From: romal@sco.COM (Roma Levy)
Subject: Re: Alternatives to Spanking?
Reply-To: romal@refosco.UUCP (Roma Levy)
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.
Distribution: na
Date: Thu, 30 Jul 1992 00:21:53 GMT


In article <1992Jul27.203110.15519@cs.brown.edu> mhn@cs.brown.edu (Marian H. Nodine) writes:
>In reply to my posting on spanking, consequences, and tantrums ...
>In article <92209.134321CXF12@psuvm.psu.edu> <CXF12@psuvm.psu.edu> writes:
>>I agree with a previous poster that tantrums are not necessarily "bad", but
>>that it is important to teach children to channel their anger or frustration
>>in a way that won't hurt someone else.
>
>>However, I wanted to comment on the
>>implication that spankings (unlike showers?) bear a logical relationship to
>>tantrums.  How does hitting a child bear a logical relationship to having a
>>tantrum?
>
...stuff deleted

>The reason I commented about spanking was that this was a solution that
>the mother originally tried, and had given up on.  I did not think that
>she had tried it in any way that had a chance of being effective, and
>tried to give a different perspective on this approach.  The showers,
>even though they do not seem to be a good approach, were effective ...
>
>In terms of spanking being a logical consequence, it isn't.  There is not
>really a logical consequence for rebellion, at least an immediate one.

Why not?  "If you don't get dressed now, we can't go to the movies."
"If you don't clean up your toys, I will and you will not get them back."
(and then follow through).  "If you don't ready for bed, we won't have
time to read a story."

All of these are examples of logical consequences to rebellion that have
an immediate and logical consequence.  When these don't work, we use
time outs.  These are undesirable to David, as he has to sit in a chair
facing the corner for 1 or 2 minutes and is not allowed to talk or get
up.  2 minutes of silence for Mr. Chatterbox seems to be ample punishment,
because he immediately gets up after the time out and does what we ask.
Very often, counting works well, too.  If David doesn't respond to a request,
I start counting in a loud and stern voice.  I almost never make it to 2.
The funny thing is, we've never issued a threat of punishment attached to
the counting.  I guess whatever David imagines will happen is worse than
what will happen.

We don't hit David.  (Oh -- yes we have 2 or 3 times in extreme anger or
frustration, but have always felt really bad about it afterwards).  I use
the word "hit," because after all, that's what spanking is.  There was an
excellent article in Parents either June, July, or August issue on the
spanking debate.  As the article points out, if we are angry at the clerk
in the grocery store for not being respectful/helpful/whatever, we don't
reach over the counter and smack him or her.  If it's not appropriate to
hit an adult, why is it appropriate to hit a child?  Because they can't
fight back?  Because they're not financially autonomous or capable of 
avoiding our abuse by leaving?  Because we think of them as property or
"pets?"  

And BTW, even if you aren't see the effects on your own children, are
you with them all the time?  Do you really know if they are more likely
to hit their playmates to resolve an issue rather than negotiate (and
even 2 - 3 year olds can learn how to negotiate to some extent.)  The
body of research really does show that children who are spanked tend to
be more likely to be physically aggressive.  

Is this what we want?  Children who grow up to be adults who have learned 
that the way to solve a problem is to hurt another human being?  Perhaps
if everyone made a concerted effort to raise their children with love and
respect we could raise a generation of people who aren't so likely to solve
their problems by agression -- whether that means hitting their spouse,
murdering a stranger, or starting a war.

Off my soapbox now,

Roma