Comments on: More on framing effects

By: msg

msg — Sat, 07 Feb 2004 22:02:24 +0000

There were, and are, Native American tribes that never physically disciplined their children. That thought it was not only a dubious practice, but a barbaric one. But outside that tribal framework there was the immediate and grave presence of the natural world. When you live close to the ground, close to fatal consequence, the seriousness of it permeates all context. Children absorb that seriousness osmotically, and the withdrawal of approval, the stern regard of an elder, is felt by the child for what it is, at a visceral level, deeper even than the physical recognition of a painful swat to the backside. How many times have you seen the naked disrespect of a child, who’s learned to express it within the loose boundaries of current social propriety? Children who have a kind of consumerist equality within the family. That’s a dysfunction we’re seeing more and more of now. Use your words, as though words had some ultimate moral power. The viciousness of purely verbal and tonal scorn can be seriously and permanently damaging and yet it will never be legislated against. This is still a primitive morality, with its emphases on the body before all else. The damage of spanking is abhorred, the damage of the cutting remark is accepted. People in the same state of mindlessness shriek in horror at Steve Irwin’s dangling baby, and put their own children in meteoric jeopardy in the automobile. Spanking isn’t really the issue, it’s the social context in which the spanking is or isn’t being done.

By: bryan

bryan — Sat, 07 Feb 2004 10:35:33 +0000

“I think it’s very close to ownership and I strongly disgaree with this sensibility. Screw that. Parents are granted responsibility for their children based upon a presumption of competence that they can, and often do, disprove.” Parents are obliged to be responsible for their children and often fail in their obligation.

By: Keith M Ellis

Keith M Ellis — Sat, 07 Feb 2004 02:46:44 +0000

“It would also help if we (in general, as a society, speaking from the U.S. here) had a less robust notion of parental “rights,” which in the minds of many veer toward ownership.”—djw

I think it’s very close to ownership and I strongly disgaree with this sensibility. Screw that. Parents are granted responsibility for their children based upon a presumption of competence that they can, and often do, disprove.

By: DJW

DJW — Sat, 07 Feb 2004 02:20:02 +0000

Well, I’m sure that’s true, but given the supremely low pay and high workloads (at least here in the US), I’d say it seems like a reasonable conjecture that these more mundane problems are at least as significant as the one you’ve identified. It defies reason that you won’t get a better job performance from a profession on the whole if you make it possible to do with some financial security and thoroughness.

By: dsquared

dsquared — Sat, 07 Feb 2004 00:54:14 +0000

One way to move toward a solution to this problem might be to offer decent pay and managable workloads to social workers. We might then get more skilled people who burn out less and have time (and skill) to pay more attention to the nuances of each situation. Of course, such a plan costs money…. Colour me sceptical. Some people just enjoy exerting power over poor people and there’s not all the government money in the world that can change that.

By: DJW

DJW — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 23:44:48 +0000

Sebastian—agreed. One way to move toward a solution to this problem might be to offer decent pay and managable workloads to social workers. We might then get more skilled people who burn out less and have time (and skill) to pay more attention to the nuances of each situation. Of course, such a plan costs money…. It would also help if we (in general, as a society, speaking from the U.S. here) had a less robust notion of parental “rights,” which in the minds of many veer toward ownership.

By: Sebastian Holsclaw

Sebastian Holsclaw — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:46:22 +0000

As for empirical evidence re: child services, in the US at least such proceedings are deeply cloaked in secrecy, so the evidence is not available. I interned as a child advocate in dependency court for a semester, and my general impression is that social workers had a functional mode that they applied to nearly all of their cases. There was the reuniter, who would try to keep families together even though it was very clear that some parents weren’t going to learn to stop abusing their kids. (I’m think especially of the dad who broke the arms of his kid on three different occassions over 2 years, but was ‘in counseling’). There is the worker with infinite faith in the ability of parents to shape up their acts. (I’m thinking especially of the woman who had her 6th child taken away, for neglect regarding food and water due to drug use, and showed up to the hearing pregnant. The social worker said, ‘she’s in rehab, she’ll be able to keep this one’. Baby tested positive for cocaine AND heroin at birth). There is the equally bad worker who has been burned so many times that he extends no trust or hope whatsoever for the parents in question, and will work to pull the kids no matter what the evidence. (I’m thinking specifically of the single dad who lost his job, went on a drinking binge the next day, got arrested for disorderly conduct, had his 14 year-old pulled, and despite getting a better job within two weeks and a voluntary agreement to be tested each week while going to AA 4 times a week for a year, couldn’t convince the social worker to let him have his daughter back.) In short, the social services system is important but dangerous. It allows a lot of leeway to social workers, and even though they try to do what they think is best they can still do a lot of things that we wouldn’t think are very appropriate.

By: mjones

mjones — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:31:57 +0000

Er, and what if you’re on a busy station platform / on a ferry, etc, etc? If a small child is throwing a tantrum in a public place, hitting them will likely only escalate it. Children are often not in control, and violence from their caregiver is hardly likely to help them regain it. Sometimes you will have to scoop them up to contain them, but even that needs to be done with care so that containment for their safety doesn’t turn into rough confinement. Sometimes you may just have to miss the train.

By: maurinsky

maurinsky — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 20:15:12 +0000

I haven’t ever spanked either of my children. My father was abusive, and I don’t trust that I can manage my rage any better than he manages his. The only time I feel like physically disciplining my children is when I’m so furious I could really hurt them. And that my level of anger is also usually way out of proportion with their transgression. I don’t think a spanking every now and then causes irreparable harm to most children, but I find that positive reinforcement for good behavior combined with negative (but not physically negative) consequences for bad behavior has worked pretty well for us.

By: Mrs Tilton

Mrs Tilton — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:44:23 +0000

I generally dislike corporal punishment, and we do not generally punish our children corporally. But I think one must be a bit pragmatic here. With very small children, a swift swat to the bottom can be just the thing when they are doing something dangerous (e.g., sticking metal objects into an electrical socket). In such cases, I’d rather use a bit of operant conditioning than have a well-adjusted, unspanked but dead child. I agree, though, that spanking is not a good idea as a response for mere bad behaviour, and is all too likely to be an expression of parental frustration rather than a well-founded disciplinary measure. Alison: it was not formerly legal for a man to rape his wife in the UK. It was formerly impossible for a man to rape his wife in the UK. That is, he might force her to have intercourse against her will; but this was not the crime of rape, which at that time by definition was intercourse forced on a woman by a man not her husband. Thankfully, this has changed in the UK and in a number of other jurisdictions in which rape used to be, in effect, a property crime.

By: Jonathan Ichikawa

Jonathan Ichikawa — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:11:30 +0000

It took me embarassingly long to figure out that we’re not talking about THAT kind of spanking…

By: MQ

MQ — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 19:00:45 +0000

I do think husbands should be able to spank wives, but only if wives have a legally enforceable countervailing right to spank the husbands. Fair is fair.

By: drapetomaniac

drapetomaniac — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:54:39 +0000

The natural environment provides many instances where we learn based on pain (eg., I shouldn’t step on nails, or jab myself with a pencil). Why shouldn’t the social environment do the same? I agree. Bring back the rack, the wheel, scarlet A’s, et al!

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 18:34:44 +0000

I used to think spanking was abhorrent, but then I thought about the alternative, “Time Out” type punishments, and I realised I felt psychological torture to be at least as disturbing as physical torture. The natural environment provides many instances where we learn based on pain (eg., I shouldn’t step on nails, or jab myself with a pencil). Why shouldn’t the social environment do the same? (When I look back at my childhood, the most traumatic experiences involved some sort of deprivation, rather than pain)

By: JRoth

JRoth — Fri, 06 Feb 2004 17:59:30 +0000

It was hinted at, but I don’t think explicitly said: more and more studies have pretty conclusively shown that spanking is not, in fact, very effective, and is far more likely than other forms of punishment to have long-term adverse effects. [if I were a better commenter, I’d provide a link] Of course, no number of these studies will quiet the “my pop beat hell out of me and I turned out fine” crowd (full disclosure – I was, in fact, spanked on a few noteworthy occasions, and do think I turned out fine), but I think it’s important to recognize. In some ways, this is like the arguments about racial profiling. The argument revolves around whether or not something should be done (morally or ethically), without addressing its practicality. If frisking every dusky-skinned male at the airport doesn’t make me safer, then who cares whether or not it’s constitutional? But on both these cases, the conservative/traditional side of the argument simply takes the high ground on assumption: of course spanking/profiling is effective. Once that is conceded, the other side of the argument must needs remain on its heels. So don’t concede. Not until someone provides evidence to back up the reactionary assumption.