Corporal Punishment
In a rare exception that proves my normal "avoid drama at all costs" rule, I have been a part of some recent internet drama that centers around striking children. My involvement started out with some admittedly heated replies* on my part in a couple of posts in sammaelhain's lj, both in his post on how The word "spanking" is a mystification... and More On Spanking. This has blown up into some SRS internet drama in both sammaelhain's lj here, and in catsidhe's lj here.
Most of you who have known me for more than a year or 2, know that I used to work as a Child & Adolescent Treatment Specialist at a Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility. The single and only thing I hated about that job was having my own personal safety at risk every time I walked onto the unit for my 4, 10 hrs shifts. I've heard since leaving that job that my then-girlfriend used to cry about the times I'd come home with bruises, cuts, and other injuries I endured simply from trying to keep people safe at my job (including at least one trip to the hospital for an eye injury, courtesy of one of the kids at my work).
Yet we always respected the dignity of the individual as of utmost importance, which--among other things--meant never EVER doing anything more than the absolute minimum that was required to keep both the kids and the staff safe. And I feel that I have pretty unique experiences that give me some insight into this that most people don't possess. So it is with great self-confidence that I strongly proclaim that striking another human being--let alone a child--is never, in any way, justified.
I wanted to clear up a few misconceptions revolving around this topic, my experiences, and how they've shaped my views, and although I've given some well-thought out answers in catsidhe's lj, my comments are currently screened.** As I don't want to lose these writings, I'm reproducing them here, under cuts:
It's your responsibility to get lessons through to the kid, _now_. The method you use is up to you, but a smack is quick, immediate (endorphins FTW) and short lasting.
And this is why it's the easiest and most common way of disciplining children. That does NOT make it necessary, desired, or morally correct in any way, however.
But the one who claimed to have looked after kids in a psychiatric hospital was under different circumstances: those kids were at an age where reason would work (even through psychosis), and had outgrown the effectiveness of smacking.
I'm afraid that "inability to reason" is one of the many hallmarks of psychosis. Not to mention the fact that at least 1/3 of our clients were ALSO clinically developmentally disabled. Perfect example off the top of my head--"D" was a 6'4" 450 pound 3 year old in a teenage body. He was perfectly fine except for when he didn't get his way, which is the only time discipline would be needed, anyway. And when he threw tantrums, it took half the staff to keep him from hurting himself, the other kids, or the staff. We still managed to make a bit of slow progress over the long-term, without ever hitting him or otherwise impinging upon his own personal dignity & integrity (which is what physically striking another human does, BTW). We only physically restrained him after we had exhausted every other option, and to not restrain him would have meant injury to other humans.
So, even though the youngest kids at where I worked were 6yrs old (and still clinically psychotic or they wouldn't be where I worked!), I don't think your argument holds up.
And in those cases where they had looked after small children, these were not their own. It is different when you are looking after someone else's kids:
I will not argue with that in the least.
for one thing, it is not your place to smack: you have other methods you can use.
Why can't parents use these same methods? You seem to be supporting my side, now... ;-)
For another, there is always the knowledge that at the end of the day you're giving them back, and you don't have to live with the consequences of bad discipline.
To an extent, yes. But when kids live at where you work--and you are in contact with them 40 hrs a week, you're only passing them off to your fellow co-workers, who then pass them back to you tomorrow. Working with them 10hrs a day, day in-day out, doesn't really make the ability to "pass the problems on" a very valid argument. As a matter of fact, it was policy to not leave a shift until problems that I was involved with were resolved. This is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to re-establish interpersonal bonds with the kids.
I do hope this clarifies things a bit. Unfortunately, given my personal experiences from that job, I can't possibly see anyone convincing me that striking another human being is ever "required", let alone justified morally. Sorry.
No, I have trouble with the fact that any physical discipline is wrong, yet the physical restraint of a child, with no qualifiers for duration, severity, or method, is seen as a positive thing by the lack of negative comments made about it.
LOL
First of all, there are countless SERIOUS qualifiers for duration, severity, and method. We had to do constant training to keep us up to date on all the finer points of this. And there is significant oversight specifically put in place to minimize the potential for abuse. The paperwork after a 30 second restraint would take me a minimum of a full hour to complete. Although rare, I've spent entire 10-hour shifts dealing with all the oversight on a single situation that blew up from me saying "No" to a child (which is how most of them start, BTW).
And just to be clear, holds were NEVER, EVER seen as--in any way, shape, form or fashion--"positive". I'm calling you out on a straw man argument, here. Holds were the single thing I hated (and feared, honestly) more than anything at that job--or any other, for that matter. I cried (at home, where I could) more times than I could count that I was forced into the position of physically restraining a child. But given the choice between that and a child--e.g., violently swinging a piece of molding they ripped off a wall with nails sticking out of it, ready to impale someone in the face--I did what I had to to keep everyone safe.
We very much took the same outlook on physical confrontations as does Aikido--neutralizing the physical threat with minimal harm to everyone involved, all the while respecting the dignity and showing compassion for all. This is key.
Railing against the use of restraints, unfortunately, only shows the ignorance from those who have obviously never been in my shoes, or the shoes of my (former) co-workers. Trust me when I say that if there would have been a better way, we would have found it.
Small children (pre-school age) do not reason as older children or adults do. Neither do people under psychosis. But they are also different in their differences.
Agreed. And for the record, I have my degree in Psychology, and although I'm not personally a parent, I have worked with children from birth thru 18+ off and on my whole life. So I'm quite aware of the Devlop-Mental Stages kids go thru. Piaget & Erickson are but 2 examples...
...A child may be devastated by a telling-off at one point, then think it a wonderful game the next... She will start deliberately running onto the road to get a reaction. The second time she does it, she gets told off, more forcefully. This may well just be seen as escalation of the game, though. She tries it again, she gets retrieved and given one short smack on the well-covered bottom. It doesn't hurt, but it does shock. Now it is not a game. Now she knows that running on to the road is not a game, that it is bad.
I understand this. If she doesn't get it, then you definitely need to change tactics until you get the desired response. I still maintain that there are other ways to do this that don't involve striking a child, which demeans both their personal integrity & dignity. I don't have an "absolute answer", because--just like working at the Psych Ward--every kid is different, as is every situation. I continue to maintain that striking a child should NEVER been seen as a "Tool" for which anyone should reach, should they need to change tactics.
Am I making sense?
Yes, and I appreciate your well-thought out reply. I won't pretend to have all the answers. I do, however, feel quite confident that alternative solutions can be found by a parent who is persistent and dedicated to finding alternatives to corporeal punishment. It should be noted that, although I am not a parent personally (and we've touched on many of those reasons in this long, drama-filled topic), I do have many friends who are and who also hold similar beliefs as I.
I do think it possible to raise a child without striking them--it's just neither the "easiest", nor the "default" way that most of us are accustomed to, which was one of samm's many points that I also agree with.
I'd say that I've now spent faaar too much time on this topic, except that it is a topic that I feel incredibly strong about. And as I may have already mentioned, I do feel I have a pretty unique POV--based off my own pretty unique experiences that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy--and this is the primary reason I've spent the past few hours on this topic. To conclude, I still continue to maintain my position and agreement with sammaelhain's original proposition that:
"The word ‘spanking’ is a mystification. That is, it is a word that hides the truth about what you are doing to your child. What you are really doing when you are ‘spanking’ is hitting. Hitting a child is an act of violence. Hitting a child is physical abuse. This is the accurate and honest way to describe what you are doing."
Feel free to discuss, whether you agree or disagree.
Agape!
[Edit: Lest I be misunderstood, I am in no way condoning letting children run amok without boundaries. My job at the Psych Ward was--unfortunately--often centered around Holding Boundaries with the children. To restate: If we could Hold Boundaries at that job, parents can do it with their children]
* for which I unabashedly make no apologies. I feel very strongly about this topic. I will, however, endeavor to keep emotions out of this topic for the duration. Please do so, as well, at least here in my LJ. Thank you.
** he has since unscreened them, but I want to re-post my comments and replies to that thread, just the same
Most of you who have known me for more than a year or 2, know that I used to work as a Child & Adolescent Treatment Specialist at a Psychiatric Residential Treatment Facility. The single and only thing I hated about that job was having my own personal safety at risk every time I walked onto the unit for my 4, 10 hrs shifts. I've heard since leaving that job that my then-girlfriend used to cry about the times I'd come home with bruises, cuts, and other injuries I endured simply from trying to keep people safe at my job (including at least one trip to the hospital for an eye injury, courtesy of one of the kids at my work).
Yet we always respected the dignity of the individual as of utmost importance, which--among other things--meant never EVER doing anything more than the absolute minimum that was required to keep both the kids and the staff safe. And I feel that I have pretty unique experiences that give me some insight into this that most people don't possess. So it is with great self-confidence that I strongly proclaim that striking another human being--let alone a child--is never, in any way, justified.
I wanted to clear up a few misconceptions revolving around this topic, my experiences, and how they've shaped my views, and although I've given some well-thought out answers in catsidhe's lj, my comments are currently screened.** As I don't want to lose these writings, I'm reproducing them here, under cuts:
It's your responsibility to get lessons through to the kid, _now_. The method you use is up to you, but a smack is quick, immediate (endorphins FTW) and short lasting.
And this is why it's the easiest and most common way of disciplining children. That does NOT make it necessary, desired, or morally correct in any way, however.
But the one who claimed to have looked after kids in a psychiatric hospital was under different circumstances: those kids were at an age where reason would work (even through psychosis), and had outgrown the effectiveness of smacking.
I'm afraid that "inability to reason" is one of the many hallmarks of psychosis. Not to mention the fact that at least 1/3 of our clients were ALSO clinically developmentally disabled. Perfect example off the top of my head--"D" was a 6'4" 450 pound 3 year old in a teenage body. He was perfectly fine except for when he didn't get his way, which is the only time discipline would be needed, anyway. And when he threw tantrums, it took half the staff to keep him from hurting himself, the other kids, or the staff. We still managed to make a bit of slow progress over the long-term, without ever hitting him or otherwise impinging upon his own personal dignity & integrity (which is what physically striking another human does, BTW). We only physically restrained him after we had exhausted every other option, and to not restrain him would have meant injury to other humans.
So, even though the youngest kids at where I worked were 6yrs old (and still clinically psychotic or they wouldn't be where I worked!), I don't think your argument holds up.
And in those cases where they had looked after small children, these were not their own. It is different when you are looking after someone else's kids:
I will not argue with that in the least.
for one thing, it is not your place to smack: you have other methods you can use.
Why can't parents use these same methods? You seem to be supporting my side, now... ;-)
For another, there is always the knowledge that at the end of the day you're giving them back, and you don't have to live with the consequences of bad discipline.
To an extent, yes. But when kids live at where you work--and you are in contact with them 40 hrs a week, you're only passing them off to your fellow co-workers, who then pass them back to you tomorrow. Working with them 10hrs a day, day in-day out, doesn't really make the ability to "pass the problems on" a very valid argument. As a matter of fact, it was policy to not leave a shift until problems that I was involved with were resolved. This is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to re-establish interpersonal bonds with the kids.
I do hope this clarifies things a bit. Unfortunately, given my personal experiences from that job, I can't possibly see anyone convincing me that striking another human being is ever "required", let alone justified morally. Sorry.
No, I have trouble with the fact that any physical discipline is wrong, yet the physical restraint of a child, with no qualifiers for duration, severity, or method, is seen as a positive thing by the lack of negative comments made about it.
LOL
First of all, there are countless SERIOUS qualifiers for duration, severity, and method. We had to do constant training to keep us up to date on all the finer points of this. And there is significant oversight specifically put in place to minimize the potential for abuse. The paperwork after a 30 second restraint would take me a minimum of a full hour to complete. Although rare, I've spent entire 10-hour shifts dealing with all the oversight on a single situation that blew up from me saying "No" to a child (which is how most of them start, BTW).
And just to be clear, holds were NEVER, EVER seen as--in any way, shape, form or fashion--"positive". I'm calling you out on a straw man argument, here. Holds were the single thing I hated (and feared, honestly) more than anything at that job--or any other, for that matter. I cried (at home, where I could) more times than I could count that I was forced into the position of physically restraining a child. But given the choice between that and a child--e.g., violently swinging a piece of molding they ripped off a wall with nails sticking out of it, ready to impale someone in the face--I did what I had to to keep everyone safe.
We very much took the same outlook on physical confrontations as does Aikido--neutralizing the physical threat with minimal harm to everyone involved, all the while respecting the dignity and showing compassion for all. This is key.
Railing against the use of restraints, unfortunately, only shows the ignorance from those who have obviously never been in my shoes, or the shoes of my (former) co-workers. Trust me when I say that if there would have been a better way, we would have found it.
Small children (pre-school age) do not reason as older children or adults do. Neither do people under psychosis. But they are also different in their differences.
Agreed. And for the record, I have my degree in Psychology, and although I'm not personally a parent, I have worked with children from birth thru 18+ off and on my whole life. So I'm quite aware of the Devlop-Mental Stages kids go thru. Piaget & Erickson are but 2 examples...
...A child may be devastated by a telling-off at one point, then think it a wonderful game the next... She will start deliberately running onto the road to get a reaction. The second time she does it, she gets told off, more forcefully. This may well just be seen as escalation of the game, though. She tries it again, she gets retrieved and given one short smack on the well-covered bottom. It doesn't hurt, but it does shock. Now it is not a game. Now she knows that running on to the road is not a game, that it is bad.
I understand this. If she doesn't get it, then you definitely need to change tactics until you get the desired response. I still maintain that there are other ways to do this that don't involve striking a child, which demeans both their personal integrity & dignity. I don't have an "absolute answer", because--just like working at the Psych Ward--every kid is different, as is every situation. I continue to maintain that striking a child should NEVER been seen as a "Tool" for which anyone should reach, should they need to change tactics.
Am I making sense?
Yes, and I appreciate your well-thought out reply. I won't pretend to have all the answers. I do, however, feel quite confident that alternative solutions can be found by a parent who is persistent and dedicated to finding alternatives to corporeal punishment. It should be noted that, although I am not a parent personally (and we've touched on many of those reasons in this long, drama-filled topic), I do have many friends who are and who also hold similar beliefs as I.
I do think it possible to raise a child without striking them--it's just neither the "easiest", nor the "default" way that most of us are accustomed to, which was one of samm's many points that I also agree with.
I'd say that I've now spent faaar too much time on this topic, except that it is a topic that I feel incredibly strong about. And as I may have already mentioned, I do feel I have a pretty unique POV--based off my own pretty unique experiences that I wouldn't wish on my worst enemy--and this is the primary reason I've spent the past few hours on this topic. To conclude, I still continue to maintain my position and agreement with sammaelhain's original proposition that:
"The word ‘spanking’ is a mystification. That is, it is a word that hides the truth about what you are doing to your child. What you are really doing when you are ‘spanking’ is hitting. Hitting a child is an act of violence. Hitting a child is physical abuse. This is the accurate and honest way to describe what you are doing."
Feel free to discuss, whether you agree or disagree.
Agape!
[Edit: Lest I be misunderstood, I am in no way condoning letting children run amok without boundaries. My job at the Psych Ward was--unfortunately--often centered around Holding Boundaries with the children. To restate: If we could Hold Boundaries at that job, parents can do it with their children]
* for which I unabashedly make no apologies. I feel very strongly about this topic. I will, however, endeavor to keep emotions out of this topic for the duration. Please do so, as well, at least here in my LJ. Thank you.
** he has since unscreened them, but I want to re-post my comments and replies to that thread, just the same