Spanking: For Boys Only...
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Dor1937 (dor...@aol.com) wrote:
: Once again, for the record, I agree that no man should ever spank
: anyone. And no girl should ever be spanked by anyone. I do believe,
: however, that most boys can and should be spanked (by their mothers) when
: circumstances dictate that that is the appropriate way of dealing with the
: boy's misbehavior.
Why this gender doublestandard? If girls can be raised without
hitting and hurting them, why shouldn't boys be raised this way as well?
On the other hand, if spankings are so "appropriate" for male children,
why should female children be deprived of the alleged benefits?
Boys are already physically punished more often and more harshly
than girls, in every age group (Gelles & Straus, 1990). Children of
either sex exhibit more aggressive behavior the more they are spanked
(Strassberg, et. al., 1994), and adults who were spanked the most as
children exhibit the highest statistical likelihoods of committing
assault, spousal abuse or child abuse (Straus, 1991). Advocating physical
punishment for boys and only for boys makes sense, provided that one wants
to promote male violence a generation from now.
Chris
REFERENCES
Gelles, R.J. and Straus, M.A. 1990. _Physical Violence In American
Families: Risk Factors And Adaptations To Violence In 8,145 Families_.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Strassberg, Z.; Dodge, K.A.; Petit, G.S. & Bates, J.E. 1994. "Spanking
in the Home and Children's Subsequent Aggression Toward Kindergarten
Peers." _Development and Psychopathology_, 6:445-461.
Straus, M.A. 1991. "Discipline and Deviance: Physical Punishment of
Children and Violence and Other Crime in Adulthood." _Social Problems_
38(2):133-155
Zardoz
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
>
> Dor1937 (dor...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Once again, for the record, I agree that no man should ever spank
> : anyone. And no girl should ever be spanked by anyone. I do believe,
> : however, that most boys can and should be spanked (by their mothers) when
> : circumstances dictate that that is the appropriate way of dealing with the
> : boy's misbehavior.
>
> Why this gender doublestandard? If girls can be raised without
> hitting and hurting them, why shouldn't boys be raised this way as well?
> On the other hand, if spankings are so "appropriate" for male children,
> why should female children be deprived of the alleged benefits?
>
> Boys are already physically punished more often and more harshly
> than girls, in every age group (Gelles & Straus, 1990). Children of
> either sex exhibit more aggressive behavior the more they are spanked
> (Strassberg, et. al., 1994), and adults who were spanked the most as
> children exhibit the highest statistical likelihoods of committing
> assault, spousal abuse or child abuse (Straus, 1991). Advocating physical
> punishment for boys and only for boys makes sense, provided that one wants
> to promote male violence a generation from now.
>
> Chris
The systematic brutalization of men begins with the common practice of
genital mutilation, and continues with such harmful and sex
discriminatory practices as corporal punishment for male children.
Raising another generation of violent men begins with the systematic
brutalization of male children, and it really needs to stop now.
Blessed Be
ZardoZ
The opinions expressed herein are mine alone and do not represent the
opinions or policy of any organization.
All material is the copyright property of the author and may not be
reproduced in any manner without specific permission.
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Zardoz (bkza...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
: >
: > Dor1937 (dor...@aol.com) wrote:
: > : Once again, for the record, I agree that no man should ever spank
: > : anyone. And no girl should ever be spanked by anyone. I do believe,
: > : however, that most boys can and should be spanked (by their mothers) when
: > : circumstances dictate that that is the appropriate way of dealing with the
: > : boy's misbehavior.
: >
: > Why this gender doublestandard? If girls can be raised without
: > hitting and hurting them, why shouldn't boys be raised this way as well?
: > On the other hand, if spankings are so "appropriate" for male children,
: > why should female children be deprived of the alleged benefits?
: >
: > Boys are already physically punished more often and more harshly
: > than girls, in every age group (Gelles & Straus, 1990). Children of
: > either sex exhibit more aggressive behavior the more they are spanked
: > (Strassberg, et. al., 1994), and adults who were spanked the most as
: > children exhibit the highest statistical likelihoods of committing
: > assault, spousal abuse or child abuse (Straus, 1991). Advocating physical
: > punishment for boys and only for boys makes sense, provided that one wants
: > to promote male violence a generation from now.
: >
: > Chris
: The systematic brutalization of men begins with the common practice of
: genital mutilation,
Glad you mentioned this. Colorado just passed a law banning
genital mutilation... but *only* if done to girls. It is still perfectly
legal to cut infant boys' genitals in the absence of any compelling
medical rationale. Even operations on girls which are anatomically
identical to standard male circumcision - removal of the clitoral prepuce
- are now illegal *only* if done to girls but perfectly legal if done to
boys. The only difference is which sex the child victim is.
Some have argued that Colorado's law should exclude baby boys from
protection since to include them under the purview of the statute would
discriminate against Jews. But no such concern seems to be evinced about
such "discrimination" against muslims, who are the unabashedly *explicit*
targets of this new law, according to its proponents and framers. While
it is certainly not necessary to slice and dice one's daughters' genitalia
in order to be a muslim, it is equally necessary to do this to one's sons
in order to be a jew. Some Reform rabbis are performing "symbolic
circumcisions" which involve the full traditional ritual but without any
actual cutting. These rabbis should be commended, and genital mutilation
should be recognized as child abuse no matter which sex of child it is
inflicted upon.
Jews (or muslims) who are absolutely convinced that the foreskin
*must* be physically removed are perfectly free to have this done to
themselves as a form of elective surgery once they reach the legal age of
majority. Forcing this on babies who cannot possibly understand the
"covenant" they are supposedly making with God should be abandoned, just
as modern day Jews have stopped following the Old Testament verses about
burning girls with fire for adultery (Lev. 21:9) or stoning sons to death
for disobedience (Deut. 21:20,21) or selling daughters into slavery (Exod.
21:7) or slaughtering innocent children for sins their *parents* committed
(Isa. 14:21, Num. 14:18, Josh. 7:10-26).
: and continues with such harmful and sex
: discriminatory practices as corporal punishment for male children.
Several studies over the years have found a consistent pattern of
boys being subjected to corporal punishment significantly more often than
girls (Elder and Bowerman, 1963; Gelles and Straus, 1990; MacDonald,
1971; Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; Straus, 1971). If it were the other way
around, I think we would be hearing about it over and over again as just
one more example of how we live in a woman-hating society in which
everything is designed to cater to males at the expense of females. I
also think that the job of anti-corporal-punishment activists like myself
would be a *lot* easier if it happened mainly to girls rather than mainly
to boys. As it is, I learned long ago that it is easiest to arouse
sympathy for spanked children and to effectively criticize adults who
spank them by referring to the child as "she" and to the adult as "he."
: Raising another generation of violent men begins with the systematic
: brutalization of male children, and it really needs to stop now.
It really doesn't make good sense for feminists to ignore this
issue, although the majority of them do. I know many of them are loath to
admit that males can ever be victims of any sort of violence which is not
simultaneously their own fault, or at least the fault of "men" in general.
Also, since women inflict the majority of corporal punishment in the home
(Wauchope and Straus, 1990) and since the majority of victims are male
children, this is the "wrong" perpetrator/victim gender permutation and
therefore useless as ammunition in a misandrist gender war. Hence, there
is a pervasive tendency to label those who attempt to raise the issue of
violence against children - within the context of the overall problem of
domestic violence - as "backlashers" trying to divert attention from the
"real issue" of women as 100% victims and males as 100% perpetrators.
But this attitude is shortsighted and ultimately self-defeating.
The more often a boy is physically punished while growing up, the higher
the statistical likelihood that he will someday physically abuse his wife
(Straus, 1991). (The same is true for physically punished girls growing
up to assault their husbands. This is just as easy to demonstrate
empirically as with physically punished boys growing up to be wife
beaters, but much, *much* harder to get very many people to care about).
Hence, activists who are *serious* about ending the problem of domestic
violence need to address the *whole* issue in its entirety, not just the
parts which mesh well with their preconceived ideologies.
Whenever a child is hit by a parent, a lesson is taught.
Unfortunately it is usually not the sort of "lesson" the parent imagines
themselves to be teaching. Children learn by imitating their elders.
When their elders use corporal punishment they are teaching their child
"if you don't like the way a loved one behaves, hit them!" When a mother
tells her recently-spanked little boy "I spanked you because I love you,"
they are teaching him the sort of speech to make to his wife someday after
he has just gotten finished slapping her around because *he* didn't like
the way *she* was behaving.
The rationalizations which wife beaters (and, for that matter,
husband beaters) give for why they "had" to hit their spouse and why their
spouse "made" them do it and why their spouse "deserved" the assault and
why they did it for their victim's "own good," are *exactly* the same
rationalizations one hears from prospank parents on the
alt.parenting.spanking newsgroup. This is no coincidence, imo. Parents
who spank are not only modeling domestic violence *behavior* to their
children, they are also modeling what to say afterwards and how to justify
one's own violent behavior by blaming one's victim. A woman who stays
with a man who beats her up, rationalizing that "I know he really loves me
deep down," is typically urged to leave him *immediately* and to *never*
give him even one second chance. On the other hand an adult who says that
they deserved all the beatings their parents dished out for years on end
because "I know my parents only did it because they loved me," is more
likely to be praised for his or her "maturity." We can't have it both
ways. Either hitting family members is domestic violence - regardless of
the ages and sexes of the perpetrators and victims - or it isn't.
If we don't want to see male violence against women in domestic
situations a generation from now, we should start by eliminating domestic
violence against children, even when women do it, and even when the child
victims are male.
Chris
REFERENCES
Elder, G.H. and Bowerman, C.E. 1963. "Family Structure and Child Rearing
Patterns: The Effect of Family Size and Sex Composition." _American
Sociological Review_ 28:891-905
Gelles, R.J. and Straus, M.A. 1990. _Physical Violence In American
Families: Risk Factors And Adaptations To Violence In 8,145 Families_.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Maccoby, E.E. and Jacklin, C.N. 1974. _The Psychology of Sex
Differences_. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
MacDonald, A.P. 1971. "Internal-External Locus of Control: Parental
Antecedents." _Journal of Consulting & Counseling Psychology_ 37:141-147.
Straus, M.A. 1971. "Some Social Antecedents of Physical Punishment: A
Linkage Theory Interpretation." _Journal of Marriage and the Family_.
33:658-663.
Straus, M.A. 1991. "Discipline and Deviance: Physical Punishment of
Children and Violence and Other Crime in Adulthood." _Social Problems_
38(2):133-155
Wauchope, B. and Straus, M.A. 1990. "Physical Punishment and Physical
Abuse of American Children: Incidence Rates by Age, Gender, and
Occupational Class." In _Physical Violence In American Families: Risk
Factors And Adaptations To Violence In 8,145 Families_. M.A. Straus and
R.J. Gelles, eds. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
LaVonne Carlson
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
>
> Dor1937 (dor...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Once again, for the record, I agree that no man should ever spank
> : anyone. And no girl should ever be spanked by anyone. I do believe,
> : however, that most boys can and should be spanked (by their mothers) when
> : circumstances dictate that that is the appropriate way of dealing with the
> : boy's misbehavior.
>
> Why this gender doublestandard? If girls can be raised without
> hitting and hurting them, why shouldn't boys be raised this way as well?
No, Chris, because boys must learn to be *macho, tough, and strong.*
They must not show feelings -- they must not cry -- and above all,
they must never be a wimp! And when they learn their lesson well, and
behave the way they were treated, society wonders what went wrong!
> On the other hand, if spankings are so "appropriate" for male children,
> why should female children be deprived of the alleged benefits?
Why, indeed?
>
> Boys are already physically punished more often and more harshly
> than girls, in every age group (Gelles & Straus, 1990). Children of
> either sex exhibit more aggressive behavior the more they are spanked
> (Strassberg, et. al., 1994), and adults who were spanked the most as
> children exhibit the highest statistical likelihoods of committing
> assault, spousal abuse or child abuse (Straus, 1991). Advocating physical
> punishment for boys and only for boys makes sense, provided that one wants
> to promote male violence a generation from now.
It's worked well so far. Perhaps that's why we fear young adolescent
males when we encounter them on the street -- especially in groups of
2-3 or more. We incarcerate more juvenile males then females. And we
scratch our heads and wonder -- however did these kids become so
violent?
>
> Chris
>
> REFERENCES
>
> Gelles, R.J. and Straus, M.A. 1990. _Physical Violence In American
> Families: Risk Factors And Adaptations To Violence In 8,145 Families_.
> New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
>
> Strassberg, Z.; Dodge, K.A.; Petit, G.S. & Bates, J.E. 1994. "Spanking
> in the Home and Children's Subsequent Aggression Toward Kindergarten
> Peers." _Development and Psychopathology_, 6:445-461.
>
LaVonne Carlson
Zardoz wrote:
>
> cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
> >
> > Dor1937 (dor...@aol.com) wrote:
> > : Once again, for the record, I agree that no man should ever spank
> > : anyone. And no girl should ever be spanked by anyone. I do believe,
> > : however, that most boys can and should be spanked (by their mothers) when
> > : circumstances dictate that that is the appropriate way of dealing with the
> > : boy's misbehavior.
> >
> > Why this gender doublestandard? If girls can be raised without
> > hitting and hurting them, why shouldn't boys be raised this way as well?
> > why should female children be deprived of the alleged benefits?
> >
> > than girls, in every age group (Gelles & Straus, 1990). Children of
> > either sex exhibit more aggressive behavior the more they are spanked
> > (Strassberg, et. al., 1994), and adults who were spanked the most as
> > children exhibit the highest statistical likelihoods of committing
> > assault, spousal abuse or child abuse (Straus, 1991). Advocating physical
> > punishment for boys and only for boys makes sense, provided that one wants
> > to promote male violence a generation from now.
> >
>
> The systematic brutalization of men begins with the common practice of
> discriminatory practices as corporal punishment for male children.
> brutalization of male children, and it really needs to stop now.
Yes, it does need to stop now. Hitting of female children also needs
to stop. (Both are legal, but little boys do get hit more than little
girls. So, how does it stop --- the million dollar question???
LaVonne
Carolyn Jean Fairman
LaVonne Carlson <carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
>Zardoz wrote:
>> cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
>>> Dor1937 (dor...@aol.com) wrote:
>>>: Once again, for the record, I agree that no man should ever spank
>>>: anyone. And no girl should ever be spanked by anyone. I do believe,
>>>: however, that most boys can and should be spanked (by their mothers) when
>>>: circumstances dictate that that is the appropriate way of dealing with the
>>>: boy's misbehavior.
>> >
>> > Why this gender doublestandard? If girls can be raised without
>> > hitting and hurting them, why shouldn't boys be raised this way as well?
>> > On the other hand, if spankings are so "appropriate" for male children,
>> > why should female children be deprived of the alleged benefits?
Well, to uphold the gender doublestandard of boys as tough, able to
stand rougher things (look at how if you call a female baby male, men
will be *far* more rough with her, and women too, to a lessor extent),
and certainly not *emotional* and *wimpy* and concerned with
*feelings*.
But the fact is, if you do not want to spank, you need to do
_something else_, as all children need guidance and discipline. That
discipline just needn't be whacking or spanking. And that something
else, that million dollatr question mentioned later by another poster,
is to talk about empathy, for parents to suppport a boy's feelings,
draw them out and label them, followed by an explanation that feeling
whatever is ok, but acting, saying or doing certain things is NOT. It
requires seeing the boy as a complex, young and emotional child, who
has needs and feelings.
For refs, please see _Raising a Moral Child_, Schulman and just about
any Faber/Mazlich book, though _How to Talk do Kids will Listen and
Listen so Kids will Talk_ is the best general one.
The sexism of the poster who okayed hitting one sex but not the other
is a sad thing. There is never a reason to hit a a child. Or
*either* sex. Nor is it any better should a woman hit her son. Ew.
If a boy is very active and boisterous (as are many girls, btw) then
teaching him self control is far, far better than hitting him *after*
he gets out of control. And *yes* of course he will take time to
learn this. But for the love of life, spend this time on your boys
that people far more willingly spend on girls -- repeat, give him
natural consequences as he learns and messes up and *teach him* how to
control himself in those "circumstances" where the easy way out is to
hurt the boy in the hopes he will learn something other than bigger
people can hurt littler people, like not to hit other kids :-\.
Boys as well as girls can learn these things. Boys as well as girls
can gain self control and choose not to do the things that might get
them hit by certain parents -- if you care to spend the time teaching
them.
>> > Boys are already physically punished more often and more harshly
>> > than girls, in every age group (Gelles & Straus, 1990). Children of
>> > either sex exhibit more aggressive behavior the more they are spanked
>> > (Strassberg, et. al., 1994), and adults who were spanked the most as
>> > children exhibit the highest statistical likelihoods of committing
>> > assault, spousal abuse or child abuse (Straus, 1991). Advocating physical
>> > punishment for boys and only for boys makes sense, provided that one wants
>> > to promote male violence a generation from now.
>> >
>> > Chris
>>
>> The systematic brutalization of men begins with the common practice of
>> genital mutilation, and continues with such harmful and sex
>> discriminatory practices as corporal punishment for male children.
>> Raising another generation of violent men begins with the systematic
>> brutalization of male children, and it really needs to stop now.
>
>Yes, it does need to stop now. Hitting of female children also needs
>to stop. (Both are legal, but little boys do get hit more than little
>girls. So, how does it stop --- the million dollar question???
The key thing is not to make the common parenting mistake -- saying I
will never do that and forgetting to figure out what you WILL DO
instead! :-)
*Seriously*! It stops when parents learn the methods of _teaching_ a
child not to misbehave by validating the boy's feelings that led to
misbehavior (ie, I can see you are angry at your friend, You look sad
that your turtle died, You really want to stay at the park/in the
store/whatever) and then explaining your feelings and views and
axctually respecting the child as a real human being and working for a
good solution. Of course this is one you, as an adult, can live with,
and whacking the friend because the boy is angry is NOT acceptable, so
*he*, the boy, has to work with you to find a solution that IS
acceptable.
This is only one variant, but the one I see as best. The crucial
thing is to retrain _yourself_. If you swore you would never do X, or
think hitting a child is not what you want to do but all you know how
to do, as that was what your folks did and you survived, then you need
to figure out something _else_ _to_ _do_. You had a lifetime of
subconscious training that you now don't want to inflict on your
chlidren. Great! Let me tell you, you will unless you understand
something to replace it with.
I found in myself tons of "When I grow up I will NEVER do that to a
kid", followed by me doing it. I had failed to actually figure out
why I disliked whatever it was and to then CHANGE it and find a new,
better and more fair and humane answer.
Once I did, then obviously I would not follow in the unconscious
pattern of my parents using corporal punishment. I have something far
better. And I would apply it as much to a boy as to a girl. Boys
have feelings no matter how much most adults seek to stomp them out
and deny them, to make him the Little Man Who Is Stoic and isn't that
cute? By addressing them, validating them but not the action, you can
avoid any need for hitting any child, including boy children. Boys
don't want to leave the playground because it is fun. Accept that,
share his feeling that he would love to stay there all day, then
explain why you can't, talk about when you will return and mention the
fun he had. A boy as well as a girl might run off to do something
fun, when you told them they could not. Don't just hit them for
diobeying you! Say you see why they want to play over there and would
let them if you could, but you said no and they scared you by running
off. And, they get to play in less freedom since they showed
themselves untrustworthy -- explain it all. Kids catch that you
understand they wanted to do whatever, but know you have limits and
will keep them. It works really rather well.
And yes, this means if he says he hates his brother, you respect that,
while trying to get at why he would say that and what you can do
together that would keep him from situations where he ends up hating
his brother. Things like, "He must have made you very mad for you to
say that! What did he do? Uh-huh. Well, let's find a way you two
can play together or be in the same room." Let the kid give some
ideas forst -- always! -- and then add yours. Don't judge the "give
him away to someone else" comments -- that is honestly how he feels,
even if you as a parent seek to socialize him differently. Then find
something that you, as a parent, can live with that he also finds ok,
like alone time, or staying up later without the other brother.
If you tell him, no, you don't _really_ hate your brother, then I bet
you next time he really hurts the brother -- no doubt one of those
"circumstances" where the boy would then be hit by some people. The
same people who would have likely also denied the feelings of a girl,
but at least given her more explanation and understanding of her
feelings. After all, it is ok for girls to talk about feelings.
--
18 Oct '96, the phrase "You Play Like a Girl" ==If equality is viewed
took on an entirely different meaning-American ==as a loss, what does
Basketball League inaugural game. GO LASERS! ==that tell you about the
http://www-leland.stanford.edu/~cfairman/ ==previous situation?
John Aquino
On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:34:20 +0000, LaVonne Carlson
<carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
)> The systematic brutalization of men begins with the common practice
of
)> genital mutilation, and continues with such harmful and sex
)> discriminatory practices as corporal punishment for male children.
)> Raising another generation of violent men begins with the
systematic
)> brutalization of male children, and it really needs to stop now.
)
)Yes, it does need to stop now. Hitting of female children also needs
)to stop. (Both are legal, but little boys do get hit more than
little
)girls. So, how does it stop --- the million dollar question???
)
Oh, don't listen to this whiney little psychologically damaged dweeb.
He's got mental problems because they circumcised him.
As for hitting of children, it can be an appropriate punishment.
There isn't anything you can do if your child is insubordinate but
beat the little shit into submission. What are you going to do, send
him to the corner? Then he'll laugh at you. Then what do you do?
You'll have no control over the little bastard/bitch unless there's a
threat of violence.
J Shearer
sn...@kremlin.martyr.com (John Aquino) writes: > On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 16:34:20 +0000, LaVonne Carlson
Sorry, I must take exception to your statement. I've been a teacher
for 6 1/2 years; all that "beat[ing] the little [ ] into submission"
does is prove that "Bigger=stronger". There are better ways to prove that
obvious fact. You're also an adult, and should be a bit smarter! Take
away some priveledges, toys, etc.---those are much better ways to discip-
line children than assault and battery. (Not to mention being LEGAL!)
In all the years I substitute-taught (maybe you remember how "kind"
you were to the sub.? NOT.), I never once laid a hand on a kid in anger--
and believe me, lots of the little darlings "deserved" to be spanked!! Ex-
cept, no one DESERVES to be battered! Even for a smart mouth, not doing
what they're supposed to do, etc. There are ways that work not only as
well, but better! It just takes patience (easier said than done, I realize
all too well~!), perseverence, and being consistent. No, not easy---but,
what's easy about a parent going to identify the body of their gang-killed
child?
Think about what you're saying/doing! We have a Wave of violence
in America, and it isn't just TV (although that "helps"!) Learn about
child rearing before you have children; we aren't born knowing how to do
it, y'know! It isn't like being President of the United States, where
just anybody off the street can do it! It takes training! :-) Jan
Marg Petersen
In article <33016e74...@204.177.236.3>,
John Aquino <sn...@kremlin.martyr.com> wrote:
>
>As for hitting of children, it can be an appropriate punishment.
>There isn't anything you can do if your child is insubordinate but
>beat the little shit into submission. What are you going to do, send
>him to the corner? Then he'll laugh at you. Then what do you do?
>You'll have no control over the little bastard/bitch unless there's a
>threat of violence.
Now *there's* a good advertisement for parenthood. NOT!!!!
Marg
--
Marg Petersen Member PSEB: Official Sonneteer JLP-SOL
god...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
"At ease Ensign, before you sprain something." - Capt. Janeway
can...@hotmail.com
sn...@kremlin.martyr.com (John Aquino) wrote:
>
>Oh, don't listen to this whiney little psychologically damaged dweeb.
>He's got mental problems because they circumcised him.
>
>There isn't anything you can do if your child is insubordinate but
>Then he'll laugh at you. Then what do you do?
>threat of violence.
If you want to see the vulgarities, re-read snafu's posted article.
Perhaps some children do need to be spanked sometimes by some parents. By
kind and loving parents.
But snafu sounds to be anything but such. Wonder if he would "beat" his
children for using language such as he uses?
Zardoz
John Aquino wrote:
> Oh, don't listen to this whiney little psychologically damaged dweeb.
> He's got mental problems because they circumcised him.
ad-hominem attacks are the last resort of someone who has run out of
logical reasons to justify his unsupportable position. I will count
that as a victory. There is no excuse for violent sexual mutilation of
any child.
John Aquino
On 12 Feb 1997 07:52:17 GMT, J Shearer <jshe...@accessone.com> wrote:
)sn...@kremlin.martyr.com (John Aquino) writes: > On Mon, 10 Feb 1997
16:34:20 +0000, LaVonne Carlson
)> <carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
)> )> The systematic brutalization of men begins with the common
practice
)> of
)> )> genital mutilation, and continues with such harmful and sex
)> )> discriminatory practices as corporal punishment for male
children.
)> )> Raising another generation of violent men begins with the
)> systematic
)> )> brutalization of male children, and it really needs to stop now.
)> )
)> )Yes, it does need to stop now. Hitting of female children also
needs
)>
)> )to stop. (Both are legal, but little boys do get hit more than
)> little
)> )girls. So, how does it stop --- the million dollar question???
)> )
)>
)> Oh, don't listen to this whiney little psychologically damaged
dweeb.
)> He's got mental problems because they circumcised him.
)>
)> As for hitting of children, it can be an appropriate punishment.
)> There isn't anything you can do if your child is insubordinate but
)> beat the little shit into submission. What are you going to do,
send
)> him to the corner? Then he'll laugh at you. Then what do you do?
)> You'll have no control over the little bastard/bitch unless there's
a
)> threat of violence.
)---------------------------------------------
) Sorry, I must take exception to your statement. I've been a
teacher
)for 6 1/2 years; all that "beat[ing] the little [ ] into
submission"
)does is prove that "Bigger=stronger". There are better ways to prove
that
)obvious fact. You're also an adult, and should be a bit smarter!
Take
)away some priveledges, toys, etc.---those are much better ways to
discip-
)line children than assault and battery. (Not to mention being LEGAL!)
) In all the years I substitute-taught (maybe you remember how
"kind"
)you were to the sub.? NOT.), I never once laid a hand on a kid in
anger--
)and believe me, lots of the little darlings "deserved" to be
spanked!! Ex-
)cept, no one DESERVES to be battered! Even for a smart mouth, not
doing
)what they're supposed to do, etc. There are ways that work not only
as
)well, but better! It just takes patience (easier said than done, I
realize
)all too well~!), perseverence, and being consistent. No, not
easy---but,
)what's easy about a parent going to identify the body of their
gang-killed
)child?
) Think about what you're saying/doing! We have a Wave of
violence
)in America, and it isn't just TV (although that "helps"!) Learn
about
)child rearing before you have children; we aren't born knowing how to
do
)it, y'know! It isn't like being President of the United States,
where
)just anybody off the street can do it! It takes training! :-) Jan
Ohh, nonsense.
I will agree that if something else works then violence should be a
last resort.
I'm talking in the 10-17 age, not really young kids - though even then
sometimes you have to spank them. What if your kid gets mad at you
and calls you a "dirty $#@! P$#@ of %$##%$i" and smacks you in the
face? You gonna just tell him to head to his room?
Collins-Russell
> )> As for hitting of children, it can be an appropriate punishment.
> )> There isn't anything you can do if your child is insubordinate but
> )> beat the little shit into submission. What are you going to do,
> send
> )> him to the corner? Then he'll laugh at you. Then what do you do?
> )> You'll have no control over the little bastard/bitch unless there's
> a
> )> threat of violence.
does this person really have children??? if so, WHY?
"you have to have a license to drive a car, even catch a fish, but any butt
reemin asshole can be a father"
quote from the film Parenthood
Cathy
J Shearer
> )> There isn't anything you can do if your child is insubordinate but
> )> beat the little shit into submission. What are you going to do,
> send
> )> him to the corner? Then he'll laugh at you. Then what do you do?
> )> You'll have no control over the little bastard/bitch unless there's
> a
> )> threat of violence.
Sorry, I still don't think that assault and battery are appropriate.
The biggest problem is the parent keeping his/her temper! This kind of
situation needs to be planned for in advance of the "crisis". If you've
decided your home will be "cuss-free", or that "potty-mouth" is not to be
tolerated, this should be made clear to the children from the start. A
situation where the kid is spouting off to the parent in anger can be
dealt with in a number of ways: time-out, a talk, a system of "fines"
(the kid pays part of his/her allowance), any number of things. (And--
do you curse your own kids?? It won't work if you do it, too!)
My mother raised 3 kids herself--I have 2 brothers. She quit spank-
ing my older brother when he was 14 or 15...it was a pretty pointless
exercise, anyway. I know she probably WANTED to kill us (!!:-> ); but,
she found other ways to get us to behave...starting with TALKING to us
about it. I realize there are times when one wants, BADLY, to hit a kid--
but that's the MAIN reason one shouldn't do it!! When one has lost one's
cool, that's most definitely NOT the time to raise one's hand!
You probably think, "Oh, she's one of these 'bleeding hearts';kids
need discipline!" Yeah, you are right! To both thoughts! But, beating
a kid is not "discipline"--it's just taking your frustrations out on some-
one weaker than yourself. Resist the temptation!
Have a plan. Talk to your kids. Get their input about rules. If
they break them, let them know that _they will pay the consequences!_
Being consistent is the key--if it ever gets to the point where brutish
force is "necessary", you've lost! It's time to seek professional help
(I mean, asking a teacher, child-development expert, or just a "successful"
parent you know) for advice.
Also, and this should have come first, know that Positive Reinforce-
ment WORKS!! It took me a few years of sub-teaching to learn to trust it
--it takes some time and "faith", but, boy, does it work!! (Some people
think this is "bribery" I'm talking about--but, no, it can be any kind of
"reward"--a movie, a little "quality time" spent together, praise, a toy
(but don't use things as a promised bribe--just let it come "naturally".)
Well, I'd have to write a book, to say it all...but, it does work!
There is no reason (except for mental illness, alcohol/drug influence, etc.)
that violence should be needed for "normal" children. Most of them want
to please adults, at least until the teens (when they need to disconnect
from their family): if a parent "uses" this at the very start, and pract-
ices Positive Reinforcement, things should work out. Most of the time!:>
Try it! You'll be glad you did! (Read some books on P.Reinforcement
and "behaviorism". (I think behaviorism can go too far, if one is not
careful -- kids are not lab rats! :-0 ) Well, haven't had a chance to
use that MA in teaching for a while! Sincerely, Jan
The Mage
> >Oh, don't listen to this whiney little psychologically damaged dweeb.
> >
> >What are you going to do, send him to the corner?
> >Then he'll laugh at you. Then what do you do?
> >threat of violence.
>
> If you want to see the vulgarities, re-read snafu's posted article.
>
> Perhaps some children do need to be spanked sometimes by some parents. By
> kind and loving parents.
NO! No child needs to be spanked! Adults can and should be strict and
firm in some cases, but there just isn't a case, where spanking should
take place. If there is a need, then it is the need of the adult to feel
that he/she still has the power over the child.
I understand spanking to be humiliating, and there just isn't anything
good in humiliating anybody.
>>> The Mage <<<
Who Am I
John Aquino <sn...@kremlin.martyr.com> wrote in article
<3307a8a0...@204.177.236.3>...
> On 12 Feb 1997 07:52:17 GMT, J Shearer <jshe...@accessone.com> wrote:
>
> )sn...@kremlin.martyr.com (John Aquino) writes: > On Mon, 10 Feb 1997
> 16:34:20 +0000, LaVonne Carlson
> )> <carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
> )> )> The systematic brutalization of men begins with the common
> practice
> )> of
> )> )> genital mutilation, and continues with such harmful and sex
> )> )> discriminatory practices as corporal punishment for male
> children.
> )> )> Raising another generation of violent men begins with the
> )> systematic
> )> )> brutalization of male children, and it really needs to stop now.
> )> )
> )> )Yes, it does need to stop now. Hitting of female children also
> needs
> )>
> )> )to stop. (Both are legal, but little boys do get hit more than
> )> little
> )> )girls. So, how does it stop --- the million dollar question???
> )> )
> )>
> )> Oh, don't listen to this whiney little psychologically damaged
> dweeb.
> )> He's got mental problems because they circumcised him.
> )>
> )> As for hitting of children, it can be an appropriate punishment.
> )> There isn't anything you can do if your child is insubordinate but
> )> beat the little shit into submission. What are you going to do,
> send
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------
If a child, "calls you a dirty $#@!.." and then, "smacks you in the
face"! Hitting him or her back, is probably the last thing you should do!
What would you be teaching them? Think about it. The child has
problems, that they need help with. As the "ADULT", I would hope that you
would find it for them!
You may ask for some "proof" on the above statement. Would a letter from a
doctor be enough for you?
Lisa
__________________________________________________________________
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Debbb80148 (debbb...@aol.com) wrote:
: I don't see what the big deal is.
Few people do. The attitude that males of all ages are less
worthy of compassion/concern than women pervades our culture. We
circumcise only boys, register only boys for the military draft, etc.
Movies and TV routinely serve up mayhem against males which would result
in widespread outrage and boycotts if the depicted victims were female.
Charities seeking sponsors for needy children overseas virtually always
depict a little girl in their advertisements because they know a little
girl will inspire more sympathy in a potential donor than a little boy in
similarly desperate straits. The list goes on and on. Few people even
notice these kinds of gender inequities, and when brought to their notice,
even fewer can figure out why anyone would want to make a "big deal" about
violence against mere males.
: I grew up in a family where my
: brothers were spanked and my sister and I were not.
Have you ever *seriously* thought about this, rather than merely
accepting it as "no big deal?" If spankings are harmless and beneficial
for boys, why should girls be excluded from the alleged benefits? If
spanking is harmful and unbeneficial for girls, why should it be inflicted
on boys? We are not talking about two different species here. We are
talking about male and female juvenile humans. We are talking about our
*children*!
: In the public schools
: that we attended, boys were paddled, girls were not.
In the past couple of years, prospankers have began to evoke Big
Government as wading in on the antispank side to persecute loving parents
for lovingly whipping their kids black and blue. But they forget that in
the USA "the government," through the public school systems, is the single
largest perpetrator of violence against children. Every year, hundreds of
thousands of (mostly-male) children, perhaps millions, are "paddled" by
government employees as part of their jobs in publically-funded schools.
I think that if school paddling were something done primarily or
exclusively to girls, it would have been abolished in all 50 US states
years ago. As it is, abolitionists still face a difficult uphill battle
to ban this medieval practice in the 23 states which still permit it.
: That boys were spanked was considered perfectly natural, and no one
: made such a big issue over it.
Back then, it was also legal for husbands in all 50 US states to
rape their wives. No one made a big issue out of *this* back then,
either. Your point is...?
: Sure, the boys didn't like getting spanked. You would hardly
: expect them to! But, they accepted it in stride, and I am firmly
: convinced, they learned from it. ^^^^^^^^^^^
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
So by depriving girls of this alleged fount of "learning" we are
accomplishing... what? *Someone* is being discriminated against here.
Either girls are being excluded from a beneficial influence on their
education which is unfairly earmarked for boys only, or else boys are
being saddled with violent, degrading forms of torture which their
sisters never need to cope with simply because they were born female.
: My parents believed, and I think
: rightly, that girls in our culture need to have it ingrained in them from
: a very early age that no one should ever touch them in an aggressive way.
: Hence, they believed that spanking for girls was inappropriate.
So, you think that boys *should* be taught that other people *do*
have the right to touch *them* in aggressive ways??? Why on earth would
anyone want to convey such an idea to their child, even if the child *was*
born with a Y chromosome?!
: While my brothers were spanked by either of our parents, my father
: only gave spankings for the more minor offenses the boys committed. More
: serious spankings were left to our mother to administer. Mom was an early
: Feminist,
A "feminist" against gender equality... A "feminist" in favor of
tender, gentle treatment for females and harsh, callous violence against
males... With "feminists" like these, who needs patriarchs? One sex
cannot be "more equal" than the other. Either both sexes gain more
equality with each other or both lose. The roles, expectations, and fates
of girls, boys, men, and women are so intricately interlaced, that any
discrimination against one *always* winds up hurting the other, often in
quite unforseen ways. (For example, preferential mothers-only parental
leave laws result in increased discrimination in hiring against women of
child-bearing age). If you single out male children for special violent
treatment, don't be surprised when they grow up to inflict more violence
on others, including women. The only way to stop gender iniquities is to
stop *all* of them, including the ones which single out males for
ill-treatment.
: who saw the difference in the subliminal messages communicated
: between "Wait until your father gets home," and, "Wait until your _mother_
: gets home!" Mom wanted to make sure that the boys would be able to see
: women as ultimate authority wielders, not just men.
This is spousal abuse training. These boys are being taught that
in the household, the bigger, stronger people have the right to hit and
hurt the smaller, weaker people at their whim. They are also being forced
to store up a reservoir of repressed hatred and resentment which may only
spill out into the open years later when they themselves have children,
and wives, to hit. Spanking is a form of domestic violence. All forms of
domestic violence help perpetuate one another by various means. If we
want to raise boys to become men who will never beat their wives and
children, we need to model nonviolent methods of discipline,
problem-solving, and interpersonal negotiation for them during their
formative years. Otherwise, we are just perpetuating a cycle which
eventually includes male violence against women and girls, rather than
just "mere" female violence against boys.
: While I do not yet have any children of my own, I have no doubt that
: I will continue my mother's disciplinary practices in my home.
The more often a person was physically punished as a child, the
more aggressive behavior they exhibit while growing up (Strassberg, et.
al, 1994) and the more domestic assaults and other crimes they commit in
adolescence and adulthood (Straus, 1991). Why would you want to put your
boys at greater risk of becoming violent, antisocial men some day?
Please, before you have children of your own, examime the evidence
in the research literature, and examine your own conscience. Consider the
possibility that the way your family of origin treated boys vs girls may
not be the best environment for the sons you may someday bear.
Chris, who hopes that the father of debbb80148's children will give X
chromosomes to all of them, ensuring that they will all get a nonviolent
start in life, regardless of whether or not debbb80148 ever changes her
mind about the appropriateness of hitting "for boys only."
REFERENCES
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Dor1937 (dor...@aol.com) wrote:
: As usual, someone has expressed an intelligent, well-reasoned,
: pro-feminist view in this newsgroup,
What exactly do you find so "well reasoned" about saying "I grew
up in a family in which only the boys were physically punished and not the
girls, so what's the big deal?" That is not "reasoning." This is just
indifference.
: and one of the closed-minded
: anti-spanking gestapo has replied with the same tired, issue ignoring
: nonsense.
Perhaps you would like to explain exactly which parts of my
argument were "nonsense" and which "issues" you think I ignored? I don't
think you actually have a defensible case, and hereby challenge you or
debbb80148 to prove otherwise. Do you dispute the studies which link
physical punishment in childhood with higher instances of spousal abuse in
adulthood? On what grounds? Do you dispute the idea of gender equality
itself? If so, what does being a "profeminist" even pretend to mean
anymore? On the other hand, do you think that violence against male
children and only male children *is* "equality?" If so, why can't I find
that particular definition of "equality" in my dictionary?
: I guess I shouldn't be surprised, but I am disappointed.
: Debbb80148, at least this mother who had considerable experience with both
: boys and girls, agrees with you, and isn't afraid to say it. Thanks for
: having the courage to speak up in this sea of intolerance. Doris
Physically punishing boys more frequently and more harshly than
girls is an old-fashioned, arguably "patriarchal" tradition going back
centuries. Please, let's not pretend that it is something bold and new, or
that its advocates courageously forge ahead through a "sea of
intolerance." This practice of harsher treatment against male children
predates "feminism" of any variety by hundreds of years, perhaps
thousands. By defending this kind of discriminatory violence against
little boys, you are perpetuating moribund gender stereotypes about
females and males. Why would a "profeminist" want to toughen up and
desensitize her sons by hurting them, while giving her daughters the
message that they are delicate little flowers who can't be expected to
"take" what the boys routinely "take?" Furthermore, by promoting a
childrearing practice for boys which has been linked to higher rates of
wife-beating later in life (Straus & Kantor, 1994) you may well be
*adding* to the problem of violence against women a generation down the
road.
I would also argue that growing up with mothers who hit only their
sons but never their daughters helps to fuel the fires of misogyny. All
the hatred and resentment of their violent mothers which these boys have
to repress throughout their childhood can later be dumped on endless
symbolic, substitute female targets. Hitting and hurting helpless little
boys harder and more often than girls does not benefit women in the long
run. If it did, we would have seen evidence of this supposed benefit
centuries ago.
Please favor us with a "well-reasoned" "pro-feminist" rebutal to
these points... if you can.
Chris
REFERENCES
Straus, M.A. and Kantor, G.K. 1994. "Corporal Punishment of Adolescents
By Parents: A Risk Factor in the Epidemiology of Depression, Suicide,
Alcohol Abuse, Child Abuse, and Wife Beating." _Adolescence_
29(115):543-561.
bob lego
I believe in corporal punishment .Here are a few examples of
situations where it could be apropriate.
The kid is 4 years old and runs up to the tea pot that is filled
with boiling water...he tries to push it over as you sit there with
your guest. He runs away and laughs.You tell him or her 10 times about
the harm and danger to themselves and others.
They continue to do it...feeling the pain of a good smack on the bum
would be a considerable improvment over third degree burns.
Also, the child might understand better what pain is...
It can also teach obedience...
Even nature teaches us by pain....if I wanted to see if a car tire
driving over my foot was like,I'd think twice based on the possibility
that it might just hurt , kinda like the time I dropped the rock on my
toe.
I certainly do not agree with grabing the kid by the hair and punching
him in the mouth but I think that pain can be a great teacher.
LaVonne Carlson
bob lego wrote:
>
> I believe in corporal punishment .Here are a few examples of
> situations where it could be apropriate.
> The kid is 4 years old and runs up to the tea pot that is filled
> with boiling water...he tries to push it over as you sit there with
> your guest. He runs away and laughs.You tell him or her 10 times about
> the harm and danger to themselves and others.
> They continue to do it...feeling the pain of a good smack on the bum would be a considerable improvment over third degree burns.
You are the adult -- move the pot of tea, for goodness sake. The pain
from you hitting your child or third degree burns are not your only
alternatives.
> Also, the child might understand better what pain is...
Yes -- pain that you inflict on him or her. Do you want your child to
learn that you are dangerous and cause pain or that boiling water is
dangerous and causes pain?
> It can also teach obedience...
No, it teaches that causing pain to others smaller and weaker is an
appropriate way to handle problems and control others.
>
> Even nature teaches us by pain....if I wanted to see if a car tire
> driving over my foot was like,I'd think twice based on the possibility
> that it might just hurt , kinda like the time I dropped the rock on my
> toe.
No one hit you in order to teach you that dropping a rock on your toe
causes pain, did they? Would being hit help you understand the
consequences of driving over your foot or dropping rocks on your toe?
Of course not. Why do you think hitting and hurting your child
teaches him/her the dangers of hot water?
> I certainly do not agree with grabing the kid by the hair and punching
> him in the mouth but I think that pain can be a great teacher.
Considering what a wonderful teacher pain is, why would you object to
grabbing the kid by the hair and punching him in the mouth? Just think
what the kid could learn from all that pain! Bet he'd never touch that
teapot again!
LaVonne
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
bob lego (wo...@cam.org) wrote:
: I believe in corporal punishment .Here are a few examples of
: situations where it could be apropriate.
: The kid is 4 years old and runs up to the tea pot that is filled
: with boiling water...he tries to push it over as you sit there with
: your guest. He runs away and laughs.You tell him or her 10 times about
: the harm and danger to themselves and others.
: They continue to do it...feeling the pain of a good smack on the bum
: would be a considerable improvment over third degree burns.
Why is a pot of boiling water sitting within a preschooler's
reach in the first place?
: Also, the child might understand better what pain is...
Every 4-year-old already knows what pain is, simply as a result of
the bumps and scrapes which are a routine and inevitable part of growing
up. Parents do not need to deliberately hurt their child in order to
teach the child what pain is.
: It can also teach obedience...
It teaches fear. There is a difference. Punishment for
disobedience does not teach obedience, but rather, fear of being caught
disobeying. The solution is to disobey in more sneaky ways so as not to
get caught.
: Even nature teaches us by pain....if I wanted to see if a car tire
: driving over my foot was like,I'd think twice based on the possibility
: that it might just hurt , kinda like the time I dropped the rock on my
: toe.
These are not punishments. These are natural consequences. You
have picked two poor examples.
: I certainly do not agree with grabing the kid by the hair and punching
: him in the mouth but I think that pain can be a great teacher.
So, how do you feel about the use of electric cattle prods on
children? If pain is so beneficial to the child, why risk injury by
physically hitting the child when the wonders of modern technology have
now given us the ability to inflict pure pain without any risk of tissue
damage?
Chris
Albert Cheng
In article <5egisb$8...@tandem.CAM.ORG>, wo...@cam.org (bob lego) writes:
>
>I believe in corporal punishment .Here are a few examples of
>situations where it could be apropriate.
> The kid is 4 years old and runs up to the tea pot that is filled
>with boiling water...he tries to push it over as you sit there with
>your guest. He runs away and laughs.You tell him or her 10 times about
>the harm and danger to themselves and others.
> They continue to do it...feeling the pain of a good smack on the bum
>
>would be a considerable improvment over third degree burns.
That may terminate the misbehavior but I am not sure what the
kid has learned. If he could not be convinced that the hot
tea pot could burn him, how did a whack on the bum convince
him the hot tea pot could burn him? It was more
likely that he learned any more running would result in another
whack. Worse yet, he may also learn if someone is not obeying
him, he can use a whack to get that person to obey.
The other night, my 3 yo boy somehow got hold of a ice scrapper
and started waving it around joyfully. I told him not to
play with that thing. He continued. Finally, I firmly asked
him to hand me that scrapper. He had some hesistation but
did comply. Then I told him the sharp corner of the scrapper
could hurt him and I poked his hand *gently* with the corner.
He seemed to understand what I told him.
Well, the following day when I returned from work, my wife
told me during the day, the boy mumbled to himself, "don't
play the scrapper because it pokes hands." I considered that
a small reward for my fatherhood. :-)
>Even nature teaches us by pain....if I wanted to see if a car tire
>driving over my foot was like,I'd think twice based on the possibility
>that it might just hurt , kinda like the time I dropped the rock on my
>toe.
>
>I certainly do not agree with grabing the kid by the hair and punching
>him in the mouth but I think that pain can be a great teacher.
I would suggest try other means first and save spanking as
the absolute last resort for really serious misbehavior.
Ummo & Lyrian
> The other night, my 3 yo boy somehow got hold of a ice scrapper
> and started waving it around joyfully. I told him not to
> play with that thing. He continued. Finally, I firmly asked
> him to hand me that scrapper. He had some hesistation but
> did comply. Then I told him the sharp corner of the scrapper
> could hurt him and I poked his hand *gently* with the corner.
> He seemed to understand what I told him.
>
> Well, the following day when I returned from work, my wife
> told me during the day, the boy mumbled to himself, "don't
> play the scrapper because it pokes hands." I considered that
> a small reward for my fatherhood. :-)
teaches them anything. They just learn that sometimes Mom or Dad
looses control and gets angry. The parent needs to set an example
in his or her self-control. Kids who are whacked learn to react with
anger. Ever watch kis play? Ever notice how some kids constantly
come unglued? My kids are reserved while playing, because hopefully
I have set an example for them. I used to teach children who were
constantly being "whacked". They were the most difficult children
to deal with. Frankly they had no control whatsoever. Why? Because
Mom or Dad can't control him or herself when angry.
Zandra
wo...@cam.org (bob lego) wrote:
*
*I believe in corporal punishment .Here are a few examples of
*situations where it could be apropriate.
* The kid is 4 years old and runs up to the tea pot that is filled
*with boiling water...he tries to push it over as you sit there with
*your guest. He runs away and laughs.You tell him or her 10 times
about
*the harm and danger to themselves and others.
* They continue to do it...feeling the pain of a good smack on the
bum
*would be a considerable improvment over third degree burns.
*Also, the child might understand better what pain is...
* It can also teach obedience...
In effect, you are saying that you are smacking the kid because you
care about him... you are *so* worried about what might happen to him
that hitting him is the only way to protect him. If you were being
honest, you would say that you're pissed off because the kid is
defying you and you're putting him back in his place. He doesn't
"learn his lesson", he doesn't suddenly become obedient. He is
subdued for reasons that a four year old simply can't understand.
"Listen to daddy when he talks to you! He will hit you if you don't!"
Spanking is a euphemism for being beaten into submission, much like
"molestation" is a euphemism for child rape.
*I certainly do not agree with grabing the kid by the hair and
punching
*him in the mouth but I think that pain can be a great teacher.
What does it teach? If the child hurts himself, he learns not to
repeat the behavior. If you hurt the child before he has any
knowledge about the pain his behavior can cause, he learns to be
afraid of *you,* not the hot water, not the broken glass, not the
third degree burns.
A child that has left its mother's womb is an *individual* and must be
treated with respect. It is not a possession, it is not yours to bat
around as you please, no matter what's going on that you don't like.
Nobody owns an individual, unless you believe in slavery. You don't
teach with violence, and violence has never been and never will be
synonymous with "guidance." You can easily warp or destroy the
child's spirit, and if you are comfortable with that.... *sigh* I do
not envy said child.
Zandra.
anon...@anon.twwells.com
http://www.trailerpark.com/phase2/femenina
Lane Browning
John Aquino wrote:
>
> On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:37:44 -0800, Ummo & Lyrian
> <re...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> )> The other night, my 3 yo boy somehow got hold of a ice scrapper
> )> and started waving it around joyfully. I told him not to
> )> play with that thing. He continued. Finally, I firmly asked
> )> him to hand me that scrapper. He had some hesistation but
> )> did comply. Then I told him the sharp corner of the scrapper
> )> could hurt him and I poked his hand *gently* with the corner.
> )> He seemed to understand what I told him.
> )>
> )> Well, the following day when I returned from work, my wife
> )> told me during the day, the boy mumbled to himself, "don't
> )> play the scrapper because it pokes hands." I considered that
> )> a small reward for my fatherhood. :-)
> )
> )I agree with this person. I do not thinking that whacking kids
> really
> )teaches them anything. They just learn that sometimes Mom or Dad
> )looses control and gets angry. The parent needs to set an example
> )in his or her self-control. Kids who are whacked learn to react with
> )anger. Ever watch kis play? Ever notice how some kids constantly
> )come unglued? My kids are reserved while playing, because hopefully
> )I have set an example for them. I used to teach children who were
> )constantly being "whacked". They were the most difficult children
> )to deal with. Frankly they had no control whatsoever. Why? Because
> )Mom or Dad can't control him or herself when angry.
>
> Girls raised in this loose manner are often "loose" when they hit 13,
> and boys raised in this manner are often completely lazy slackers or
> criminals.
What? Did I miss a leap in deductive reasoning here? Where is the evidence? My
brothers were not spanked; they are both scientists and professors and pacifists. My
sister and I were never "loose" (I kept my virginity, if it's any of your business,
until I was 21).
>
> But hey - let your kids do as they please. No skin off my back unless
> one of the little hoodlems tries to rob me.
Who said that "not spanking" means "letting our kids do as they please"? Can we find a
way to remain rational about this? It sounds as though if I were in the room with you
you would PUNCH me to wise me up.
Are you aware of the studies showing that violent criminal were often "hit" kids? I
know of no study showing that kids "not spanked" become "hoodlums." My son does not
"step all over me." He does what he's told. He never touches anything he's not
supposed to.
If that parent smacked her kid for touching the teapot, it's possible he would think
"Hmm, gotta wait until Mom is outta the room before I touch the teapot."
Corporal punishment doesn't make perfect children. Nor does lack of corporal
punishment make imperfect children. My son isn't perfect, but he is certainly the exact
opposite of a hellion. All I have to say is "I'll feel bad if you don't do____" and he
does it.
I'm not saying I'm "right." I'm only saying...uh...
that
you're wrong.
-
Lane Browning
John Aquino wrote:
>
>
> Police should be touchy-feely like you people are and let criminals
> walk all over them. What a joy that would be. Then your thug
> children could run reign over all of us instead of just you.
How did you get to be this way, John?
>
> Here's a free clue: There is no way to control another human if there
> is not the possibility of physical violence.
>
> This is an absolute fact.
This is absolute nonsense. In a MAJORITY of contries on this planet, parents do not hit
their children. Japanese parents never lay a hand on their children (except to caress).
Violent crime is almost non-existent in Japan (as is the "loose" behavior that so
terrifies you with respect to females). Go to China, Switzerland, Denmark...
oh hell, what's the use or doing verbal battle witih an unarmed man...
>
> ): It can also teach obedience...
> )
> ) It teaches fear. There is a difference. Punishment for
> )disobedience does not teach obedience, but rather, fear of being
> caught
> )disobeying. The solution is to disobey in more sneaky ways so as not
> to
> )get caught.
>
> Yeah, nice crackpot theory there.
>
> I guess this is true of _any_ punishment, genius. Better not punish
> your children at all, eh?
>
> And like that idiot in another message in this thread said, better not
> say "no" or "that's bad". Might damage the poor child!
>
> Pure genius. If your children have/will turn out decently then I
> assure you _you_ have nothing to do with it. Thank your teachers,
> thank random chance, and thank everyone else around you. Do _not_
> thank yourselves.
>
> ) So, how do you feel about the use of electric cattle prods on
> )children? If pain is so beneficial to the child, why risk injury by
> )physically hitting the child when the wonders of modern technology
> have
> )now given us the ability to inflict pure pain without any risk of
> tissue
> )damage?
>
> Is this supposed to make us revel in the absurdity of corporal
> punishment by taking it to its logical extreme?
>
> Here's one for you, rocket surgeon.
>
> So, how do you feel about sending your child to a chair for a "time-
> -out" with no food until he dies of hunger in his chair?
>
> Gee - logical extremes are fun, eh?
--
Today is the day. Now is the time.
J Shearer
ach...@fuga.ncsa.uiuc.edu (Albert Cheng) writes: > In article <5egisb$8...@tandem.CAM.ORG>, wo...@cam.org (bob lego) writes:
> >
> >I believe in corporal punishment .Here are a few examples of
> >
>
> kid has learned. If he could not be convinced that the hot
> tea pot could burn him, how did a whack on the bum convince
> him the hot tea pot could burn him? It was more
> likely that he learned any more running would result in another
> whack. Worse yet, he may also learn if someone is not obeying
> him, he can use a whack to get that person to obey.
>
>
>
> >driving over my foot was like,I'd think twice based on the possibility
> >that it might just hurt , kinda like the time I dropped the rock on my
> >toe.
> >
>
> the absolute last resort for really serious misbehavior.
Hi, Albert! Thanks for the real-life example! People don't give
kids enough credit sometimes, for being able to understand things. BTW,
how cold is it in Champaign now? I'm an Alumna of the Big U! :-> Jan
John Aquino
On 20 Feb 1997 20:01:05 GMT, cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( ) wrote:
): They continue to do it...feeling the pain of a good smack on the
bum
): would be a considerable improvment over third degree burns.
)
) Why is a pot of boiling water sitting within a preschooler's
)reach in the first place?
Ooh, righteousness at its best. I'm sure you're a better parent than
anyone else.
Do you know how hight the average stove is. Now, what is the average
height of a 4 year old.
Do the math, brain scientist.
): Also, the child might understand better what pain is...
)
) Every 4-year-old already knows what pain is, simply as a
result of
)the bumps and scrapes which are a routine and inevitable part of
growing
)up. Parents do not need to deliberately hurt their child in order to
)teach the child what pain is.
Maybe the police should practice this theory, eh? I mean - why should
any human be subjected to force or pain?
Police should be touchy-feely like you people are and let criminals
walk all over them. What a joy that would be. Then your thug
children could run reign over all of us instead of just you.
Here's a free clue: There is no way to control another human if there
is not the possibility of physical violence.
This is an absolute fact.
): It can also teach obedience...
Nightweb
BZZZZ, WRONG!
PROVEN FACT, the best way to control another human is by mental
control.. anyone with some kind of education in human behavior knows
that, violence only gives the illusion that 'strongest one is right',
and we all know how right that is.... I hope..
Doug
In <33146eac...@204.177.236.3> sn...@kremlin.martyr.com (John
snafu kremlin, I don't like you. I don't like the personal insulting
names you call people who disagree with you, and I don't like your
misanthropist (people-hating) opinions. I'm glad you are not part of
my life.
Why don't you stick to punishing yourself?
J Shearer
sn...@kremlin.martyr.com (John Aquino) writes: > On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:37:44 -0800, Ummo & Lyrian
> Girls raised in this loose manner are often "loose" when they hit 13,
> and boys raised in this manner are often completely lazy slackers or
> criminals.
I THINK YOU PULLED IT OUTA THE "PLACE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!" IT SURE
SMELLS LIKE IT! WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE OF SUCH A RIDICULOUS STATEMENT??
JAN
> But hey - let your kids do as they please. No skin off my back unless
> one of the little hoodlems tries to rob me.
---------IF SUCH A THING SHOULD COME TO PASS, I CAN PRACTICALLY GUARENTEE
THE PERPS WERE BEATEN AS KIDS! GET REAL--DO SOME RESEARCH, INSTEAD OF
REPEATING "OLD HUSBANDS' TALES"! --JAN, WHO AT LEAST HAS READ SOME BOOKS
ON THE SUBJECT OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT, AND HAS ALMOST 9 YEARS' EXPERIENCE
DEALING WITH KIDS IN THE WORST CIRCUMSTANCES: SUBSTITUTE TEACHING!!
John Aquino
Girls raised in this loose manner are often "loose" when they hit 13,
and boys raised in this manner are often completely lazy slackers or
criminals.
But hey - let your kids do as they please. No skin off my back unless
B
John Aquino wrote:
>
> On 20 Feb 1997 20:01:05 GMT, cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( ) wrote:
>
> ): They continue to do it...feeling the pain of a good smack on the
> )
> ) Why is a pot of boiling water sitting within a preschooler's
>
> Ooh, righteousness at its best. I'm sure you're a better parent than
> anyone else.
>
> Do you know how hight the average stove is. Now, what is the average
> height of a 4 year old.
>
her own power for a while, has learned an initial set of language
skills, and has picked up a vast number of concepts, most likely
including "hot" and "cold" and "hurt." (For a good online resource about
children's phenominal capabilities for learning between birth and five
years, check out http://www.nando.com/nao/2little2late/explore/.) She
has a vocabulary and an understanding of natural consequences.
> Do the math, brain scientist.
>
> ): Also, the child might understand better what pain is...
> )
> ) Every 4-year-old already knows what pain is, simply as a
> ) result of the bumps and scrapes which are a routine and
> ) inevitable part of growing up. Parents do not need to
> ) deliberately hurt their child in order to teach the child
> ) what pain is.
>
> Maybe the police should practice this theory, eh? I mean - why should
> any human be subjected to force or pain?
>
> Police should be touchy-feely like you people are and let criminals
> walk all over them. What a joy that would be. Then your thug
> children could run reign over all of us instead of just you.
>
> Here's a free clue: There is no way to control another human if there
> is not the possibility of physical violence.
>
> This is an absolute fact.
>
Why do you liken children to criminals and parents to police? Other than
the fact that children have very few rights and are expected to obey
their parents, I see no correlation. The vast number of people in our
society obey police, even when it may not be necessary and the officer
may be overstepping legal mandates. Even then, police do not have the
sort of carte blanc that our society awards parents.
Your "free clue" is worth exactly what you charged for it. Do you obey
our laws because you fear that a police officer will beat you if you
don't? Do you pay taxes because you believe that IRS agents will rough
you up if you don't? Do you stay off the grass at your local park
because you expect a ranger to slap you if you don't? Do you treat your
spouse and your minister with respect because they will physically hurt
you if you don't? Did you do your homework in college because you were
afraid your professor would take a paddle to your backend if you didn't?
Do you do what your employer says (regardless of your personal feelings
about the project) because you expect him to hit you if you didn't? What
about the mind control practiced by certain cult leaders?
> ): It can also teach obedience...
> )
> ) It teaches fear. There is a difference. Punishment for
> ) disobedience does not teach obedience, but rather, fear of being
> ) caught disobeying. The solution is to disobey in more sneaky ways
> ) so as not to get caught.
>
> Yeah, nice crackpot theory there.
>
Actually, the director of my daughter's old Montessori school told me
that hitting children does indeed lead them to sneak and lie. It's only
logical. If a caretaker imposes physical pain rather than rational
discipline to "teach a lesson," the lesson learned is: If I am caught, I
am hurt. When rational discipline is used, the lesson learned centers on
the activity rather than the discovery.
> I guess this is true of _any_ punishment, genius. Better not punish
> your children at all, eh?
>
It is better to enlighten than to punish.
> And like that idiot in another message in this thread said, better not
> say "no" or "that's bad". Might damage the poor child!
>
> Pure genius. If your children have/will turn out decently then I
> assure you _you_ have nothing to do with it. Thank your teachers,
> thank random chance, and thank everyone else around you. Do _not_
> thank yourselves.
>
However, if my non-spanked child becomes a teen mother or a delinquent
or a criminal, I've got nobody to blame but myself? If my parents didn't
spank me when I was a child and I turned out decently, I shouldn't
respect them or thank them for teaching me to think and behave logically
and rationally? If I were a spanked child and became a criminal, who
gets the blame?
> ) So, how do you feel about the use of electric cattle prods on
> ) children? If pain is so beneficial to the child, why risk injury by
> ) physically hitting the child when the wonders of modern technology
> ) have now given us the ability to inflict pure pain without any risk of
> ) tissue damage?
>
> Is this supposed to make us revel in the absurdity of corporal
> punishment by taking it to its logical extreme?
>
> Here's one for you, rocket surgeon.
>
> So, how do you feel about sending your child to a chair for a "time-
> -out" with no food until he dies of hunger in his chair?
>
> Gee - logical extremes are fun, eh?
No, they are hyperbole.
"B"
--Outland Navigator--
ga...@mersinet.co.uk wrote:
>
> In Article<330E72...@worldnet.att.net>, <rain...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > Path: news.mersinet.co.uk!btnet-feed1!btnet!netcom.net.uk!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!worldnet.att.net!newsadm
> > From: Lane Browning <rain...@worldnet.att.net>
> > Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
> > Subject: Re: Spanking: For Boys Only...
> > Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:14:16 -0800
> > Organization: word wizards
> > Lines: 66
> > Message-ID: <330E72...@worldnet.att.net>
> > References: <5drsrh$4...@kanga.accessone.com> <5egisb$8...@tandem.CAM.ORG> <5eiai1$m...@carbon.cudenver.edu> <33146eac...@204.177.236.3>
> > NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.147.120.252
> > Mime-Version: 1.0
> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> > Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> > X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E (Win95; U)
> > Xref: news.mersinet.co.uk alt.parenting.spanking:6387 misc.kids:2667 soc.men:4880 soc.women:5361 alt.feminism:32550
> >
> > John Aquino wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Police should be touchy-feely like you people are and let criminals
> > > walk all over them. What a joy that would be. Then your thug
> > > children could run reign over all of us instead of just you.
> >
> >
> > >
> > > is not the possibility of physical violence.
> > >
> > > This is an absolute fact.
> >
> > their children. Japanese parents never lay a hand on their children (except to caress).
> > Violent crime is almost non-existent in Japan (as is the "loose" behavior that so
> > terrifies you with respect to females). Go to China, Switzerland, Denmark...
> >
> > oh hell, what's the use or doing verbal battle witih an unarmed man...
> > >
> > > )
> > > ) It teaches fear. There is a difference. Punishment for
> > > caught
> > > )disobeying. The solution is to disobey in more sneaky ways so as not
> > > to
> > >
> > > Yeah, nice crackpot theory there.
> > >
> > > your children at all, eh?
> > >
> > > say "no" or "that's bad". Might damage the poor child!
> > >
> > > Pure genius. If your children have/will turn out decently then I
> > > assure you _you_ have nothing to do with it. Thank your teachers,
> > > thank random chance, and thank everyone else around you. Do _not_
> > > thank yourselves.
> > >
> > > )physically hitting the child when the wonders of modern technology
> > > have
> > > )now given us the ability to inflict pure pain without any risk of
> > > tissue
> > > )damage?
> > >
> > > Is this supposed to make us revel in the absurdity of corporal
> > > punishment by taking it to its logical extreme?
> > >
> > > Here's one for you, rocket surgeon.
> > >
> > > So, how do you feel about sending your child to a chair for a "time-
> > > -out" with no food until he dies of hunger in his chair?
> > >
> > > Gee - logical extremes are fun, eh?
> >
> > Today is the day. Now is the time.
> >
> >
****************************************************
Women become Dictators, When the children push
them to the brink...
Go to any Market and just stand back and watch
the degradation in action...
then some will wonder why, women get slapped.
sauce for the goose...Spock said...
****************************************************
Aneon-6.
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
John Aquino (sn...@kremlin.martyr.com) wrote:
: On 20 Feb 1997 20:01:05 GMT, cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( ) wrote:
: ): They continue to do it...feeling the pain of a good smack on the
: ): bum would be a considerable improvment over third degree burns.
: )
: ) Why is a pot of boiling water sitting within a preschooler's
: )reach in the first place?
: Ooh, righteousness at its best. I'm sure you're a better parent than
: anyone else.
When confronted with a question you can't answer, resort to
sarcasm and ridicule. Anything to avoid addressing the question, right?
: Do you know how hight the average stove is.
No.
: Now, what is the average height of a 4 year old.
According to the National Center for Health Statistics, U.S. Dept.
of Health and Human Services, the median average height of 4-year-old boys
and girls is 102.9 cm. and 101.6 cm. respectively. Not that it matters...
: Do the math, brain scientist.
There is no need for "math." Dangerous objects in the home should
not be within the reach of preschoolers, period. If you have to put up a
gate to keep the child out of the kitchen, or put the stove up on
cinderblocks in order to keep pots out of the child's reach, you just do
it, that's all. An unwillingness to make any childproofing adjustments in
the home is not evidence of the necessity of spanking, but of the laziness
and irresponsibility on the part of certain parents.
: ): Also, the child might understand better what pain is...
: )
: ) Every 4-year-old already knows what pain is, simply as a
: )result of the bumps and scrapes which are a routine and inevitable
: )part of growing up. Parents do not need to deliberately hurt their
: )child in order to teach the child what pain is.
: Maybe the police should practice this theory, eh? I mean - why should
: any human be subjected to force or pain?
You are equating the parent/child relationship with the
relationship between police and criminals. I think this tells us more
about *you* and about your perception of children than it tells us about
proper childrearing practices. The police and courts are designed to deal
with the most violent, ruthless, sociopathic, and predatory members of
society. Is this the way you see your children? If not, why have you so
quickly jumped to criminology from kid-ology? You have a very bleak, grim
view of children indeed, Mr. Aquino.
Also, for what it's worth, even the U.S. police, courts and
prisons are forbidden to use corporal punishment on adults. No adult may
be physically punished, under the law. So even if an adult commits the
most atrocious crimes imaginable, he or she cannot be spanked, but a
curious 4-year-old who reaches for an interesting-looking object which the
adults in its life have thoughtlessly left within its reach can? Why do we
have a more protective standard for adults than we have for children, who
are the most emotionally-vulnerable members of society?
: Police should be touchy-feely like you people are and let criminals
: walk all over them. What a joy that would be. Then your thug
: children could run reign over all of us instead of just you.
Please explain, then why children who are spanked the most turn
out to exhibit the *most* aggression against other children at school
(Strassberg et. al., 1994)?
Why are children who are spanked the most also the most likely to
grow up to be child abusers and criminals (Straus & Kantor, 1994)?
Why do persons who were *never* spanked as children have the
*lowest* rate of assault and theft (Straus, 1991)?
Why is it virtually impossible to find *any* maximum-security
prison inmates who were *not* physically punished as children, even though
one *can* find such individuals in the general population (Maurer, 1974)?
Show me a criminal thug, Mr. Aquino, and I will show you a person
who was physically punished in childhood. The assertion that prisons are
full of the never-spanked is a baseless myth which has been thoroughly
debunked by evidence many times over the past 50 years. But certain
people continue to make the assertion anyhow, without a scrap of
supporting evidence. You, Mr. Aquino, appear to be one of those people.
: Here's a free clue: There is no way to control another human if there
: is not the possibility of physical violence.
Even if we assume the above to be true, this seems a good argument
for abandoning "control" as a goal when thinking about childrearing. As
one successful nonspanking mother once put it, "I don't *want* "obedient"
children, I want "cooperative" children." For scores of useful tips on
fostering a non-controlling, cooperative relationship between parents and
children, see "How To Talk So Kids Will Listen And Listen So Kids Will
Talk" by Adele Faber and Elaine Mazlish.
However, I would also disagree that only "the possibility of
physical violence" allows one person to control another. Counterexamples
abound. In any relationship, the person who needs the relationship the
least derives a measure of power over the person who desires the
relationship more. No threat of violence need be present for this dynamic
to work. In addition, people can be controlled nonviolently by
manipulating their belief systems and giving/withholding love and support,
as is common in "cults." People can also be controlled by being told
lies, without physical violence or the threat of physical violence playing
any role whatsoever. These three examples should suffice. I am sure you
can think of others on your own.
: This is an absolute fact.
I suspect that the "absolute fact" here is that you have been
listening to too much right-wing talk radio.
: ): It can also teach obedience...
: )
: ) It teaches fear. There is a difference. Punishment for
: )disobedience does not teach obedience, but rather, fear of being
: )caught disobeying. Punishment for disobeying teaches the child
: )to be more careful in the future and not get caught.
: Yeah, nice crackpot theory there.
<Big yawn> Nice, vacuous, heckling, non-response there...
: I guess this is true of _any_ punishment, genius. Better not punish
: your children at all, eh?
Yes. You heard me right. It is better not to punish children at
all. Reward also has its problems as well. Neither is necessary.
Punishment is no more indispensible to the parent/child
relationship than to any other loving relationship. Conflicts in loving
relationships are best solved by mutually negotiated win/win solutions,
not by one person forcing the issue and winning while making the other
person lose. "Parent Wins/Child Loses" approaches may seem to "work" in
the short run, (from the *parent's* perspective) but they create still
more problems down the road. For more on non-punitive discipline and
win/win solutions, see "Discipline That Works: Promoting Self-Discipline
In Children" by Thomas Gordon.
Chris, whose reply to the rest of John Aquino's note may be found under
the "Electric Cattle Prods as Child Discipline" thread heading.
REFERENCES
Maurer, A. 1974. "Corporal Punishment." _American Psychologist_
29:614-626.
Strassberg, Z.; Dodge, K.A.; Petit, G.S. & Bates, J.E. 1994. "Spanking
in the Home and Children's Subsequent Aggression Toward Kindergarten
Peers." _Development and Psychopathology_, 6:445-461.
Straus, M.A. 1991. "Discipline and Deviance: Physical Punishment of
Children and Violence and Other Crime in Adulthood." _Social Problems_
38(2):133-155
Straus, M.A. and Kantor, G.K. 1994. "Corporal Punishment of Adolescents
ga...@mersinet.co.uk
In Article<330E72...@worldnet.att.net>, <rain...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> Path: news.mersinet.co.uk!btnet-feed1!btnet!netcom.net.uk!rill.news.pipex.net!pipex!cpk-news-hub1.bbnplanet.com!news.bbnplanet.com!worldnet.att.net!newsadm
> From: Lane Browning <rain...@worldnet.att.net>
> Newsgroups: alt.parenting.spanking,misc.kids,soc.men,soc.women,alt.feminism
> Subject: Re: Spanking: For Boys Only...
> Date: Fri, 21 Feb 1997 20:14:16 -0800
> Organization: word wizards
> Lines: 66
> Message-ID: <330E72...@worldnet.att.net>
> References: <5drsrh$4...@kanga.accessone.com> <5egisb$8...@tandem.CAM.ORG> <5eiai1$m...@carbon.cudenver.edu> <33146eac...@204.177.236.3>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.147.120.252
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> X-Mailer: Mozilla 2.01E (Win95; U)
> Xref: news.mersinet.co.uk alt.parenting.spanking:6387 misc.kids:2667 soc.men:4880 soc.women:5361 alt.feminism:32550
>
> John Aquino wrote:
> >
> >
> > Police should be touchy-feely like you people are and let criminals
> > walk all over them. What a joy that would be. Then your thug
> > children could run reign over all of us instead of just you.
>
> How did you get to be this way, John?
>
> >
> > Here's a free clue: There is no way to control another human if there
> > is not the possibility of physical violence.
> >
> > This is an absolute fact.
>
> This is absolute nonsense. In a MAJORITY of contries on this planet, parents do not hit
> their children. Japanese parents never lay a hand on their children (except to caress).
> Violent crime is almost non-existent in Japan (as is the "loose" behavior that so
> terrifies you with respect to females). Go to China, Switzerland, Denmark...
>
> oh hell, what's the use or doing verbal battle witih an unarmed man...
> >
> > ): It can also teach obedience...
> > )
> > ) It teaches fear. There is a difference. Punishment for
> > )disobedience does not teach obedience, but rather, fear of being
> > caught
> > )disobeying. The solution is to disobey in more sneaky ways so as not
> > to
> > )get caught.
> >
> > Yeah, nice crackpot theory there.
> >
> > I guess this is true of _any_ punishment, genius. Better not punish
> > your children at all, eh?
> >
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
John Aquino (sn...@kremlin.martyr.com) wrote:
: On 20 Feb 1997 20:01:05 GMT, cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( ) wrote:
[snip]
: ) So, how do you feel about the use of electric cattle prods on
: )children? If pain is so beneficial to the child, why risk injury by
: )physically hitting the child when the wonders of modern technology
: )have now given us the ability to inflict pure pain without any risk
: )of tissue damage?
: Is this supposed to make us revel in the absurdity of corporal
: punishment by taking it to its logical extreme?
Not at all. Let us assume that the amount of pain produced by the
cattle prod and the amount of pain produced by a spanking are *identical*.
My point is that if pain from spankings is so beneficial, why *not*
advocate electric cattle prods? A cattle prod is actually safer than
hitting the child, because with hitting there is always the possibility of
injury to the child, while a cattle prod can be set to produce pain but
not injury. It also eliminates the problem of a parent hitting too hard
in anger, since the parent's emotional state has no effect on the pre-set
level of electric current in the cattle prod.
I think that the only reason why prospankers become sarcastic and
insulting when asked about cattle prods is that they don't really have
anything more cogent to offer in response. Hitting children is
traditional, and cattle prods aren't. Most adults now alive were hit as
children, but very few were given electric shocks as children. Hence,
prospank apologists idealize hitting but not cattle prods. In a parallel
universe where children are punished with cattle prods, pro-shockers on
the parallel-Usenet's alt.parenting.sparking newsgroup would likely use
the exact same arguments as pro-spankers:
* "electric shocks never did ME any harm!"
* "yes but, it WORKS! I deserved every high-voltage jolt my
parents ever gave me! It made me everything I am today!"
* "if children aren't given sparkings, they will turn into thugs
and reign over you!"
* "you are taking things to EXTREMES by comparing lovingly-
administered, controlled, electric shocks, with physically HITTING a
child! Don't be absurd! HITTING a child is *abuse*, not at all like a
good, old-fashioned, SPARKING!!!"
* "Get a life you pathetic dweeb! Your type really makes me puke!
You touchy-feely namby-pamby permissive types are the cause of everything
that's gone wrong with the world! That's why you always have to FLAME
people and resort to AD HOMINEM ARGUMENTS all the time you clueless loser,
you worthless bucket of pond scum you!!!!"
: Here's one for you, rocket surgeon.
<gasp> How did you KNOW I was a rocket surgeon???? :-)
: So, how do you feel about sending your child to a chair for a "time-
: -out" with no food until he dies of hunger in his chair?
When have you ever noticed me advocating using time-out? You
haven't. Perhaps you should consider lurking awhile and familiarizing
yourself with what your prospective opponents are actually *saying* around
here before blasting onto the newsgroup with rhetorical guns blazing,
shooting at targets of your own creation?
: Gee - logical extremes are fun, eh?
Like I said, cattle prods are NOT a "logical extreme." They are
actually MORE defensible than spankings, because the amount of pain can be
precisely controlled, and because the chance of physical injury can be
completely eliminated. Pain, as a variable, can be held constant when
comparing "spanking" and "sparking."
Now, are you going to answer my question or not? If not, go ahead
and keep posting sarcasm, ridicule and insults; I don't mind a bit, since
this kind of behavior by prospankers has actually influenced some lurkers
to *give up spanking* in the past. So by all means feel free to flame me
as often as you like. On the other hand, if you want to have a *dialogue*
with us "rocket surgeons" who oppose hitting kids, please answer the
following question: do you or do you not consider it acceptable to use
electric cattle prods to discipline children? Assume that the pain setting
for the cattle prod is identical to the pain level you would consider
appropriate for a spanking, whatever that may be. Assume that whenever
you think a spanking is necessary, a jolt from an electric cattle prod
delivering an identical amount of pain is substituted in its place. Do
you consider this acceptable? Why or why not? I look forward to your
reply.
Chris Dugan, M.D., who earned his degree in rocket surgery from the
Alt.Parenting.Spanking department of the Usenet Institute for Advanced
Study of Prospank Cognition Disorders.
LaVonne Carlson
Nightweb wrote:
> John Aquino wrote:
> >
> > Here's a free clue: There is no way to control another human if there
> > is not the possibility of physical violence.
> >
> > This is an absolute fact.
>
> BZZZZ, WRONG!
>
> PROVEN FACT, the best way to control another human is by mental
> control.. anyone with some kind of education in human behavior knows
> that, violence only gives the illusion that 'strongest one is right',
> and we all know how right that is.... I hope..
I suspect a great many people believe exactly that, including spanking
enthusiasts. Otherwise, what justification would there be for an
adult hitting a little child? Parent = largest, strongest, right.
Child = smaller, weaker, wrong. Parent proves that "rightness" by
hitting the smaller and weaker individual -- his/her little child.
LaVonne
David Moore
This subject line bothered me a lot.
First, why should spanking be fine for one sex and not for the other?
Second, the original post talked about a 4 year old running into a room
and pushing over a hot teapot. Now I have a 4 year old son and we talk a
lot. He knows the difference between right and wrong. He knows the
difference between appropriate and inappropriate behavior.
Why?
Because when he does something "bad" my wife, his teachers at daycare,
and I tell him what was wrong. We also congradulate him when he does
good behaviors. At 4 , Ian knows better to run into a room and do
something that is destructive. If he saw one of his buddies do that he
would look at him funny because that is not normal behavior.
If Ian did something like that we would talk, and he would sit time out
or some other appropriate restriction of something that he enjoys, like
tv time. Punishment can be handled without violence. Violence doesn't
solve problems.
Paying attention, listening, and talking solve problems.
What attention was the 4 year old with the teapot looking for?
David
LaVonne Carlson
J Shearer wrote:
>
> sn...@kremlin.martyr.com (John Aquino) writes: > On Thu, 20 Feb 1997 16:37:44 -0800, Ummo & Lyrian
> I THINK YOU PULLED IT OUTA THE "PLACE THE SUN DON'T SHINE!" IT SURE
> SMELLS LIKE IT! WHERE'S YOUR EVIDENCE OF SUCH A RIDICULOUS STATEMENT??
Individuals writing statements such as this have no evidence, nor do
they, in their omniscience, feel they need evidence. When evidence is
cited which shows exactly the opposite, it is either conveniently
ignored or rejected.
> > But hey - let your kids do as they please. No skin off my back unless
> > one of the little hoodlems tries to rob me.
> ---------IF SUCH A THING SHOULD COME TO PASS, I CAN PRACTICALLY GUARENTEE
> THE PERPS WERE BEATEN AS KIDS! GET REAL--DO SOME RESEARCH, INSTEAD OF
> REPEATING "OLD HUSBANDS' TALES"! --JAN, WHO AT LEAST HAS READ SOME BOOKS
> ON THE SUBJECT OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT, AND HAS ALMOST 9 YEARS' EXPERIENCE
> DEALING WITH KIDS IN THE WORST CIRCUMSTANCES: SUBSTITUTE TEACHING!!
This is just one of many assumptions which are conveniently pulled out
of the hat when the subject of not hitting children comes up. The
idea that not hitting a child equals not disciplining a child only
serves to illustrate a woefully inadequate lack of information on the
part of the person writing. What is ironic -- this poster is
advocating the exact treatment which correlates with the "hoodlem"
behavior he so fears!
LaVonne
Patrick McNamara
In article <330F72...@mindspring.com>, bee...@mindspring.com wrote:
>John Aquino wrote:
>>
>> On 20 Feb 1997 20:01:05 GMT, cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( ) wrote:
>>
>> ): They continue to do it...feeling the pain of a good smack on the
>> ): bum would be a considerable improvment over third degree burns.
>> )
>> ) Why is a pot of boiling water sitting within a preschooler's
>> ) reach in the first place?
>>
>> Ooh, righteousness at its best. I'm sure you're a better parent than
>> anyone else.
>>
>> Do you know how hight the average stove is. Now, what is the average
>> height of a 4 year old.
>>
>By the time a child is four years old, she's been moving around under
>her own power for a while, has learned an initial set of language
>skills, and has picked up a vast number of concepts, most likely
>including "hot" and "cold" and "hurt." (For a good online resource about
>children's phenominal capabilities for learning between birth and five
>years, check out http://www.nando.com/nao/2little2late/explore/.) She
>has a vocabulary and an understanding of natural consequences.
>
they feel? Mind you, I'm not advocating that someone intentionally hurt a
child to give them the experience. But at some point in all our lives, we
know what hot and cold mean (and the pain of extreme heat) due to experience.
It's not something we learn just 'cause someone explained it in words. A child
should avoid the stove not because the parent has set up roadblocks around it,
but because the child understands that it hurts. Parents should certainly do
their best to prevent lasting harm, but to prevent every unpleasantness in a
childs life is impossible.
And I'm not saying that spanking a child should be the method to prevent
touching something hot. Allow the child's curiosity, if it doesn't cause
lasting or great harm, to let him learn.
Patrick McNamara
> There is no need for "math." Dangerous objects in the home should
>not be within the reach of preschoolers, period. If you have to put up a
>gate to keep the child out of the kitchen, or put the stove up on
>cinderblocks in order to keep pots out of the child's reach, you just do
>it, that's all. An unwillingness to make any childproofing adjustments in
>the home is not evidence of the necessity of spanking, but of the laziness
>and irresponsibility on the part of certain parents.
>
I have yet to be in a home where the kitchen is gated off or the stove is up
on cinder blocks, so there must be a preponderance of lazy and irresponsible
parents out there.
Stovetops themselves get plenty hot when in use, not just the burner or the
pots. I have two preschoolers who both briefly touched the stovetop when it
was hot; not long enough to do damage, but long enough to hurt and to
understand what "hot" means. I didn't encourage them to, and I certainly can't
police the kitchen all afternoon while something is simmering. They don't
touch the stove anymore. (And pothandles aren't left in reach).
People learn from experience. If the experience doesn't cause any lasting
harm, then so what. Minor pain on the fingertips is a far cry from leaving
poisonous cleaners in reach. Do you consider parents who don't keep their kids
in football padding all day to be 'lazy and irresponsible' because kids can
cut, scrape, bump, and bruise themselves?
LaVonne Carlson
Ummo & Lyrian wrote:
>
> I agree with this person. I do not thinking that whacking kids really
Of course, many spanking advocates will tell you that they do not
spank in anger -- they only hit their children in a calm, deliberate,
and rational manner -- after explaining the reason and providing
reasurrance of love. (Now, there's a chilling thought.)
You may be interested in reading Strassberg et.al (1994), "Spanking in
the home and children' subsequent aggression toward kindergarten
peers" Development and Psychopathology, 6, 445-461, which provides
research evidence to support your observation.
LaVonne
LaVonne Carlson
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
>
> bob lego (wo...@cam.org) wrote:
>
> : I believe in corporal punishment .Here are a few examples of
> : situations where it could be apropriate.
> : The kid is 4 years old and runs up to the tea pot that is filled
> : with boiling water...he tries to push it over as you sit there with
> : your guest. He runs away and laughs.You tell him or her 10 times about
> : the harm and danger to themselves and others.
> : would be a considerable improvment over third degree burns.
>
Because, Chris, children are born with adult reasoning, and the adults
have no responsibility to ensure their children's safety (beyond
hitting them, of course).
>
> : Also, the child might understand better what pain is...
>
> Every 4-year-old already knows what pain is, simply as a result of
> the bumps and scrapes which are a routine and inevitable part of growing
> up. Parents do not need to deliberately hurt their child in order to
> teach the child what pain is.
Well, if the parent doesn't hurt them, how will they ever learn pain?
I say smack 'em in the mouth -- beat 'em in the head -- hit their
bottoms -- whatever it takes to help them understand pain. Being
bigger, older, and stronger -- who better to teach pain to a child
than his/her parent?
LaVonne, who is one the way to the gym to get her "hitting arm" in
shape!
LaVonne Carlson
Albert Cheng wrote in response to someone:
>
> >I believe in corporal punishment .Here are a few examples of
> >situations where it could be apropriate.
> > The kid is 4 years old and runs up to the tea pot that is filled
> >with boiling water...
>
> kid has learned.
The kid has learned that hitting is a good way to express displeasure
and to control others smaller and weaker. It's one of the loftier
goals of parenting.
> >
> >I certainly do not agree with grabing the kid by the hair and punching
> >him in the mouth but I think that pain can be a great teacher.
>
> I would suggest try other means first and save spanking as
> the absolute last resort for really serious misbehavior.
And I would suggest sticking to other means, and eliminating the
practice of hitting children in the name of discipline.
LaVonne
Marc and Jennifer Clauson
LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
>
> You may be interested in reading Strassberg et.al (1994), "Spanking in
> the home and children' subsequent aggression toward kindergarten
> peers" Development and Psychopathology, 6, 445-461, which provides
> research evidence to support your observation.
>
Lavonne, the studies we have both cited are contradictory. Perhaps there
is a difference in the definition of spanking. I would probably call the
way a lot of parents spank as harmful and perhaps even abusive. I think
of seeing children in a drug store being troublesome. The parent without
warning snuck up behind the child and gave a slap to the back legs.
There was no instruction etc.. I can see how this child might be
violent. But the children I have seen spanked according to the method I
outlined in previous posts do not seem violent at all.
Jennifer Clauson
WebfootVA
In article <5eslfd$m...@netnews1.apci.com>, mcn...@apci.com (Patrick
McNamara) wrote:
> >>
> >By the time a child is four years old, she's been moving around under
> >her own power for a while, has learned an initial set of language
> >skills, and has picked up a vast number of concepts, most likely
> >including "hot" and "cold" and "hurt." (For a good online resource about
> >children's phenominal capabilities for learning between birth and five
> >years, check out http://www.nando.com/nao/2little2late/explore/.) She
> >has a vocabulary and an understanding of natural consequences.
> >
> And how does the child *know* what "hot" and "cold" and "hurt" are, and how
> they feel? Mind you, I'm not advocating that someone intentionally hurt a
> child to give them the experience. But at some point in all our lives, we
> know what hot and cold mean (and the pain of extreme heat) due to experience.
> It's not something we learn just 'cause someone explained it in words. A
child
> should avoid the stove not because the parent has set up roadblocks
around it,
> but because the child understands that it hurts. Parents should certainly do
> their best to prevent lasting harm, but to prevent every unpleasantness in a
> childs life is impossible.
Don't forget, a child young enough not to learn what "hot" means should
not be left unsupervised in the kitchen.
Iris
--
"My Favorite Teams are the Oregon Ducks and whoever is playing the Huskies!"
Antoon Pardon
LaVonne Carlson (carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: Albert Cheng wrote in response to someone:
: >
: > >I believe in corporal punishment .Here are a few examples of
: > >situations where it could be apropriate.
: > > The kid is 4 years old and runs up to the tea pot that is filled
: > >with boiling water...
: >
: > That may terminate the misbehavior but I am not sure what the
: > kid has learned.
: The kid has learned that hitting is a good way to express displeasure
: and to control others smaller and weaker. It's one of the loftier
: goals of parenting.
Same old argument. Well I'll give the same old rebuttal too.
If this is the way kids learn from experiences I guess we
shouldn't light candles while they are near. It teaches that a
good way to make light is to set things on fire.
In fact we shouldn't do anything that is only appropiate for
adults to do and not appropiate for children while they are near
because us doing it would learn those kids that it is appropiate.
--
All opinions expressed herein are currently under revision
==========================================================
Antoon Pardon Brussels Free University Computing Centre
==========================================================
LaVonne Carlson
Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
> LaVonne Carlson (carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
> : Albert Cheng wrote in response to someone:
> : >
> : > >I believe in corporal punishment .Here are a few examples of
> : > >situations where it could be apropriate.
> : > > The kid is 4 years old and runs up to the tea pot that is filled
> : > >with boiling water...
> : >
> : > That may terminate the misbehavior but I am not sure what the
> : > kid has learned.
>
> : The kid has learned that hitting is a good way to express displeasure
> : and to control others smaller and weaker. It's one of the loftier
> : goals of parenting.
>
> Same old argument. Well I'll give the same old rebuttal too.
>
> If this is the way kids learn from experiences I guess we
> shouldn't light candles while they are near. It teaches that a
> good way to make light is to set things on fire.
Haven't heard from you in awhile, Antoon. No, we shouldn't leave a
lit candle unsupervised around a preschooler, anymore than we should
leave boiling water that could result in 3rd degree burns unsupervised
around a preschooler. That was my point -- supervision, not hitting.
>
> In fact we shouldn't do anything that is only appropiate for
> adults to do and not appropiate for children while they are near
> because us doing it would learn those kids that it is appropiate.
No, we shouldn't, if the action has the potential for causing harm to
the children, and we are not present to supervise.
LaVonne
LaVonne Carlson
Jennifer, have you read the Strassberg etal. study? On page 446 and
447, they state "One important theoretical reason for distinguishing
among type of physical punishment practices is that these practices
vary on a comtinuum of severity. Spanking (striking the child on the
buttocks or the legs) ranks at a more advanced position on the
severity continuum than the absence of physical punishment and harsher
strategies...." They have taken into consideration your above
criticism, have delineated between various forms of spanking and
corporal punishmnent. They have considered other variables. Your
criticism leads me to believe you have not read the Strassberg study
-- and I do think you would find the results interesting.
LaVonne
>
> Jennifer Clauson
LaVonne Carlson
> >>
> >> On 20 Feb 1997 20:01:05 GMT, cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( ) wrote:
> >>
> >> ): They continue to do it...feeling the pain of a good smack on the
> >> ): bum would be a considerable improvment over third degree burns.
> >> )
> >> ) Why is a pot of boiling water sitting within a preschooler's
> >> ) reach in the first place?
> >>
> >> Ooh, righteousness at its best. I'm sure you're a better parent than
> >> anyone else.
> >>
> >> Do you know how hight the average stove is. Now, what is the average
> >> height of a 4 year old.
> >>
> >By the time a child is four years old, she's been moving around under
> >her own power for a while, has learned an initial set of language
> >skills, and has picked up a vast number of concepts, most likely
> >including "hot" and "cold" and "hurt." (For a good online resource about
> >children's phenominal capabilities for learning between birth and five
> >has a vocabulary and an understanding of natural consequences.
> >
> they feel? Mind you, I'm not advocating that someone intentionally hurt a
> child to give them the experience. But at some point in all our lives, we
> know what hot and cold mean (and the pain of extreme heat) due to experience.
> It's not something we learn just 'cause someone explained it in words. A child
> should avoid the stove not because the parent has set up roadblocks around it,
> but because the child understands that it hurts. Parents should certainly do
> their best to prevent lasting harm, but to prevent every unpleasantness in a
> childs life is impossible.
>
> touching something hot. Allow the child's curiosity, if it doesn't cause
> lasting or great harm, to let him learn.
I agree. The original poster stated that the boiling water would
cause third degree burns, thus the child must be spanked to learn to
stay away and to learn the meaning of pain. This was the objection by
many of us -- situations resulting in 3rd degree burns require
supervision, not hitting.
LaVonne
Antoon Pardon
LaVonne Carlson (carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:: > : The kid has learned that hitting is a good way to express displeasure
: > : and to control others smaller and weaker. It's one of the loftier
: > : goals of parenting.
: >
: > Same old argument. Well I'll give the same old rebuttal too.
: >
: > If this is the way kids learn from experiences I guess we
: > shouldn't light candles while they are near. It teaches that a
: > good way to make light is to set things on fire.
: Haven't heard from you in awhile, Antoon. No, we shouldn't leave a
: lit candle unsupervised around a preschooler, anymore than we should
: leave boiling water that could result in 3rd degree burns unsupervised
: around a preschooler. That was my point -- supervision, not hitting.
LaVonne I agree with what you say here but about not leaving a
preschooler unsupervised around a lit candle. But that was not
the point. The anti-spankers always make the argument that spank-
ing teaches that hitting is ok and we don't want our kids to
learn that. But if this is an important argument we shouldn't
light candles because lighting candles teaches that setting
things on fire is ok and we don't want to learn our kids that
either.
I'm not trying to defend spanking in the examples that were given
here. I agree putting the kettle out of reach would be far
better. I just think the argument of what kids learn by a spank-
ing gets you nowhere.
Patrick McNamara
In article <irisva-2502...@p9.ts1.washi.dc.tiac.com>, iri...@tiac.net (WebfootVA) wrote:
>In article <5eslfd$m...@netnews1.apci.com>, mcn...@apci.com (Patrick
>McNamara) wrote:
>
>
>> >>
>> >her own power for a while, has learned an initial set of language
>> >skills, and has picked up a vast number of concepts, most likely
>> >including "hot" and "cold" and "hurt." (For a good online resource about
>> >children's phenominal capabilities for learning between birth and five
>> >years, check out http://www.nando.com/nao/2little2late/explore/.) She
>> >has a vocabulary and an understanding of natural consequences.
>> >
>> they feel? Mind you, I'm not advocating that someone intentionally hurt a
>> child to give them the experience. But at some point in all our lives, we
>> know what hot and cold mean (and the pain of extreme heat) due to experience.
>
>> It's not something we learn just 'cause someone explained it in words. A
>child
>> should avoid the stove not because the parent has set up roadblocks
>around it,
>> but because the child understands that it hurts. Parents should certainly do
>> their best to prevent lasting harm, but to prevent every unpleasantness in a
>> childs life is impossible.
>
>
>not be left unsupervised in the kitchen.
>
>Iris
>
Which is why I won't allow a child to grab a pot of boiling water. But if the
child wants to ignore me and touch the stovetop, where it's hot enough to hurt
but not enough to burn, well, it happened. It hurt, the child wasn't burned,
and she now knows what 'hot' means, and how it can hurt. Any description I
could conjure up in words couldn't convey that meaning.
Patrick
LaVonne Carlson
Antoon Pardon wrote:
>
> LaVonne Carlson (carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
> : Antoon Pardon wrote:
> : >
> : > LaVonne Carlson (carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
> : >
> : > : The kid has learned that hitting is a good way to express displeasure
> : > : and to control others smaller and weaker. It's one of the loftier
> : > : goals of parenting.
> : >
> : > Same old argument. Well I'll give the same old rebuttal too.
> : >
> : > If this is the way kids learn from experiences I guess we
> : > shouldn't light candles while they are near. It teaches that a
> : > good way to make light is to set things on fire.
>
> : Haven't heard from you in awhile, Antoon. No, we shouldn't leave a
> : lit candle unsupervised around a preschooler, anymore than we should
> : leave boiling water that could result in 3rd degree burns unsupervised
> : around a preschooler. That was my point -- supervision, not hitting.
>
> LaVonne I agree with what you say here but about not leaving a
> preschooler unsupervised around a lit candle. But that was not
> the point. The anti-spankers always make the argument that spank-
> ing teaches that hitting is ok and we don't want our kids to
> learn that. But if this is an important argument we shouldn't
> light candles because lighting candles teaches that setting
> things on fire is ok and we don't want to learn our kids that
> either.
Setting things on fire can be okay, if you want to argue from this
angle. Setting candles on fire is okay, lighting the fireplace is
okay, lighting the barbecue is okay, and in certain areas of the US,
setting fire to the trash in the trash burner is okay. Until a child
is old enough to perform these tasks independently, supervision is
required. So, there are instances where setting things on fire is
perfectly acceptable.
On the other hand, hitting an individual, especially younger, smaller,
weaker, and more vulnerable, an unconsenting individual, in order to
express discipleasure and gain control is never okay. Your comparison
does not work.
>
> I'm not trying to defend spanking in the examples that were given
> here. I agree putting the kettle out of reach would be far
> better. I just think the argument of what kids learn by a spank-
> ing gets you nowhere.
Probably not, if one chooses to ignore the research in child
development, parenting, and especially, corporal punishment, which
does show exactly what I have been claiming. This is called believing
what one wants to, regardless of evidence to the contrary. If this is
how one chooses to approach the subject of spanking, no amount debate,
knowledge, or information will change that person's mind.
LaVonne
Blair Zajac
From my perspective raising of two boys that got spanked, the reason for
their being spanked was a misbehavior issue.
They did not get spanked for doing things that were dangerous. That was an
entirely different issue. In the case, they got educated in the dangers of
their actions.
They got spanked for example, fighting in the house (if there was fighting,
it was outside of the house), lying (need I say more?), taking things that
did not belong to them (need I say more?), etc.
It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
opposition to spanking.
Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
--
Life is hard. First you take the test, then you learn the lesson.
Blair Zajac
bza...@isomedia.com
WebfootVA
In article <look-ya02408000R...@news.isomedia.com>,
lo...@my.signature (Blair Zajac) wrote:
>
> It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
> opposition to spanking.
>
> Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
>
This is where the flame wars get started. All because people post things
by computer they would not dare to say in person. Please, if you have an
opinion on spanking, post it. But I don't think you have the right to
then classify an entire sect of people politcally just by their actions in
one part of child-rearing. This is flamebait and I resent it. The
spanking thread has not yet degenerated into the flamewars of the circ.
threads. Let's keep it that way.
B
Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> From my perspective raising of two boys that got spanked, the reason for
> their being spanked was a misbehavior issue.
>
> They did not get spanked for doing things that were dangerous. That was an
> entirely different issue. In the case, they got educated in the dangers of
> their actions.
>
> They got spanked for example, fighting in the house (if there was fighting,
> it was outside of the house), lying (need I say more?), taking things that
> did not belong to them (need I say more?), etc.
>
not acceptable. What is your logic here?
> It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
> opposition to spanking.
>
Can you set forth valid propositions, valid arguments, and a valid
conclusion that supports your contention that spanking is a *necessary*
tool in the parental toolbox? (It would be a refreshing post indeed.)
> Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
>
<Hahahahah> Don't you know that there aren't any "liberals" any more?
They're all dead, or moved to "moderate".....
"B"
Jay Anderson
I agree with the guy who said he hated the subject since it says "for
boys only." I agree, boys shouldn't be spanked any more than girls
should.
In article <look-ya02408000R...@news.isomedia.com> lo...@my.signature (Blair Zajac) writes:
>From my perspective raising of two boys that got spanked, the reason for
>their being spanked was a misbehavior issue.
>They got spanked for example, fighting in the house (if there was fighting,
>it was outside of the house), lying (need I say more?), taking things that
>did not belong to them (need I say more?), etc.
>
>It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
>opposition to spanking.
>
>Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
Yes, this makes a lot of sense:
"Stop hitting your brother or I'll hit you!"
Jay
LaVonne Carlson
Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> From my perspective raising of two boys that got spanked, the reason for
> their being spanked was a misbehavior issue.
>
> entirely different issue. In the case, they got educated in the dangers of
> their actions.
>
> it was outside of the house), lying (need I say more?), taking things that
> did not belong to them (need I say more?), etc.
>
> It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
> opposition to spanking.
You hit them for hitting (but only in the house) -- how logical is
that? You hit them for lying -- where is the logic? You hit them for
stealing -- again, where is the logic?
Since fighting is allowed, but not in the house -- why not send them
outside when the fighting begins? Since children lie to avoid
punishment -- why not have open communication and attempt to focus on
why the behavior occurred, and what to do to prevent future
occurances, rather than on the "lie" that accompanied the behavior? We
often set children up to lie by answering a question when we clearly
know the answer. Since children take things that don't belong to them,
why not have them return the merchandise? No point in stealing if one
cannot keep what one steals!
Why would hitting be considered a logical response to any of the above
situations?
LaVonne
LaVonne Carlson
Jay Anderson wrote:
>
> >They got spanked for example, fighting in the house (if there was fighting,
> >it was outside of the house), lying (need I say more?), taking things that
> >did not belong to them (need I say more?), etc.
> >
> >It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
> >opposition to spanking.
> >
>
> Yes, this makes a lot of sense:
>
> "Stop hitting your brother or I'll hit you!"
And the poster accused anti-spankers of illogical thinking!!
LaVonne
>
> Jay
Antoon Pardon
: > preschooler unsupervised around a lit candle. But that was not
: > the point. The anti-spankers always make the argument that spank-
: > ing teaches that hitting is ok and we don't want our kids to
: > learn that. But if this is an important argument we shouldn't
: > light candles because lighting candles teaches that setting
: > things on fire is ok and we don't want to learn our kids that
: > either.
: Setting things on fire can be okay, if you want to argue from this
: angle. Setting candles on fire is okay, lighting the fireplace is
: okay, lighting the barbecue is okay, and in certain areas of the US,
: setting fire to the trash in the trash burner is okay. Until a child
: is old enough to perform these tasks independently, supervision is
: required. So, there are instances where setting things on fire is
: perfectly acceptable.
: On the other hand, hitting an individual, especially younger, smaller,
: weaker, and more vulnerable, an unconsenting individual, in order to
: express discipleasure and gain control is never okay. Your comparison
: does not work.
Yes it does, because this last statement of yours is what is
under debate. So just asserting it is begging the question.
The "kids learn that spanking is ok when they are spanked and
this is wrong" argument is circular thinking. Because in order to
establish that it is wrong that they learn this you already need
to have established that spanking itself is wrong. So you can't
use this as an argument since it needs the conclusion you want to
reach with it, in order to support your premisse. Circular argu-
ment.
: > I'm not trying to defend spanking in the examples that were given
: > here. I agree putting the kettle out of reach would be far
: > better. I just think the argument of what kids learn by a spank-
: > ing gets you nowhere.
: Probably not, if one chooses to ignore the research in child
: development, parenting, and especially, corporal punishment, which
: does show exactly what I have been claiming. This is called believing
: what one wants to, regardless of evidence to the contrary. If this is
: how one chooses to approach the subject of spanking, no amount debate,
: knowledge, or information will change that person's mind.
I know you like to paint those that don't agree with you with
this brush but it doesn't matter. The argument is still circular
whether you are right or wrong, so it is invalid and doesn't sup-
port your cause.
Antoon Pardon
LaVonne Carlson (carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
There is nothing illogical in this unless you want to question
the whole penal system. People who kidnap others and thus res-
trict the freedom of others, get there freedom restriceted by the
authorities. So there seems to be nothing illogical by punishing
with the same action that was punished for.
Blair Zajac
In article <irisva-2702...@p8.ts2.washi.dc.tiac.com>,
iri...@tiac.net (WebfootVA) wrote:
> In article <look-ya02408000R...@news.isomedia.com>,
> lo...@my.signature (Blair Zajac) wrote:
> >
> > It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
> > opposition to spanking.
> >
> > Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
> >
>
> This is where the flame wars get started. All because people post things
> by computer they would not dare to say in person. Please, if you have an
> opinion on spanking, post it. But I don't think you have the right to
> then classify an entire sect of people politcally just by their actions in
> one part of child-rearing. This is flamebait and I resent it. The
> spanking thread has not yet degenerated into the flamewars of the circ.
> threads. Let's keep it that way.
>
> Iris
>
> --
> "My Favorite Teams are the Oregon Ducks and whoever is playing the Huskies!"
First of all, I have no problems with saying the above in person, because I
have.
Second, I'd be pleased if Iris demonstrated that the anti-spanking group is
not of liberal orientation. Their rational is that telling the kids in a
nice way not to do something always works --- therefore spanking is not
needed.
What group does Iris identify with the 'spare the rod spoil the child' mindset?
Third, Iris has a problem with an identity role. Sounds somewhat like
Zandra who objects being broad brushed as a feminist, even though she calls
herself one.
As for myself, my politics are all over the place. So what ever you may
call me politically, it has a good chance of hitting. But it doesn't bother
me. In all of my years, I haven't run my opinions and life to what someone
thinks what I should or should not do (my wife does have an impact though).
To continue the thought that bothered Iris, what I have found difficult to
understand is the large number of people that have gone to college and have
been unsucessful in getting an independent mindset and identity. It goes
with both political identity and gender identity. The word, intellectual,
no longer has its classical meaning. They are as much a bunch of simple
mind set followers as a bunch of radical christians. If Iris had her own
identity, then she could have thought that the comment is valid -- aside
from the flame issue.
Huskies over the Ducks any day. (Husband to a Husky graduate and two sons
also Husky graduates!)
WebfootVA
> In article <irisva-2702...@p8.ts2.washi.dc.tiac.com>,
> iri...@tiac.net (WebfootVA) wrote:
> > >
> > > Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
> > >
> >
> > This is where the flame wars get started. All because people post things
> > by computer they would not dare to say in person. Please, if you have an
> > opinion on spanking, post it. But I don't think you have the right to
> > then classify an entire sect of people politcally just by their actions in
> > one part of child-rearing. This is flamebait and I resent it. The
> > spanking thread has not yet degenerated into the flamewars of the circ.
> > threads. Let's keep it that way.
>
> First of all, I have no problems with saying the above in person, because I
> have.
Fine. So in this respect, at least, you are not being hypocritical.
>
> Second, I'd be pleased if Iris demonstrated that the anti-spanking group is
> not of liberal orientation. Their rational is that telling the kids in a
> nice way not to do something always works --- therefore spanking is not
> needed.
I can't speak for the anti-spanking group, because I tend not to classify
people in groups based on one or two beliefs. However, I can tell you that
personally, my politics are definitely not liberal. I may not be all the
way to the right, but I'm that side of the middle.
>
> What group does Iris identify with the 'spare the rod spoil the child'
mindset?
I don't identify with groups. And the spanking/non-spanking issue goes
deeper than the inane saying you quoted above. I identify with my own
beliefs--that there are ways other than spanking to mold and develop your
child. And, BTW, I have been known to swat a behind maybe five or six
times over the last six years. I admit it, although I will also admit I
did it for all the wrong reasons. But, then again, no parent is perfect.
We each try to do our best everday.
>
> Third, Iris has a problem with an identity role. Sounds somewhat like
> Zandra who objects being broad brushed as a feminist, even though she calls
> herself one.
I don't even know or care who Zandra is, and if I think I need
psychological help, I can go elsewhere, thank you.
>
> As for myself, my politics are all over the place. So what ever you may
> call me politically, it has a good chance of hitting. But it doesn't bother
> me. In all of my years, I haven't run my opinions and life to what someone
> thinks what I should or should not do (my wife does have an impact though).
I didn't call you anything politically.
>
> To continue the thought that bothered Iris, what I have found difficult to
> understand is the large number of people that have gone to college and have
> been unsucessful in getting an independent mindset and identity. It goes
> with both political identity and gender identity. The word, intellectual,
> no longer has its classical meaning. They are as much a bunch of simple
> mind set followers as a bunch of radical christians. If Iris had her own
> identity, then she could have thought that the comment is valid -- aside
> from the flame issue.
What does going to college and having a supposed identity crisis have to
do with someone's opinion on spanking? That's why I responded to your
original post. You wanted to group and entire sect of people into a
convenient category based on one facet of childrearing???? Talk about
identity crises....
>
> Huskies over the Ducks any day. (Husband to a Husky graduate and two sons
> also Husky graduates!)
I'm not the UO grad, my husband is. However, over the years I have seen
for myself why he dislikes Husky fans--particulary after we lived in
Seattle for a number of years and saw them up close and personal. If you
want to continue this discussion, however, I suggest we tag up on
rec.sports.college.Pac10.
Orenda
Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
> opposition to spanking.
A lot of us have been hoping for that for a long time. Some of them
aren't doing too bad. A few constantly go on and on about the same
things, even when someone such as Antoon points out the flaws in their
"logic". And then there are those such as LaVonne who just makes up
slanderous things to try to win points ( such as my son shooting out a
camper window...) by slandering her oponnents who she can't best in an
argument.
> Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
This bothers me. For the most part, I'm an extremely liberal person. (
carried a sandwich sign for JFK when he ran for president... I was 5 I
think) Just because I think that parents should have the right to raise
their children in a non-abusive manner, including spankings, if they
choose, doesn't mean I'm not a liberal. Liberty and pursuit of my
child's happiness by raising him to be a good, functional, happy adult.
I don't believe in child abuse ( been there, done that, wouldn't wish
it on anyone..... well, almost anyone.)
I just don't think that casting remarks like that helps anyone. And I
wish you used your lovely name..... I thought B. had flipped for a
minute! ( one can only hope.)
Orenda
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Patrick McNamara (mcn...@apci.com) wrote:
: > There is no need for "math." Dangerous objects in the home should
: >not be within the reach of preschoolers, period. If you have to put up a
: >gate to keep the child out of the kitchen, or put the stove up on
: >cinderblocks in order to keep pots out of the child's reach, you just do
: >it, that's all. An unwillingness to make any childproofing adjustments in
: >the home is not evidence of the necessity of spanking, but of the laziness
: >and irresponsibility on the part of certain parents.
: >
: I have yet to be in a home where the kitchen is gated off or the stove is up
: on cinder blocks, so there must be a preponderance of lazy and irresponsible
: parents out there.
You have *never* been in a home in which there is a child gate
across the kitchen door? I have been in several, including the one I grew
up in. Collapsable child gates identical to the one my parents bought 40
years ago are on sale in stores like Target and K-Mart, presumably for
limiting toddler access to dangerous areas. Obviously people buy them or
they wouldn't be offered for sale year after year.
Chris, who can also remember off-hand at least one home with the stove up
on cinder blocks.
Blair Zajac
> Blair Zajac wrote:
> >
> > From my perspective raising of two boys that got spanked, the reason for
> > their being spanked was a misbehavior issue.
> >
> > They did not get spanked for doing things that were dangerous. That was an
> > entirely different issue. In the case, they got educated in the dangers of
> > their actions.
> >
> > They got spanked for example, fighting in the house (if there was fighting,
> > it was outside of the house), lying (need I say more?), taking things that
> > did not belong to them (need I say more?), etc.
> >
> It's interesting that you hit your boys to teach them that hitting is
> not acceptable. What is your logic here?
>
> > It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
> > opposition to spanking.
> >
> Can you set forth valid propositions, valid arguments, and a valid
> conclusion that supports your contention that spanking is a *necessary*
> tool in the parental toolbox? (It would be a refreshing post indeed.)
>
> > Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
> >
> <Hahahahah> Don't you know that there aren't any "liberals" any more?
> They're all dead, or moved to "moderate".....
>
> "B"
>
> > --
> > Life is hard. First you take the test, then you learn the lesson.
> >
> > Blair Zajac
> > bza...@isomedia.com
The rational is straight forward. The state (government) disapproves of
certain actions. If the actions are sufficiently bad (by the state's
measure), you can be punished by being put in jail and possibly to an
extreme, taking your life. You may not like the rules, but you have to live
by them.
Therefore, certain actions are not acceptable. They are not acceptable in
the home and/or in public. You will be punished in a way that you do not
like, but that is the way an adult lives. The conclusion is that the child
learns the hard way that his/her actions are not acceptable.
While they live in our home, the parents are the state.
Regarding the fighting in the house, it is not acceptable because in the
process of fighting, you can damage the house. If the two of you want to
fight, then fight in an environment that only the two of you get hurt. Is
that rational too convolved?
About the number of liberals, they may have changed their names, but they
have not improved their thinking quality.
Blair Zajac
See the complete posting below.
What a mind set.
The kid steals something. First question, is the theft discovered? If not,
then the kid gets away free. If the kid is discovered, then the item is
returned. So the kid, on a reward to risk ratio, has nothing to lose.
Indeed, there is every incentive to steal. Perhaps some of the reader's
kids are stupid enough not to think it through, but my were smart smart
enough to recognize the game -- we discussed the matter over the dinner
table one night.
It appears that LaVonne has not thought through her suggestion.
The other situation.
The kids are already fighting. They already know the house rule that there
is no fighting in the house, but, never-the-less, they are fighting. So
what do you do? Oh! Please stop fighting! While the furniture is in the
process of getting bashed up. I don't know what kind of children you have,
but with two young studs each out to prove that he cannot be pushed around
by their brother, they are not in a listening mode.
Regarding the lying to avoid punishment, they knew that telling the truth
as to what was going on was the best way to avoid even worse punishment.
Lying is a significant portion of bad behavior.
Judging from the newsreports, Clinton has yet to learn this lession.
Certainly, Nixon learned it the hard way, because he lost his presidency as
a consequence of it.
Regarding "Why would hitting be considered a logical response to any of the
above situations?" That they get the message that such actions are just not
acceptable -- even more so once they leave the home and they are just
another face in the street. They have to control their behavior.
It is part of being a responsible parent to educate their children for life
outside of the home. We are not throwing them out on the streets as a
consequence of their misbehaviors.
From my perspective, you are hurting your children long term if you think
that backing off on punishment is helping them. They get to think that they
can sweet talk themselves out of all bad behavior.
In article <3315D6...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>, carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu wrote:
> Blair Zajac wrote:
> >
> > From my perspective raising of two boys that got spanked, the reason for
> > their being spanked was a misbehavior issue.
> >
> > They did not get spanked for doing things that were dangerous. That was an
> > entirely different issue. In the case, they got educated in the dangers of
> > their actions.
> >
> > They got spanked for example, fighting in the house (if there was fighting,
> > it was outside of the house), lying (need I say more?), taking things that
> > did not belong to them (need I say more?), etc.
> >
> > It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
> > opposition to spanking.
>
> You hit them for hitting (but only in the house) -- how logical is
> that? You hit them for lying -- where is the logic? You hit them for
> stealing -- again, where is the logic?
>
> Since fighting is allowed, but not in the house -- why not send them
> outside when the fighting begins? Since children lie to avoid
> punishment -- why not have open communication and attempt to focus on
> why the behavior occurred, and what to do to prevent future
> occurances, rather than on the "lie" that accompanied the behavior? We
> often set children up to lie by answering a question when we clearly
> know the answer. Since children take things that don't belong to them,
> why not have them return the merchandise? No point in stealing if one
> cannot keep what one steals!
>
> Why would hitting be considered a logical response to any of the above
> situations?
>
> LaVonne
--
Blair Zajac
In article <3315D7...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>, carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu wrote:
> Jay Anderson wrote:
> >
> > >They got spanked for example, fighting in the house (if there was fighting,
> > >it was outside of the house), lying (need I say more?), taking things that
> > >did not belong to them (need I say more?), etc.
> > >
> > >It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
> > >opposition to spanking.
> > >
> > >Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
> >
> > Yes, this makes a lot of sense:
> >
> > "Stop hitting your brother or I'll hit you!"
>
> And the poster accused anti-spankers of illogical thinking!!
>
> LaVonne
> >
> > Jay
At the time, they knew that I would hurt them more than fighting their
brother. It is no longer the case.
By the way, this happened three times. Then I heard them say to each other,
let's settle this outside.
The last time their tempers were up, we had our nice Pacific Nowthwest cold
winter rain. They looked at each other and agreed that there were better
ways to disagree than fighting in the rain.
They are now in their 20s and the best of friends.
John Aquino
On Thu, 27 Feb 1997 18:49:31 +0000, LaVonne Carlson
<carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote:
)Jay Anderson wrote:
)>
)> >They got spanked for example, fighting in the house (if there was
fighting,
)> >it was outside of the house), lying (need I say more?), taking
things that
)> >did not belong to them (need I say more?), etc.
)> >
)> >It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in
their
)> >opposition to spanking.
)> >
)> >Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
)>
)> Yes, this makes a lot of sense:
)>
)> "Stop hitting your brother or I'll hit you!"
)
)And the poster accused anti-spankers of illogical thinking!!
)
)LaVonne
This isn't too difficult to grasp. _Initiating_ force for no good
reason is bad. Using force as a "retaliation" or punishment for bad
behaviour is good.
That's why we have the death penalty. They murder someone, and we
murder them.
There's no illogical thinking here, at least on our side.
Patrick McNamara
In article <5f7bl4$q...@carbon.cudenver.edu>, cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( )
wrote:
> Patrick McNamara (mcn...@apci.com) wrote:
> : In article <5eo1u1$m...@carbon.cudenver.edu>, cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
( ) wrote:
>
> : > There is no need for "math." Dangerous objects in the home should
> : >not be within the reach of preschoolers, period. If you have to put up a
> : >gate to keep the child out of the kitchen, or put the stove up on
> : >cinderblocks in order to keep pots out of the child's reach, you just do
> : >it, that's all. An unwillingness to make any childproofing adjustments in
> : >the home is not evidence of the necessity of spanking, but of the laziness
> : >and irresponsibility on the part of certain parents.
> : >
> : I have yet to be in a home where the kitchen is gated off or the stove
is up
> : on cinder blocks, so there must be a preponderance of lazy and
irresponsible
> : parents out there.
>
> You have *never* been in a home in which there is a child gate
> across the kitchen door?
No. Across the stairs, yes, but not the kitchen.
I have been in several, including the one I grew
> up in. Collapsable child gates identical to the one my parents bought 40
> years ago are on sale in stores like Target and K-Mart, presumably for
> limiting toddler access to dangerous areas. Obviously people buy them or
> they wouldn't be offered for sale year after year.
Of course people buy them. I have two myself for the staircases. Again, my
children know what a hot stove feels like from experience. I don't need to
restrict their access to the kitchen. They know better. And they weren't
horribly burned or maimed.
>
> Chris, who can also remember off-hand at least one home with the stove up
> on cinder blocks.
I guess those won't be found next to the accordian gates in K-Mart.
P.
Patrick McNamara, dad to Connor (11/93) and Colleen (5/95)
mcn...@apci.com
pmcn...@enter.net
B
Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> In article <3315AE...@mindspring.com>, bee...@mindspring.com wrote:
>
> > Blair Zajac wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > Can you set forth valid propositions, valid arguments, and a valid
> > conclusion that supports your contention that spanking is a *necessary*
> > tool in the parental toolbox? (It would be a refreshing post indeed.)
> >
> > "B"
> >
> > > --
> > > Life is hard. First you take the test, then you learn the lesson.
> > >
> > > Blair Zajac
> > > bza...@isomedia.com
>
restate what I understand them to say and give them an opportunity to
correct me if I've got it wrong. I am sincerely listening to you here,
and want to work with you to put this argument in a logical form that
*you* will accept. (Then, of course, I will try to disprove it. But
first, let's get it right and tight.)
> The rational is straight forward. The state (government) disapproves of
> certain actions. If the actions are sufficiently bad (by the state's
> measure), you can be punished by being put in jail and possibly to an
> extreme, taking your life. You may not like the rules, but you have to live
> by them.
>
This first premise may be restated as:
Premise 1: People who break the law of the state are punished by the
state.
> Therefore, certain actions are not acceptable. They are not acceptable in
> the home and/or in public. You will be punished in a way that you do not
> like, but that is the way an adult lives. The conclusion is that the child
> learns the hard way that his/her actions are not acceptable.
>
Your "therefore" is not, in reality, an inference, but is another
premise: Certain actions are not acceptable, regardless of the location
of those actions. Isn't this an expansion or restatement of the first
premise?
Here's another possible premise from this paragraph: Adults who practice
unacceptable activities are punished. (This seems to be a restatement of
the first premise, lawbreakers are punished. Perhaps it should be:
Punishment is unpleasant(?))
I don't know what to make of your "conclusion" -- are you saying that
the state punishes a lawbreaking child (teaching him "the hard way") if
the parents don't punish the child??? Regardless of whether the parent
punishes a child, a child who is caught breaking the law may be punished
by the state.
> While they live in our home, the parents are the state.
>
This is clear.
Premise 3: Parents govern the home and the children within it.
> Regarding the fighting in the house, it is not acceptable because in the
> process of fighting, you can damage the house. If the two of you want to
> fight, then fight in an environment that only the two of you get hurt. Is
> that rational too convolved?
>
Premise 4: Fighting is forbidden inside the home, but permitted outside.
> About the number of liberals, they may have changed their names, but they
> have not improved their thinking quality.
>
This statement does not have anything to do with rules, infractions,
children, parents, or spanking. It could be construed as an "argumentum
ad hominem," or argument against the person, which makes it an invalid
argument, logically. I'm not considering it here. (Unless you strongly
disagree?)
> --
> Life is hard. First you take the test, then you learn the lesson.
>
> Blair Zajac
> bza...@isomedia.com
Ok, I have identified four premises and one labeled conclusion:
Premise 1: People who break the law of the state are punished by the
state.
Premise 2: Punishment is unpleasant.
Premise 3: Parents govern the home and the children within it.
Premise 4: Fighting is forbidden inside the home, but permitted outside.
The labeled conclusion says, I think, that a child who breaks the law is
also punished.
Premise 1 is False. People who are *caught* or *accused of* breaking the
law of the state are punished by the state *if* they plead or are proven
guilty in a court of law.
Premise 2 is True.
Premise 3 is False. The laws of the state govern the adults within the
home, so the parents in the home actually govern their domain only
within the boundries of the external law (and several layers of law at
that -- everything from neighborhood covenants specifying the color of
your roof tiles to state law concerning consensual relationships to
Federal tax law covering your home office use).
Premise 4 is False. It may be true at your house, but it's not true at
my house, where freeform fighting is forbidden, period, regardless of
the location. (That wouldn't include monitored sparing matches between
karate or wrestling students, I suppose.) Since it's not true in every
case, logically, it's an invalid statement.
Where is the part where spanking enters into the issue? And what
relationship does your stated conclusion have to your premises and to
your requirement that spanking must be considered an effective parenting
method?
It's difficult to build a logical argument, I understand that very well.
Ever since Hal wrote (on 2/17/97)...
> Once again, it seems that the argument against spanking is based on
> a belief that punishment is wrong, a premise which would logically
> require that spanking, a form of punishment, is wrong.
>
> And, once again, there is no attempt by the holders of this belief
> to explain the logic of their stand.
... I've been working on a clear and concise logical argument stating
the anti-spanking side, and it's hard to do -- not only have I got to
write a clear, concise, and _positive_ statement from which to build my
case, but my last course in logic was some 20-odd years ago (and then,
class began at 8 am, not my best time of day). I have found a
logic-oriented website to help nudge my memory:
http://www.domino.org/~meta/atheism/logic.html. (I'd welcome outside
input with this little project -- even from the pro-spankers! Maybe we
could even come to understand each other's viewpoints a little
better....)
Anyway, it would be nice to have a concise and logical argument on
either side, although I'm not absolutely certain that it's possible.
This issue does seem to be more emotional than logical to a great many
posters, regardless of the poster's position on spanking. But hey, I'm
willing to try rationality and logic in this adult conversation! (It's
nice to see that others are open to this idea, too.)
"B"
S Nelson
Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> From my perspective raising of two boys that got spanked, the reason for
> their being spanked was a misbehavior issue.
>
>
> Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
>
> Life is hard. First you take the test, then you learn the lesson.
>
> Blair Zajac
> bza...@isomedia.com
Just curious but I wonder what being liberal has to do with spanking
ones children? Please enlighten.
I disagree with spanking but the most compelling reason I do not smack
my children (both boys) is that as a child I was smacked and all it
taught me was how to hide my humiliation. I do not want to humiliate my
kids. I do not want them to be afraid of me either. (Couldn't smack
the older one now anyway, he is taller than me). I love my kids. They
are well-behaved (a majority of the time) and intelligent. They don't
need to be smacked. When they do misbehave, they are punished in other
ways, like denying a favourite activity or a grounding.
However, if spanking is how some people decide is the best way to
handle their children, that is up to them. Seems to me though that
spanking is just a lazy way to deal with a problem. I think children
learn more when they are treated like people.
Maybe you spankers need to get more logical and try to understand the
anti-spankers views.
Suzanne
S Nelson
> wo...@cam.org (bob lego) wrote:
>
> *
> *I believe in corporal punishment .Here are a few examples of
> *situations where it could be apropriate.
> * The kid is 4 years old and runs up to the tea pot that is filled
> *with boiling water...he tries to push it over as you sit there with
> *your guest. He runs away and laughs.You tell him or her 10 times
> about
> *the harm and danger to themselves and others.
> * They continue to do it...feeling the pain of a good smack on the
> bum
> *would be a considerable improvment over third degree burns.
> *Also, the child might understand better what pain is...
> * It can also teach obedience...
>
> That scenario reminds me of a friend of mine. I have witnessed this
on many occasions. The mother tells the kid to stop doing something.
The child doesn't listen. The mother smacks her butt but the child
continues to do what she was told not to. The mother tells her again.
She continues and she is smacked again, harder though because Mommy is
getting angry now. This goes on for at least 10 minutes but the child
is stubborn. The mother continues smacking her and the child is in
tears but will not stop. What's the point? I have seen this when this
child was 4 and I see it now that the child is 10. The child has
learned nothing. Absolutely nothing. She is as unruly and saucy as she
was when she was 3 or 4 and nothing has changed. I don't understand how
spanking, smacking (whatever term) teaches children anything other than
how to take a hit or give one.
Suzanne
LaVonne Carlson
Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> See the complete posting below.
>
> What a mind set.
>
> The kid steals something. First question, is the theft discovered? If not,
> then the kid gets away free. If the kid is discovered, then the item is
> returned. So the kid, on a reward to risk ratio, has nothing to lose.
> Indeed, there is every incentive to steal. Perhaps some of the reader's
> kids are stupid enough not to think it through, but my were smart smart
> enough to recognize the game -- we discussed the matter over the dinner
> table one night.
>
> It appears that LaVonne has not thought through her suggestion.
If the kid steals something and the theft is undiscovered, the kid
"gets away free" so to speak, whether or not the parent is a spanker.
We were discussing parental response to theft -- in order for a parent
to respond, he/she must be aware of the theft. You proposed spanking
for discovered theft, I proposed an alternative response.
>
> The other situation.
>
> The kids are already fighting. They already know the house rule that there
> is no fighting in the house, but, never-the-less, they are fighting. So
> what do you do? Oh! Please stop fighting! While the furniture is in the
> process of getting bashed up. I don't know what kind of children you have,
> but with two young studs each out to prove that he cannot be pushed around
> by their brother, they are not in a listening mode.
If, as you, I allowed fighting outside but not in the house (which I
don't, by the way) I'd send them outside, where fighting was
permissable. Since they are in a hitting mode rather than a listening
mode, why would I join in the hitting mode, and model more hitting?
>
> Regarding the lying to avoid punishment, they knew that telling the truth
> as to what was going on was the best way to avoid even worse punishment.
Not if they knew they would be hit as a result of their behavior.
Consider: You suspect your child stole a candy bar. You ask, Did you
do this? Kid thinks -- ah, mom or dad doesn't know. If I say yes,
I'll be hit. I may get hit anyway, but I'm certainly not going to
admit it -- at least I have a chance of escaping the hit, if I say no!
> Regarding "Why would hitting be considered a logical response to any of the
> above situations?" That they get the message that such actions are just not
> acceptable -- even more so once they leave the home and they are just
> another face in the street. They have to control their behavior.
Of course they do. Unfortunately your method leads to reliance on
external control, rather than helping children develop the
self-control, which you admit is not only desirable, but necessary.
Since child rely on external control rather than a well-developed
sense of inner control, conscience, and morality, when chances of
being apprehended are slim, there is no reason **not** to engage in
the unacceptable behavior.
LaVonne
Randy
In article <5f69p7$6...@rc1.vub.ac.be>, on 28 Feb 1997 09:50:31 GMT,
apa...@rc4.vub.ac.be, Antoon Pardon says>: > >They got spanked for example, fighting in the house (if there was
fighting,
>: > >it was outside of the house), lying (need I say more?), taking things
that
>: > >did not belong to them (need I say more?), etc.
>: > >
>: > >It appears that the anti-spankers need to get more logical in their
>: > >opposition to spanking.
>: > >
>: > >Typical no-brainer attitude of liberals.
>: > Yes, this makes a lot of sense:
>: >
>: > "Stop hitting your brother or I'll hit you!"
>
>: And the poster accused anti-spankers of illogical thinking!!
>There is nothing illogical in this unless you want to question
>the whole penal system.
Is "want" a condition of what we should consider logical? Even
if it might be, would it be the only condition, as suggested by
by the conjunction, "unless"?
I think that a consideration of logic, in parenting, must
include a consideration of goals and anticipated outcome.
If our goal is to teach not to hit... even if it is merely to
restrict hitting to adults, hitting children has not met that
goal. Parents spanked as children spank (most parents never
learned not to hit) and nearly all children hit (most hitting
has not been restricted to adults).
I think that we must consider what we communicate to our
children about the "logic" of human relationships. If parents
are people and children are people, and parents may hit children,
then might that not mean to children that people may hit people;
that children may hit people, including parents as well as other
children? The consideration, I think, is not what is logical or
illogical, but what can or can't be done with impunity. Parents
may spank their children because they *can*, logically or
illogically, and children may not spank or hit anyone because
they *can't*, even if logical: parents are adults and children
are not; adults may hit children. :(
The difference is power and power is based in might not logic.
If power were based in logic, wouldn't it be just as authoritative
for children to hit with impunity... as long as they stayed within
the same bounds generally proscribed for parents?
Whatever... that one might indeed question "the whole penal
system" (here or in another locale), may or may not then make
either or both acts logical or illogical. And, logical or
illogical may not determine what is considered beneficent.
>People who kidnap others and thus res-
>trict the freedom of others, get there freedom restriceted by the
>authorities.
I think that I know what you meant to write, but I'm wondering
if you really meant for it to say that you think that the
kidnapper's reasoning, justification, and logic is no less pure
than the "authorities"? If there *is* such a commonality between
perpetrators of unacceptable acts and the punishers, then
punishers maintain their authority only through might... sort
of like some parents. The "authorities" are permitted to
apprehend and contain the kidnapper for restricting freedom of
another or others. The kidnapper may *not* and no others are
permitted to restrict freedom unchecked unless they happen to
be the social superior, which is a status even the kidnapper
enjoys until 'checked'.
In this regard, children and convicted kidnappers (it wasn't
I who brought up "kidnap" in a spanking debate!) are like
'vassals' to the parent/lords and the "authorities"/lords.
This 'pecking order' logic is feudatory and it's just as
anachronistic. Now, I realize that this seems purely logical
and acceptable (even desirable) to some and could be considered
as logical behavior whenever acted by anyone at any level in
the hierarchy, except the lowest level... minor child. At
that level, logic is apparently irrelevant. Even a kidnapper,
though, can not be subjected to corporal punishment.
What is logical for the "authorities" is also logical for
kidnappers? What is logical for parents is also logical for
children? What has logic got to do with it? Everything, from
a child's viewpoint. If a parent hits a child for hitting, the
child understands that hitting is okay, unless it gets the
attention of someone who has prohibited it. Power differences
explain why children are more restricted in hitting than are
parents, not logic.
>So there seems to be nothing illogical by punishing
>with the same action that was punished for.
Having suggested analogy with kidnapping, how about arson,
rape, or mailbombing? We don't literally burn arsonists
or sexually assault rapists, though electricution burns
soft tissue and rapists can be subjected to sexual assault
in confinement. However, would you as casually suggest that
mailing a bomb to Unabomber, though certainly fitting the
'eye-for-an-eye' mentality, would be a practical and socially
beneficent reply?
I didn't intend to support a change in focus, from spanking
children to kidnapping or mailbombing. Rather, I suggest
that spanking children, logically, models that hitting is
'okay'. It is a contradiction of what many of us 'say' that
we mean when we spank, slap, shove, or grab a child for
hitting. Our actions communicate and 'teach' more
effectively than our words. If we don't want to permit
children to hit, then we can not permit ourselves to hit.
Randy Cox
The NoSpanking Page
http://www.cei.net/~rcox/nospan.html
wit...@xs4all.nl
Suzanne:
>However, if spanking is how some people decide is the best
>way to handle their children, that is up to them.
[frowns] "Their" children? Hm. Children aren't property.
Witness
(or are they... can you _sell_ them?)
Roanna Costa Krisko
My mother says "Children are everyone's business" and how right she is.
If you saw a parent slapping a child around you should get involved.
Roanna Costa Krisko
> However, if spanking is how some people decide is the best way to
>handle their children, that is up to them. Seems to me though that
>spanking is just a lazy way to deal with a problem. I think children
>learn more when they are treated like people.
>
>Maybe you spankers need to get more logical and try to understand the
>anti-spankers views.
>
>Suzanne
Out of lurking for a bit.
To me, spanking is something that is done when a child is young, but
above 2 yrs old of course, when you cannot reason with him/her. A swat
to the leg, maybe. To hit a child in anger or to hit one over and over
isn't spanking but abuse.
When a child is to the point of reason then spanking is not a good
answer. All that does is to teach that violence is a solution and that
is not right.
Roanna
mother of 3 ranging from 9 to 25
Kirsten C.
Why isn't violence a solution? Who made that silly rule up. Violence seems to work to
me. Bye now, Kirsten
Kirsten C.
Roanna Costa Krisko wrote:
>
> In <5fa1oo$i7c$1...@news1.xs4all.nl> wit...@xs4all.nl () writes:
> >
> >Suzanne:
> >
> >>way to handle their children, that is up to them.
> >
> >
> >Witness
> >(or are they... can you _sell_ them?)
>
> My mother says "Children are everyone's business" and how right she is.
> If you saw a parent slapping a child around you should get involved.
Children are not everyones business. They are only their parents, and sometimes
taechers, nannys, or baby-sitters business. If a parent decides that slapping a child is
how it should be punished that is their business. I am so tired of seeing strangers get
involved in other people's children. If you want a child, you take care of it. People
have many different views on parenting, and I will not stop anyone from raising their
child how they see fit. No one else should either. Byenow, Kirsten
Night Child
So you're saying that if I see fit to punish my child by sticking his
finger in an electrical socket that's ok? If I see fit to punish my
child by using a razor to cut them that's ok? Gee, that's a great way to
think.
Night Child
Kirsten C. wrote:
>
> Roanna Costa Krisko wrote:
> >
> > > However, if spanking is how some people decide is the best way to
> > >spanking is just a lazy way to deal with a problem. I think children
> > >learn more when they are treated like people.
> > >
> > >Maybe you spankers need to get more logical and try to understand the
> > >anti-spankers views.
> > >
> > >Suzanne
> >
> > Out of lurking for a bit.
> > To me, spanking is something that is done when a child is young, but
> > above 2 yrs old of course, when you cannot reason with him/her. A swat
> > to the leg, maybe. To hit a child in anger or to hit one over and over
> > isn't spanking but abuse.
> > When a child is to the point of reason then spanking is not a good
> > answer. All that does is to teach that violence is a solution and that
> > is not right.
> >
> > Roanna
> > mother of 3 ranging from 9 to 25
>
> Why isn't violence a solution? Who made that silly rule up. Violence seems to work to
> me. Bye now, Kirsten
So I guess if I see you and decide I don't like the way you're talking
to me It's then ok for me to bend you over my legs and hit you?
Roanna Costa Krisko
In <3318DF...@mc.net> "Kirsten C." <be...@mc.net> writes:
>
>Roanna Costa Krisko wrote:
>>
>> In <5fa1oo$i7c$1...@news1.xs4all.nl> wit...@xs4all.nl () writes:
>> >
>> >Suzanne:
>> >
>> >>way to handle their children, that is up to them.
>> >
>> >
>> >Witness
>> >(or are they... can you _sell_ them?)
>>
>> My mother says "Children are everyone's business" and how right she
is.
>> If you saw a parent slapping a child around you should get involved.
>
>Children are not everyones business. They are only their parents, and
sometimes
>taechers, nannys, or baby-sitters business. If a parent decides that
slapping a child is
>how it should be punished that is their business. I am so tired of
seeing strangers get
>involved in other people's children. If you want a child, you take
care of it. People
>have many different views on parenting, and I will not stop anyone
from raising their
>child how they see fit. No one else should either. Byenow, Kirsten
Perhaps not but if you saw someone BEATING a child it is your business
to step in and stop it, call the cops, do something. If you saw a
child unrestrained in a car you should pray the parents wise up. If a
parent wants to give their kid ice cream for dinner it's their
business. If they are beating their child someone has to help.
Roanna
Roanna Costa Krisko
In <331908...@email.wanted> Night Child <n...@email.wanted> writes:
>
>Kirsten C. wrote:
>>
>> Roanna Costa Krisko wrote:
>> >
to
Right on! I like your way of thinking!!
Roanna
Night Child
That's funny. Why is it when people know i'm under 18 they either ignore
me or say I don't know what i'm talking about?
LaVonne Carlson
Kirsten C. wrote:
>
> Children are not everyones business. They are only their parents, and sometimes
> taechers, nannys, or baby-sitters business. If a parent decides that slapping a child is
> how it should be punished that is their business. I am so tired of seeing strangers get
> involved in other people's children. If you want a child, you take care of it.
Nice philosophy, Kirsten, but what would you suggest when it fails?
Not everyone who gives birth to a child does, or is able to, provide
responsible care. Since children are only the *business* of their
parents, should we repeal all laws, however inadequate they may be,
which are designed to protect children from abuse or neglect?
People
> have many different views on parenting, and I will not stop anyone from raising their
> child how they see fit. No one else should either.
Is there anywhere you would draw the line? Are all views of parenting
acceptable to you, including whips, electric shocks, beating which
leaves little children bruised and bleeding, sometimes with broken
bones? There is no instance where you would advocating stopping a
child from raising their child as they see fit? The absolute nature
of your above statement seems to indicate as much.
This is about children, Kirsten. Children are helpless and powerless.
They do not choose their parents. You see no measure of protection
necessary for little children, regardless of the treatment they may
receive at the hands of their parents?
LaVonne
Byenow, Kirsten
LaVonne Carlson
Night Child wrote:
>
> Kirsten C. wrote:
> >
> > Roanna Costa Krisko wrote:
> > >
> > > >>way to handle their children, that is up to them.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >Witness
> > > >(or are they... can you _sell_ them?)
> > >
> > > My mother says "Children are everyone's business" and how right she is.
> > > If you saw a parent slapping a child around you should get involved.
> >
> > taechers, nannys, or baby-sitters business. If a parent decides that slapping a child is
> > how it should be punished that is their business. I am so tired of seeing strangers get
> > have many different views on parenting, and I will not stop anyone from raising their
>
> So you're saying that if I see fit to punish my child by sticking his
> finger in an electrical socket that's ok? If I see fit to punish my
> child by using a razor to cut them that's ok? Gee, that's a great way to
> think.
Whether she meant it or not, yes, that is exactly what Kirsten has
said.
LaVonne
wit...@xs4all.nl
Night Child:
>So you're saying that if I see fit to punish my child by
>sticking his finger in an electrical socket that's ok?
Well, he _certainly_ won't do it again after that :-) So as
a punishment it's _quite_ effective: it "works".
Witness
LaVonne Carlson
S Nelson wrote:
> >
> > That scenario reminds me of a friend of mine. I have witnessed this
> on many occasions. The mother tells the kid to stop doing something.
> The child doesn't listen. The mother smacks her butt but the child
> continues to do what she was told not to. The mother tells her again.
> She continues and she is smacked again, harder though because Mommy is
> getting angry now. This goes on for at least 10 minutes but the child
> is stubborn. The mother continues smacking her and the child is in
> tears but will not stop. What's the point? I have seen this when this
> child was 4 and I see it now that the child is 10. The child has
> learned nothing. Absolutely nothing. She is as unruly and saucy as she
> was when she was 3 or 4 and nothing has changed. I don't understand how
> spanking, smacking (whatever term) teaches children anything other than
> how to take a hit or give one.
Oh, it teaches that and more, Suzanne. It teaches how to avoid the
hit by not getting caught!
LaVonne
>
> Suzanne
LaVonne Carlson
Orenda wrote:
>
> I don't believe in child abuse ( been there, done that, wouldn't wish
> it on anyone..... well, almost anyone.)
Considering the fact that you once proudly described bribing a child
with money to beat up another child whose behavior you didn't like, I
sincerely hope your above statement is just a figure of speach, though
why you would wish child abuse on anyone, even through a figure of
speech, is beyond me.
LaVonne
Nathan A. Barclay
LaVonne Carlson <carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> wrote in article
<331339...@maroon.tc.umn.edu>...
> Haven't heard from you in awhile, Antoon. No, we shouldn't leave a
> lit candle unsupervised around a preschooler, anymore than we should
> leave boiling water that could result in 3rd degree burns unsupervised
> around a preschooler. That was my point -- supervision, not hitting.
In Utopia, parents might be able to supervise their children every minute
of every day, and might be able to keep their homes childproofed 100%
perfectly 100% of the time. But we live in the real world.
One of the goals parents should have when they are supervising their
children is to prepare their children to do right even when they are not
supervised. Part of this preparation involves the understanding that rules
still apply even when an adult is not watching and that there is a very
real possibility that they will be caught and punished if they try to get
away with something. I'm not saying that the punishment has to be
spanking; just that supervision is far less than a complete answer.
Night Child
Roanna Costa Krisko wrote:
>
> In <33195B...@email.wanted> Night Child <n...@email.wanted> writes:
> >
> >Roanna Costa Krisko wrote:
> >>
> writes:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Roanna Costa Krisko wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > > However, if spanking is how some people decide is the best
> way
> >> to
>
> Roanna
Sorry, wrote that while I was tired. What I ment to say is I find it
funny that when people know my age they either ignore me or disagree
with me just because of my age. On the other hand when people don't know
my age they assume because of the way I present myself that I'm over 18
and are more inclined to listen to what I say and agree.
Night Child
Adam Ophir Shapira wrote:
>
> Blair Zajac wrote:
>
> > The rational is straight forward. The state (government) disapproves of
> > certain actions. If the actions are sufficiently bad (by the state's
> > measure), you can be punished by being put in jail and possibly to an
> > extreme, taking your life. You may not like the rules, but you have to live
> > by them.
>
> Law, but of all of the USA's 50 states, only one of them
> is among those places in the world. The other 49 states use
> a system known as "Common Law". Now, the USA version of
> common law *does* have a set of written laws that it goes
> by ... however, a court can find someone not-guilty simply
> on the grounds that the government had no right to pass
> such a law. ("Unconstitutional" is one such label.)
>
> >
> > Therefore, certain actions are not acceptable. They are not acceptable in
> > the home and/or in public. You will be punished in a way that you do not
> > like, but that is the way an adult lives. The conclusion is that the child
> > learns the hard way that his/her actions are not acceptable.
>
> they must to raise their children. True, child abuse
> is wrong. But there is a difference between responsible
> spanking and child abuse.
>
> Now, one thing I do say ... spanking should be
> something that is *only* used for last-resort. Most
> children are intelligent enough to respond to other
> less extreme penalties such as sending them to their
> room, or grounding them. However, all of those penalties
> rely on compliance on the child's part, and at a certain
> point, must by backed-up by threat of a penalty that does
> *not* rely on the child's compliance. When things get to
> this desparate level, if there is any better alternative
> to spanking ... I'd sure like to know what it is.
>
> >
> > While they live in our home, the parents are the state.
> >
> > process of fighting, you can damage the house. If the two of you want to
> > fight, then fight in an environment that only the two of you get hurt. Is
> > that rational too convolved?
>
> used as a last-resort measure. Let's for now forget the
> issue of physical injury to the child. Let's just focus
> on the fact that you can't teach your child not to behave
> in a violent manner by being violent your self. If you
> want to teach your child that violence is for use as a
> last-resort measure *only* ... then you better show the
> child that you practice that yourself. Or else, the child
> will see violence as a badge of adulthood.
>
> Spanking should be used only when you can't get a child
> to comply with less violent means of discipline.
>
> Also, you must keep in mind that punishment is only
> a part of discipline. Even reward and punishment together
> aren't the whole thing. It is no use teaching a child that
> he/she must behave if you forget to teach the child how to
> behave.
Hmm, when I got spanked back when I lived with my mother and step-father
it was mostly not because I had broken a law but just did something they
didn't like. Now having said that, I meet you and decide that for some
reason I don't like something you're either doing or saying. I ask you
not to do it but you continue. Well after asking you sevral times is it
then ok as a last resort to hit you in an atempt to stop you from
commiting the act which I find offensive? After all this was a last
restort. Before doing something to your children you should first think
of it as two adults doing it to each other. Now in the case of me hiting
you I'd be arrested for assualt, why should you get protection from
something when someone who is no where near as able to protect themself
as you are doesn't?
Roanna Costa Krisko
Roanna Costa Krisko
Oh please tell me your tongue is planted firmly in your cheek.
Roanna
Roanna Costa Krisko
>> >
>> >That's funny. Why is it when people know i'm under 18 they either
>> ignore
>> >me or say I don't know what i'm talking about?
>>
>> I had no idea what age you are. I just don't like people hitting
kids.
>>
>> Roanna
>
>Sorry, wrote that while I was tired. What I ment to say is I find it
>funny that when people know my age they either ignore me or disagree
>with me just because of my age. On the other hand when people don't
know
>my age they assume because of the way I present myself that I'm over
18
>and are more inclined to listen to what I say and agree.
I think older people, myself included, realize that a lot of younger
people might have views and ideas that we know won't work or happen. I
was going to join The Peace Corp and save the world. Now I'd like to
just be able to get the laundry done and the house cleaned on the same
week-end. Actually it is kind of sad that we try to push starry eyed
ideals out of some. A lot of people were younger when they accomplished
mighty things.
Living life does tend to changed ones outlook and wisen one up to so
many things. You also learn to pick the battles worth winning and
leave the rest behind. (I love that saying!)
Roanna
Alan
lo...@my.signature (Blair Zajac) defended spanking as follows:
> The rational is straight forward. The state (government) disapproves of
> certain actions. If the actions are sufficiently bad (by the state's
> measure), you can be punished by being put in jail and possibly to an
> extreme, taking your life. You may not like the rules, but you have to
> live by them.
>
> the home and/or in public. You will be punished in a way that you do not
> like, but that is the way an adult lives. The conclusion is that the child
> learns the hard way that his/her actions are not acceptable.
The last statement is of course an assertion rather than a conclusion.
Let's examine it. First, you claim that the child should learn "the
hard way." I suggest that if you want to teach a child something, you
should choose the most effective method rather than the most difficult
one.
Second, you claim that "the child learns... that his/her *actions* are
not acceptable." What I experienced was that after I was punished, I
would sooner or later (probably within a couple of weeks) do something
else that would provoke corporal punishment. So in my case there was
no meaningful distinction between myself and my actions--at the age of
four or five I was simply unable to follow my parent's directives per-
fectly.
> While they live in our home, the parents are the state.
Do you love Bill Clinton? This is an interesting analogy, although my
question about Bill Clinton misses the point in one regard: Western
democracies don't allow corporal punishment of criminals. Nor do they
make laws against developmentally normal behavior. But if we think in
terms of regimes with a more totalitarian bent, then I can go along with
the analogy although I've never really examined it before. But I did
grasp one of the implications at a very young age. I don't remember
the process clearly (in part because I didn't really understand it at
the time), but I was able to emotionally detach myself from my parents.
If I ask myself today what I would feel if one of my parents died, I'm
not sure of the answer. I suppose that it would make the prospect of
my own eventual death more tangible. I also suspect that somewhere
inside me I would find a sense of sorrow or loss if I searched for it,
but I can't be sure.
My parents loved me. What they did not succeed in doing is creating
an environment where I could return that love without doing emotional
harm to myself.
> Regarding the fighting in the house, it is not acceptable because in the
> process of fighting, you can damage the house. If the two of you want to
> fight, then fight in an environment that only the two of you get hurt. Is
> that rational too convolved?
No, you've expressed your priorities clearly. You care more about the
house getting hurt than the boys getting hurt.
- Alan
Alan
"Nathan A. Barclay" <nbar...@HiWAAY.anet>:
> One of the goals parents should have when they are supervising their
> children is to prepare their children to do right even when they are not
> supervised. Part of this preparation involves the understanding that rules
> still apply even when an adult is not watching and that there is a very
> real possibility that they will be caught and punished if they try to get
> away with something.
One of the advantages of positive reinforcement is that intermittent
positive reinforcement is effective. That is one reason why positive
reinforcement works better than punishment in the real world--if
parents don't observe every instance of a particular behavior it
still works well. So it seems strange that you talk about applying
punishment in situations where you admit that it is only possible to
react to the childs behavior intermittently.
- Alan
John Aquino
On 1 Mar 1997 20:29:39 GMT, chia...@ix.netcom.com (Roanna Costa
Krisko) wrote:
)In <5fa1oo$i7c$1...@news1.xs4all.nl> wit...@xs4all.nl () writes:
)>
)>Suzanne:
)>
)>>However, if spanking is how some people decide is the best
)>>way to handle their children, that is up to them.
)>
)>[frowns] "Their" children? Hm. Children aren't property.
)>
)>Witness
)>(or are they... can you _sell_ them?)
)
)
)My mother says "Children are everyone's business" and how right she
is.
)If you saw a parent slapping a child around you should get involved.
Depends. In general you should mind your own damn business, but their
is a point at which it becomes abuse.
If I saw a parent slapping a child over and over in the face with full
force I might get involved. If I just saw a parent smack a kid once
or twice for good reason I would mind my own damn business.
You have to figure out where that line is and not cross it. For me it
would be an equation.
Is the parent doing it in anger? Somewhat bad.
Is the parent using "excessive" force? Somewhat bad
Is the parent going midevil? Very bad
Is the parent justified? Somewhat good
Is the parent under control? Somewhat good
I would combine these things in some meaningful way and make a
decision. I would also have to decide if the child looked to be in
real danger.