snell@utzoo.UUCP (Richard Snell) (03/03/86)
I wrote <6397@utzoo.UUCP> in a followup article, >It is my view (having never been spanked, and having grown into a fairly >reasonable person who would NEVER spank my own child), that > >1. spanking = child abuse. Period. >2. it may produce immediate "results" but the long-term costs out-weigh > any short term benefits. >3. I hope "spankers" send their "justifications" to the author of the > original article via email--though it might provide interesting reading > (depressing too) to see why intelligent adults think they should smack > their kids around (or their spouse around... ). No smiley here. As might have been expected, numerous replies have followed (and even more will come, no doubt). I have responded to some of the points raised. Many (or most) net.kids readers will likely have found the issue hashed enough already. There are, though, some specific reasons why I don't hit my child (there is more to it than simply `like parent like child.') Some of these are provided below... ========================================== rggoebel@watdragon.UUCP (Randy Goebel LPAIG) writes <397@watdragon.UUCP> >Such a strong statement; seems pretty zero/one. I, on the other hand, >am convinced that the concept of spanking is useful. There are many >forms of abuse; perhaps those who so strongly criticise physical spanking >perpetrate mental child abuse instead? It is not clear why "mental child abuse" is a corollary of not spanking. Does this mean that everyone must abuse their child, and that the choice is mental or physical abuse? To a large extent, the issue is of the zero/one type. Mr. Goebel, in stating, "I am convinced that the concept of spanking is useful," opts for the `one' option. I opt for the `zero' option. ========================================== frye@cuuxb.UUCP (frye) writes <396@cuuxb.UUCP> >My opinion, formed from being a kid once, is that spanking >is seldom needed.... >So, should you spank a kid? No, not if you can help it. With >my parents and me, I usually got it after the third warning. >By then I deserved it. >Don't ever slap a kid in the face though. Only fools do that. >That's just a plain mean thing to do to a child. The theme that after a certain point a child "deserves" to be hit is recurrent in the many responses. What this seems to mean is that if reasoning/logic/time-outs/parental displeasure/parental anger/etc do not work, then it is all right to hit a child. In otherwords, in the end, a child had better remember that the parent is bigger/stronger and that `might makes right'. ========================================== zonker@ihlpf.UUCP (Tom Harris) writes <330@ihlpf.UUCP> >I don't know what makes Richard think he has become a "fairly >reasonable adult" when his article is so unreasonable (not to >mention insulting). If you've never been spanked how the hell can >you make a decision as whether it has a long term cost or a long >tem benefit? I was spanked as a kid (not frequently, but when I >deserved it). Frankly, I think it helped me gain self discipline. Tom H. argues that anyone who has never been physically punished as a child cannot assess the value of such punishment. This argument, if valid, has several implications: 1) those who have been physically punished as children can not assess the value of never doing this themselves. 2) if only those who experience a punishment are able to evaluate it, then no one could assess the benefits/drawbacks things such as of capital punishment. People who have not spent time in jail could not assess the value of the prison system. >It taught me how to weigh the cost of an action vs the benefits I >would receive from doing the action. Punishment is often viewed as a pay-by-fee system. Do something "wrong" and it costs you X dollars, or X blows on your body. Another example of this might be a chemical company which delights in polluting the environment at a certain level of fine: the benefits outweigh the costs. However, actions are not considered on the basis of what is right. A child taught to make an econometric evaluation of the cost/benefits of "wrong" behaviour is not learning to chose to act in a "good" or "moral" manner. They are learning to be Machiavellian. >I spank my child, there are times when it is necessary. Well now, this is the `rub', isn't it. What do we do when the activities of our children are driving us crazy. Do we try to deal with the problem in a rational manner or do we become authoritarian? >I don't spank her to get "results"; I spank her when the long term >benifits outweigh the short term costs (and it costs to spank >someone you love). >I don't spank her for just any infraction or because I am mad >(that would be child abuse). I argue that the ultimate weapon you have in modifying your child's behaviour is your anger. A truly angry parent is very effective, as long as it does not happen very often (becoming angry every week teaches your child to ignore you). Hitting a child diffuses the message: it gives the child good grounds to be angry and resentful. The point of the exercise (the child's original misbehaviour) can very quickly become lost. >Before she could talk, she was spanked when she got into a >potentially dangerous situation i.e. playing with electric cords >etc.; this made sure she wouldn't do it again. I do not know when this girl began to talk, but say it way at 30 months or earlier. Physical punishment on a child this young will have *no* effect on changing future behaviour. Children go through distinct cognitive phases (e.g. Piaget, J. 1952. _The_Origins_of_Intelligence_in_ Children_. Internat. Univ. Press, Inc., New York). The cognitive functioning of an infant is such that they *can not* remember the lesson. The lamp cord which was so enticing this morning will be equally enticing later that day. It will be equally irresistible. The child will continue to touch it. Spanking will do nothing positive. A parental response more appropriate than spanking would be simply removing the hazard. I agree that this is often very difficult, and parents must be constantly vigilant. But an infant who repeatedly goes to a hazard is not doing it to annoy the parents or to break rules: she is exploring an interesting part of her world. She does not know better, and will not until she is older. If you spank, and it works, you discourage all the behaviour of the child preceding the spanking: including the curiosity and exploring. And, without getting into just what IQ actually is, it has been demonstrated that 11 month old babies who are frequently punished have lower IQ's than babies who were not punished (Answorth, M.D. and S.M. Bell. 1970. _Child_Development_ 41(1):49-67). You are taking a helluva risk when you hit your child. >Currently she gets spanked mostly when my not spanking her would >cause greater damage than my spanking her. For example, playing >with electric plugs, dangerous chemicals (Note: we have done what >we can to prevent her from getting access to these, but children >are as smart as we are and it rarely takes that much to figure out >most locks), crossing the street without looking both ways first, >etc. What is the cost of a spanking next to a child's death? But, when you start hitting a child for crossing the street without looking, it is no longer a life and death situation. There is no doubt that the parent is angry at the child and also angry at himself for his momentary lapse in vigilance. Hitting the child will not change that, however. Walking without a hand being held is a great privilege. After expressing your true anger verbally to the child, after you have calmed down and explained the danger (most 4-year olds can understand this), why not say something like, "if you are going to walk in such a silly manner, without being careful, you must continue to hold my hand." >There are also several things which my wife and I can not or >will not tolerate although they do not directly endanger my >daughter. One example is writting in books; another would be >direct disobediance of a direct order. Spanking is a last resort Writing in books. A child should not be in a room where access to truly valuable books is possible. It is just the same as a basement "workroom." However, if the child is caught writing in books there are at least three responses Authoritarian: spanking (the child loses) Permissive: let the child keep doing it (the child and the parent lose) Rational: give the child an old magazine to scribble in. This sort of "rational approach" is greatly expanded by S.J. Solter (1984. _The_Aware_Baby_. Shining Star Press, Goleta CA). Disobediance to a direct order. This idea crops up in several replies as well. This is truly something worth thinking about. Is teaching a child that they must obey orders no-questions-asked really desirable? It has ben shown (Milgram, S. 1974. _Obediance_to_Authority_. Harper and Row, New York) that the average north-American will inflict what they think are lethal voltages into people, even relatives, when "ordered" to do so, despite any ethical reservations they might have. Do you really want your child to learn to obey all commands? How will she know *not* to obey they command of the next door neighbour who orders her into their house or car? And just why might a child be disobeying you? There are at least the following possible reasons for such `disobediance.' 1. The child may be too young to understand what you want. Hitting such a child will not change anything. 2. A cognitively older child may have misunderstood what you want. Further discussion is needed, not hitting. 3. The child may have thought of a perfectly good alternate technique for doing something, which differs from what you would do. Why is hitting appropriate? 4. You may want the child to do something unreasonable, and you are too tired or distracted to notice. 5. The child may be intentionally trying to annoy you. Defusing the situation, trying to learn *why* your child wants to annoy you would be more appropriate. This sort of argument is present throughout books such as _The_Parent's_A_to_Z (P. Leach. 1983. Penguin, New York). >and only done when verbal warnings have not worked and when she knows >better. My daughter is currently averaging about 2 spankings a >year. She is very self disciplined and even though all her >neighborhood friends are older and larger than her she is not a >follower but an equal. ========================================== twb@hoqax.UUCP (BEATTIE) writes <239@hoqax.UUCP> >While I don't think an occasional spanking is particularly >harmful, I also don't think it is necessary. >I feel a child can understand your disapproval of their behavior >thru your tone of voice (even if they are too young to understand >all the words). >Spanking is NOT education - it is punishment. Agreed: it is punishment. ========================================== tw8023@pyuxii.UUCP (T Wheeler) writes <334@pyuxii.UUCP> >Richard Snell may be interested in reading the most current >edition of Dr Spock's baby book concerning spanking. The >drift from never spank to an occasional, if really needed, >whack on the rear is interesting if you have read his >earlier editions. Just remember, discipline is NOT a >dirty word. As to the supposed change in Spock's thinking, I do not read his books this way. In 1962, Spock stated (pp. 334,_The_Common_Sense_Book_of_Baby_and_Child_Care): "I'm not particularly advocating spanking, but I think it is less poisonous than lengthy disapproval, because it clears the air, for parent and child." In 1985, Spock (pp. 408,_Baby_and_Childcare_ by B. Spock and M.B. Rothenberg), noted that there are cultures in other parts of the world where physical punishment is unheard of, and stated: "There are several reasons to avoid physical punishment, I feel." (Followed by a discussion on why NOT to spank). Of course discipline is "NOT" a dirty word. But children have to learn to act appropriately without the threat of the parental stick. Children want their parents approval. They want to act in such a way as to get it. Maybe, for a few years, it would be possible to have "well-behaved" and well-spanked kids. But they will not learn to think for themselves, and you will not always be there. ========================================== jane@ames.UUCP (Jane Medefesser) writes <1408@ames.UUCP> >OH God, I just don't think you can generalize here. Spanking = Child Abuse?? >I hardly think so. BEATING = Child abuse, yes, but a swat on the rear? >Poppycock. The key in discipline is the attitude in which it's carried out. Sometimes the results of hitting a child ends up in the morgue or in a hospital emergency wing, sometimes not. But is is all just a matter of degree. Hitting children has a dangerous tendency to escalate quickly. Several authors of these articles indicate that they hit their children when they are angry. I am sure that this is so. Those parents whose children end up with broken bones or massive purple bruises are not fundamentally different from anyone else. An iron-clad practice of not hitting children will obviate this scenario in your family. >Myself, I was spanked as a child. 95% of the time I asked for it and it >worked. (Attn: Flamers - by 'asked for it', don't jump to the conclusion >that I enjoyed it or anything sicko like that! ) I think my folks quit Research indicates that children who were physically abused as children tend to be the individuals who abuse their own children. People tend to bring up their children in a manner similar to the way they themselves were brought. And if you were hit as a child by a parent who you doubtless loved and likely still do, then cognitive dissonance (how could someone who loves me hit me?) is easily reduced by deciding that hitting is a good form of behavioural control. But the mere fact that one was hit as a child does not make it an appropriate activity for ones own child. >spanking me when I was truly old enough to reason with, say around 7 or 8. >I don't hate them, I don't feel abused in any way, and I feel that it was >justified. Quite honestly, my parents are loving and carring and only >spanked us when the situation called for it. I would say that you were fortunate that your parents stopped. It would seem that they came to realize they did not need it, so kudos to them. >I don't think it's depressing to pull a toddler away from a real danger, >like the lamp cords or something, and swat him on the rear after he's >been told no 8 or 9 times. I also don't think a swat on the behind constitutes Whether or not it is depressing, it is not effective, as I discussed above. >smaking a kid around!!! My cousin doesn't do anything but talk to her preschool >son. The kid is a monster. ("No, darling, you must not climb on grammas new >table....." as the kid laughs in her face. ) There are monstrous children who are spanked, and monstrous ones who are never spanked. The reason goes much deeper than that. It would sound' as if this child is raised by truly permissive parents, rather than ones who rationally try to solve problems without being authoritarian. >Child abuse is carried out in a spirit of anger, impatience and lack of >self control. Child abuse can occur psychologically as well as physically. >Discipline can be carried out physically as well as psychologically. The >world is a physical place and life offers many forms of physical discipline, >many of them self imposed, many of them not. My parents were strict and >while their discipline did not CENTER around spanking, you knew that if >you pushed their authority too far, you got one. I feel that their >strictness was a positive influence in my life. I resent the privileges >that were taken away from me at times more than the spankings!!! So, >it did actually have long term benefits, indirectly. Would not the withdrawal of privileges coupled with parental displeasure have served the purpose? ========================================== mark@umcp-cs.UUCP (Mark Weiser) writes <3300@umcp-cs.UUCP> >A couple folks have said here that it is the parents attitude that >distinguishes ok spanking from spanking==child-abuse. One person >even said that child abuse is always carried out angrily. I think >these generalizations miss the mark. What matters is not the >parents attitude, but the child's (i.e. the effect of the action >on the child). You can with friendly intention cause great damage to a >child, and you can angrily help them be a better person with a swat. Agreed, if the last three words are deleted. ========================================== regard@ttidcc.UUCP (Adrienne Regard) writes <171@ttidcc.UUCP> >I am a parent (and was a kid, wwwwaaaaayyyy back when). I got smacked a >few times when I was a kid, and I've smacked my own a few times. > >The reason I use the word "smacked" is because I think you need to define >"spanking". Obviously, there is, at one end of the continuum, severe >beating. At the other, there is a playful swat on the diapers that might >even be part of a game. Obviously you are talking about the vast grey >area between. I doubt we are talking about playful swats. Good play can get quite rough at times. The issue is whether hitting children is an appropriate method of altering a childs behaviour. >I've no idea why parent books _uniformly_ condemn spanking. However, I >also am unclear as to which kind(s) of spanking they are referring to. 1. because it can quickly escalate 2. because hitting children does not teach them anything. It is your anger that is instructive. They are either too young for the lesson to mean anything or they are old enough to become resentful. 3. it teaches children that, in the end, might makes right. 4. It is barbaric. Most people do not hit their co-workers when they do things they don't like. Most employers do not act like `Mr. Dithers' out of the comic strip `Blondie.' Most people do not hit their spouses when they do things they don't like. Why do some of these same people find hitting children to be acceptable? What puzzles me is how people religiously follow the advice of their `books,' up to but not including the _uniform_ condemnation of hitting children. ========================================== tankus@hsi.UUCP (Ed Tankus) writes <316@hsi.UUCP> >I am a father-to-be (April or May) and I generally support Tom's thinking. My >wife is a different story. She does not believe in spanking AT ALL. I hope you give this to your wife to read, and then have another good long discussion about it. >We have had many arguments about this, still with no clear resolution. >I was spanked and, many times, severely beaten. I deserved the spankings >sometimes (of course I'm prejudiced) and sometimes I did not. I NEVER deserved >the beatings. Still I feel that being spanked, swatted, whatever, has it's >place. This seems to be an example of parental spankings becoming escalated. Maybe it is an example of the resolution of cognitive dissonance, too. >Despite and because of the hitting, I feel I have grown up very well-adjusted. >I will love my child and care for it with all my heart. I hope that the lessons >I have learned *MAY* preclude me from ever hitting that child. But I will not >delude myself with fantasies. Not hitting children need not be viewed as a fantasy: it could be viewed as part of a preferred strategy for dealing with "misbehaviour." >Electrical cords, chemicals, sharp objects, hot stoves, etc., all *MAY* require >a parent to use this option. Torrid, screaming tantrums *MAY* necessitate the >same treatment. I know that when I pulled one of these, I got it. It taught >me about selfishness, about manners, about asking for things in a polite and >reasonable way. > Tantrums. Dealing with these is always difficult. Children often have a real knack for pulling one in a socially awkward location: eg in a store. It is tough to ignore it (people glare: what's the matter with you, why cann't you control that child?). IGNORE IT. Isolating the child may not always be the best thing though. The child does not understand her own anger, and may be frightened by it and her inability to control herself. You as the parent (if you are strong enough) might help by holding the child until the anger passes. A child in a tantrum is not behaving in a rational manner. Hitting a child in such a state will accomplish nothing positive. >I have used the term, "spanking", in a very general way, much like everyone >else. But spanking doesn't have to mean an open hand across the buttocks. It >can be a stiff finger firmly planted on the child's hand as they reach up to >the hot burner. It can be any similar variation. > I disagree. Restraining a child from touching a hot burner is done before the act. Spanking is done after the fact (of, say,writing in a book). Also, the age at which a child is trying to touch hot burners is also still' the age when the child is cognitively incapable of learning anything from your spanking. Parents can only be vigilant, and try, as many times as it takes, to keep their young children safe. ========================================== marks@yogi.DEC writes <1331@decwrl.DEC.COM> >Like religion and politics, this seems one of those sacrosanct >subjects about which nobody's mind is ever really changed. Seems to >me that in most cases, them's who were spanked spank and them's who >weren't don't. I wasn't and I haven't. My kids are really nice >teenagers. I feel and have always felt spanking really is more of a >benefit to the spanker than to the spankee. 'Nuff said. Agreed. ========================================== This has been rather long. If you have read through it, thanks for your time... Perhaps this *is* a sacrosanct subject on which no one's mind can be changed. I would hope not. Not hitting your child is not easy: many people seem very happy to do it (just look at the recent articles in net.kids). To avoid hitting your children requires that you be quick enough and smart enough to think of other ways of dealing with situations. It is not always easy. Good luck if you try it: it can certainly be done.