Tuesday, February 17, 2004
Abuse vs. Punishment: A Reasonable Force
The Canadians have been arguing about their supreme court's decision to legitimize some kinds of child punishment (ages 2-12 only) and to restrict others (no corporal punishment for babies and teens, no hitting on the face or head, and no weapons). What an awesome undertaking -- creating national guidelines for disciplining children. But before you start defending the rights of parents to raise their children their own way without government interference, let us take a short step back.
A hundred years ago, before government involvement, it was legal, and sometimes expected, to beat prisoners. In private life, you could beat your servants, you could beat your apprentices, and 50 years ago you could still beat your wife as well as your children. You could even beat other people's children if you were a teacher or preacher. It has taken a few legal battles (judges were slow to interfere with a "husband's rights to his wife"), but in the end most legal physical abuse has been eradicated from North American societies -- except, of course, the parental right to hit your own offspring with "reasonable force."
But what is reasonable force? We used to rely on the axiom "spare the rod, spoil the child." Any parent will tell you children who feel a lack of discipline start whining (yuck), and no one tolerates a whining brat. But lacking that sense of security that guiding parents offer does not mean the child is "asking for it" or "wants something to cry about." The child just needs to feel safe even in exploration, needs to know a parent is there to protect even if the child strays too far into unfamiliar and frequently dangerous territory.
Some say when a child starts doing something they shouldn't, like sticking fingers in the electric outlet, should you gently tell the child "no", or "danger", while at the same time (and this is very important) hand the child something that is appropriate to play with. In this way, you are not pounding and beating the confidence and exploration out of your child, but rather are guiding the child to make correct choices. And if the child keeps sticking his fingers into the plug, do you move him to another location and give him something appropriate to play with? It seems logical. It seems loving. But if you are trying to make dinner, talk to other family members, and throw a batch of clothes in the washer. . . well, it is quicker and more productive to just strike a match, blow it out, then touch the child's finger with the still hot end and say "HOT". Then every time the child starts to touch a stove, plug, outlet, cigarette, matches, lighter, candle, etc, you say "HOT" and the child knows exactly what you are talking about. Saves time, save injuries, saves lives. Yet in Canada, this is now child abuse.
I once saw a woman hit her son on his bottom with a lead pipe for peeping through the front window while she was having an afternoon luncheon. It only took five seconds. Five minutes later, the son was throwing tiny little kittens against the cement wall of their garage. I stood up, went to the window, the boy saw me and put the rest of the kittens down and ran off. I froze. I could not help the boy; I could not help the kittens; telling his mother was not an option. What would she have done next? How would she have retaliated? Remember, in those days, if there was food in the refrigerator and no broken bones, it was nigh-on to impossible to prove child abuse. So, all I could do was leave.
In those days, she was within her parental rights to punish her son as she saw fit. Now, her rights have been superseded by a society that has since realized her choice of punishment was creating an angry violent child, one that would not only take delight in smashing kittens, but would soon become an angry violent adult.
My own mother believed in corporal punishment. She felt it was wrong to hit with her bare hand at the moment of anger, so she would usually send us to fetch the weapon du jour. She believed while we were getting the flyswatter or yard stick or switch, she would be calming down, and therefore would be punishing out of good parenting, and not beating out of anger. The Canadian government disagrees; they believe any weapon is unreasonable force. Well, today, I must admit I am afraid of angry women, I still put my hands behind my back to protect from angry women with or without weapons. Unfortunately, I am also afraid of many other things.
Protecting children from danger and teaching right from wrong by instilling a fear of pain to take the place of a conscience is too capricious. Like my mom, we end up killing spirit in our children. We trade confident and courageous children for safe and well-behaved children.
What else can a parent do? Separate kids from the people they love, send them to their rooms or to the "quiet chair" or the corner? Does that tell the child that when a parent leaves it is because the child was bad? When the parents die or divorce or become ill, or just go to work, does the child feel he has been bad and Mommy or Daddy had to go away?
Do you say mean and cruel things to them, like "I won't love you anymore" or "I'll go away forever if you don't stop"? Same problem, and far too cruel.
Or my favorite, the most common choice of parents in public, tell the children you will punish them if they don't stop the bad behavior, and when they don't stop, say it again and again and again and again and even again, until the child learns they are allowed eight or eleven chances to be bad before there are consequences.
Consequences. Balancing the suitable consequences with the type of bad behavior is the key to parenting. Overreacting and under-reacting are equally inappropriate and destructive. Now, I may not have all the answers, and my time has a learning parent ended long before I even knew this much. But the key, it seems, is showing a child that they are responsible for their own behavior (not you, not the kid down the street, not society). This is most likely to turn your child into a great adult.
And that is all I really want. I want our children to be good citizens, helpful and loving members of the world, and most of all, people I wouldn't mind having for neighbors.
The Canadians have been arguing about their supreme court's decision to legitimize some kinds of child punishment (ages 2-12 only) and to restrict others (no corporal punishment for babies and teens, no hitting on the face or head, and no weapons). What an awesome undertaking -- creating national guidelines for disciplining children. But before you start defending the rights of parents to raise their children their own way without government interference, let us take a short step back.
A hundred years ago, before government involvement, it was legal, and sometimes expected, to beat prisoners. In private life, you could beat your servants, you could beat your apprentices, and 50 years ago you could still beat your wife as well as your children. You could even beat other people's children if you were a teacher or preacher. It has taken a few legal battles (judges were slow to interfere with a "husband's rights to his wife"), but in the end most legal physical abuse has been eradicated from North American societies -- except, of course, the parental right to hit your own offspring with "reasonable force."
But what is reasonable force? We used to rely on the axiom "spare the rod, spoil the child." Any parent will tell you children who feel a lack of discipline start whining (yuck), and no one tolerates a whining brat. But lacking that sense of security that guiding parents offer does not mean the child is "asking for it" or "wants something to cry about." The child just needs to feel safe even in exploration, needs to know a parent is there to protect even if the child strays too far into unfamiliar and frequently dangerous territory.
Some say when a child starts doing something they shouldn't, like sticking fingers in the electric outlet, should you gently tell the child "no", or "danger", while at the same time (and this is very important) hand the child something that is appropriate to play with. In this way, you are not pounding and beating the confidence and exploration out of your child, but rather are guiding the child to make correct choices. And if the child keeps sticking his fingers into the plug, do you move him to another location and give him something appropriate to play with? It seems logical. It seems loving. But if you are trying to make dinner, talk to other family members, and throw a batch of clothes in the washer. . . well, it is quicker and more productive to just strike a match, blow it out, then touch the child's finger with the still hot end and say "HOT". Then every time the child starts to touch a stove, plug, outlet, cigarette, matches, lighter, candle, etc, you say "HOT" and the child knows exactly what you are talking about. Saves time, save injuries, saves lives. Yet in Canada, this is now child abuse.
I once saw a woman hit her son on his bottom with a lead pipe for peeping through the front window while she was having an afternoon luncheon. It only took five seconds. Five minutes later, the son was throwing tiny little kittens against the cement wall of their garage. I stood up, went to the window, the boy saw me and put the rest of the kittens down and ran off. I froze. I could not help the boy; I could not help the kittens; telling his mother was not an option. What would she have done next? How would she have retaliated? Remember, in those days, if there was food in the refrigerator and no broken bones, it was nigh-on to impossible to prove child abuse. So, all I could do was leave.
In those days, she was within her parental rights to punish her son as she saw fit. Now, her rights have been superseded by a society that has since realized her choice of punishment was creating an angry violent child, one that would not only take delight in smashing kittens, but would soon become an angry violent adult.
My own mother believed in corporal punishment. She felt it was wrong to hit with her bare hand at the moment of anger, so she would usually send us to fetch the weapon du jour. She believed while we were getting the flyswatter or yard stick or switch, she would be calming down, and therefore would be punishing out of good parenting, and not beating out of anger. The Canadian government disagrees; they believe any weapon is unreasonable force. Well, today, I must admit I am afraid of angry women, I still put my hands behind my back to protect from angry women with or without weapons. Unfortunately, I am also afraid of many other things.
Protecting children from danger and teaching right from wrong by instilling a fear of pain to take the place of a conscience is too capricious. Like my mom, we end up killing spirit in our children. We trade confident and courageous children for safe and well-behaved children.
What else can a parent do? Separate kids from the people they love, send them to their rooms or to the "quiet chair" or the corner? Does that tell the child that when a parent leaves it is because the child was bad? When the parents die or divorce or become ill, or just go to work, does the child feel he has been bad and Mommy or Daddy had to go away?
Do you say mean and cruel things to them, like "I won't love you anymore" or "I'll go away forever if you don't stop"? Same problem, and far too cruel.
Or my favorite, the most common choice of parents in public, tell the children you will punish them if they don't stop the bad behavior, and when they don't stop, say it again and again and again and again and even again, until the child learns they are allowed eight or eleven chances to be bad before there are consequences.
Consequences. Balancing the suitable consequences with the type of bad behavior is the key to parenting. Overreacting and under-reacting are equally inappropriate and destructive. Now, I may not have all the answers, and my time has a learning parent ended long before I even knew this much. But the key, it seems, is showing a child that they are responsible for their own behavior (not you, not the kid down the street, not society). This is most likely to turn your child into a great adult.
And that is all I really want. I want our children to be good citizens, helpful and loving members of the world, and most of all, people I wouldn't mind having for neighbors.
