I had no idea that courts were trying to interfere with discipline. For that matter, I had no idea that courts were trying to create law.
I'm a little fuzzy on all this. I understand children have rights, and they have a right to not be unreasonably assaulted by their parents. But spankings? There's this much controversy over spankings?
As with many controversial topics, I take an unusual stance. No, it's not wishy-washy (as my Dad would probably call it), but it's also not an either-or stance. My stance is that the right decision can only be made by those directly involved in the situation, possibly including a neutral, elected judge who has been informed of differing viewpoints. In other words, there
isn't a codified "letter" to the law, there's only a codified "spirit" to the law.
Children are not homogenous. They don't all react the same way to equal attempts to discipline. Even a single child can react quite differently to nearly identically-applied versions of discipline from the same parents. So how can we possibly decide that a single "limit" or "technique" on discipline can be broadly effective?
Or, to put it another way:
Anti-spanking advocates say that spanked children learn only that violence is an effective form of asserting power. Hit someone to get what you want. We have chosen that it should be illegal for an adult to hit another adult; why should it therefore be legal for an adult to hit a child?
I don't accept the first argument. Many children intuitively learn that violence is an effective tool for power, even without spankings. Indeed, many times they learn this more powerfully in the absence of spankings. Have you ever watched a spoiled, molly-coddled, brat of a child -- one that has never been corporally punished, ever -- push, hit, kick, or bite another smaller child, self-assured that the greatest possible punishment she might have to endure would be a stern lecture, possibly the loss of some privilege or possession, or some "time to think?" Violence
is a highly effective tool for power. It always has been, and as long as humans are creatures capable of feeling physical pain, it will continue to be so. Wishing that we could somehow "breed out the tendency to change our environment through violence" is like wishing that we could make things happen by wishing for them. It simply isn't going to happen.
What about the second argument? That it is all right to hit a child but not an adult? This is similarly a straw-man argument. There are many things that we must do to children that we would never allow to be done to adults. These things are not done in the spirit of domination. They are done in the spirit of love.
Let's take the forms of punishment that anti-spanking advocates recommend, and see how well they could be applied to adults.
Verbal punishment. With this form of discpline, tell the child that their behavior is unacceptable, until you are convinced that they understand their error, and agree to behave appropriately. Now, try, with a straight face, to imagine carrying out sentences on felons with the same technique, and believing it to be effective. Go on, try. I'll try not to giggle.
Time-out (otherwise known as jail): If I recall correctly, the guidelines suggest one minute of time-out per year of age for the child. So, a five year old that absolutely refuses to go to bed should get five minutes of time out, during which the parent will usually have to physically restrain the child from moving, or risk having the contents of the room hurled about in an attempt to express anger at the parents, possibly causing dangerous situations when the glass in the window is shattered. So, an adult scenario would work like this: when a rapist is caught, he would be held in a straight jacket for anywhere from 18 minutes to about an hour, while everyone calms down, after which time he would receive the verbal punishment (see above) and then freed. Or, let's try the reverse scenario. Under federal law, a person convicted of possessing half a kilogram or more of cocaine earns a mandatory sentence of at least five years in prison [
1]. Just for having it. So, a six-year-old child who was holding a quantity of a forbidden commodity, let's say a large package of fireworks and a lighter (unquestionably a bad thing for a child to have), would earn a mandatory sentence of one-third the time for an adult, or one and a third years, minimum, in time out.
Loss of privileges: This variety of discipline removes temporary access to things which are nice to have, but not essential, to the lifestyle of the punished. I would include being grounded as the loss of a privelege. The only thing that makes this form work for children is the implied promise for an eventual return of the privilege. Children are typically punished with the loss of TV, video games, dessert, driving, or spending time with friends, whether in person or on the phone. What would we take away from adults? Disneyland? Trips to Europe? Long-distance telephone? Their Internet connections? Their driver's license? How about a salary cap? I could see this being only minimally effective. I suppose we could see jail as the same thing as being grounded... but then we have the same problem as we have with time-outs (see above).
Inductive discipline: This is not a disciplinary response to inapproprate behavior. It's a recipe for children to manipulate parents. In this form, the parents intervene in their childs inappropriate behavior, and attempt to, via (supposedly) intuitively divining the source of the inappropriate behavior through love, divert the child to more appropriate and loving behavior. Older children are informed that they are expected to accept their parents' unacceptance of their own poor judgement; that is, a child who gets into trouble with the law will not be rescued by the parent. Where this breaks down is that young children quickly learn that the best way to get Mommy or Daddy's personal, special attention is to misbehave. Older children learn that the law does not have enough resources available to be surrogate parents; the law expects parents will discipline their own children. By the time the law finds a child, the "sweet spot" for instilling proper values and behavior has already passed. The most effective way to keep a child from behaving badly is to have the child's character formed so that the child avoids bad behavior all by himself. If the child is not doing that, then enforcement of the law is usually not going to change it. And that is only possible if the child gets caught. I believe children are smart enough to figure out how to break the law most of the time without getting caught. The problem is not that they might mistakenly believe that they will be rescued by Mommy or Daddy, and all it takes is to inform them that they will not be rescued. The problem is that they should never start thinking that Mommy or Daddy will rescue them from punishment in the first place. Mommy and Daddy should be the first and most effective source of punishment, to be feared much more than long arm of the law. This holds true for adults as well as children. We wouldn't have to enforce the law if everyone behaved properly all the time. It's when people misbehave that they get punished.
There's a decision point that is out of a parent's control. It's only in the control of the individual that is about to misbehave. This applies to adults as well as children. The trick to good parenting is to distinguish when that decision point has actually occurred from when it appears as though it has occurred but has not yet.
I raise a child. I tell him to go to bed. He yells back at me, defiantly, "No!" Bear in mind that this child, under most conditions, is a child that says "Please" and "Thank you" sincerely when most children don't, not out of dutiful obligation, but because it is second-nature to him. This child needs to go to bed, for the sake of being rested for school, for the sake of family harmony, and for the sake of understanding that this house has structure and predictability, including a predetermined time for bed. This child does not set the rules in the house; I do. So I do not accept a defiant "No!" My test now is to determine whether the child has truly crossed the decision point and will choose to misbehave regardless of punishment, or whether this child can correct his own behavior. Time-out is ineffective at this point; I know he will tell me "No!" when I say "Time-out." Verbal punishment is met with fingers in ears. Loss of privilege is met with "Fine! I don't care," or with his hurling my objects around the room, some of them at my head. Inductive discipline is met with "Fine, but I'm still not going to bed!"
Enter the backdrop of spankings. I have, on times past, spanked this child. This child knows that spankings hurt, and that if I say I will spank, I will. It is not a toothless threat. The concerned reader should also know that every single spanking has been outweighted on the balance with loving yet stringent conversation on the need and understanding of proper behavior. I have never used anything harsher than an open hand on his butt, and there have been no bruises or welts.
In this instance, I do not choose to resort to spankings immediately. The child already knows that a spanking is a possibility.
Enter another backdrop. I have had many conversations with this bright child on the need for parents to set and keep the rules. I've explained, and he's comprehended, why there must be punishments for breaking rules. He does not want to be a bad child, whether he's loved or not. He knows he will always be loved; he also knows that he's happier on the whole when he follows the rules. I know he understands; he's explained it to me enough when he thinks I've done something wrong. He knows I never give spankings because I am mad; I give them because he has done something that he is simply not allowed to do, and each and every time he was warned that continued bad behavior would result in a spanking. He knows that I have spanked because good parents do not allow their children to do bad things without punishment.
This backdrop is more significant than the spankings.
So, here he sits defying me to make him go to bed. I first used to handle this situation with attempts at using conversation or flimsy non-corporal threats, until I realized it was merely taking time, and that was exactly what he was striving for: time. Believe me, this child does not want for quality time from either parent. I work from home, and my wife works only part-time, mostly when he is at school, and we are both generous and loving with our time with him. Even so, he is jonesing for more time, and possibly more authority, as young children are wont to do. He knew why he should be going to bed; he just didn't want to. Next, I used to handle this situation with spankings, as I mentioned before, but now, it's enough for him just to know that I could spank.
It is with both backdrops -- that of spanking, and that of the usefulness of spankings -- that I used to tell him, "Okay. I was going to read to you, but it's clear to me that you have decided to be bad. I won't be spending time with you now. Go to bed whenever. Whatever. I can't be a good parent for you anymore." (By the way, if I haven't made it clear yet, this child is used to being surrounded by a lot of love from good parents). And then I would walk away.
At first, he used to have a tremendous fit when I did this. He didn't win, and it made him mad. I would basically ignore him, or I would spank him if his fit turned into a violent projectile-filled tantrum. After a while, he would calm down and then implore us not to be bad parents.
But now, we've done that a couple of times, and we're ready to move onto the sweet spot of discipline: self-correction. I look at him, with disapproval clear on my face, and say, "I can see that you are about to choose to do bad things, in which case we'll either all have an evening filled with fits, throwing things, yelling, spankings and other not-very-fun things, or with Mommy and me having to be bad parents by letting you do whatever you want without punishment. You could also choose to do what you need to do, like it or not, in which case I'll be reading to you tonight. You know what you need to do, and you know we all have to do things sometimes whether we like it or not. So I'm going to give you one minute to decide if that's what you really want to do." And I walk away.
Five minutes later (okay, it took him a little more than a minute, but he's just a kid!), without having to be told to brush his teeth, without having to be told to get into his pajamas, without having to be told to stop playing with his toys, without another word from me or Mommy, he's in bed ready for me to read. If that's not self-discipline, I don't know what is.
Well, do I advocate spanking unconditionally? Of course not! It's a tool, useful only for a limited purpose. Let's be quite honest here. Children can be violent, true, but they can not spank their parents, at least not while they are young. If you have an older child that spanks you, then God help you: you've taken too long to be a parent. Children bite. I do not bite back. I will spank, but I will not bite. Children that bite me learn very quickly that my spanking hurts them a lot more than the biting was worth. Likewise for having hard or sharp objects thrown at my head. So, my child learns that no matter how violent they get, violence is not a battle they will win against me.
Which reminds me. I can't begin to say how utterly absurd I find the argument against spanking that says that the only thing children learn from spankings is to solve their problems with violence. Children learn to try to solve their problems with violence because frequently
it works. I've never bitten a child; I can't say I've ever seen
any parents, not even bad parent, even try to apply discipline by biting a child. Yet I've been bitten, or have been close to being bitten, by quite a few children, even by children who were never, ever, spanked. Who taught them to bite? I repeat: as long as humans can feel physical pain, there will always be someone who will at least attempt to use violence as a means of gaining power, whether that someone is four or forty-four years old. Now, how many adults do you know who were spanked as children and are now advocating an end to spanking? If you don't, you'll find them quickly. If it's true that spankings merely teach children to solve problems with violence, then wouldn't those grown children be using violent means to try to end spankings? It's a worthless argument.
I agree that spankings, standing alone, are not an effective form of punishment. Children are smart enough to manipulate adults quite a lot, even if they're not consciously self-aware of their manipulations. If I merely resorted to spankings every time I believed my child had broken a rule, then I'm pretty sure I'd incubate only a couple of general possibilities. Either my child would learn to sneak, lie, and hide much better, so as to completely avoid me while absorbing life values from other more accessible sources, such as a gang, or my child would grow up with learned helplessness, believing himself to be worthless and unlovable. It's only the
threat of the spanking which is effective at creating good behavior; it's not the spanking itself. But in order to be a viable threat, there has to have been a time when the threat was fully carried out.
My only suggested rule of thumb for spanking is to make sure that you are not merely spanking because you are mad. That is what leads to the anti-spanking movements. It's not okay for adults to do
anything violent just because they are mad. It's true that you might be mad while spanking, but be sure first that you are spanking only as part of a more comprehensive form of teaching self-discipline, and thus, love. If you're not sure, then don't do it.
[
1] RAND Corporation: "
Mandatory Minimum Drug Sentence"
