Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/17/84; site mhuxt.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!js2j From: js2j@mhuxt.UUCP (sonntag) Newsgroups: net.kids,net.politics Subject: Re: corporal punishment in schools Message-ID: <1110@mhuxt.UUCP> Date: Fri, 30-Aug-85 13:43:59 EDT Article-I.D.: mhuxt.1110 Posted: Fri Aug 30 13:43:59 1985 Date-Received: Sat, 31-Aug-85 08:39:35 EDT References: <174@gargoyle.UUCP> Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories, Murray Hill Lines: 82 Xref: watmath net.kids:1825 net.politics:10749 > >In Pennsylvania, public school teachers including my wife have the > >rights of a parent in disciplining a child. If a parent can spank > >a child, then the teacher can. Any other restrictions are provided > >by the local school board. No one has the right to beat a child in Pa. > > Spanking isn't beating? Why is it considered beating to strike a > person on the back or head, but not on the buttocks (a part of the > body, by the way, which is associated with shame and humiliation)? A spanking is a type of beating which is designed to cause temporary pain and humiliation. The word 'beating' is a more general term, covering spanking, as well as various types of battery which can cause varying degrees of actual physical damage to the recipient. > Some kinds of beating are worse than others, of course, but children > have *died* of spankings. You're using the word incorrectly *again*. If children died of it, then it was not an action designed to cause temporary pain and humiliation, it was *beating*. Do you see the difference now? > I can't stand this kind of mealy-mouth > euphemistic language -- it is a way we hide the truth from ourselves. > If you believe in spanking children, you believe that a certain kind > of child-beating is a good thing in some circumstances -- don't be > afraid to say so in plain English, if you really believe in it. Why should I use a general term like 'beating', which is bound to cause confusion among my audience when a perfectly good *specific* term, like 'spanking' is available? Do you say 'I believe that a certain kind of theft is a good thing in some circumstances.', or do you say 'I believe that taxation is a good thing in some circumstances.'? You euphemistic mealy mouth-er, you. :-) > > I agree that it is desirable for children to respect teachers and > parents, but how does corporal punishment achieve this? A reasonable question. I have two examples of child-rearers whose methods I've had opportunity to observe closely: my dad's and my brother- in-laws. I love and respect my father, whose methods included, when absolutely necessary, spanking. This happened on about three of four occasions when I was quite young, only when I ignored angry warnings that if I didn't discontinue a certain type of behavior that I would get a spanking. 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. 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.) You get the idea. They eventually got out, after he stood on the bank pleading with them for five minutes. We all managed to avoid laughing at him, but after numberless scenes like that, he has no more respect from his kids than he has from us. With these two examples of how to raise children to choose from, I know who *I* plan to emulate if I ever have children of my own. -- Jeff Sonntag ihnp4!mhuxt!js2j "Roads? Where we're going, we won't need any roads!"