From: mhn@cs.brown.edu (Marian H. Nodine)
Subject: Re: 20/20 SPANKING COMPLAINT
Organization: Brown University Department of Computer Science
Distribution: usa
Date: Fri, 6 Nov 1992 17:08:35 GMT

>In article <1992Nov5.165042.24174@cs.brown.edu> mhn@cs.brown.edu (Marian H. Nodine) writes:

(My story about Anna refusing to enact the consequence of wetting her pants,
which was chnaging her clothes.

In article <TIGGER.92Nov6012224@satyr.Sylvan.COM> tigger@satyr.Sylvan.COM (Grace Sylvan) writes:
>Okay, here is the non spanking alternative. You would simply have
>(somewhat brusquely) changed her. She probably wouldn't have liked it,
>and no spanking or confession would have been necessary. Next time,
>children being the independent creatures they are, she'd probably do
>it herself.

I actually do not at all agree with this approach -- If she is responsible
for changing her clothes, I am not going to do it for her.  She knows
that is what she is supposed to do, she is capable of it, it's her
job.

--
I also asked:

>   How was the above example related to parental convenience?  I'm not
>   sure I understand your point?
>
>Convenience. Because it is still a quick solution to "if you don't
>obey me". Ok, so you put a level before that - first there is the
>simple, agreed upon, logical consequence. But if, for some reason, the
>child is unwilling to do the consequence, they get hit. You don't work
>with them any further.

I *did* work with her further.  The spanking wasn't the end -- it was
buried in the middle.  After we were sure she was rebelling against
the consequence, but before we worked on and discussed the expectations
and attitudes.  By the time we were done, there had been *lots*
of interaction.  And additionally, we had forgiven her (and shown
her an example of forgiveness).  If after the discussion we learned
we had been wrong, we would have shown her we were sorry and offered
appropriate restitution, but in this case that job fell to her.

By the way, I see just putting the pants on her as a convenient out
for the parents.

With respect to shoes, Timmy who is older and has been dressing himself
for quite a while knows his responsibilities when leaving (put on shoes
and coat).  There is no commanding done, because he has his own internal
guide.  I tell him how far along we are -- "I'm putting on Anna's coat
now" -- and go to the car.  If I get Anna in and he is not ready, he
goes the way he is (we have a spare blanket in the car, just in case).
Usually, he waits until we are walking out the door, then quickly puts
on his shoes and coat and runs out.  But Timmy is older.

Tigger writes ...
>... she doesn't want her shoes on when we're going out, but we persist in our
>request until she either comes over and does it herself or lets us put
>them on her. She might still be complaining about it.

Well, when I try the persistent request, it sounds like nagging.  And
I disagree with putting them on for her (if indeed it is her responsibility)
for the same reasons I stated for Anna with her pants.

>The words are HONOR your Mother and Father, I believe, not obey them
>every moment.

Yes, but if you want to quote scripture, you also get, "Children obey
your parents ... and fathers see to it that you do not exasperate your
children."

-- Misty