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.

𓐵