From: dank@tekig6.PEN.TEK.COM (Daniel G Knierim)
Newsgroups: misc.kids
Subject: Re: Our parents and spanking  Re: 20/20 and Spanking
Date: 9 Nov 92 22:10:37 GMT
Article-I.D.: tekig7.7526
Reply-To: dank@tekig6.pen.tek.com
Organization: Tektronix, Inc., Beaverton,  OR.

In article <26032@optima.cs.arizona.edu> bweiss@cs.arizona.edu (Beth Weiss) writes:

>Why would "the discomfort of a spanking" do a better (or even as good
>of a) job of teaching a child that a given action is undesirable?

To answer that question, I have to compare the spanking with other possible
parental actions in response to a child's "undesirable" behaviour.  I've made
a list of other possible reactions, with comments on each.  For what it is
worth, the order of the list is roughly indicative of our choices in
disciplining our daughters (i.e. the higher on the list, the more common the
action).  (Note:  by "disciplining our daughters" I mean 98% helping them
learn self-discipline, and 2% keeping them under control enough to be safe
and happy until the 98% of the task is complete.)

1)  Explaining or showing to the child why the behaviour is undesirable.

Comments:  By far the most common technique, but my daughters, at least, don't
believe everything I say, and like to test the world to see if it really
conforms to Daddy's knowledge.  :-)  Also, some explanations are beyond
their capability to understand.  This technique, alone, is not sufficient.

2)  Natural consequences.  (Defined by JLT as a consequence that nature will
provide without parental intervention; thanks for helping clarify meanings!)

Comments:  Also extremely common around our house (if your don't put your
toys away, you won't be able to find them when you want them).  But some
natural consequences are either too severe (being hit by a car in the street),
too random in application (not being hit by a car every time you play in the
street), or too delayed from the action (getting sick the next day from
not washing hands before eating) to be allowed to happen or to work when
they do happen.

3)  Logical consequences.  (Defined by JLT as a logical consequence to the
child's behaviour imposed by the parent.)

Comments:  Also common around our house, but many times the logical connection
between the behaviour and consequence is hard for us to make, let alone for a
child to understand.  If the child cannot "see" the logical connection, I
believe this works the same as punishment.  (E.g. we have a fixed time for
"bedtime routine".  The longer the kids take getting ready, the less time
for reading stories, and the kids love being read stories.  Cassie, at 4.7,
I believe sees getting less story time as a logical consequence of dawdling
in the bathroom, but at age 3 I believe she viewed it as punishment.  After
all, Mommy and Daddy were easily capable of reading three stories after a
long dawdling preperation in the bathroom, so the result wasn't directly
tied to her behaviour except by her parents wanting to impose some form of
control.  The difference is her expanded understanding of the concept of time.)

4)  Timeouts.  (This is sort a of logical consequence, which also can come
across as a punishment.)

Comments:  Used around our house mostly when a child is "losing it" and
continuously mis-behaving or otherwise provoking us or each other.  The rule
is that they stay in timeout until they are ready to calm down enough to
interact with the family in a reasonable manner.  But that sometimes takes
a while, and no discussion of the underlying issues can take place until the
child is calm enough to talk and listen.

5)  Spanking.  (Meaning one swat on the rear, enough to cause what I would
term a stinging sensation rather than pain.)

Comments:  We use this only for safety-related rules, which are not open for
discussion at this point in time.  Its advantages (in my mind) are:
    a)  its rarity (notice it's last on the list) makes it get the point
        across that the offending behaviour *WILL NOT* be allowed to happen.
    b)  its quickness let's us get past the struggle over who's in control,
        and on to the discussion as to why the offending behaviour is not
        allowed.  Timeouts, or physical restraints, at least with our
        daughters, tend to focus them on the ongoing restraint rather than
        why it was necessary.

X)  Physical restraints.  (Meaning anything from typical baby-proofing like
not having matches within reach, to holding a child's hand tightly enough
so that you could prevent him/her from pulling away while crossing the
street.)

Comments:  This is not numbered, because I see it as fundamentally different
than the other items on the list:  it is making an undesirable behaviour
impossible rather than teaching a child not to behave in that manner.  We
use it when combinations of the numbered items will not work (fairly often
with very young children, decreasing all the time as they get older).  But
too much of this technique I believe deprives children of a lot worthwhile
activities.  (E.g.  At some age, it would be safe to let a small child play
in a fenced backyard, but not in the front yard, for fear of traffic.  But
as soon as the child can learn not to go in the street, they are better off
in the front yard, where they can more easily play with the other neighborhood
children.)


Whew, this got much longer than I expected.  But it is hard to explain why I
think spanking can be useful (in some circumstances and in some families, I'm
not out to talk non-spankers into spanking) without talking about the other
99.9% of the job of disciplining.  Responsible opposing views welcomed!
Flames discouraged.

- Dan Knierim
These opinions aren't worth the standard disclaimer form they're printed on!