Conference moira::parenting_v3

    Cal,
    Were you talking about James Dobson in your reference to  
     "the former child
    psychologist turned conservative writer/televanglist style
    radio/tv show host of _Focus_on_Family_" ?
    If so, he has done much more than a 180 turn on his views on child
    disciplint, or you greatly misunderstood him. Reference his book
    _Dare_to_Discipline_ which strongly advocates the use of physical
    consequences for rebellion.
    
    --dave-- 

    I didn't see the show.  But, something in .0 just caught my attention. 
    Did the principal of the school advocate physical punishment?  What was
    it?  Didn't flogging go out with Oliver Twist...or, am I in the dark?
    (Actually, I remember a teacher or two in elementary school who was
    into rulers on the hand - and this was in the 1960's!)
    
    -d

    My first grade teacher used to hit the students on the hand with
    a ruler if they made a mistake on their penmanship.  This was around
    1967.  She also used to tape their mouths and once told one girl she'd
    have to eat lunch that way.  You should have seen the poor girl
    crying, trying to put a sandwich in the corner of her mouth.  I think 
    this teacher screwed me up for life.  I have so many bad memories of 
    first grade.
    
    When I was at Busch Gardens or Epcot a couple years ago, a group
    came in.  They sounded quite Southern and it appeared to be a few
    teachers with a group of students who were young - maybe 8ish. It
    may have been school teachers or some sort of religion teachers, I
    don't know.  The kids didn't seem to be doing anything too terrible, 
    but one of the teachers had a strap and was whipping the daylights out 
    of some of the kids.  It really hurt me to see that.  I think if I had 
    been a mom at that point, I wouldn't have been able to restrain myself.  
    Now that I have a child, to see anything done to children is magnified 
    10 trillion times more than before I became a mom.
    
    Donna
                                                     

    I have heard that Dr. Dobson advocates pinching the shoulder of
    a child in a specific spot that doesn't necessarily hurt the child
    but gets their attention.  I don't believe he advocates some of
    the brutality already discussed here.

    
    
    
    re .4
    
    This is basically correct, Barb. He also advocates spanking, but *not
    as a last resort* and *not out of anger*. He believes in not yelling or
    screaming at children. I know ours *hate* this much worse than physical
    punishment, and my wife and I try to never do it (but are, sadly, not
    always successful). He believes that, as the parent, you have the right
    to expect your children to obey you (obviously, some common sense is
    necessary here....he means stuff like, "It's time for bed", "Put away
    your toys,", "Help me carry these things in from the car," etc.) He
    believes you should'nt tell a child more than once. Tell them once...if
    they don't comply immediately, then they are disciplined with physical,
    *controlled* measures (either a spanking or the shoulder squeeze). This
    is done calmly and matter-of-factly..."johnny, since you chose not to
    do what I asked, you will get a spanking." Then do it. Then (and this
    is vital) immeidatley reassure them with physical hugs and carresses
    that you love them and that they are forgiven. He does not advocate
    spanking for the "childish" things kids do, that are not direct
    rebellion against their parent's authority. For these things (such as
    throwing a toy, using something without permission, breaking something
    out of carelessness, etc.) he advocates measures directly related to
    the "crime". For example, If you throw a toy, you lose a toy. If you
    take that form your baby brother, you will have something taken from
    you. If you break something, you must help fix it or clen it up (and
    help pay for it, if old enough to do that). If you say mean things to
    someone, you must be silent for the next ten minutes (and you must
    apologize to the person about which the things were said). it helps
    kids understand the cause and effect of their actions. He *does not*
    **ever*** advocate using physcial punishment in public...this is
    humiliating and degrading to the child. And he *does not* advocate
    child abuse.  And never, ever threaten to do something....no matter
    whether its time-out or a spanking or a loss of priveleges...unless you
    carry through. Never tell a child more than once what you expect them
    to do. Dexcipline immediately (May I say, that this is the single most
    difficult thing to do....it is so much easier to tell them over and
    over till you're ready to blow a gasket....and that is *not* the time
    to spank them. All that teaches them is you will inflict pain when you
    are angry. The pain of a spanking should be totally divorced from the
    feeling of anger....it should be approached as the consequence for
    rebellion only.
     We do use this method on our children, and are raising some very
    happy, outgoing, demonstratively affectionate, and *very non-violent*
    children. Now, i'd be lying to say they never hit each other, but it is
    so minimal that it is quite amazing. And they have lots of
    opportunities in the midst of the usual "i had it first" type of
    squabbles.
    And in refernce to .2.......Deb, I read that in the basenote and my
    brain never even registerd the implication! You bet I'd be very
    concerned if a public facility (school, daycare, scouts, whatever) were
    using physical punishment on my child! That is not their place. Glad
    you pointed that out, 'casue I thought corporal punishment was now
    *illegal* in the public schools.
    --dave--

re:last few...

Re-read the next paragraph.  It says "remove physical punishment".
                                      ------

>      <<< Note 477.0 by CLOSUS::HOE "Daddy, where's my 'loween candy?" >>>
>                     -< physical/non-physical punishment >-
>
>    I am sure that many notes has been spent on physical versus
>    non-physical punishment. NBC Family Focus segment on 29-Oct took
>    a look at a school in (I believe) Atlanta area where the
>>>>>principal started to remove physical punishment AND asked parents
>    to do the same. They find that after a period of time, the
>    children were not as physical with each other and more into
>    working problems out.

    -1
    
    The base noter isn't asking anything in particular.  He talked 
    about something, called the topic "Physical/non-physical punishment",
    and said "discussion?".  I think we are all just discussing.
    
    Donna

    But if this principal has to *remove* physical punishment, that means
    it was there in the first place.  I think that this is what everyone is
    reacting to.
    
                                                   Tracy

re: .5

Dave, 

Thanks for the clarification.

>    He also advocates spanking, but *not
>    as a last resort* 

Is that what you meant?  Or do you mean "ONLY as a last resort"?  From the 
rest of your note, it could be either.  If you mean "not as a last resort", 
what IS the last resort?

>   And he *does not* advocate child abuse.  

I don't know of anybody who does.  The question is whether what he advocates 
constitute child abuse.  While I have some problems with using physical 
punishment as quickly as he seems to recommend, IMO, he stops far short of 
anything that could reasonably be interpreted that way.

Clay

    With my kids, the "three strikes and you're out" approach worked
    better than the "tell them once" approach.
    
    First -- requested behavior.  Give a reasonable time for response. 
    If it's picking up toys for bed, perhaps five minutes, for
    instance.  Or two, or whatever, as long as it's a consitent
    amount.
    
    Second -- reminder of request and of consequences.  "Steven, you
    haven't picked up your toys yet. If I have to help you pick up
    your toys now, we won't have time to read your bedtime story."
    (Consequences may need to be adjusted according to the age,
    understanding, and temprement of the child. For instance, at one
    point Steven's main goal was to get out of picking up the toys, so
    it became "You won't be able to watch TV in the morning.")
    
    Third -- "You didn't pick up your toys by yourself, so we won't
    have time for story."  Picking up toys as you speak and ignorning
    the wails.  Gently but firmly carting kid upstairs.
    
    Obviously  you have to use the tell them once for situations like 
    "Don't walk out in front of that car!" 
    
    --bonnie

RE .1

Yes, James Dobson. His Focus on Family group is moving to
Colorado Springs. A local foundation, El Pomar Foundation, gave
his organization $2million to help him move here. I am interested
in what others have heard of James Dobson and his organization.

RE .2

No, the news account did not imply that the Georgia school had
previously had a spanking policy. All NBC reported was that the
school principal asked the parents to be participant in the
policy to see what arbritration did in a family situation. They
went to a single parent of a first grader and a less-than-two
child to look at the extension of the policy.

cal

    Clay,
    When I say Dobson does not recommend spanking as a last resort, what I
    am refferring to is the fact that, often, when parents spank, its
    because they've "tried everything else" and they get so frustrated
    and/or angry, that they spank the child *as a last resort*. And Dobson
    does not endorse this. He feels it should be used first, and then in a
    very controlled, non-angry way. This is why, when spanking is used this
    way, children don't become more violent than with other methods of
    discipline...they do not connect anger with a physical response,
    because it was not administered to them this way. Does this mean we
    never get angry? Goodness, NO! But, we try extremely hard, and largely
    successfully to never spank in anger. We have a special place in the
    house where spankings are administered, and the child is sent there.
    Spankings are admionistered privately, and not in front of siblings. If
    we are angry over what the child did, we take the time to get totally
    under control before going in to the child, so that we are calm and
    matter-of-fact when the punishment is administered.
    Understand agian, spanking is only used when the child is actively
    rebelling, not when he makes "childish" choices or actions. For these,
    other appropriated discipline is used, as I explained in my last reply.
    
    Bonnie,
    Yes, this "3 strikes" method certainly will work, and if it works for
    you, then fine. What Dobson is saying, and I must agree with, is that
    you are also "teaching" your child that he doesn't have to do something
    the first time, that he will get at least one more chance/warning
    before he has to comply. Steven knows that he doesn't "have to" pick up
    his toys the first time, because you always give him a second chance.
    And if he is really "into" the toys he is playing with at the time, he
    may judge it worth losing that beditme story or TV in the morning to
    wait for the third notice. The idea of the spanking is to make the
    punishment umpleasant enough so that it isn't worth disobeying. 
    Although, in our experience, if the desire to do whatever it is that
    constitutes the disobedience is strong enough, even the surety of a
    spaniking may not, in their mind, be deterrent enough! 
    
    --dave--

    re: .12
    
    Dave, I would agree with you except that Steven does what he's
    asked to do on the first request at least 90 percent of the time,
    perhaps more.  
    
    It seems to me that "Do it now or I'll spank you" teaches him that
    I am in absolute control of his life, that he has no choice about
    anything as small as whether he can finish the paragraph of the
    book he's reading before he picks up the toys.  And perhaps that's
    the kind of response that other parents want.  It reminds me too
    much of a well-run military camp where instant obedience is the
    highest virtue.  I want to raise a functioning adult who will be
    able to manage his own life.
    
    And it seems to me that Dobson's principles would not be very good
    for that.  What motivation is there for a child who is raised in
    Dobson's system to continue to behave when the threat of violence
    is removed?  Perhaps I'm missing something, but it seems like it
    isn't teaching the child to take responsibility for his own life
    to the extent that he's able to at his age -- responsibiility in
    the wider sense of doing the right thing in a situation he hasn't
    faced before as well as in the sense of doing the thing he's been
    conditioned to do in a known situation.  
    
    --bonnie

As an exercise in meaning clarification, I'd like to take Dave Orth's reply
# 12 and substitute simpler, anglo-saxon, active words and phrases for some
of the ones he uses.  As it happens, I have not made my mind up and do not have
an absolutist position on the wisdom, justice or effectiveness of hitting one's
child in response to certain behaviors; however, I believe it is worth saying
what we mean in the most direct way possible when we consider such issues.
So here goes.


    "When I say Dobson does not recommend hitting as a last resort, what I
    am refferring to is the fact that, often, when parents hit, its
    because they've "tried everything else" and they get so frustrated
    and/or angry, that they hit the child *as a last resort*. And Dobson
    does not endorse this. He feels it should be used first, and then in a
    very controlled, non-angry way. This is why, when we hit our children this
    way, they don't become more violent than with other methods of
    discipline...they do not connect anger with a beating,
    because we did not hit them this way. Does this mean we
    never get angry? Goodness, NO! But, we try extremely hard, and largely
    successfully to never hit in anger. We have a special place in the
    house where we hit them and the child is sent there.
    We hit them in private, and not in front of siblings. If
    we are angry over what the child did, we take the time to get totally
    under control before going in to the child, so that we are calm and
    matter-of-fact when we hit them.
    Understand agian, we only hit them when the child is actively
    rebelling, not when he makes "childish" choices or actions. For these,
    other appropriated discipline is used, as I explained in my last reply.
    
    Bonnie,
    Yes, this "3 strikes" method certainly will work, and if it works for
    you, then fine. What Dobson is saying, and I must agree with, is that
    you are also "teaching" your child that he doesn't have to do something
    the first time, that he will get at least one more chance/warning
    before he has to comply. Steven knows that he doesn't "have to" pick up
    his toys the first time, because you always give him a second chance.
    And if he is really "into" the toys he is playing with at the time, he
    may judge it worth losing that beditme story or TV in the morning to
    wait for the third notice. The idea of hitting them is to inflict enough
    pain and embarrasment so that it isn't worth disobeying. 
    Although, in our experience, if the desire to do whatever it is that
    constitutes the disobedience is strong enough, even the surety of being
    hit may not, in their mind, be deterrent enough."

So, I don't know what I think about all this, dear parenting readers.
I know that when I try to look at the proposed discipline method for what
it is, I get very bad vibes about its wisdom.  I don't like euphemisms.

re: .14

I think that we all know what "spank" means, at least I do.  I don't like 
euphemisms either, but I also don't like substituting an unnecessarily harsh 
word.  "Hit" to me implies anger.  Dave says it possible to spank not in 
anger, and I don't have any reason not to believe him.  And "hit" is also 
inaccurate in that Dave also says that a shoulder squeeze is an alternative.  

This debate can become very heated very quickly, so I'd request that both 
euphemisms and unnecessarily harsh terms be avoided, _especially_ when you 
quote another noters statement, and substitute terms within it.  If _you_ 
want to say "spanking is hitting", say so, but don't try to make it appear 
that Dave (or Dobson) is sanctioning hitting.  Such a technique may be useful 
for making it appear that political candidates sanction murder, child abuse, 
and homelessness, but it rarely leads to intelligent discussion or analysis.

re: .13

I had the same reaction.  Dave, please clarify something.

Suppose, in response to "It's time for bed", a child replies, "OK dad, I'll go 
up as soon as I finish this chapter".  Is that "active rebellion"?  Or does 
this response fall into the "comply immediately" category (assuming, of 
course, that the child actually follows through with the promise)?  Doesn't 
seem to me that it falls cleanly in either category.

Clay 

.3> He believes that, as the parent, you have the right
.3> to expect your children to obey you (obviously, some common sense is
.3> necessary here....he means stuff like, "It's time for bed" 
. . . 
.3> He
.3> believes you should'nt tell a child more than once. Tell them once...if
.3> they don't comply immediately, then they are disciplined with physical,
.3> *controlled* measures (either a spanking or the shoulder squeeze)
. . .
.3> He does not advocate spanking for the "childish" things kids do, that are 
.3> not direct rebellion against their parent's authority. 

.12>Understand agian, spanking is only used when the child is actively
.12>rebelling, not when he makes "childish" choices or actions. 

Clay,

  >I think that we all know what "spank" means, at least I do.  I don't like 
  >euphemisms either, but I also don't like substituting an unnecessarily harsh 
  >word.  "Hit" to me implies anger.  Dave says it possible to spank not in 
  >anger, and I don't have any reason not to believe him.  And "hit" is also 
  >inaccurate in that Dave also says that a shoulder squeeze is an alternative. 

I don't believe that 'hit' is an 'unnecessarily harsh' substitute for
'spank'.  I believe that hitting IS what spanking is.  To me, hitting
does not necessarily imply anger, but I happen to find the idea of hitting a 
child NOT in anger to be far more frightening and more abusive of parental power
than hitting a child in anger.  Dave's longish explanation of how his family
uses 'spanking', in the note I replied to, does not mention shoulder squeezing.

Also, I didn't think anyone would mistake my significant substitution of
words and phrases for being Dave's original words.  My intent was not to 
put those words
in Dave's mouth, but to have people think about how they feel about the 
same actions described using more active, everyday, realistic terms.  I think
when we say 'I administer a spanking to my child after calm, rational
thought...' we get to ignore what we are really talking about, which is,
cold-bloodedly hitting our child in order to force his compliance with
our demands.  Perhaps you (or James Dobson, or whoever) believe you are capable
of doing this with love in your heart for your child at the time you are hitting
him - I think parents who 'spank' do believe that, but I also think that they're
kidding themselves.  I think facing up to what is actually going on might help
us stop kidding ourselves about issues like this.  

    re: .15
    
    Clay, thanks for clarifying what was bothering me about Dobson's
    theory.  It's not really anything about the principles per se as
    an uncertainty where flexibility fits in . . . but as I said,
    perhaps other parents are more concerned about control and less
    concerned about flexibility than I am.
    
    --bonnie

re: .16

Thank you for stating your point more directly.  I think that you have a valid 
point.  It stands on its own.  While you did make it clear to me that your 
paraphrasing of his note was not his original words, I thought that the 
paraphrasing was an unnecessary distortion of what he said, and an unnecessary 
distraction from what you are saying.  

>My intent was not to 
>put those words in Dave's mouth, but to have people think about how they feel 
>about the same actions described using more active, everyday, realistic terms.

IMO, `spanking' is an active, everyday, realistic term; it's not something like 
"corporal punishment".  You think that "spanking" = "hitting".  That is a 
point on which reasonable people can disagree.  Your method of presenting your 
argument was "spanking = hitting, therefore Dave is saying . . .".  I object 
to that form of debate.  IMO, it is manipulative and inflammatory.

>Perhaps you . . . believe you are capable of doing this with love in your 
>heart for your child at the time you are hitting him 

Just to be clear, I do not.  I disagree with Dave.  I do not believe in 
spanking as a first resort.  But I've seen enough of his thoughts in this 
notesfile to respect his views.  IMO, it took a fair amount of courage for him 
to enter the note, since it is outside the mainstream of the "conventional 
wisdom" of most of this notesfile, particularly since he did it, IMO, in an
informative, non-dogmatic way.

Clay

    But what do you do when time-outs, removing/restricting privileges,
    etc., don't seem to make any impression?  I'm like Bonnie, I want
    my kids to be thinking adults.  However, I was not blessed with
    unlimited patience.  I feel that the occasinal spanking has less
    to do with the parent's losing control than it has with making a
    dramatic statement to the child.  
    
    I do not like to spank, but sometimes I see no alternative.