wolit@alice.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) (01/29/85)
"Spanking" is a marvelous euphemism. When one adult strikes another,
it's called "assault," or maybe just "hitting." We also call it
"hitting" if one kid strikes another, and we condemn that, too (often,
it seems from the responses here, by hitting HIM!). But an adult
hitting his or her kid is just "spanking."
Look, violence is violence. You wouldn't accept it if your neighbor
hit you because you were doing something he didn't like. Hitting your
kid is the same thing, exactly.
"But that's different," you say. "I have to TEACH my kid."
I'm sure that if your college, graduate, or professional school
professor had raised a hand to you, you wouldn't have found that to
be justified on these grounds.
"No, I have to teach him DISCIPLINE!"
Army drill instructors teach discipline, too. In fact, they are
legendary for being rather harsh disciplinarians. And no one ever
accused them of harboring the tender, loving feelings toward their
charges that parents are assumed to have. Yet drill instructors are
forbidden from striking recruits.
"But family members aren't the same as strangers."
You're not allowed to hit your spouse without facing criminal
penalties and society's scorn.
"But my kid's too young too listen to reason."
And he's old enough to understand being assaulted?
"How else can I get him to obey me?"
You accept not being able to force everyone else in the world to
submit to your will. (At least, I hope you do!) Why is your child
any less privileged?
"I provide for my kid's every need. That gives me the
privilege of deciding how to raise him."
Sounds like a description of a hostage situation, not a family.
Prison convicts are also provided with food, clothing, and shelter,
and, perhaps, have proven themselves unworthy of protection in a way
that few misbehaving 4-year olds have; nonetheless, the guards and wardens
are prohibited from hitting them.
"Look buddy," you say, grasping at libertarian straws, "This
is a personal, family matter. Butt out!"
No, protection from physical violence is guaranteed by our society,
at least in theory (even though, for some warped reason, society does
seem to sanction child beating; more on this in a minute). It's
odd, but I have a funny feeling that many of the people who
want to be left alone on issues of the rights of their children
are the same ones manning the barricades trying to "protect the rights"
of children who haven't even been born...
The sad fact is that our society denies children the basic human
rights that we extend to everyone else. The recent Supreme Court
decision bears this out: while authorities must have probable cause
or a warrant to search you, your kids are subject to search at school
on a teacher's simple suspicion that some rule -- even as minor or
arbitrary as a dress code -- has been broken.
Look at it another way: of all the members of our society, even
including those charged with maintaining law and order -- police,
prison guards, drill sergeants, etc. -- the only ones granted
permission (by many states) to administer physical punishment to
others are grade-school teachers. The same teachers reviled by many
parents as the stupidest ("those who can, do..."), laziest,
civil-service union hacks, are given this unique privilege, just
because we think so little of the rights of our supposedly-beloved
children.
We teach our kids even when we don't intend to. Do we want to teach
them that rights are determined by who has the physical power, that
violence is a legitimate way to get someone to do what you want?
"Spanking" -- child beating -- has been around for a long time, it's
true: look at the world out there and see if we haven't reaped just
what's been sown.
--
Jan Wolitzky, AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill, NJ; (201) 582-2998ronb@tekred.UUCP (Ron Bremer ) (01/30/85)
Relay-Version: version B 2.10.1 (Tek) 9/26/83; site tekred.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site alice.UUCP Path: tekred!tektronix!uw-beaver!cornell!vax135!houxm!ihnp4!mhuxn!mhuxb!mhuxr!ulysses!allegra!alice!wolit From: wolit@alice.UUCP (Jan Wolitzky) Newsgroups: net.kids Subject: "Spanking" Message-ID: <3349@alice.UUCP> Date: Tue, 29-Jan-85 06:55:42 PST Article-I.D.: alice.3349 Posted: Tue Jan 29 06:55:42 1985 Date-Received: Wed, 30-Jan-85 03:09:42 PST Organization: Bell Labs, Murray Hill Lines: 84 >Look, violence is violence. You wouldn't accept it if your neighbor >hit you because you were doing something he didn't like. Hitting your >kid is the same thing, exactly. Spanking is not the same as violence or child abuse. Spanking is done for the benifit of the child, not the parent. Spanking is done with love, not in a fit of anger. Spanking is to make a child sorry for his defiant behavior, not to torture or humiliate him. When spanking becomes anything else it ceases to be spanking and moves toward violence and abuse. >You accept not being able to force everyone else in the world to >submit to your will. (At least, I hope you do!) Why is your child >any less privileged? Children must learn to submit to the laws of society, be they legal, moral, or ethical. It is a parent's task to teach this concept and it starts by teaching a child to submit to the rules of a home. There is no reason this has to be loathsome experience, anymore than teaching him to read has to be loathsome. It is much better to instill submission in the home than to let the judicial system try to later. >The sad fact is that our society denies children the basic human >rights that we extend to everyone else. Actually our society does extend children basic human rights. Just because there is no law against spanking does not mean society has little regard for protection of children. A mother and father will fight for the welfare of their children much more readily than a next door neighbor. Social norms are more powerful than written laws (re. the 55 MPH speed limit) and in our society child abuse is repugnant to the vast majority. >We teach our kids even when we don't intend to. Do we want to teach >them that rights are determined by who has the physical power, that >violence is a legitimate way to get someone to do what you want? >"Spanking" -- child beating -- has been around for a long time, it's >true: look at the world out there and see if we haven't reaped just >what's been sown. You want to teach your child that people with authority are to be respected, and unless there is very good reason not to, obeyed. The parent has authority over the child, as do his teachers. Although this authority can be abused, that is no reason to throw it out the window. Your conclusion that the world is the way it is because parents and teachers spanked generations of children is a shot is the dark. I know many who would say it was because parents became too permissive and failed to teach their children the value of limits and authority. It is much more complicated than either view, but that is another discussion. Although child abuse is a going problem which must by solved for the benifit of all, outlawing spanking will not eliminate child abuse. It will mean that there will be more yelling, ridicule, mental torture to try to discipline children. It is against the law to beat your wife, yet wife abuse is also on the increase. One of my children, age 8, choose a spanking over taking away sweets for a week. (She had taken some candy after being told no to, and then lied about it when confronted) In our home, once the punishment is given, the offense is forgotten. Children like to get back to normal as soon as possible and spanking is a quick, if slightly painful, way to get things right. By the way, I don't spank my children very often, but I think it is a necessary and healthy part of raising children. I have a happy and loving relationship with all my children, I like it that way. And I said I wasn't going to get involved in this discussion, oh well. Flames to Ron Bremer ..!tektronix!tekred!ronb
german@uiucuxc.UUCP (01/30/85)
It is obvious that you feel very strongly on this subject, but I for one have to disagree with your conclusion that there is never a need to spank. Many of your "quoted" excuses are indeed bad reasons for doing anything, but there is no way I would want to live in a society where I was watched so closely that I could never do anything in my own home without some other person questioning every action which he/she considers improper, even if it is for the safety of the children. I am the father of a 2 year old and speak from my experience, that as much as I do not like to spank there are times when I have judged it was the best way to communicate with her. So far I have noticed 3 stages of development for Sarah each with different needs for discipline. In the first stage 0-6 months we figured she only cried when she needed something and (usually food, dry clothes, or love) and just tried to meet her needs. Between 6-18 months she started roam around and understand some of what was said (she would go the the bedroom and get a requested item long before she started using the word for the item herself). It is during this stage that I felt compelled to spank Sarah. In her explorations she would often want to do something dangerous (stoves, electrical outlets, etc.) and sometimes "NO! Don't put your finger in that." wouldn't do it. This is when I would give her a swat and explain to her that she didn't understand that it might hurt her and that she could not play with it. Now in the third stage 18-26 months Sarah is able to tell me what is wrong and let me know that she really wants to do something even if I tell her not to. In this stage she rarely persists at trying something dangerous when explained to her and thus rarely needs the swat. Greg German uiucudcs!uiucuxc!german