jay@cadre.UUCP (02/18/85)
In a recent discussion on corporal punishment in schools that I watched on a local TV program, I was surprised to hear that more than 80% Americans are of the view that corporal punishment should be continued in American schools! There was a lone psychologist waging a futile war, showing how all that paddling can harm the child's personality, and instill unnecessary fear and hatred towards others. I understand that, in countries like Sweden, it is a crime even to ridicule a student in front of his/her peers, let alone hit him/her. I frankly am surprised that, in a country like America, so many people subscribe to such ancient forms of "disciplining" their pupils. I am curious to know why such a state of affairs exists. I would like to hear from net folk: parents/would-be parents/concerned people. I am interested in hearing not just your views on this subject (which would be very valuable), but also any clues you can offer for such a mental make-up of the American populace. Jay Ramanathan ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ jay@cadre.ARPA Decision Systems Lab, Univ of Pittsburgh, PA ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ "They clamour for all those babies, and then beat them up"
barry@mit-eddie.UUCP (Mikki Barry) (02/19/85)
I have no children (but am planning on one), but I can't see how a parent can allow someone that is not known to them (i.e. teacher), smacking on kids. Yes, I realize that some kids are unruly (I teach a class full of disrespectful, hyperactive, and generally difficult kids), but many people don't know their own strength. I wouldn't want to take the chance that my child was being hit by one of them. I know that this is not the case with every parent, but I have seen many try to shift the responsibility for discipline of their child to teachers. Even though my class (karate) is supposed to teach discipline, I often find parents asking me to take care of their child's reading problem, sibling problems, classmate problems, etc. I even had one ask me to smack their kid for them because of the child being unruly in the car on the way to class. I declined on the grounds that I wanted them to respect me, not fear me. It's a full contact class, and the kids have to trust instructors not to kill them. But, I deviate... Violence against children is rarely an answer. If a child, perhaps needs a smack on the behind, it should be the parent's responsibility to decide whether said smack is truly necessary, and to deliver it themselves. Children should not fear their teachers, but respect them. A teacher should be able to command respect from non physical actions. In my day, my teachers punished us by having us put our heads down on the desk, or isolation for a few minutes, etc. In severe cases, parents should be notified, and it should be the parents who decide the discipline. I know that there are some pretty rotten kids out there as well as some pretty uncaring parents, but smacking kids around isn't the answer.
pking@uiucuxc.UUCP (02/20/85)
In this part of central Illinois we are required to sign forms giving the school permission to use physical force on our children--- If you do NOT give your permission the school can not HIT your child -- I did not give my permission -- If my child does something so terrible that warrants striking by a teacher or principal, I want to know about it -- I don't think schools should have the right to strike their pupils without parents knowing about it -- Even if the school called me, I would not allow them to hit my child under any cicrcumstances -- fortunately we have been lucky in our schools and teachers, neither have believed in hitting ---
jayt@ssc-vax.UUCP (Jay T McCanta) (02/21/85)
At one point in time (I don't recalL when) I read (I don't recall where)
that children prefer a spanking to other forms of punishment. Why? Because
it was over with quickly. Now that I think about it, there was more than one
time that I wished I had just been whacked and got it all over with instead of
being grounded, lectured, stood in a corner, etc.
I don't believe in slapping a child. Spanking, as others have said, doesn't
seem as personel an asault. Toddlers, whose judgement and memory are quite
selective, need some reenforcement (either positive or negative) that will
prevent them from life threatening situations. I have not met a two year old
who fully understands what it means to be hit by a car, but most understand
a spanking. I'm not saying that it is the best method, but it is effective.
All children need to know that some one is in control. They tend to look
to adults for this. As they get older, they want to know thier limits.
Many troublesome kids are just testing thier limits. They want to know just
how far they can go. The idea of "tough-love" for teen-agers is that these
people never knew their bounds. It is trying to make up for this loss.
When a child's bounds are crossed, the child needs to know. I beilve a firm
(not hard) swat and an explaination of the violation convey the needed message.
This done in a loving environment (and not infront of peers) should not prove
devastating to a child. It teaches them responsibility for their actions.
Now, whether teachers should be able to spank their students, I wish that
every teacher was wise enough to know how and when to spank, but because
I know that isn't the case, I find myself torn. There is the child's right
to saftey (above all else) and there are the rights of the other children
to have a quit classroom, calm teacher, etc. The question is too important
to leave to the government, but I don't have a solution either.
-------------------------------------
Never strike a child in anger,
Never hit him when irate,
But save it for some happy time,
When both are feeling great.
- Erma Bombeck
-------------------------------------bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (03/02/85)
> I am curious to know why such a state of affairs exists. I would like to >hear from net folk: parents/would-be parents/concerned people. I am >interested in hearing not just your views on this subject (which would be >very valuable), but also any clues you can offer for such a mental make-up >of the American populace. I am curious to know why educated people are so ignorant of the facts of life. There is a quote from Solomon that says to discipline your child strongly and physically, saying, "if you beat him with the rod, he will not die." I appreciate this, and if you can see it, there are two meanings here: first, a good-natured assurance that you won't kill him; second, the assurance that by training your child well to discipline himself, you will save him from death, both spiritually and even physically. Wake up. There's still time for you. from over the rainbow of we53!bmt(Brian M. Thomas @ AT&T Technologies, St. Louis, MO)
bmt@we53.UUCP ( B. M. Thomas ) (03/02/85)
I think I should back up a little. My previous reply was a little strong against the idea of spanking. This was misplaced in a discussion of corporal punishment in schools, and I apologise. I fully agree, Mikki, that teachers are not capable, and should not be expected, to take the parents' responsi- bilities to raise their children. It is this parental abdication of authority and responsibility that has put teachers in an impossible situation. from over the rainbow of we53!bmt(Brian M. Thomas @ AT&T Technologies, St. Louis, MO)
david@terak.UUCP (David Jayakaran) (03/07/85)
[] >> I am curious to know why such a state of affairs exists. I would like to >>hear from net folk: parents/would-be parents/concerned people. I am >>interested in hearing not just your views on this subject (which would be >>very valuable), but also any clues you can offer for such a mental make-up >>of the American populace. >>Jay Ramanathan >I am curious to know why educated people are so ignorant of the facts of >life. >There is a quote from Solomon that says to discipline your child strongly >and physically, saying, "if you beat him with the rod, he will not die." >I appreciate this, and if you can see it, there are two meanings here: >first, a good-natured assurance that you won't kill him; second, the >assurance that by training your child well to discipline himself, you will >save him from death, both spiritually and even physically. >Wake up. There's still time for you. >we53!bmt(Brian M. Thomas @ AT&T Technologies, St. Louis, MO) Bravo, Brian!!! I couldn't have said it better myself! -- David uucp: ...{decvax,hao,ihnp4,seismo}!noao!terak!david phone: [602] 998-4800 us mail: Terak Corporation, 14151 N 76th street, Scottsdale, AZ 85260 The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament showeth His handywork. Psalm 19:1
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/02/85)
Here's an example of how NOT to do it: > My brother-in-law, on the other hand, doesn't believe in spanking. > He believes that a parent should, instead, attempt to reason with children, > or failing that, cajole them into doing what is necessary, or, failing that, > issue baseless and meaningless threats. He's raising a couple of little > monsters. A sample scene: the monsters are splashing around in the > lake, squealing and screaming at each other, etc, generally having a good > time. My brother in law, Dave, is standing on shore in a suit. He's > come to pick the kids up and is late for a meeting. > Dave: Alright, kids. Get out and get dried off, it's time to go. > Kid1: No! > (a few minutes later) > Dave: C'mon, get out of there or I'll be late for my meeting. > Kid1&2: (pretend not to hear.) > Dave: Am I going to have to come in there after you? > Kids: Come on in. The water's fine. > Dave: I'm going to count to ten, and you'd better get out of there, > or else. > (the kids continue playing as Dave starts his 'countdown'. They know > from long experience that the threatened 'or else' means 'or else I'll > stand here pleading with you some more.' Dave stops counting after five.) Spanking (or the threat thereof) is NOT the only alternative to this scenario. I have never met anyone who likes to stop doing anything fun, and no kid is going to want to stop swimming just because Daddy has to go to one of his stupid meetings. A couple of suggestions: --There is no way short of brute force to get two kids out of any body of water larger than a bathtub in less than 5 minutes. If Daddy just drives up and says, "Hurry up and get in the car, I'm already late, go on, get moving!" he can count on a less than enthusiastic reception. Give them some time. Let them know in advance when they will have to go, and give them some warning. It isn't the kids' fault if Daddy is late. --Substitute another enjoyable activity. For instance, tell them you'll stop for ice cream on the way home (and then follow through on your promise); bring along a game for them to play in the car; remind them that their favorite TV program will be on when they get home. Use your imagination. This takes more effort than just hitting the brats, but it's more fun. I suggest that Dave gets no respect because of his obvious hapless ineffectiveness, not because he refuses to hit his kids (for which he has MY respect). Idle threats ("Get out by the time I count ten, or else!") just make things worse. Whether or not you should use corporal punishment with your children is a matter of what you want them to learn. For example, take crossing the street. Do you want them to be afraid of moving cars or afraid of you? If you want them to look to see if you are watching instead of looking for oncoming cars when they are tempted to cross the street, then by all means spank them when you catch them crossing the street. That will teach them, very effectively, not to cross the street if they think you might be watching. But if you don't want to spank them, keep them away from the street if they can't be trusted near it. An example from my own experience: The Orthogenic School is home for 50-60 of the most impossible kids in the United States, ages 6-18. The School is located on a busy city intersection, with trucks rumbling past. The doors are not locked from the inside, so any kid can get up and walk out at any time, unless they are restrained by someone holding on to them (no other kinds of restraint are used). Corporal punishment is never employed -- if a staff member so much as slaps a kid, he or she is in hot water. Every one of these kids has been taught to stay out of the street. The trouble with corporal punishment is that it is ineffective in the long run. In the short run it's the fastest way to change a child's behavior. But it teaches him that superior force is the way to influence people's behavior in this world, the way the Soviets influenced the Hungarians, the Czechs, and the Afghans, not by reasoning, persuasion, and using your head. If you also forbid the child to hit you back, he concludes quite logically that might makes right: it's OK for the strong to hit the weak, but not the reverse. You crack the whip and the kid jumps through the hoop. That's fine if you want to raise a trained monkey rather than a thinking human being. > Throughout the rest of my childhood, I would generally obey > my father without question, though on occasion I'd test the limits of > his authority, always 'straightening up' when I received a warning. I > suppose that at first, this was motivated by fear, but as I grew up and > learned to understand the *reasons* he had for demanding obedience, it > just became habit to do what dad said. I'm glad you learned that thinking for yourself is more important than obedience. Here is a contrasting quotation: > It was constantly impressed upon me in forceful terms that I must > obey promptly the wishes and commands of my parents, teachers, and > priests, and indeed of all grown-up people, including servants, and > that nothing must distract me from this duty. Whatever they said was > always right. These basic principles by which I was brought up > became second nature to me. This was written by Rudolf Hoess, Commandant at Auschwitz. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
lotto@talcott.UUCP (Jerry Lotto) (09/02/85)
In article <11316@rochester.UUCP>, ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) writes: > > In article <1214@teddy.UUCP> lkk@teddy.UUCP (Larry K. Kolodney) writes: > > Discipline based on fear is worse than no discipline at all. > > > I must pose to you a situation involving a parent child confrontation. :loop > Parent : Time for bed. > 4yr old: Nope. go to loop > And so on, What WOULD you do? My three and a half year old daughter and I often run into this situation. The solution we came up with can probably be ripped apart (I am interested in hearing what other people think of this) but it WORKS! When I get tired of the Nope game, I tell her to do the exact opposite. It always is with a smile so she can distinguish it from non :-) no's, (assuming I have any smile left), and it is always exaggerated. eg. P: Time for bed C: Nope. P: Okay, but you had better stay up ALL night and make a lot of noise. You be sure to get good and tired before tommorrow so you can't (do whatever good things are in store for the next day). C: I'm going to bed! (looks around for escape route because she knows that when she breaks for upstairs I am going to try to catch her) P: You had better not! (Bigger smile, the only way to differentiate from a real NO) C: (runs up to her room and dives under the covers) Stories follow. I make the reversal as obvious and ridiculous as possible. This succeeds almost everytime I try it. To prevent overuse, a) do not use in situations that are critical i.e. street crossing b) do not use where the child can turn it around on you. If the above failed, I would have let her try to stay up all nite in her room as long as she does not come down to disturb us. This has been suggested in various forms on the net for a while. What other cautions do you think are wise? What problems do you forsee when she is a little older (I assume this will get dated quite soon)? I will summarize if any direct replies are of general interest. -- Gerald Lotto - Harvard Chemistry Dept. UUCP: {seismo,harpo,ihnp4,linus,allegra,ut-sally}!harvard!lhasa!lotto ARPA: lotto@harvard.EDU CSNET: lotto%harvard@csnet-relay
rwh@aesat.UUCP (Russ Herman) (09/03/85)
> You're not allowed to threaten to take his teddy bear away. Of course not. First of all, if you have to carry it out, you're ensuring the kid isn't going to sleep. Second of all, that's almost the same as threatening to remove *yourself* from the kid, from an emotional standpoint. > You're not allowed to tell him he can't have ice cream if he doesn't listen. That's silly. Ice cream when? Bedtime is now; a future reward/punishment has no value to a four year old. > By the way, you are not > allowed to bodily carry him to bed, that would be physically taking matters in > hand and over powering him with your size. WRONG. That is precisely what you do, as a last resort. However, if you have accustomed the child to a regular bedtime, or negotiated a special case, this is rarely necessary. > Besides, he would just climb out of bed and come downstairs. > What WOULD you do? Carry him back! > From: ray@rochester.UUCP (Ray Frank) All of the above takes for granted that we've determined that there is no reason the kid doesn't want to stay in bed (fear, discomfort, etc.). It IS possible to raise a decent kid without inflicting either physical pain or shame. But first, you have to BELIEVE it can be done. We have (so far at age 4). -- ______ Russ Herman / \ {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!aesat!rwh @( ? ? )@ ( || ) The opinions above are strictly personal, and ( \__/ ) do not reflect those of my employer (or even \____/ possibly myself an hour from now.)
carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes) (09/05/85)
Steve Henning writes: >Dr Spock was the man who single handedly dethroned >the saying, "spare the rod and spoil the child." If only this were true. "Spare the rod --> spoil the child" is completely wrong but many parents still accept it. One of the problems with raising a child this way is that the child, when he or she grows up, tends to become an adult whose inability to empathize with feelings of weakness and helplessness is illustrated in the following exchange: > > Funny, I got the paddle several times in jr. high school and I > > NEVER DESERVED IT. > >Poor baby. Everyone send sympathy cards. I'll bet my next paycheck that Mr. Henning received corporal punishment fairly often as a child and that he experienced it at the time as undeserved and unfair. Rather than blaming Mr. Henning for his lack of sympathy I would attribute it to his childhood experiences, since his attitude as expressed above is typical of those who received corporal punishment. Such a child learns to repress (i.e. dismiss from conscious awareness) his feelings of helpless vulnerability, so that when he becomes an adult and someone (usually a child) experiences and expresses those feelings of weakness, the feelings threaten to return to conscious awareness and reactivate the pain on account of which they were repressed. So the adult defends himself against reexperiencing these feelings, perhaps with a sarcastic dismissal of them: "Poor baby. Everyone send sympathy cards." Extreme examples of this kind of personality can be found in many of the Nazis, nearly all of whom received "strict" upbringings complete with corporal punishment. Their childhood experiences, I believe, go a long way to explain their lack of sympathy with their weak and helpless victims on whom they imposed undeserved suffering. Adolf Hitler, BTW, was beaten constantly and severely as a child. This is not to say that the beatings were the *sole* cause of his later actions. There some other factors in Hitler's case, including the fact that he had no children of his own, who otherwise might have served him as victims instead of the Jews. Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/06/85)
>"Spare the rod --> spoil the child" is >completely wrong but many parents still accept it. One of the >problems with raising a child this way is that the child, when he or >she grows up, tends to become an adult whose inability to empathize >with feelings of weakness and helplessness . . . > >Rather than blaming Mr. Henning for >his lack of sympathy I would attribute it to his childhood >experiences, since his attitude as expressed above is typical of >those who received corporal punishment. > >Extreme examples of this kind of personality can be found in many of >the Nazis, nearly all of whom received "strict" upbringings complete >with corporal punishment. > >Richard Carnes, ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes Isn't this a bit strong, Richard? I would hardly say the "inability to empathize with feelings of weakness and helplessness" is "typical" of my family or friends, although most of us "received 'strict' upbringings complete with corporal punishment." It sounds to me like you are confusing discipline that includes occasional spankings with child abuse. charli
cim1@pyuxv.UUCP (G. Bogatko) (09/06/85)
There is another dynamic to this discussion that is being missed. The most rapid child development comes when their actions cause an IMMEDIATE REACTION. For example: A child learns rather quickly not to put his hand on a hot stove. (Yes, there are exceptions, Yes, age makes a difference) because the reaction (pain) is immediate. (No, I am not advocating pain). It takes a child a while to learn about why he/she should go to bed because the reaction -- a hard time getting up the next morning in time for whatever -- is *not* immediate. A child learns very quickly to be creative and spontanious if the reaction is positive and *immediate*. ex: Wow, that xxxx is fantastic. A child learns to be intellectually constipated if the reaction is always one of disinterest and ridicule. ex: That just looks like scribbles to me. Why don't you do something useful for a change. You are worthless. A child becomes crippled if every action causes a negative reaction. and A child becomes crippled if every action causes a positive reaction. Good parents (good teachers) are able to strike a good balance. (No, I am not advocating Skinner boxes or brainwashing) Lesson: A reaction to a child's action, whenever possible should be right then and there. Things you WANT to have the child do should be rewarded, and things you DON'T WANT to have the child do should be punished (No, punish does not mean inflict pain) right then and there. N.B. Notice the comments in parens. They are to pre-answer the crackpots who don't bother reading beyond the first buzzword). -- G. M. Bogatko
elt@astrovax.UUCP (Ed Turner) (09/09/85)
This discussion has turned into a debate about techniques for disciplinig children. In my opinion spankings are not necessarily more effective nor more psychologically or emotionally damaging to children than other forms of punishment. Here I would distinguish between disciplinary spanking and sadistic physical child abuse which actually inflicts injury on the child. Non-physical punishments can also be extremely cruel and humiliating and even abusive. There is a whole lot more to disciplining children effectively than picking the right form of punishment or reward. Reposted below is something I posted about a year ago in a previous discussion of discipline which was as well received as anything I have ever submitted. Thus, I hope it bears repetition. ______________________________________________________________________________ Discipline is a toughie. Here are a few things my wife and I have noticed in the course of raising our own and watching our friends raise theirs. 1) You should ALMOST NEVER (i.e., once a year at most) back down on something you have said, whether it is telling a child not to do something or threatening a specific punishment. The reason is obvious; how is the child to know in the future whether you mean it or whether you don't. Some people get into an awful trap this way. They place some act or behavior off limits, but their child persists, and eventually they relent and allow it. Next time they hold their ground longer, but the child still wins out in the end. The next time it takes even longer and so on. Unconsciously, the parents are teaching the child that he/she need only draw out the issue long enough to have a chance of getting their way. Soon even the smallest issues of discipline take hours or even days to resolve. Conversely, if you always mean what you say, the child soon learns to take your word for it. 2) Try not to nag your child and constantly be correcting its behavior on relatively minor points. Forbid behavior that is dangerous or really unacceptable but try not to be authoritarian about things that are merely annoying. The main reason for this beyond not overly suppressing the child's self expression is that children easily learn to "tune out" too frequent nagging. Then they almost literally don't hear you when the issue is more important. 3) Some children (or maybe all children at some age) respond positively to what their parents consider negative reinforcement. They so love to be the center of attention that they prefer being punished to being ignored. This can be a particular problem if the child is not getting enough other attention from the parents; even spankings can be preferable to what is in their eyes neglect. In this case ignoring bad behavior and responding strongly with attention to good behavior can sometimes work wonders. 4) Try to have rules that the child can understand and punishments that are applied consistently and uniformly. If the child cannot predict what behavior will displease you and how it will be punished, he/she is likely to see it as merely capriscious harrasment on your part. Problems of this sort can easily occur for small children who, for instance, cannot easily see why acceptable behavior at home is unacceptable in a restaurant or at grandparents' house. 5) Spanking (assuming it is not brutal) is not particularly more effective or more extreme than other punishments except perhaps for very small children who may not understand what other forms of punishment are all about. Parents who spank regularly may still fall into all of the traps described above (and no doubt others) and have as bad a discipline problems as parents who don't spank. Just switching from a no spanking to a spanking policy will not usually solve your problems. 6) Love your children and let them know they are loved as much as you can. This will cause them to *want* to please you. This is the easiest and in the long run the most effective "discipline". 7) Remember none of this or indeed anything works all the time or for all children. ______________________________________________________________________________ Incidentally, my wife and I have only resorted to a mild spanking two or three times in my 7 year old son's life. Ed Turner astrovax!elt
charli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/09/85)
> > Lesson: A reaction to a child's action, whenever possible should be >right then and there. Things you WANT to have the child do should be >rewarded, and things you DON'T WANT to have the child do should be >punished (No, punish does not mean inflict pain) right then and there. > > -- G. M. Bogatko As a comment on this discussion, my son started something when he was a year old that really upset me. Every time he got frustrated (and, as anyone who has one knows, one-year-olds get frustrated a lot), he'd bang his head on the floor. Hard. Our pediatrician, my mother, and all the other "experts" we turned to assured us he would not hit his head hard enough to injure himself. That's easy to say when you're not sitting there watching him beat himself. We tried putting him in his crib in the other room, all those sorts of things. He *never* got any goodies for his efforts. But the head-banging wouldn't go away. So after a while, my husband decided he'd had enough. If the head-banging wasn't hurting Jonathan, it was hurting *me*. Starting one Sunday afternoon, every time Jonathan banged his head on the floor, he got swatted on the bottom. Hard. (Not hard enough to injure him through his diapers and clothes, of course. But hard enough that he knew he'd been swatted.) Within two days, the head-banging was *gone*. It has recurred only twice since. Both times, he got swatted. (We also instructed grandparents and babysitters that if he banged his head, he was to be swatted.) It was a fast cure. I think it was far better, and I know it was far more effective, than any non-physical methods we tried. Note that I am not advocating child-beating. Swats and spankings are not the *only* disciplinary measure we use. But in this case, it worked, it worked fast, and it saved me a lot of grief. charli
smh@rduxb.UUCP (henning) (09/10/85)
> I'll bet my next paycheck that Mr. Henning received corporal > punishment fairly often as a child and that he experienced it at the > time as undeserved and unfair. **** **** From the keys of Steve Henning, AT&T Bell Labs, Reading, PA rduxb!smh Sorry, you loose. You can send the check at your convenience. I was spoiled rotten. However, I was smart enough to not ruin the arrangement by doing too many rotten things. I have worked with children for 20 years as a Boy Scout leader, and have found the proponents of "don't touch my child" as being those parents who have raised real brats. I only touched a Scout once, and all I did was back him into a wall with my fat gut and shout at him. He is the only boy I ever met who had no respect at all for anyone behind their back, but was the sweatest little thing to their face. I can take almost anything, but deceit and bigotry are two things that trigger me. It is rewarding to find that most children do in fact grow up to be productive human beings despite what they want you to believe when they are younger. Child abuse is very bad, but many very good parents use very effective forms of discipline and do not abuse their children. We do not need to send these parents on a guilt trip because they have spanked their children. We should be addressing abuse and not discipline that is not abuse. One thing we do in Scouts is ask children what the rules should be and what the punishment should be for infractions. It is very surprising to hear how well they understand the system and how good their punishments are. Of course, we never use corporal punishment unless it is the scoutmasters own child.
mom@sfmag.UUCP (M.Modig) (09/10/85)
> Spare the rod --> spoil the child" is > completely wrong but many parents still accept it. One of the > problems with raising a child this way is that the child, when he or > she grows up, tends to become an adult whose inability to empathize > with feelings of weakness and helplessness is illustrated in the > following exchange: > > > > Funny, I got the paddle several times in jr. high school and I > > > NEVER DESERVED IT. > > > >Poor baby. Everyone send sympathy cards. > > I'll bet my next paycheck that Mr. Henning received corporal > punishment fairly often as a child and that he experienced it at the > time as undeserved and unfair. Rather than blaming Mr. Henning for > his lack of sympathy I would attribute it to his childhood > experiences, since his attitude as expressed above is typical of > those who received corporal punishment. Such a child learns to > repress (i.e. dismiss from conscious awareness) his feelings of > helpless vulnerability, so that when he becomes an adult and someone > (usually a child) experiences and expresses those feelings of > weakness, the feelings threaten to return to conscious awareness and > reactivate the pain on account of which they were repressed. So > the adult defends himself against reexperiencing these feelings, > perhaps with a sarcastic dismissal of them: "Poor baby. Everyone > send sympathy cards." > This is a rather interesting theory, but I am not sure I buy it. I was spanked when I was younger, though I was never physically hurt, like I might have been if I had been beaten or abused. Also, my parents spanked me less and less as I got older, since as a child gets older, there are many other discipline options open to a parent besides spanking. But the most important points, I feel, are that my parents taught me to take responsibility for my actions and face the consequences of them. They also took time to explain to me why I was being punished, and they also taught me many other things, such as respect and compassion for others. I think that spanking itself need not bring about the attitude you describe, though parents who spank indiscriminately and uncaringly and who beat their children might well rouse such feelings in them. However, I think you can be taught not to care about others by emulating parents who don't care about others either, or by being raised by parents who don't care too much about their children (no attention, etc.) > Extreme examples of this kind of personality can be found in many of > the Nazis, nearly all of whom received "strict" upbringings complete > with corporal punishment. Their childhood experiences, I believe, go > a long way to explain their lack of sympathy with their weak and > helpless victims on whom they imposed undeserved suffering. Adolf > Hitler, BTW, was beaten constantly and severely as a child. This is > not to say that the beatings were the *sole* cause of his later > actions. There some other factors in Hitler's case, including the > fact that he had no children of his own, who otherwise might have > served him as victims instead of the Jews. I don't think that corporal punishment can be blamed for as the whole, or even a major, cause of the problem here. Children were not only punished severely, but were taught not to sympathise with the weak and helpless, and were taught loyalty (to Hitler rather than, say to their family) and to worship strength and scorn weakness. Corporal punishment in the form of severe beatings is just part of the overall attitude. Mark Modig ihnp4!sfmag!mom
smuga@mtuxo.UUCP (j.smuga) (09/10/85)
Bravo, Ed - a fine article. Especially this part: > > 6) Love your children and let them know they are loved as much as you can. This > will cause them to *want* to please you. This is the easiest and in the long > run the most effective "discipline". > > Ed Turner > astrovax!elt My 2 cents worth: when you need to discipline, make it quick and clean; correct the child's behavior and let the punishment (if any) be immediate and brief. When it's over, let it be over. Don't hold a grudge or pin a lable on a child (e.g. "You always do that.") -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Janet Smuga I've had a great many troubles in my time, ihnp4!mtuxo!smuga and most of them never happened. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
tron@fluke.UUCP (Peter Barbee) (09/11/85)
This discussion has strayed a bit from just punishment into "how to
get kids to obey without spanking" and so I thought I'd share a tactic
which has been extremely effective for me.
Since I am the adult (?|-)) I supposedly have the ability to decide that
bedtime (or whatever change in activity) is approaching - and I will
warn Katie (now 4 1/2) by saying "Put your pajamas on in 5 more, okay?",
and making sure she agrees. I then count down ("4 more, ok?", "3...)
and Katie almost never seriously complains. When she does complain I'll
usually just say "But you have to" and that works for some reason I don't
know. I use the technique for everything from bedtime to leaving a play
situation to going to the park, I think Katie just appreciates what is
going to happen next.
One of the hidden advantages is that it is only very recently that Katie
has any sense of time, and so how long "5" is up to you.
My last resort of parental authority is "I'm going to count to 3!!",
I know I've never hit Katie, and I don't think I've ever finished the
ultimatum (what will ahppen at three), but she respects it. I guess
I should find out what the source of her fear is.
Cheers,
Peter Bcharli@cylixd.UUCP (Charli Phillips) (09/12/85)
In article <3838@amdcad.UUCP> linda@amdcad.UUCP (Linda Seltzer) writes: > >> [bed-time argument we've all read plenty of times by now] > >Why make the kid go to bed if he's not tired. When he's tired he'll fall >asleep anyway. Plenty of parents are frustrated little dictators and the >only way they can exercise power is to impose all kinds of arbitrary >rules on their kids. Sometimes its easy to see who's a parent, and who's not. :-) charli
berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (09/23/85)
> > > > Lesson: A reaction to a child's action, whenever possible should be > >right then and there. Things you WANT to have the child do should be > >rewarded, and things you DON'T WANT to have the child do should be > >punished (No, punish does not mean inflict pain) right then and there. > > > > -- G. M. Bogatko > > As a comment on this discussion, my son started something when he was a > year old that really upset me. Every time he got frustrated (and, > as anyone who has one knows, one-year-olds get frustrated a lot), he'd > bang his head on the floor. Hard. > > Our pediatrician, my mother, and all the other "experts" we turned to > assured us he would not hit his head hard enough to injure himself. > That's easy to say when you're not sitting there watching him beat > himself. We tried putting him in his crib in the other room, all those > sorts of things. He *never* got any goodies for his efforts. But the > head-banging wouldn't go away. > > So after a while, my husband decided he'd had enough. If the head-banging > wasn't hurting Jonathan, it was hurting *me*. Starting one Sunday > afternoon, every time Jonathan banged his head on the floor, he got > swatted on the bottom. Hard. ................. > charli I had a similar problem with my Jacob. Somehow, were not that much affraid (wall to wall carpet). Still, disturbing. When he was 16 months old, we spend a week of vacations in a hotel room with marble floor. Needless to say, he never tried to bang his head on the floor again. Personally, I do not want to spank, swat etc. However, when Jacob was a little above two years, he started to hit me when frustated (two years old, even loved and sweet, also may get frustrated). I responded with clapping at his palm, not to strong, but to let him feel pain. I thought that I must convey the idea that since he becomes stronger, this kind of tantrum is not appropriate any more. Again, worked fast. Still, seems that the very reason that it worked so well is that it was so unusual a punishment. Thus as a rule one should not do it, and the exeptions should be well justified (and exeptional). Peter
rwh@aesat.UUCP (Russ Herman) (09/26/85)
> Personally, I do not want to spank, swat etc. However, when Jacob > was a little above two years, he started to hit me when frustated > (two years old, even loved and sweet, also may get frustrated). > I responded with clapping at his palm, not to strong, but to let > him feel pain. I thought that I must convey the idea that since > he becomes stronger, this kind of tantrum is not appropriate any > more. Again, worked fast. > Still, seems that the very reason that it worked so well is that > it was so unusual a punishment. Thus as a rule one should not > do it, and the exeptions should be well justified (and exeptional). > Piotr Berman I can testify that children DO NOT have to be hit to learn hitting. In our house, hitting us is the is the only instantaneous, no questions asked, time-out-able offense. This meets the unusualness criterion, as that behavior has never gotten itself firmly established. -- ______ Russ Herman / \ {allegra,ihnp4,linus,decvax}!utzoo!aesat!rwh @( ? ? )@ ( || ) The opinions above are strictly personal, and ( \__/ ) do not reflect those of my employer (or even \____/ possibly myself an hour from now.)
andrew@orca.UUCP (Andrew Klossner) (09/29/85)
> Our pediatrician, my mother, and all the other "experts" we turned to > assured us he would not hit his head hard enough to injure himself. Woefully wrong. Children with autism can damage themselves so severely as to require hospitalization. -=- Andrew Klossner (decvax!tektronix!tekecs!andrew) [UUCP] (tekecs!andrew.tektronix@csnet-relay) [ARPA]