Corporal Punishment

[Guest Chaney]

This topic came to mind after initially reading THIS Audio Asylum thread and reading Sam Tellig's RESPONSE -- and the rapid reaction.

When I was a child, if I misbehaved, it wasn't unusual for my mother to swat my bottom with a wooden spoon. I don't believe that I've been emotionally scarred but I do know that I'm a well behaved, responsible adult.

I'm not at all suggesting that children be beaten but is this type of discipline now (or then?) seen as inherently wrong?

Opinions? Stories?

(It's not my intention to trouble anyone or to reopen wounds; I'm just curious.)

Edited October 30, 2004 by Chaney

[Matthew]

One of the reason corporal punishment is a bad idea is this: I'm in daily contact with students in a K-8 school, if we hear or see evidence of corporal punishment, we call the police asap, no exceptions. What parent wants to have the police banging at their door because they whacked their kid to set them straight?

[mikeweil]

It won't change behavior - you just watch out better so you're not getting caught next time.

It does change educational behavior: If you have been beaten it is more likely you will beat your children because that was the role model.

[Jim Alfredson]

I think the biggest problem is that it can easily escalate. I got my butt whipped when I was a boy and I don't think I'm emotionally scarred from it. My dad always told me exactly why he was doing it, what I did wrong, and I don't remember him ever over-doing it. It was usually just a couple of smacks. I think it upset me more than it hurt me because I realized that he was really angry with me for something I did. And it definitely changed my behavior.

Case in point: The only time I ever got the whip it was because of a really dumb thing I did in second grade. The teacher's parking lot was right next to the playground, with no fence inbetween. One day at recess, it had been raining earlier and the area around the parking lot was really muddy. My "friend" at the time had the great idea of throwing mud at some of the cars in the lot. Then he found out that one of the cars was unlocked. So then he had the brilliant idea of putting a pile of mud on the seat. Of course, he wanted me to actually do the deed and, being stupid and not wanting to look chicken, I did it.

Well, I got ratted out by a classmate. When my dad found out, he wasn't mad at me for putting the mud on the seat, per se. He was mad at me because I did something that I knew was wrong because someone told me to do it. In other words, I followed someone instead of thinking for myself and acting independently, because I was worried what my friend might think of me if I didn't do it. He explained this all to me very carefully before he made me go pick out the switch and get my ass whipped!

I have never forgotten that lesson.

That said, my wife is completely against it and has forbidden me to engage in it, which is fine by me. I can't imagine ever spanking little Zora anyway. I'm sure as she gets older she'll do some things that just piss me off, but I still don't think I'll feel the urge to hit her.

[A Lark Ascending]

I got the cane* at 10 for getting less than 15/20 in a spelling test.

I still can't spell!

* 'the cane' - a piece of bamboo traditionally used in UK schools for corporal punishment until the early 80s.

[sidewinder]

I got the cane* at 10 for getting less than 15/20 in a spelling test.

I still can't spell!

* 'the cane' - a piece of bamboo traditionally used in UK schools for corporal punishment until the early 80s.

Whoah ! - what place was that? Dildeboys Hall ?

[A Lark Ascending]

I got the cane* at 10 for getting less than 15/20 in a spelling test.

I still can't spell!

* 'the cane' - a piece of bamboo traditionally used in UK schools for corporal punishment until the early 80s.

Whoah ! - what place was that? Dildeboys Hall ?

A 'nice' little Roman Catholic primary in West Drayton, London (one of those places mindless (and memory-less) critics of current education like to eulogise).

I was taught in a small group of about 20, directly by the Head. He took the kids who were thought likely to pass the 11 Plus and used terror to try and get us through (God only knows what happened to the other 95% who had clearly been written off even before they'd taken that wretched exam). He suffered terrible moodswings - he could be Mister Joviality one minute, Joe Stalin the next. I have a feeling he was not a very well man.

He was Irish...clearly a product of the Christian Brothers!

Fortunately my father was posted off to Singapore after a few months there so I moved to a much more benign RAF primary where there was little pressure. Managed to pass my 11 Plus about 8 months later without having the essentials beaten into me.

Good old days? Pah!

Edited October 31, 2004 by Bev Stapleton

[sidewinder]

Sorry to hear of that experience. At least you came through unscathed !

Of course I meant to say 'Dotheboys Hall' (Nicholas Nickelby, Smike and all that - I think that's what it's called) which seems to have been the 'role model' for many of these so called 'institutions'.

West Drayton eh? I used to work there about 20 years ago, know it very well. There was an RAF presence at the ATC Centre - would that be the reason your day was posted there?

I have happier memories of the place. Some good pubs along the high street, one of which I recall featured in the movie 'Genevieve' !

Edited October 31, 2004 by sidewinder

[A Lark Ascending]

West Drayton eh? I used to work there about 20 years ago, know it very well. There was an RAF presence at the ATC Centre - would that be the reason your day was posted there?

I have happier memories of the place. Some good pubs along the high street, one of which I recall featured in the movie 'Genevieve' !

I'm not totally sure why we were there. The RAF had quarters all over London, often quite a way from the actual military bases. My dad (who was an RAF policeman) told me a few years ago that we moved there very suddenly from Lincolnshire after his cover was blown. He'd been mascarading as a CND-inclined student in Nottingham, keeping an eye on airmen in the pubs who might fall victim to the KGB!!! I kid you not! This was c.1964, the height of the Cold War.

Unfortunately at 9 or 10 I was in no position to sample the pubs on the high street. I do recall enjoying the broken biscuits in Woolworths!

[Joe G]

I thought this was going to be another Joe Bialek thread!

There are, no doubt, plenty of ways to correct a child's behavior that are non-violent. I got a couple of spankings, but I don't remember what they were for now. I also think it might make the child resent, rather than respect, the parent, depending on the circumstances.

[rachel]

I thought this was going to be another Joe Bialek thread!

[Dr. Rat]

I've never been very happy with any of the arguments on this point. The "how can you forbid children to hit each other when you hit them" line has always seemed to me to be empty.

How can we justify the state physically detaining criminal when we forbid individuals from kidnapping one another?

The answer is that we aren't being absolutist. Some violence can be allowed, while other violence is forbidden. That's one of the more complicated moral lessons kids have to learn. Absolutism on issues like these seems to me to be adopting the immature, simplistic absolutism of children as the standard rather than planning a way to teach them something better.

On the other hand the "i got hit, I'm fine" line also fails to persuade. I got hit, I'm far from totally fine (neuroses, anyone?). Does this have anything to do with being hit? I don't know.

Would I be worse off with the "Plan B" discipline usually adopted by parents (guilt trips, ignoring the offender, contempt, etc.)? Quite possibly.

I think it's a complicated issue. Anyone have suggested reading?

--eric

[robviti]

this is a subject near and dear to me, both personally and professionally. my father came from a very abusive household. no one would blame him if he also beat his kids, but he didn't. what i remember most about the two or three times he spanked me was that he probably cried more than i did. i consider him to be a hero, a brave individual who stopped the multigenerational cycle of violence that plagues many of our families today.

on a professional note, i've had many parents come to me with child discipline problems. i've learned not to come down hard on those who admit to using physical violence to influence their child's behavior, unless their actions are an obvious case of abuse. what i tell them is this: the best research tells us that corporal punishment is ineffective in the long-run. at best, it promotes avoidance, not real learning. at worst, it instills fear and tells children that physical aggression is an acceptable way to get what you want. face it, rarely is a child hit to "teach them a lesson." most often, a parent resorts to violence when they are feeling angry, overwhelmed, and helpless. these are the same kind of emotions perpetrators of domestic violence often experience. such feelings are in no way an acceptable excuse for battering, and they're not a good reason for parents to hit their kids either. the bottom line is, if corporal punishment worked, these parents wouldn't be coming to me for help. i encourage them to practice healthier, more effective ways of influencing behavior. hopefully, their kids will adopt these strategies as they grow older, and we can have happier, less violent families in the future.

[BruceH]

"Beat on the brat; beat on the brat; beat on the brat with a baseball bat

Oh yeah---oh yeah---oh ho..."

---Joey Ramone

[maren]

on a professional note, i've had many parents come to me with child discipline problems. i've learned not to come down hard on those who admit to using physical violence to influence their child's behavior, unless their actions are an obvious case of abuse. what i tell them is this: the best research tells us that corporal punishment is ineffective in the long-run. at best, it promotes avoidance, not real learning. at worst, it instills fear and tells children that physical aggression is an acceptable way to get what you want. face it, rarely is a child hit to "teach them a lesson." most often, a parent resorts to violence when they are feeling angry, overwhelmed, and helpless. these are the same kind of emotions perpetrators of domestic violence often experience. such feelings are in no way an acceptable excuse for battering, and they're not a good reason for parents to hit their kids either. the bottom line is, if corporal punishment worked, these parents wouldn't be coming to me for help. i encourage them to practice healthier, more effective ways of influencing behavior. hopefully, their kids will adopt these strategies as they grow older, and we can have happier, less violent families in the future.

All very good points, js. Levelheaded.

My mother was very free with slaps, pinches, shoves, shoulder-shaking, even throwing things (shoes). The worst part was that most of the time it wasn't discipline, it was an expression of annoyance. It wasn't in response to doing something wrong, it was more like a punishment for being there when she wished you weren't. Really bad. Plus there were a few out-of-control beatings WAY out of proportion to the misdeed (one when I was 3), or ALLEGED misdeed (one when I was 5 when -- well I HADN'T done anything wrong, and it was kind of a psychotic break on her part). If there is a basic acceptance of corporal punishment as appropriate, it creates a slippery slope, a smokescreen for abuse. Of course, I guess some parent could indulge the same general nastiness solely in the verbal/psychological realm -- forbidding corporal punishment won't by itself guarantee good parenting!

And I also can envision (maybe you implied this by saying you don't "come down hard on those who admit to using physical violence to influence their child's behavior"?) a swat on the behind that is NOT violent, but just sends a clear message about who is in charge and what the kid did wrong. Like B3-er, his dad, and the mud in the car.

Edited November 1, 2004 by maren

[Jim Alfredson]

I don't think any of my butt whoopin's were motivated by annoyance. I always remember my parents telling me exactly why they were punishing me. The only time it got out of hand was once when I really pissed off my mom when I was about 12 and she came after me with a broom-handle and hit me on the elbow.

She felt so bad about it she never laid a hand on me again.

I agree with the slippery-slope idea. Even with the best intentions, I think it would be too easy to go too far or to use violence not as punishment for doing something wrong, but as a way to get the kid to shutup or calm down or whatever.

[ejp626]

I think I am largely in agreement with jazzshrink. Corporal punishment is generally not effective and there are better alternatives. That said, I do not like the trend I see, in Europe particularly, of criminalizing even minor instances of corporal punishment. Maybe I just feel the pendulum has swung too far towards permissiveness, and many of today's parents do not assert control and raise spoiled brats. While these are slightly separate issues, they both have a root a feeling/sense that parents don't have the right to assert authority (that's so patriarchal). Not all children can simply be reasoned with. I was a miserable failure as a teacher when I tried to be reasonable and fair to students. They interpreted that as weakness, and walked all over me. I would have been much better off as a tyrant -- though I would never have dreamed of touching any of them.

[minew]

Even if I weren't a pacifist who believes violence begets violence (and no, imprisonment does not beget imprisonment) I just couldn't hit my kids. Period.

[Jazzmoose]

Well, my parents beat me regularly, and it never did me any harm. Except for all these unresolved anger issues, my perpetual rebellious state, and my coldness towards children out of fear that I would do the same. Hey, no harm there, right?

[Jazzmoose]

Oops; sorry...let a serious one slip in there...

[JSngry]

"Spanking" and "beating", "hitting", etc. are nowhere near the same thing, and anybody who can't tell the difference should not entertain using corporal punishment as a disciplinary measure.

The rest of us know that it is a tool to be used sparingly but effectively as a last resort when, and only when, situationally appropriate. A swat on the bottom to make an important point (like your 3 year old repeatedly runing out into the street after you equally repeatedly telling them not to) or as an assertion of authority (like when your 8 year old repeatedly defies your rules and sassily dares you to do something about it even after all non-corporal options have been exhausted) isn't violence, nor is it abuse. It's a necessary assertion of parental authority. You lose that authority and you lose you child. Period. And willingly losing your child is most assuredly not good parenting.

Child abuse is a horrendous problem, but so is ineffectual, paralyzed parenting. Resenting authority and disregarding it lead to trouble either way. So you do what you gotta do, and do your best to never do what you don't gotta do. But sometimes you got to do something. People who say you don't either don't have kids, or have been blessed with kids who don't push the limits that far. I was blessed with kids who LOVE to push the limits, which will serve them well later in life, but I like to think that they've also been blessed with parents (that's two peoples) who have taught them that when you push authority too far, authority will push back. To not teach them that isn't "love", it's dangerously naive.

As is taking the entire spectrum of disciplinary scenarios and reducing it to a simplistic matter of choosing between black and white.

[Jazzmoose]

In all honesty, I never thought of "a swat on the bottom" and "corporal punishment" as at all the same thing. One's an attention getter; the other is pain inflicted. I don't think anyone who's been on the receiving end is likely to confuse the two...

[connoisseur series500]

If you have been beaten it is more likely you will beat your children because that was the role model.

I don't believe this.

I got pounded pretty good by a 6'3" 200lb father up to the age of 10. He believed that it was important that I not grow up as a "Mama's boy."

In the end, I grew up as a "Mama's Boy" anyway!

I've never hit my kid, but I'd sock him pretty good if he tried to kill himself by running into a street full of cars in the example given by Jim Sangry.

My father didn't explain his beatings like Jim Albertson's Dad did. That sure would have been nice! But I knew I was bad when he hit me.

Dad did this when he was in his 20s and stopped when he was around 35. I think he just had a hard time dealing with marriage and kids after a rough day of work.

I think he hit me out of anger when his temper was short; but I also think he hit me as a proxy when my Mom screamed at him for something.

He was also a warmhearted father and gave me hugs as well. I don't think I carry any scars from the beatings. He never punched me, but he slapped full-strength. Ouch!

[connoisseur series500]

So then he had the brilliant idea of putting a pile of mud on the seat. Of course, he wanted me to actually do the deed and, being stupid and not wanting to look chicken, I did it.

What a marvelous idea!!

How come I never thought of doing that as a kid?

[JSngry]

True, Moose, but there are instances of a child getting a normal spanking, not liking it, and hollering "child abuse" at school, and all of a sudden CPS swarms in a does their thing. Not often, but often enough that some parents are actually afraid to spank their kids under any circumstances. And there are some kids who will take that fear and run with it, believe me.

That's why it bothers me to see "corporal punishment" treated as a single entity. It isn't, not even slightly. A swat ain't a spanking, and a spanking ain't a beating. But there are those who would have us believe so, and that (here we go again ) is bullshit.

Parenting, good parenting, is one of the hardest things an adult can do. It amazes me how "society" will talk about "out of control kids" out of one side of its mouth and then seek to undermine legitimate disciplinary options out of the other. No child needs to be beaten, or even spanked one millisecond past the point of "getting the point across". But some do need to be spanked from time to time (to think oitherwise is so unreal as to be frightening) and to put it in their mind that they're being "beaten" or "abused" when in fact they're just being disciplined to the extent made necessary by the situation, is a terrible undermining of a parent's ability to effectively fulfill their duties of raising a responsible, respectful adult.

Again - this is in no way a rationalization for lazy, indiscriminate use of spanking, nor is it a question of looking the other way when real abuse occurs. And I definitely believe corporate punishment, when needed, should be the sole province of the parent(s). But don't think that kids (LOTS of kids, even good ones) are constantly sniffing for loopholes and weaknesses. It's what they do. It's what they're SUPPOSED to do. And what parents are supposed to do is show them where the safe and sane limits are. If ti takes a spanking (and you really hope it doesn't), it takes a spanking. The consequences of not learning the lesson are far worse.

All this unqualified (as in unconditional) "tsk-tsk"-ing of spanking in general speaks to me of people who either don't have kids, have been blessed to deal with kids who intuitively know when to back off 100% of the time (I've heard that such delightful creatures really do exist! ) or who read the book and think they've led the life.

Experience teaches nuance, "theories" do not.