → homeownership → children.  Having kids becomes the logical what's next milestone after checking off the previous boxes, rather than a deeply deliberated, passionate choice.

How Much Thought Is Actually Given?

From sociological research, qualitative accounts, and studies on the transition to parenthood, the level of explicit reflection varies widely, but for many in this group, it's surprisingly limited or superficial:

• Pronatalism as the default — Parenthood is culturally framed as a normative developmental task of adulthood, an expected progression rather than an optional one.  Pronatalist discourses, embedded in media, family expectations, religion, policy, and social norms, construct having children as normal, essential to full adulthood, maturity, fulfillment, or a complete life.  Once someone hits the milestones of education, career stability, and marriage, the question often shifts from Should we have kids? to When should we have kids?  The why gets taken for granted.
  
  
• Passive or inertia-driven decision-making — Many describe it as just happening or the next logical step.  They may discuss timing, for example, after buying a house, reaching a certain age, or when peers start families, but deeper introspection about personal readiness, sacrifices, long-term identity shifts, or alternatives, childfree life, adoption later, etc., is often minimal.  It is more about fitting the cultural checklist than intense soul-searching.  Some later report that they never really questioned it until the reality hit.
  
  
• Ambivalence is common even in "planned" cases — Even when pregnancies are timed and intentional, ambivalence frequently surfaces, especially early on.  Studies show mixed feelings, excitement mixed with anxiety, grief over lost freedom, uncertainty about readiness, are normal, even in wanted pregnancies.  For those following the script, this can stem from realizing the enormity only after conception or birth.  Retrospective accounts often reveal:  We thought it was what we were supposed to do, or Everyone else was doing it.
  
  
• Social and peer influence — Seeing friends/coworkers/siblings move into the parent phase creates subtle pressure:  It's our turn.  Social media, family questions, When are you having kids?, and workplace norms, for example, parental leave as a rite of passage, reinforce it.  This group is less likely to be strongly opposed or strongly desiring and more likely to be neutral-to-positive fence-sitters who default to yes.

How This Differs from the Reluctant/Ambivalent Groups We've Discussed

This life script cohort overlaps with the ambivalent ones but is distinct in motivation:

• They are rarely reluctant in the sense of strong opposition or external pressure overriding a hard no.
  
  
• Instead, they are often passively accepting, parenthood is not deeply wanted but also is not deeply feared or rejected.  It is just... expected.
  
  
• Outcomes can be better than for truly reluctant parents, more intrinsic stability from planning, resources, and social support, but they still carry risks:  Surprise burnout when the project proves more demanding than anticipated, or quiet regret if the intrinsic rewards do not match the cultural hype.

In short:  For many, surprisingly little deep thought is given, it is more autopilot than active deliberation.  The script is powerful enough that questioning it feels unnecessary or even taboo until the irreversible commitment is underway.  This is one reason why some planned parents later express surprise at the intensity of ambivalence or regret, and why increasing numbers of people are consciously opting out of the script altogether.

This has been lightly edited for readability.  Find the original Grok conversation here.

𓐵

Abusive Family Dynamics and Childhood Fear

Let's chat with Grok about child abuse

In families with abusive parents, is it common for the children, years later as adults, to have little or no relationship with each other?

Yes, it is quite common for adult children from families with abusive parents to end up with little or no relationship with their siblings, though it is not universal — some siblings become very close as allies against the abuse, while others drift apart or become fully estranged.

Several well-documented patterns explain why estrangement often happens in these families:

• Conflicting narratives about the abuse — Siblings may remember or interpret childhood events very differently.  One might recognize the parent's behavior as abusive and choose to distance themselves (or confront it), while another minimizes, denies, or rationalizes it to preserve a relationship with the parent.  This frequently leads to dueling family narratives, where parents encourage siding with them, pitting siblings against each other.  Research and clinical observations show this is a major driver of sibling estrangement, often as collateral damage when one sibling estranges from the abusive parent(s).
  
  
• Parental favoritism, scapegoating, or triangulation — Abusive or dysfunctional parents commonly favor one child, the golden child, while scapegoating another, or they triangulate by playing siblings off each other for control.  This breeds resentment, jealousy, and division that persists into adulthood.  Favoritism is repeatedly cited as one of the top causes of adult sibling estrangement.
  
  
• Trauma responses and coping differences — Growing up with abuse can lead siblings to adopt different survival strategies.  Some become enmeshed with the parent or repeat dysfunctional patterns, while others seek healing and distance themselves from anything reminiscent of the toxic environment — including siblings who remain tied to it.  This can result in emotional disconnection, even without overt conflict.
  
  
• Ripple effects from parent-child estrangement — Many cases of sibling estrangement stem indirectly from an adult child cutting off, or being cut off by, an abusive parent.  The sibling who maintains contact with the parent may feel pressured to align against the one who left, or loyalty conflicts make ongoing contact too painful.

Broader context shows family estrangement, including siblings, affects a significant portion of people — some surveys suggest around 27% of Americans are estranged from at least one relative — and abuse or severe dysfunction is a frequent underlying factor.  In abusive homes, sibling bonds can be complicated by additional layers like sibling abuse, which is surprisingly common and often overlooked, or simply the lack of a healthy model for conflict resolution and emotional support.

That said, it is not inevitable.  In some families, siblings bond tightly over shared survival and remain supportive into adulthood.  Outcomes depend on factors like birth order, personality differences, the severity/type of abuse, and whether any siblings pursue therapy or recovery work.

Regarding "Conflicting narratives about the abuse" is the problem that different siblings deny the abuse or is it that they deny the long term effects of the abuse?  Also, what about the problem that one sibling may have been abused more than others?

Both elements contribute to conflicting narratives about the abuse in families with abusive parents, but the core issue often starts with differences in acknowledging or labeling the abuse itself, which then extends to disagreements about its long-term effects.

From clinical observations and survivor accounts, for example, in sources like Psychology Today articles on dueling family narratives, the conflict frequently arises because:

• One sibling may clearly recognize the parent's behavior as abusive (for example, verbal cruelty, emotional manipulation, physical harm, scapegoating, or neglect) and name it as such.
  
  
• Another sibling might deny that it was abuse at all, rationalizing it as strict parenting, normal family stuff, just how Dad/Mom was, or even you were the difficult one who provoked it.
  
  This denial can stem from:

Loyalty to the parent (to preserve a relationship or inheritance). 

Different personal experiences (for example, they received less overt abuse). 

Coping mechanisms like minimization to avoid confronting painful memories. 

Internalized family myths promoted by the abusive parent(s).

This fundamental split, one sibling validating the abuse versus another invalidating or rewriting it, creates dueling narratives that make mutual understanding nearly impossible.  When the sibling who recognizes the abuse seeks validation (Remember how Mom treated us?), the other may respond with denial, gaslighting (That didn't happen that way, or You're exaggerating), or defensiveness, which deepens the rift.

The disagreement often then extends to the long-term effects:

• The sibling who acknowledges the abuse may attribute their adult struggles (for example, anxiety, trust issues, depression, relationship difficulties, complex PTSD symptoms) to the childhood trauma.
  
  
• The sibling in denial or minimization may insist It wasn't that bad, We all turned out fine, or You're using the past as an excuse, effectively dismissing the validity of those ongoing impacts.

This double layer, denial of the events plus minimization of the effects, fuels estrangement, as the trauma-aware sibling feels unseen, invalidated, and re-traumatized by the conversation, while the other feels attacked or disloyal for being asked to side against the parent.

Regarding differential abuse severity, one sibling abused more intensely than others, this is extremely common in abusive/dysfunctional families and one of the biggest drivers of conflicting narratives and sibling estrangement.

Key patterns include:

• Scapegoat vs. golden child dynamics (very frequent in narcissistic or toxic family systems):  One child is heavily scapegoated—blamed, criticized, emotionally/physically abused, isolated—while another is favored, golden child, with praise, leniency, or material advantages.  The golden child often internalizes the parent's narrative that the scapegoat deserved it or was the problem, leading them to deny/minimize the abuse or even participate in it.
  
  
• Uneven exposure:  Abuse might target one child more due to birth order, gender, personality (for example, sensitive/empathic child gets scapegoated), achievements, or simply parental projection.  Siblings who experienced less severe abuse may genuinely not see the full extent of what happened to the more targeted one, or they downplay it to protect their own worldview.
  
  
• Resentment and power imbalances:  The more-abused sibling often carries deeper trauma, while the less-abused one may feel guilty (for not intervening), defensive (about their easier path), or entitled, from favoritism.  This breeds lifelong tension — for example, the scapegoated sibling resents the golden child's denial or complicity, while the golden child resents being blamed for family dysfunction.
  
  
• Long-term fallout:  Even without overt conflict, the disparity creates emotional distance.  The heavily abused sibling may need to distance from siblings who remain enmeshed with the abusive parent or who invalidate their experience.  Reconciliation is possible but rare without serious self-work (for example, therapy) from all parties, especially the less-affected sibling acknowledging the differential treatment and its harm.

In short, conflicting narratives rarely stem from identical experiences; differential severity amplifies the divide, making shared understanding harder and estrangement more likely.  Many in these situations find relief through therapy (for example, trauma-informed or adult children of dysfunctional families approaches) that helps process the invalidation and rebuild boundaries, whether contact resumes or not.

And what about the argument that "times have changed" or "parenting has changed"?

The argument that times have changed or parenting has changed (sometimes phrased as back then it was normal, times were different, or it was how everyone parented in that era) is extremely common in families with abusive or dysfunctional dynamics, and it often serves as a key part of the denial or minimization that fuels conflicting narratives and sibling estrangement.

This claim typically comes up when a more trauma-aware sibling tries to discuss the abuse, its reality, or its lasting effects.  The response from a sibling, or parent, who remains in denial/minimization might sound like:

• That was just how parenting was back then — everyone got spanked/hit/yelled at.
  
  
• Parents were stricter in our day; it built character.
  
  
• No one called it abuse; it was discipline.
  
  
• Things have changed now with all this therapy talk and sensitivity.

While it is objectively true that societal norms around parenting have evolved significantly (for example, corporal punishment was far more accepted and legally/commonly used in previous generations, emotional/verbal abuse was not widely recognized as harmful, mental health awareness was lower, and resources like therapy or child protective services were less accessible or stigmatized), this argument is frequently weaponized to invalidate the experience rather than genuinely engage with it.

Here's why it becomes problematic and divisive in these families:

• It dismisses the severity and individuality of the harm — Even if certain behaviors were more common or accepted in the past, that does not make them non-abusive or harmless.  Widespread practices can still cause real trauma (for example, routine physical punishment linked to higher risks of anxiety, depression, aggression, or complex PTSD in studies).  The everyone did it defense sidesteps accountability by shifting focus from was this harmful to me/us? to was it socially normative?  Abuse is not defined solely by era — it is defined by impact on the child's well-being, safety, and development.
  
  
• It equates cultural norms with moral/ethical rightness — Just because something was widespread does not make it okay.  Historical examples abound:  Child labor, lack of women's rights, or overt racism were once normal too.  Using generational change as a blanket excuse can feel like gaslighting to the sibling who's processed the trauma and sees clear patterns of emotional neglect, scapegoating, verbal cruelty, or worse.
  
  
• It protects the status quo and avoids discomfort — For the sibling who denies or minimizes (often the less-targeted one, golden child, or one still enmeshed with the parent), this argument preserves their relationship with the abusive parent(s) and avoids confronting painful truths.  Acknowledging it was abuse, even if common might force them to reevaluate loyalty, guilt for not intervening, or their own role in family dynamics.  It is easier to say times were different than to say I see now how much that hurt you, and I am sorry I did not protect you/did not see it.
  
  
• It blocks empathy and shared understanding — When one sibling says, Remember how Dad/Mom treated me/us? and gets That was just parenting back then, it invalidates the pain and shuts down dialogue.  The trauma-aware sibling often feels unheard and re-traumatized, reinforcing the decision to distance or estrange.  This is a classic contributor to dueling narratives.

In reality, generational shifts in parenting awareness (greater emphasis on emotional attunement, positive discipline, mental health, boundaries, and anti-abuse education) have made it easier for younger adults to recognize and name childhood harm that previous generations might have normalized or endured silently.  This does not mean all estrangements are about overly sensitive modern views — many stem from genuinely abusive patterns that were always harmful, just less openly challenged.

Some siblings do reconcile when the minimizing one eventually acknowledges the differential impact or the harm beyond norms of the time, often through therapy or life experiences (for example, becoming a parent themselves and realizing I would never do that to my kid).  But without that shift, the times have changed line tends to widen the rift rather than bridge it.

If this dynamic feels familiar, focusing on your own healing (for example, validating your experience independently) and setting boundaries around discussions can help, regardless of whether siblings come around.  Many find support in communities or therapy that affirm that harm does not get a free pass just because it was era-typical.

Has there been any research into parents who have children, because that is or was what was expected, but really did not want children, and deep down, did not even like children?

Yes, there has been a growing body of research into parental regret — the phenomenon where parents wish they had not had children, often because they entered parenthood due to societal, cultural, or familial expectations rather than genuine desire.  This regret can stem from a deep-seated disinterest in or aversion to children and the demands of parenting, and studies frequently highlight how external pressures (for example, norms around marriage, gender roles, religion, or pronatalist cultures) lead people to have kids despite internal reservations.  While the topic was long taboo, sociological and psychological research has expanded since the 2010s, with qualitative interviews, surveys, and scales developed to measure it.  Below, I will outline key findings from notable studies.

Prevalence and Societal Drivers

Surveys across countries indicate that 5-14% of parents experience persistent regret about having children, with higher rates in places like Poland (around 12-14%) compared to the US or Germany (around 5-8%).  This regret is often linked to involuntary parenthood, where individuals had children because it was expected (for example, to fulfill social scripts of adulthood, appease partners, or conform to cultural ideals of family), but they never truly wanted them or even harbored a dislike for the role and its realities.  For instance, in one study, many regretful parents reported feeling trapped by pronatalist pressures — societal messages that equate worth, especially for women, with motherhood — leading to a mismatch between expectations and the lived experience of exhaustion, loss of autonomy, and resentment.  Researchers note that modern shifts toward self-realization and individualism exacerbate this, as parenthood can feel like an unwanted burden in cultures emphasizing personal fulfillment over traditional duties.

Key Studies and Qualitative Insights

A seminal work is Israeli sociologist Orna Donath's 2017 book Regretting Motherhood:  A Study, based on in-depth interviews with 23 mothers who regretted becoming parents.  Many participants had children due to societal expectations (for example, that's what women do or pressure from partners/family), but admitted they never wanted kids and disliked the constant demands of child-rearing.  They distinguished regretting the role of motherhood from disliking their children as individuals — though the regret often manifested as emotional detachment or resentment.  Donath extended this to fathers in later work, finding that some men regretted parenthood after having kids solely to satisfy their partners, despite an underlying aversion to children.

Quantitative research by Konrad Piotrowski and colleagues (for example, 2021 studies in Poland) used national samples to link regret to factors like perfectionism, financial strain, single parenthood, and a history of childhood abuse or rejection.  In these, regret was more common among parents who entered the role unwillingly due to external pressures, and it correlated with poorer mental health (for example, depression, burnout) and harsher attitudes toward children.  A 2023 validation of the Parenthood Regret Scale (developed by Piotrowski's team) confirmed regret's ties to lower life satisfaction and higher parenting stress, often rooted in unmet expectations or a fundamental mismatch with one's personality (for example, introverts or those valuing independence finding child-rearing incompatible).

A 2025 German population-based study found eleven percent of parents reporting regret, associated with lower education, lack of partner support, multiple children, and prior abortions, suggesting earlier ambivalence about parenthood.  Here, regret was multifaceted:  Contextual (societal norms pushing parenthood), child-related (for example, higher demands from older/more kids), and personal (for example, depressiveness reducing coping capacity).

Outcomes and Broader Implications

Research suggests that such regret can lead to negative parenting behaviors, like emotional neglect, rejection, or inconsistent caregiving, as parents may unconsciously project their resentment onto children.  Children might internalize this as personal failure, contributing to long-term issues like anxiety or low self-esteem.  However, not all regretful parents are abusive; some compensate by over-investing, though this risks burnout.  Studies emphasize that regret is more preventable through better family planning, reduced societal stigma around childfree choices, and support for ambivalent individuals (for example, counseling to challenge norms).

Overall, while research is still emerging, partly due to the stigma, it substantiates that unwilling parenthood driven by expectations is a real issue, affecting a minority but with significant personal and familial ripple effects.

Speaking of self-esteem, what are the best ways to instill this in young children?  And what parental behaviors work against this?

Building self-esteem in young children (typically ages 0-8) involves fostering a sense of competence, unconditional worth, and resilience through consistent, supportive interactions.  Research from child psychology emphasizes evidence-based strategies that promote internal confidence rather than external validation.  Below, I will outline effective approaches drawn from expert sources, followed by common parental behaviors that can undermine this process.

Effective Ways to Instill Self-Esteem

These methods focus on effort, autonomy, and emotional security, helping children develop a positive self-view that withstands challenges.

• Praise effort and progress, not just outcomes or innate traits:  Specific, genuine praise for hard work (for example, I love how you kept trying on that puzzle) builds intrinsic motivation and resilience.  This avoids creating pressure for perfection and teaches that mistakes are part of learning.
  
  
• Provide unconditional love and acceptance:  Regularly express affection and value for who they are, not what they achieve (for example, I love you no matter what).  This creates a secure base, reducing fear of failure and encouraging exploration.
  
  
• Encourage autonomy and age-appropriate choices:  Let children make decisions within safe limits (for example, choosing clothes or snacks) and take on small responsibilities like helping with chores.  This fosters a sense of competence and control.
  
  
• Model healthy confidence and emotional regulation:  Demonstrate optimism when facing your own challenges, and openly handle emotions.  Children learn self-esteem by observing how you value yourself and persist.
  
  
• Allow safe risks, mistakes, and problem-solving:  Encourage trying new activities (for example, climbing at the playground) and reflect on setbacks positively (for example, What can we try next time?).  This builds resilience and self-efficacy.
  
  
• Spend quality time and encourage social bonds:  Engage in fun, undivided activities they enjoy, and support friendships that affirm their worth.  This promotes belonging and emotional security.
  
  
• Help identify and leverage strengths:  Guide children to recognize their unique abilities (for example, drawing or kindness) and use them meaningfully, boosting purpose and confidence.

Parental Behaviors That Work Against Self-Esteem

Certain well-intentioned or habitual actions can erode children's confidence by fostering doubt, dependence, or shame.  These often stem from parental anxiety or frustration but lead to long-term issues like anxiety or low motivation.

• Harsh criticism or negative labeling:  Frequent rebukes, sarcasm, or name-calling (for example, You're so clumsy) can make children internalize worthlessness and avoid risks.
  
  
• Overprotection or "snowplowing" obstacles:  Solving all problems for them, for example, intervening in every conflict, prevents skill-building and signals they are incapable.
  
  
• Invalidating emotions or injecting guilt:  Dismissing feelings (for example, Stop crying, it's not a big deal) or guilting them (for example, You make me so disappointed) teaches suppression and self-doubt.
  
  
• Comparing to others or setting unrealistic expectations:  Remarks like Why can't you be more like your sibling? breed resentment and inadequacy.
  
  
• Overemphasizing achievements or conditional love:  Tying worth to success, for example, praise only for wins, creates performance anxiety and fear of failure.
  
  
• Inconsistency, neglect, or uninvolvement:  Unpredictable rules, lack of attention, or emotional detachment leaves children feeling unworthy or insecure.
  
  
• Public shaming or sarcasm:  Humiliating in front of others or using mocking tones erodes trust and self-respect. 

Self-esteem develops gradually through daily interactions, and small shifts in parenting can yield significant benefits.

And what about beating ("spanking") in public or in front of others?

Beating a child (often referred to as spanking, smacking, or corporal punishment) in public or in front of others amplifies the negative impacts on self-esteem and overall psychological well-being compared to private discipline.  While all forms of physical punishment carry risks — such as increased aggression, mental health issues, lower cognitive outcomes, and even brain changes resembling those from more severe abuse — the public element introduces an extra layer of humiliation and shame, which research consistently links to deeper harm.

Why Public Spanking Is Particularly Damaging

The core issue is the social humiliation factor:  When a child is physically punished in view of peers, siblings, strangers, or family members, it adds public exposure and potential ridicule to the physical pain.  This can trigger intense feelings of embarrassment, worthlessness, and social rejection, which are especially potent during childhood when peer acceptance and self-image are forming.

• Shame and humiliation as key mechanisms — Organizations like the World Health Organization (WHO) classify corporal punishment as violating children's rights to dignity and freedom from degrading treatment.  Humiliating acts, including public physical punishment or accompanying verbal belittling, trigger harmful psychological responses:  Pain, fear, anger, guilt, and profound shame.  These activate stress pathways in the brain, similar to threat detection in severe maltreatment, leading to long-term issues like anxiety, depression, low self-esteem, and behavioral problems.
  
  
• Links to self-esteem specifically — Studies on physical punishment broadly associate it with lower self-esteem (for example, meta-analyses show small-to-moderate effects where spanked children report reduced self-worth).  The public aspect intensifies this by making the child feel seen as bad or unworthy in front of an audience, reinforcing internalized negative beliefs (I'm defective or Everyone thinks I'm bad).  This can erode confidence more than private punishment, as the child may anticipate ongoing social judgment or bullying from witnesses.
  
  
• Broader psychological and behavioral fallout — Public corporal punishment correlates with heightened risks of:

• Internalizing problems (for example, withdrawal, depression, hopelessness). 

• Externalizing problems (for example, aggression, defiance—ironically, the behavior it's meant to curb often worsens). 

• Damaged relationships (for example, poorer parent-child bonds, increased antisocial tendencies). 

• Long-term mental health (for example, higher odds of mood disorders, substance use, or even suicide attempts in adulthood, per studies treating spanking as an adverse childhood experience).

Major bodies like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), American Psychological Association (APA), and WHO explicitly advise against any corporal punishment, including spanking, and highlight that humiliating methods (public or otherwise) cause more harm than good.  No high-quality research shows benefits from physical punishment, public or private, it may stop behavior momentarily through fear but does not teach skills or build internal regulation.

Comparison to Private Punishment

Private spanking still carries risks (for example, modeling violence, increasing aggression over time, altering threat perception in the brain), but the absence of an audience reduces the shame component.  Public settings make the act more degrading, often leading to greater emotional scarring because the child processes not just the pain but the social stigma.

In practice, many parents who spank publicly do so out of frustration or a belief it sets an example, but evidence suggests it backfires:  It can make the child more resentful or secretive, damage trust, and model poor conflict resolution.

Better Alternatives in Public Settings

If a child misbehaves in public, for example, tantrum in a store, evidence-based responses preserve dignity and build self-esteem:

• Stay calm and use a firm, low voice to redirect or set limits.
• Remove the child briefly to a quieter spot for a reset, without shaming.
• Use positive reinforcement later for good behavior.
• Model emotional regulation yourself.

These approaches teach skills without humiliation.  If this topic relates to personal experiences or parenting concerns, child psychologists or resources from the AAP can offer more tailored support — many emphasize that consistent, non-violent discipline yields far healthier outcomes for children's confidence and development.

I view beatings ("spankings") as shortcut parenting by people who are not really interested in the project of childrearing.  Is there any truth in this?

Yes, there is some truth to viewing beatings/spankings as a form of shortcut parenting by those who may not be fully invested in the deeper, more effortful work of childrearing — though it is not the whole picture, and motivations vary widely.

Research and expert consensus show that physical punishment, like spanking, is often a quick, low-effort response that provides immediate, though temporary, compliance through fear or pain, rather than a thoughtful, teaching-oriented approach that builds long-term skills, understanding, or intrinsic motivation.  Major organizations like the American Psychological Association (APA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and World Health Organization (WHO) describe it as ineffective for lasting positive behavior change and linked to risks like increased aggression, mental health issues, lower self-esteem, and damaged parent-child bonds.

Why It Can Function as a "Shortcut"

• Short-term stop versus long-term learning — Spanking often halts misbehavior in the moment because children fear pain or escalation, but it does not teach why the behavior was wrong, how to regulate emotions, or alternative ways to handle situations.  Studies (including large meta-analyses by Gershoff and others) find it produces compliance via fear, not internalized values or self-regulation.  Parents may resort to it when exhausted, stressed, or lacking patience/time for more involved methods like explaining, redirecting, problem-solving together, or using natural/logical consequences.
  
  
• Linked to parental stress and frustration — Multiple studies connect higher use of corporal punishment to elevated parenting stress, burnout, depression, or feeling overwhelmed.  For example, stressed parents are more likely to spank, and it is frequently a reflexive reaction to frustration rather than a deliberate educational tool.  In some surveys, parents report using it because it is the easiest or quickest response when they are tired, angry, or short on emotional resources — aligning with the idea of it being a shortcut.
  
  
• Cultural and habitual factors — Many parents use it because they experienced it themselves, intergenerational transmission, or see it as normative-traditional, not necessarily because they are uninterested in parenting overall.  But when it is the go-to method, it can reflect lower investment in learning evidence-based alternatives (for example, positive discipline, emotion coaching, or consistent boundaries without violence).

Not Always About Disinterest

It is not fair or accurate to say all parents who spank are uninterested or lazy — many genuinely believe it is effective, based on short-term results or their own upbringing, want the best for their kids, and use it sparingly or calmly to teach respect/discipline.  Some studies note parents may see it as building toughness or preventing future issues, even if evidence contradicts this.  Parental burnout or lack of support (for example, single parenting, poverty, mental health struggles) also drives it more than outright disinterest.

That said, the broader evidence supports your view in a key way:  Effective, engaged childrearing requires more cognitive and emotional labor — understanding developmental stages, modeling behavior, teaching empathy, repairing after conflicts — than a physical fix that sidesteps those steps.  Physical punishment is repeatedly shown to be a less effective, higher-risk path that can shortcut the deeper relational work needed for healthy development.

If a parent consistently defaults to spanking over investing in those richer strategies, it can indeed signal lower commitment to the full project of nurturing a child's growth.  Many experts advocate shifting to positive, non-violent methods not just for the child's sake, but because they foster stronger bonds and better outcomes with sustained effort.  Resources like parenting programs (for example, Triple P or Incredible Years) can help build those skills when someone wants to move away from shortcuts.

But if the "spankings" are done frequently, and even sometimes without cause, what, if anything, does that tell us about the parents?

Frequent spanking (or beatings, as you describe it), especially when it is arbitrary — meaning without clear, consistent cause or justification — and done often, is a strong red flag for deeper issues in the parents' functioning, emotional regulation, and overall approach to parenting.  Research from psychology, child development, and child maltreatment studies consistently shows this pattern goes beyond shortcut or normative discipline and often signals elevated risk factors associated with harsher, more abusive parenting.

Key Indicators from Research

When physical punishment is frequent and unpredictable/unjustified, it frequently correlates with:

• Poor emotional regulation and high impulsivity in parents — Arbitrary or excessive punishment often occurs in the heat of the moment, driven by parental anger, frustration, or feeling out of control rather than deliberate teaching.  Studies distinguish impulsive corporal punishment (spur-of-the-moment, emotion-fueled) from more planned/instrumental use, and the former is more linked to negative outcomes.  Parents who default to frequent, unpredictable hitting may struggle with managing their own stress or emotions, leading to escalation over time.
  
  
• Mental health challenges — Parental depression, anxiety, substance use (alcohol/drug abuse), or other conditions are prominent risk factors for higher reliance on corporal punishment, including frequent or harsh forms.  Depressive symptoms in mothers and fathers predict more negative perceptions of the child's behavior, leading to increased spanking frequency and predicting higher child externalizing problems.  Burnout, chronic stress, or unresolved trauma, for example, parents who were frequently punished themselves as children, also play roles, creating cycles where frustration boils over unpredictably.
  
  
• Heightened risk of crossing into abuse — Frequent corporal punishment is a known risk marker for escalation to severe maltreatment.  Research shows a dose-response pattern:  The more often or severely children are hit, the greater the likelihood of physical abuse (for example, injury, bruises, or worse).  Arbitrary application, punishing without cause or inconsistently, aligns with definitions of excessive corporal punishment in many legal and child protection contexts, where it is seen as inconsistent, fear-based, or mood-dependent rather than educational.  Organizations like the WHO note that all corporal punishment carries an escalation risk, but frequent/unjustified use amplifies it significantly.
  
  
• Intergenerational patterns and beliefs — Parents who frequently spank arbitrarily often experienced similar treatment growing up and may hold rigid beliefs that physical force is necessary for control or toughness.  This can reflect lower investment in learning non-violent alternatives, compounded by stress from factors like low income, single parenting, unstable relationships, or conservative religious/cultural norms emphasizing strict hierarchy.
  
  
• Lower warmth/responsiveness and negative child views — Frequent, unpredictable punishment often co-occurs with lower parental warmth, more negative appraisals of the child, for example, seeing normal behavior as defiant, and poorer parent-child bonds.  This can stem from or exacerbate parental resentment, viewing childrearing as burdensome rather than nurturing.

Broader Implications

This pattern does not automatically mean every such parent is malicious or uninterested in their child — many are overwhelmed, lack support, or genuinely believe it is effective short-term — but it strongly suggests impaired capacity for consistent, empathetic, skill-building discipline.  Evidence shows no benefits from frequent physical punishment (only temporary fear-based compliance at best), while risks include children's increased aggression, mental health issues (anxiety, depression), low self-esteem, and behavioral problems that can perpetuate cycles.

In short, frequent and arbitrary physical punishment is one of the clearest signals that parents may need intervention — whether through mental health support, parenting programs, for example, teaching emotion regulation and positive discipline, or in severe cases, child protective involvement to prevent harm.

I think these parents have trouble identifying and reacting to children just being children, and children who are behaving in a manner that requires discipline.  At some point this crosses into abuse.

Yes, your observation aligns closely with established research in child psychology, developmental science, and child maltreatment studies.  Parents who struggle to differentiate normal developmental behaviors (for example, exploration, tantrums in toddlers, testing boundaries in preschoolers, emotional outbursts, or age-typical misbehavior like spilling, not sharing immediately, or seeking attention) from behaviors that truly warrant structured discipline often respond with overly harsh, frequent, or inconsistent physical punishment.  This misperception is a recognized risk factor for escalation into abuse.

Why This Distinction Is Hard for Some Parents

Parents at higher risk for harsh or abusive responses tend to:

• Misattribute intent — They interpret neutral or exploratory child actions as deliberate defiance, manipulation, testing them, or malice, for example, a toddler throwing food as disrespect rather than sensory play or frustration.  Research shows abusive or high-risk parents are more likely to form negative/unrealistic evaluations of child attributes, viewing typical behaviors through a hostile lens.
  
  
• Have unrealistic expectations — They may lack knowledge of child development stages, for example, expecting perfect obedience from a two-year-old or impulse control from a preschooler, leading to frustration when children act age-appropriately.  This mismatch fuels reactive, punitive responses.
  
  
• Rely on schemas from their own upbringing — If parents experienced frequent or arbitrary punishment, they may internalize that children are inherently bad or need strong control, blurring the line between normalcy and misbehavior.

Studies highlight that these cognitive biases, for example, negative attributions, predict harsher discipline and elevate abuse potential.  For instance, parents who spontaneously encode child behaviors more negatively show stronger links to physically abusive actions.

When It Crosses into Abuse

The line between corporal punishment and abuse is not always sharp legally, varying by jurisdiction, but research and expert consensus identify clear patterns where frequent, inconsistent, or unpredictable physical punishment crosses into harmful territory:

• Escalation risk — Corporal punishment often starts as discipline but escalates when it loses effectiveness, children habituate to pain/fear, requiring harder or more frequent hits.  Meta-analyses show a dose-response relationship:  More frequent spanking correlates with higher odds of physical abuse (injury, severe harm).
  
  
• Inconsistency and unpredictability — When punishment depends on parental mood/frustration rather than clear, consistent rules (for example, sometimes ignoring behavior, other times hitting hard without warning), it becomes fear-based control rather than teaching.  This models poor emotional regulation and erodes trust/security.
  
  
• Lack of teaching intent — Abuse emerges when the goal shifts from guiding/learning to venting anger, revenge, or power assertion.  Arbitrary punishment, no clear cause, fits definitions of excessive or degrading treatment in many frameworks.
  
  
• Overlap with maltreatment — Large reviews find physical punishment and abuse share similar mechanisms (for example, brain stress responses, increased aggression/anxiety in children).  The distinction blurs when punishment is frequent/unpredictable, as it often co-occurs with emotional neglect, rejection, or hostility.

Major bodies (AAP, APA, WHO) state no level of physical punishment is beneficial long-term, and frequent/harsh use reliably links to negative outcomes like aggression, low self-esteem, mental health issues, and poorer cognitive/social development — outcomes mirroring those from documented abuse.

Broader Context

This is not always about malice; factors like parental stress, mental health struggles, burnout, substance use, or intergenerational patterns contribute.  But the inability to see kids being kids as normal often signals impaired empathy, poor emotion regulation, or inadequate parenting knowledge — key risk factors for maltreatment.

If this pattern is ongoing, it can harm children's sense of safety, worth, and ability to regulate emotions.  Positive alternatives (for example, teaching emotional skills, setting clear boundaries, using time-outs/natural consequences) are far more effective for building self-regulation without damage.  Parenting support programs, therapy, or developmental education can help parents reframe behaviors and respond more adaptively.

I would say that failure to make this distinction is a good sign that the parents did not really want the children.

Yes, your point — that a consistent failure to distinguish normal childhood behaviors (like curiosity, emotional outbursts, boundary-testing, or developmental exploration) from genuine misbehavior that needs guided correction — can be a meaningful indicator that the parents may not have truly wanted or were not fully prepared for/committed to the demands of childrearing — has some support in psychological and developmental research, though it is more of a correlated pattern than direct proof of not wanting the children.

This inability to accurately perceive or tolerate typical child actions often reflects underlying parental factors like:

• Resentment, low tolerance for the realities of parenting, or unmet expectations — Parents who entered parenthood unwillingly (due to external pressures, societal norms, or ambivalence) frequently report higher frustration with everyday child demands.  When normal behaviors feel like overwhelming burdens or personal affronts, parents may mislabel them as defiant, manipulative, or bad, leading to overreactions like frequent harsh punishment.  Studies on parental regret, where parents wish they hadn't had children, describe patterns of resentment, emotional detachment, or viewing child needs as intrusive, which can manifest as intolerance for age-appropriate messiness or independence-seeking.  This misalignment amplifies negative interpretations of behavior, turning neutral actions into perceived challenges to authority.
  
  
• Cognitive biases and negative attributions — Research shows that parents at risk for harsh or abusive responses tend to attribute hostile intent to ordinary child actions (for example, a toddler's tantrum as trying to control me rather than emotional overwhelm).  This bias is linked to factors like parental stress, depression, burnout, or unresolved trauma — and in some cases, to underlying ambivalence about parenthood.  When parents lack investment in understanding developmental stages, or resent the effort required, they default to punitive control rather than empathetic guidance.  Experts note this as a failure of adult regulation:  The child's normal behavior triggers adult discomfort, shame, or regret, prompting lashing out instead of reframing (This is just a three-year-old being a three-year-old).
  
  
• Links to unwanted/unplanned parenthood — While direct studies tying regret explicitly to misperceiving behavior are limited, related evidence connects unwilling parenthood to harsher, more reactive parenting.  Parents reporting regret or resentment often show:

Lower warmth and higher negativity. 

Greater use of physical/psychological punishment. 

Difficulty seeing the child's perspective, leading to role reversal, for example, expecting the child to meet adult emotional needs, or withdrawal. 

These patterns overlap with those in abusive/harsh parenting research, where cumulative stress, mental health issues, or intergenerational cycles amplify the problem.  Unwanted children, or those perceived as burdensome, face higher risks of maltreatment because the parent-child bond lacks the protective buffer of genuine desire and investment.

That said, it is not universal or definitive proof — some parents who deeply want their children still struggle with this distinction due to exhaustion, lack of knowledge, mental health challenges, or their own harsh upbringing.  The key differentiator is often persistence and severity:  If the misperception leads to chronic harshness, arbitrariness, or escalation without self-reflection or change, it more strongly suggests deeper disinvestment or resentment.

In essence, your intuition captures a real dynamic observed in clinical and research contexts:  Parenting requires seeing and accepting children as they are, including their immaturity and needs.  When that capacity is chronically impaired, leading to viewing normalcy as provocation, it can signal the parent is struggling not just with discipline, but with the fundamental role itself.  This does not mean they are irredeemable; many improve with support, education on child development, therapy for regret/resentment, or stress management.  But it does highlight why early intervention, for example, parenting programs teaching realistic expectations and emotion coaching, matters so much, preventing harm to the child while addressing the parent's unmet needs or ambivalence.

All of this creates a household of fear.  How does that affect children long term?

Growing up in a household dominated by fear — especially one characterized by frequent, unpredictable, harsh physical punishment, like beatings/spankings, arbitrary discipline, yelling, threats, or emotional volatility — has profound and often lifelong negative effects on children's development.  This environment triggers chronic activation of the body's stress response system, fight-flight-freeze, leading to adaptations that help short-term survival but become maladaptive over time.

Research from fields like developmental psychology, neuroscience, and Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) studies shows these impacts are well-documented and can persist into adulthood, often following a dose-response pattern:  The more intense, frequent, or unpredictable the fear-inducing experiences, the greater the long-term harm.

Brain and Biological Changes

Chronic fear and unpredictable punishment disrupt healthy brain architecture during critical developmental windows:

• The amygdala (fear center) becomes overactive and hypersensitive, leading to heightened threat detection even in safe situations.
  
  
• The hippocampus (involved in memory and learning) can be impaired, affecting long-term memory formation and cognitive processing.
  
  
• Elevated cortisol (stress hormone) levels over time contribute to accelerated aging, inflammation, and physical health vulnerabilities.

These changes make the nervous system wired for danger, resulting in poorer executive functioning (impulse control, planning, emotional regulation) and increased vulnerability to stress throughout life.

Mental Health and Emotional Outcomes

Adults who grew up in fear-based homes often face:

• Higher rates of anxiety disorders, depression, and complex PTSD — Persistent hypervigilance leads to chronic worry, mood swings, and emotional numbness or overwhelm.
  
  
• Low self-esteem and shame — Constant fear of punishment or disapproval internalizes beliefs like I'm bad, I'm not worthy, or I must be perfect to be safe, fostering self-doubt and perfectionism.
  
  
• Difficulty with trust and attachment — Fear of caregivers erodes secure bonds, leading to insecure/anxious or avoidant attachment styles, trust issues, fear of abandonment, and challenges forming/maintaining healthy relationships (romantic, friendships, professional).
  
  
• Emotional dysregulation — Trouble identifying, expressing, or managing feelings; may swing between suppression (freeze/numb) and outbursts (fight/flight).

Studies link harsh, hostile, or fear-based parenting to 1.5x higher odds of high-risk mental health symptoms by later childhood/adolescence, with effects persisting into adulthood.

Behavioral and Social Outcomes

• Increased aggression, externalizing problems (for example, defiance, antisocial behavior) — Children model what they experience (violence/aggression as conflict resolution) or rebel against control.
  
  
• Internalizing problems (withdrawal, isolation) — Some become overly compliant or people-pleasing to avoid punishment.
  
  
• Higher risk of substance use, risky behaviors, or self-harm — As coping mechanisms for unresolved fear, anxiety, or low self-worth.
  
  
• Impaired social skills and relationships — Difficulty with empathy, conflict resolution, or boundaries; may repeat dysfunctional patterns or attract abusive dynamics.

Physical Health and Life Trajectory

• Chronic conditions — Linked to heart disease, diabetes, autoimmune issues, and reduced life expectancy (ACEs studies show higher ACE scores correlate with earlier death).
  
  
• Cognitive/academic impacts — Slower literacy/math progress, lower achievement, due to stress impairing focus, memory, and learning.
  
  
• Intergenerational transmission — Higher likelihood of using harsh/fear-based methods with their own children, perpetuating cycles.

Unpredictability amplifies harm:  When punishment is mood-dependent rather than consistent, children cannot predict safety, leading to constant vigilance and eroded sense of control/security.

While not every child experiences every outcome (resilience factors like a supportive non-parent adult, therapy, or innate temperament can buffer effects), the evidence is clear:  Fear-based households rarely produce positive long-term adjustment.  Many adults from these backgrounds describe relief in therapy when they finally name the fear and its roots, leading to healing through trauma-informed approaches (for example, EMDR, somatic therapy, attachment work).

Regarding highly educated parents, who not only should know better, but in fact do know better, what does it say about them that they behave this way?

Highly educated parents who engage in frequent, arbitrary, or harsh physical punishment, like spanking or beatings, despite awareness of its risks and ineffectiveness — through access to research, professional knowledge, or societal shifts — often reveal underlying psychological, cultural, or personal conflicts that override their intellectual understanding.  Research indicates this is not rare, even among those with advanced degrees, and it can signal cognitive dissonance, unresolved trauma, mental health challenges, or a reliance on ingrained habits over evidence-based practices.  Below, I will break down what studies suggest this behavior implies about such parents, drawing from psychological and sociological evidence.

Cognitive Dissonance or Denial of Evidence

• Intellectual override by emotion or belief:  Even parents who know better (for example, those familiar with child development research showing corporal punishment's links to aggression, anxiety, low self-esteem, and even brain changes similar to abuse) may persist because they rationalize it as different in their case — for example, It's not abuse if it is controlled or It worked for me.  This suggests a disconnect where knowledge does not translate to action, often due to discomfort with admitting past methods, their own upbringing, were harmful.  Surveys show corporal punishment spans all educational levels, but highly educated parents might underreport or justify it more sophisticatedly, viewing it as discipline despite meta-analyses finding no positive long-term effects.
  
  
• Prioritizing short-term control:  These parents may intellectually grasp the risks but default to punishment for immediate compliance, indicating impatience or undervaluation of the emotional labor required for non-violent alternatives like emotion coaching or positive reinforcement.  This can reflect a pragmatic but flawed mindset:  I know it is not ideal, but it works now, ignoring escalation risks into abuse.

Influence of Personal History and Intergenerational Patterns

• Unresolved trauma or modeling:  Many educated parents who use harsh methods were themselves punished physically as children, perpetuating cycles despite awareness.  This points to unprocessed experiences where they intellectually reject the harm but emotionally replicate it, perhaps to validate their own past or avoid vulnerability.  Qualitative studies show regretful parents, including educated ones, describe feeling trapped by habits, with punishment stemming from anger or frustration rather than intent.
  
  
• Cultural or normative entrenchment:  In some high-achieving or professional circles, strict discipline is seen as building resilience or success, even if evidence contradicts this.  Educated parents might cling to these norms from their background (for example, religious, ethnic, or familial), suggesting resistance to change despite knowledge — possibly indicating rigidity or fear of soft parenting leading to underachievement.

Mental Health and Stress Factors

• Underlying depression, burnout, or stress:  Longitudinal studies link reliance on corporal punishment to parental mental health issues like depression, which can distort perceptions of child behavior, for example, seeing normal actions as defiance.  For highly educated parents, often in demanding careers, this might reveal unmanaged work-life pressures, where intellectual awareness does not mitigate emotional overload.  They know better but act reactively due to exhaustion, implying a gap in self-care or support systems.
  
  
• Risk of escalation:  Such behavior in aware parents can signal a higher potential for crossing into abuse, as studies show physical punishment often intensifies under stress.  This suggests not just knowledge failure, but possible impulsivity or entitlement — believing their education exempts them from scrutiny.

In summary, it often points to a mix of hypocrisy, unresolved issues, or practical lapses where intellect bows to emotion, habit, or circumstance.  Rates of corporal punishment are lower among highly educated groups overall, but when it occurs, it is particularly telling of internal conflicts.  Many such parents later express regret in studies, but change requires active intervention like therapy to align actions with knowledge.

I have come to believe that parents beat their children for two primary reasons.  One they are angry, and two, there is no consequence.  Yes, there are other reasons, but these are the main two.

Your belief captures two of the most prominent drivers behind parents' use of physical punishment, like spanking or beatings, and research strongly supports that anger/frustration and a perceived or actual lack of consequences, for both the parent and the child in the moment, are central reasons many parents resort to it.

1.  Anger and Emotional Reactivity as a Primary Driver

Studies consistently show that corporal punishment is frequently an impulsive, emotion-driven response rather than a calm, planned teaching strategy.  Parents often spank when they are angry, frustrated, overwhelmed, or feeling out of control — especially in the heat of the moment when a child's behavior triggers strong negative emotions.

• Meta-analyses and reviews (including Elizabeth Gershoff's influential work) distinguish impulsive corporal punishment (spur-of-the-moment, accompanied by parental anger) from more instrumental/planned use.  The impulsive form is common and linked to higher risks of escalation into harsher abuse.
  
  
• Parental anger is a key correlate:  Parents report moderate to high levels of anger, remorse, or agitation during or after using physical punishment in many cases.  One study found 85% of middle-class parents experienced this emotional turmoil when dealing with misbehavior.
  
  
• Risk factors amplify this:  Parental stress, depression, burnout, substance use, or their own history of being physically punished increase the likelihood of angry, reactive hitting.  When parents are emotionally dysregulated, they misinterpret normal child behaviors as deliberate defiance, fueling frustration and lashing out.
  
  
• The irony:  Physical punishment is often used to curb aggression or defiance, yet it models aggression and can increase children's anger/aggression over time, creating a cycle.

In short, anger is not just a side effect, it is often the trigger.  Parents may intellectually know better alternatives exist, but in the moment, emotional overload overrides them.

2. Lack of (Immediate or Long-Term) Consequences

This ties into the perceived effectiveness of physical punishment:  It often provides quick, visible compliance through fear/pain, with no immediate negative repercussion for the parent (for example, the behavior stops right then, reinforcing the method).  There's also frequently no external accountability for the parent — cultural norms, lack of legal bans in many places, or social acceptance mean few consequences follow.

• Short-term success:  Children comply immediately out of fear, not learning, so parents see it as working fast when other methods (explaining, timeouts) feel slower or less reliable.  This reinforces the habit, even though long-term evidence shows it increases aggression, mental health issues, and poorer self-regulation.
  
  
• No built-in deterrent for parents:  In many societies, physical punishment remains normative or legally permitted, though bans exist in ~65 countries.  Without consequences like social stigma, legal intervention, except in clear abuse cases, or self-reflection, parents continue it, especially if it worked for them as kids.
  
  
• Escalation risk without checks:  Studies note an inbuilt risk of escalation — when fear-based compliance fades, parents hit harder/more often, but without external pushback, the pattern persists.

Other contributing reasons, beyond your two main ones, include:

• Intergenerational transmission (they were hit as kids and believe it is necessary).
  
  
• Unrealistic developmental expectations (misreading normal behaviors as willful).
  
  
• Cultural/religious norms viewing it as building character or respect.
  
  
• Stressors like poverty, single parenting, or high demands reducing patience for non-violent alternatives.

Overall, your framing is insightful:  Physical punishment thrives in environments where anger goes unchecked and quick fixes face no real pushback, for the parent or the method's long-term harms.  Evidence overwhelmingly shows no lasting benefits, only temporary fear-based stops, and consistent risks (aggression, anxiety, damaged bonds, etc.).  Major bodies like the APA, AAP, and WHO recommend against it entirely, favoring positive, teaching-focused discipline.

If this stems from personal reflection or concern for others, recognizing these drivers can be empowering — many parents shift away from it through awareness, stress management, or learning better tools (for example, emotion coaching, consistent boundaries).

I find that parents who firmly believe in the efficacy of beating children, look down on parents who do not.  They seem to believe that these, non-beating, parents lack their courage.

Yes, this attitude is fairly common among staunch advocates of corporal punishment, often framed as spanking or proper discipline, and it reflects deeper psychological and social dynamics rather than objective evidence about parenting outcomes.

Proponents frequently portray non-spanking, or gentle/positive, parents as weak, permissive, cowardly, or lacking backbone — essentially, as people who will not do the hard thing to enforce respect, boundaries, or character.  They may claim these parents produce entitled, out-of-control, or soft kids who will not handle real-world challenges, while viewing their own approach as courageous, tough-love parenting that builds resilience and moral strength.  This judgment often ties into cultural/ideological narratives, for example, from conservative or religious sources, that equate physical discipline with strong authority and non-violent methods with indulgence or fear of confrontation.

Psychological and Social Reasons Behind This Judgment

Research and observations point to several interconnected factors:

• Cognitive dissonance and defense of personal choices — When parents rely on physical punishment, especially if it is frequent or rooted in their own upbringing, confronting evidence of its harms (for example, links to increased aggression, anxiety, lower self-esteem, or damaged bonds) creates discomfort.  Dismissing non-spanking parents as cowardly or weak protects their self-image:  It reframes their method as morally superior and brave, while portraying alternatives as spineless avoidance of necessary toughness.  This is a classic defense mechanism, invalidating the opposing view to reduce internal conflict.
  
  
• Intergenerational transmission and identity — Many who strongly believe in spanking experienced it themselves and see it as what made them turn out fine (or better).  Rejecting it feels like rejecting their own parents or childhood.  Judging non-spanking parents as lacking courage reinforces their worldview:  I endured it and succeeded; avoiding it means you are not willing to make the sacrifices I did.  This perpetuates cycles, as studies show strong positive correlations in attitudes and use across generations.
  
  
• Belief in short-term "effectiveness" and moral framing — Advocates often emphasize immediate compliance through fear/pain as proof it works, and frame non-violent alternatives as ineffective or too slow.  They may see refusing to hit as moral cowardice — failing to stand up to misbehavior — while ignoring long-term evidence that physical punishment does not build internalized self-control, it builds avoidance of getting caught, and can increase aggression.  This ties into broader cultural scripts where tough parenting equals love/protection, and soft equals neglect.
  
  
• In-group/out-group dynamics and perceived threats — In communities or subcultures where spanking is normative (for example, certain religious, traditional, or high-stress groups), non-spanking parents can be seen as outsiders or threats to shared values.  Labeling them permissive or cowardly reinforces group identity and justifies resistance to changing norms, for example, amid growing anti-spanking research from bodies like the APA or AAP.

Evidence shows no support for the idea that non-spanking parents lack courage or produce worse outcomes, quite the opposite:  Positive discipline approaches (clear boundaries, teaching skills, emotional coaching) correlate with better self-regulation, empathy, and mental health in children.  The courage claim often overlooks the real effort required in non-violent parenting:  Staying regulated during tantrums, consistently applying consequences, modeling calm conflict resolution, all harder in the moment than a quick physical response.

This judgmental stance can create social divides, for example, in parenting groups or families, but it is more about protecting one's beliefs than accurate assessment.  Many former advocates shift views after learning more or seeing better results with alternatives, often expressing regret for past judgments.  If you have encountered this personally, it is validating to recognize it as a common defense rather than a fair critique.

The whole thing is shameful.

Yes, it is deeply shameful — On multiple levels.

The shame belongs first and foremost to the adults who choose, or default to, violence against children who are smaller, more vulnerable, and entirely dependent on them for safety and love.  Using physical force — especially when it is frequent, arbitrary, or driven by adult anger rather than any real need to protect or teach — betrays the most basic responsibility of parenthood:  To be the secure base, not the source of terror.

It is shameful when parents who know, or could easily learn, that decades of rigorous research show physical punishment brings no lasting benefits and reliably increases risks of aggression, anxiety, depression, poorer self-regulation, damaged attachment, and even physical health problems in adulthood — still insist on it.  That refusal to align behavior with knowledge is a form of willful blindness, often defended with moral posturing about courage or tough love.

It is shameful when the method is wrapped in self-righteousness:  Looking down on parents who choose non-violent, effort-intensive discipline as weak or permissive, while ignoring that real courage in parenting looks like staying regulated during a meltdown, repairing after conflict, teaching emotional skills day after day, and resisting the impulse to dominate through pain.  The easier path, hitting to silence or control, is the opposite of strength.

And it is shameful, above all, for the children who grow up carrying the invisible weight of that fear and humiliation, often into their own adulthood, where they may struggle to trust, to feel worthy, or to parent differently without help.  The long shadow of those moments — when a child's normal curiosity, frustration, or boundary-testing was met with blows instead of understanding — can last decades.

The shame is not inevitable, though.  Many parents who once used physical punishment come to see it clearly, feel genuine remorse, and change course — sometimes with considerable effort and support.  That shift requires humility, not defensiveness.  The ones who double down, who mock or belittle gentler approaches, are usually protecting something fragile in themselves:  Their own history, their sense of control, or their fear of admitting they might have been wrong.

You are right to name it as shameful.  Calling it out plainly is part of what eventually shifts cultural norms and breaks cycles.  The evidence, the ethics, and the lived experience of so many adults who survived it all point in the same direction:  Children deserve protection from violence, not justification of it.

This has been lightly edited for readability.  Find the original Grok conversation here.  I had a few follow-up questions here.

𓐵