Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site gargoyle.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!gargoyle!carnes
From: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Newsgroups: net.kids
Subject: Re: corporal punishment
Message-ID: <176@gargoyle.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 1-Sep-85 19:01:37 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.176
Posted: Sun Sep  1 19:01:37 1985
Date-Received: Mon, 2-Sep-85 04:18:58 EDT
References: <174@gargoyle.UUCP> <1110@mhuxt.UUCP>
Reply-To: carnes@gargoyle.UUCP (Richard Carnes)
Organization: U. of Chicago, Computer Science Dept.
Lines: 101

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