SPANKING: "for boys only..."
Orenda
Anyone else notice that I basicly said the same thing as Chris
Dugan, ( I know, it shocked the hell out of me too ) but it wasn't in an
extremely hostile, accusational manner ?? The woman was only expressing
her opinion. I can disagree without tying to take what she said in such
a personal or aggressive manner. I didn't think we were here on
this NG to attack each other, but to discuss spanking and options in
child discipline.
Orenda, who's willing to bet this is now one more poster who will agree
Chris D. loves to flame.
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
: Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate for
: girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
: here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of baring
: one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my daughter
: to feel about her body and her dignity!
So why should baring a young MAN's anatomy be any less
indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
male? What does such treatment communicate to a BOY about HIS body and
HIS dignity?
Chris, who doesn't like spanking, doesn't like sexism, and *especially*
doesn't like sexist spankings.
J. Chapman
In message <4t5pn9$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu> - cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( )24
Jul 1996 18:23:37 GMT writes:
>
>Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate for
>: girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
>: here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of baring
>: one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my daughter
>: to feel about her body and her dignity!
>
> So why should baring a young MAN's anatomy be any less
>indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
Because Cheryl, like many feminists, doesn't really see males as being
quite human.
>male? What does such treatment communicate to a BOY about HIS body and
>HIS dignity?
That it is meaningless to females; and, of course, he may feel angry
about that and take it out on some representative female when he is
old enough to be capable - of course by then he will be viewed as
a perpetrator and not a victim.
>Chris, who doesn't like spanking, doesn't like sexism, and *especially*
>doesn't like sexist spankings.
--
Free and open civilization requires that each individual's
responsibility match their authority.
When authority exceeds responsibility we have despotism.
When responsibility exceeds authority we have slavery.
- me
Randy
In article <4t5pn9$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu>, on 24 Jul 1996 18:23:37 GMT,
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu, cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu says
> So why should baring a young MAN's anatomy be any less
>indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
>male? What does such treatment communicate to a BOY about HIS body and
>HIS dignity?
>Chris, who doesn't like spanking, doesn't like sexism, and *especially*
>doesn't like sexist spankings.
Night before last, an 18 y.o. female gymnist finished the day's
competition on a badly sprained ankle. Stoic, goal directed,
egoistic, team player and, IMO, a personal decision, stupid or
heroic. I sympathise with the children who consume much of their
childhoods in preparation for a relatively short career. Lots
has been said about the wisdom (or lack of it) of continuing
competition and risking more serious injury.
This should not be a sex-linked concern. Young men break their
limbs and their spinal collumns each year, playing individual and
team sports. Great admiration is bestowed on the yungster who
plays injured. There was measureably more concern expressed
regarding the wellbeing and judgement of this young female gymnist.
The wisdom of her parents and coaches has also been challenged,
as if an 18 y.o. was still mostly subordinated to parents and elders.
Females are often subjected to more protection and offered more
concern over safety and judgement than are males. It is worthy of
confrontation when a parent would subject a son to less
protection, less concern over safety and judgement, and are
discounted more than females. But, it is not surprizing. We
are a sexist, racist, and agist society. Our individual senses
of nationalism are closely related to delusions of superiority
as is much of authoritarian parenting. Spanking parents are
hitting smaller, younger people who are mostly male. Bigotry
is a word slung around a.p.spanking fairly often and usually in
the direction of anti-spanking posters. Spanking minor children
who are also male is broader than sexism.
Randy Cox
The NoSpan King Page
http://www.cei.net/~rcox/nospan.html
Marguerite Petersen
In article <4t5pn9$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
<cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
>: Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate for
>: girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
>: here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of baring
>: one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my daughter
>: to feel about her body and her dignity!
>
>indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
>male? What does such treatment communicate to a BOY about HIS body and
>HIS dignity?
I agree! How is spanking more of an insult to a girl's dignity
than to a boy's? That makes NO sense to me at all!
>Chris, who doesn't like spanking, doesn't like sexism, and *especially*
>doesn't like sexist spankings.
Most definitely! I didn't (don't) spank my kids; girls OR boys.
Marg
--
Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL
pet...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
The Internet has Faster Karma - John Sechrest
Marguerite Petersen
In article <4t74f2$3...@berlin.infomatch.com>,
J. Chapman <jcha...@tnrltd.com> wrote:
>In message <4t5pn9$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu> - cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( )24
>>
>>Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
>>: Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate for
>>: girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
>>: here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of baring
>>: one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
>>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my daughter
>>: to feel about her body and her dignity!
>>
>> So why should baring a young MAN's anatomy be any less
>>indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
>
>quite human.
Excuse me! Only in your warped fantasies do ALL feminists believe
as Cheryl does.
>>male? What does such treatment communicate to a BOY about HIS body and
>>HIS dignity?
>
>That it is meaningless to females; and, of course, he may feel angry
>about that and take it out on some representative female when he is
>old enough to be capable - of course by then he will be viewed as
>a perpetrator and not a victim.
ANYONE who is hit is going to wind up feeling some anger and rage
about that situation. It is therefore *wise*, IMO, to teach our
children (both girls *and* boys), that it is not a good idea to
hit. The best way to do this, again IMO, is to NOT hit them in
the first place. In other words, we, as parents, must set the
example we wish our boys and girls to follow.
>>Chris, who doesn't like spanking, doesn't like sexism, and *especially*
>>doesn't like sexist spankings.
Marg
Strickland Hershel E
On 24 Jul 1996 cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
> Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate for
> : girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
> : here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of baring
> : one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
> : brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my daughter
> : to feel about her body and her dignity!
>
> So why should baring a young MAN's anatomy be any less
> indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
> male? What does such treatment communicate to a BOY about HIS body and
> HIS dignity?
>
> Chris, who doesn't like spanking, doesn't like sexism, and *especially*
> doesn't like sexist spankings.
>
>
Right on! Maybe we should spank adults and talk to young people. Wait,
I guess that is what S&M is all about. Anyway, it is a rather brutal way
to get a point across.
Hershel Strickland
Debbie O'Leary
jcha...@tnrltd.com (J. Chapman) wrote:
>>
>> So why should baring a young MAN's anatomy be any less
>>indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
>
>quite human.
An absolutely ridiculous statement.
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Marguerite Petersen (pet...@kira.peak.org) wrote:
: In article <4t74f2$3...@berlin.infomatch.com>,
: J. Chapman <jcha...@tnrltd.com> wrote:
: >In message <4t5pn9$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu> - cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( )24
: >Jul 1996 18:23:37 GMT writes:
: >>Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
: >>: Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate for
: >>: girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
: >>: here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of baring
: >>: one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
: >>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my daughter
: >>: to feel about her body and her dignity!
: >> So why should baring a young MAN's anatomy be any less
: >>indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
: >
: >Because Cheryl, like many feminists, doesn't really see males as being
: >quite human.
: Excuse me! Only in your warped fantasies do ALL feminists believe
: as Cheryl does.
He said "many," not "all." However, I think he should have said,
"some" instead of "many," because this would have made his statement
clearly true and less needlessly inflamatory. There is no doubt that
"some" feminists feel this way. Andrea Dworkin wrote in her book
"Pornography: Men Possessing Women" that "men are not fully human." I am
quoting from memory here, but I believe those were her exact words, FWIW.
: >>male? What does such treatment communicate to a BOY about HIS body and
: >>HIS dignity?
: >
: >That it is meaningless to females; and, of course, he may feel angry
: >about that and take it out on some representative female when he is
: >old enough to be capable - of course by then he will be viewed as
: >a perpetrator and not a victim.
: ANYONE who is hit is going to wind up feeling some anger and rage
: about that situation. It is therefore *wise*, IMO, to teach our
: children (both girls *and* boys), that it is not a good idea to
: hit. The best way to do this, again IMO, is to NOT hit them in
: the first place. In other words, we, as parents, must set the
: example we wish our boys and girls to follow.
Yes. Men commit more violent crimes than women. Boys receive
more violence from parents than girls. Could there be a connection
here? I think there is.
The rate of spousal abuse and violent crime is significantly lower
among men who were *never* physically punished as children than among
women who *were* physically punished as children (Straus, 1991).
Chris
REFERENCE
Straus, M.A. 1991. "Discipline and Deviance: Physical Punishment of
Children and Violence and Other Crime in Adulthood" _Social Problems_
38(2): 133-155.
Randy
In article <4t98jl$h...@kira.peak.org>, on 25 Jul 1996 18:56:05 -0700,
pet...@kira.peak.org, Marguerite Petersen says
>(cut cited excerpts of previous posts)
>ANYONE who is hit is going to wind up feeling some anger and rage
>about that situation. It is therefore *wise*, IMO, to teach our
>children (both girls *and* boys), that it is not a good idea to
>hit. The best way to do this, again IMO, is to NOT hit them in
>the first place. In other words, we, as parents, must set the
>example we wish our boys and girls to follow.
>Marg
Astute!
I agree that being struck 'ought' to generate the emotions,
generally grouped under the collumn heading, anger, and ranging
from mild to intense, from disappointment to rage. However,
some people are conditioned to interpret corporal punishment
as 'deserved'... to react without the indignation you might expect
and, instead, rationalize such penalties as the prerogative of
the punisher, thus minimizing and subordinating their own dignity
and worth.
I agree too, Marg, that the very best teaching tool we have at
our disposal is modeling. Children use observation and mimicking
as a primary learning device. We get 'through to them' more and
better by doing instead of saying. Children are incredibly
perceptive; they are better 'psychologists' than we will ever be
and are too highly skilled to be fooled by our foolish
rationalizations. When we *are* what we say, we will accomplish
far more in their interest than anything we *say* that we are.
If we don't want our children to intentionally hurt the feelings
of others, then we mustn't intentionally hurt them. It helps too
if we display genuine compassion for the hurts and pains of others.
Compassion can not be conditional and regard for our children's
feelings mustn't be, either.
Marguerite Petersen
In article <4t9rie$g...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
Okay, I will accept *some*, since I certainly can't prove that NO
feminist believes in this. However, I would also posit that SOME
others (women and men) believe this way as well. I certainly don't
believe that it is a *feminist* belief to either think of men as
less than human OR to *only* spank male children.
>: >>male? What does such treatment communicate to a BOY about HIS body and
>: >>HIS dignity?
>: >
>: >That it is meaningless to females; and, of course, he may feel angry
>: >about that and take it out on some representative female when he is
>: >old enough to be capable - of course by then he will be viewed as
>: >a perpetrator and not a victim.
>
>: ANYONE who is hit is going to wind up feeling some anger and rage
>: about that situation. It is therefore *wise*, IMO, to teach our
>: children (both girls *and* boys), that it is not a good idea to
>: hit. The best way to do this, again IMO, is to NOT hit them in
>: the first place. In other words, we, as parents, must set the
>: example we wish our boys and girls to follow.
>
> Yes. Men commit more violent crimes than women. Boys receive
>more violence from parents than girls. Could there be a connection
>here? I think there is.
Yup, and so do I. Those who are treated violently, react in a
violent manner. It is all they know how to do and how they react
to situations. Violence begets violence. Clear and simple to me.
> The rate of spousal abuse and violent crime is significantly lower
>among men who were *never* physically punished as children than among
>women who *were* physically punished as children (Straus, 1991).
>
>Chris
And I would believe this even if you *didn't* have a reference.
>REFERENCE
>
>Straus, M.A. 1991. "Discipline and Deviance: Physical Punishment of
>Children and Violence and Other Crime in Adulthood" _Social Problems_
>38(2): 133-155.
Marg
LaVonne Carlson
Marguerite Petersen wrote:
>
> Ain't that the truth! It makes no sense at all to tell our
> children "don't hit others" when at the same time WE are hitting
> *them*. What kind of a message does that send?!?
It sends a very clear message. If you are bigger and stronger, and
someone displeases you, hit them! Of course, that is the exact opposite
of the message those who hit their children want to send!
LaVonne
Marguerite Petersen
In article <4tbaka$5...@ren.cei.net>, Randy <rc...@cei.net> wrote:
>In article <4t98jl$h...@kira.peak.org>, on 25 Jul 1996 18:56:05 -0700,
>pet...@kira.peak.org, Marguerite Petersen says
>
>>(cut cited excerpts of previous posts)
>
>>about that situation. It is therefore *wise*, IMO, to teach our
>>children (both girls *and* boys), that it is not a good idea to
>>hit. The best way to do this, again IMO, is to NOT hit them in
>>the first place. In other words, we, as parents, must set the
>>example we wish our boys and girls to follow.
>
>
>Astute!
>
>I agree that being struck 'ought' to generate the emotions,
>generally grouped under the collumn heading, anger, and ranging
>from mild to intense, from disappointment to rage. However,
>some people are conditioned to interpret corporal punishment
>as 'deserved'... to react without the indignation you might expect
>and, instead, rationalize such penalties as the prerogative of
>the punisher, thus minimizing and subordinating their own dignity
>and worth.
I believe that *every* child who is hit DOES feel anger about
that *hitting*. However, due to the subordinate position of the
one who is hit (and conversely the position of power of the hitter),
the anger is repressed. However, when/if the tables are turned
(ie. the one who is hit begins to feel *they* are in the position
of power or even aspires to be), they tend to react in the manner
they were taught. ie. hitting is the perogative of the powerful.
>I agree too, Marg, that the very best teaching tool we have at
>our disposal is modeling. Children use observation and mimicking
>as a primary learning device. We get 'through to them' more and
>better by doing instead of saying. Children are incredibly
>perceptive; they are better 'psychologists' than we will ever be
>and are too highly skilled to be fooled by our foolish
>rationalizations. When we *are* what we say, we will accomplish
>far more in their interest than anything we *say* that we are.
Ain't that the truth! It makes no sense at all to tell our
children "don't hit others" when at the same time WE are hitting
*them*. What kind of a message does that send?!?
>If we don't want our children to intentionally hurt the feelings
>of others, then we mustn't intentionally hurt them. It helps too
>if we display genuine compassion for the hurts and pains of others.
>Compassion can not be conditional and regard for our children's
>feelings mustn't be, either.
Most definitely agreed!
>Randy Cox
>The NoSpan King Page
>http://www.cei.net/~rcox/nospan.html
>
Marg
Marguerite Petersen
In article <4tep38$c...@berlin.infomatch.com>,
J. Chapman <jcha...@tnrltd.com> wrote:
>In message <4t98jl$h...@kira.peak.org> - pet...@kira.peak.org (Marguerite
>Petersen) writes:
>>
>>In article <4t74f2$3...@berlin.infomatch.com>,
>>J. Chapman <jcha...@tnrltd.com> wrote:
>>>In message <4t5pn9$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu> - cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( )24
>>>Jul 1996 18:23:37 GMT writes:
>>>>
>>>>Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
>>>>: Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate for
>>>>: girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
>>>>: here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of baring
>>>>: one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
>>>>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my daughter
>>>>: to feel about her body and her dignity!
>>>>
>>>> So why should baring a young MAN's anatomy be any less
>>>>indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
>>>
>>>Because Cheryl, like many feminists, doesn't really see males as being
>>>quite human.
>>
>>Excuse me! Only in your warped fantasies do ALL feminists believe
>>as Cheryl does.
>
>the semantic difference between the word "many" (that I used) and the word
>"ALL" to which your brain apparently translated. Then you could always
>apologize if you're feeling like an adult today.
I usually feel like an adult. :-) Do you? However, I agree that you
did not use the word all. Although, it was rather ignoble of you to
even use the word *many*. I would like to see your proof that even
*many* feminists have the attitude that it is *alright* to *only*
spank boys. I *am* a feminist. I am married to a human male as well
as being the parent of 2 human males (also a human female). I treat
them all as humans *first*. Their sex does not compute where treatment
of them is concerned.
J. Chapman
In message <4t98jl$h...@kira.peak.org> - pet...@kira.peak.org (Marguerite
Petersen) writes:
>
>In article <4t74f2$3...@berlin.infomatch.com>,
>J. Chapman <jcha...@tnrltd.com> wrote:
>>In message <4t5pn9$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu> - cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( )24
>>Jul 1996 18:23:37 GMT writes:
>>>
>>>Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
>>>: Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate for
>>>: girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
>>>: here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of baring
>>>: one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
>>>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my daughter
>>>: to feel about her body and her dignity!
>>>
>>> So why should baring a young MAN's anatomy be any less
>>>indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
>>
>>Because Cheryl, like many feminists, doesn't really see males as being
>>quite human.
>
>Excuse me! Only in your warped fantasies do ALL feminists believe
>as Cheryl does.
Sorry but I can't excuse you. Not until you go to a dictionary and discover
the semantic difference between the word "many" (that I used) and the word
"ALL" to which your brain apparently translated. Then you could always
apologize if you're feeling like an adult today.
>>>male? What does such treatment communicate to a BOY about HIS body and
>>>HIS dignity?
>>
>>That it is meaningless to females; and, of course, he may feel angry
>>about that and take it out on some representative female when he is
>>old enough to be capable - of course by then he will be viewed as
>>a perpetrator and not a victim.
>
>ANYONE who is hit is going to wind up feeling some anger and rage
>about that situation. It is therefore *wise*, IMO, to teach our
>children (both girls *and* boys), that it is not a good idea to
>hit. The best way to do this, again IMO, is to NOT hit them in
>the first place. In other words, we, as parents, must set the
>example we wish our boys and girls to follow.
Which, of course, was my point. A point you would have gotten if you
weren't in such a big hurry to be disagreeable.
>>>Chris, who doesn't like spanking, doesn't like sexism, and *especially*
>>>doesn't like sexist spankings.
>
>Marg
>
>
>
>--
> Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL
> pet...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
> The Internet has Faster Karma - John Sechrest
--
Susan Clonts
Marguerite Petersen wrote:
>
> I would recommend "Dare To Discipline" by James Dobsonfor those who would like to further explore a loving
form of discipline with does include spanking, (not hitting
in anger) when it is appropriate.
Susan
Paul Pentz
LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
> Marguerite Petersen wrote:
> >
>
> > Ain't that the truth! It makes no sense at all to tell our
> > children "don't hit others" when at the same time WE are hitting
> > *them*. What kind of a message does that send?!?
>
> someone displeases you, hit them! Of course, that is the exact opposite
> of the message those who hit their children want to send!
>
> LaVonne
I'm new to this newsgroup, but I just _have_ to put in my two cents
worth. I have 4 children, ages 8, 7, 5, and 3, and while we have always
used other forms of punishment, we have spanked on a couple occasions.
You like to draw a parallel between spanking and hitting, but in my mind
they are distinctly different. Hitting is a result of anger. Spanking,
on the other hand, if properly expained in a calm way to the child, can
be a very important discipline tool that should NEVER be used in anger.
The child must know they are being punished and WHY they are being
punished. If spanking is used out of anger, then I agree, there is
little difference between it and hitting, but when administered as
punishment without anger, it can be a very important tool.
Paul
Marguerite Petersen
In article <31FEB5...@isd.net>, Paul Pentz <ppe...@isd.net> wrote:
>LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>>
>> Marguerite Petersen wrote:
>> >
>>
>> > Ain't that the truth! It makes no sense at all to tell our
>> > children "don't hit others" when at the same time WE are hitting
>> > *them*. What kind of a message does that send?!?
>>
>> It sends a very clear message. If you are bigger and stronger, and
>> someone displeases you, hit them! Of course, that is the exact opposite
>> of the message those who hit their children want to send!
>>
>> LaVonne
>
>I'm new to this newsgroup, but I just _have_ to put in my two cents
>worth. I have 4 children, ages 8, 7, 5, and 3, and while we have always
>used other forms of punishment, we have spanked on a couple occasions.
>You like to draw a parallel between spanking and hitting, but in my mind
>they are distinctly different.
Spanking IS hitting. It really doesn't matter if anger is associated
with it or not.
Hitting is a result of anger. Spanking,
>on the other hand, if properly expained in a calm way to the child, can
>be a very important discipline tool that should NEVER be used in anger.
IF one is capable of *explaining* anything to a child, then one is
capable of explaining *without* spanking/hitting. Calm, cool and
collected *spankings* are a power tool and are extremely destructive
IMO.
>The child must know they are being punished and WHY they are being
>punished. If spanking is used out of anger, then I agree, there is
>little difference between it and hitting, but when administered as
>punishment without anger, it can be a very important tool.
And just what does "spanking as punishment" accomplish that *other*
less violent means of punishment can't?
>Paul
Jen Wilson
In article <4t84uu$p...@usenet.ucs.indiana.edu>, dol...@indiana.edu says...
>
>jcha...@tnrltd.com (J. Chapman) wrote:
>>>
>>> So why should baring a young MAN's anatomy be any less
>>>indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
>>
>>Because Cheryl, like many feminists, doesn't really see males as being
>>quite human.
>
>
>
>
I agree. I am a feminist and I have a lot of guy friends. They respect me and
I respect them.
Leigh
Marguerite Petersen wrote:
>
> In article <4t74f2$3...@berlin.infomatch.com>,
> J. Chapman <jcha...@tnrltd.com> wrote:
> >In message <4t5pn9$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu> - cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( )24
> >Jul 1996 18:23:37 GMT writes:
> >>
> >>Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
> >>: Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate for
> >>: girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
> >>: here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of baring
> >>: one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
> >>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my daughter
> >>: to feel about her body and her dignity!
> >>
> >>indefensible? Why is "brutalizing" the child okay provided the child is
> >
> >Because Cheryl, like many feminists, doesn't really see males as being
> >quite human.
>
> as Cheryl does.
>
The poster didn't say "all", the poster said "many", and the
poster is right in his/her comment.
> >>male? What does such treatment communicate to a BOY about HIS body and
> >>HIS dignity?
> >
> >That it is meaningless to females; and, of course, he may feel angry
> >about that and take it out on some representative female when he is
> >old enough to be capable - of course by then he will be viewed as
> >a perpetrator and not a victim.
>
> ANYONE who is hit is going to wind up feeling some anger and rage
> about that situation. It is therefore *wise*, IMO, to teach our
> children (both girls *and* boys), that it is not a good idea to
> hit. The best way to do this, again IMO, is to NOT hit them in
> the first place. In other words, we, as parents, must set the
> example we wish our boys and girls to follow.
>
> >>Chris, who doesn't like spanking, doesn't like sexism, and *especially*
> >>doesn't like sexist spankings.
>
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Paul Pentz (ppe...@isd.net) wrote:
: LaVonne Carlson wrote:
: >
: > Marguerite Petersen wrote:
: > >
: >
: > > Ain't that the truth! It makes no sense at all to tell our
: > > children "don't hit others" when at the same time WE are hitting
: > > *them*. What kind of a message does that send?!?
: >
: > It sends a very clear message. If you are bigger and stronger, and
: > someone displeases you, hit them! Of course, that is the exact opposite
: > of the message those who hit their children want to send!
: >
: > LaVonne
: I'm new to this newsgroup, but I just _have_ to put in my two cents
: worth. I have 4 children, ages 8, 7, 5, and 3, and while we have always
: used other forms of punishment, we have spanked on a couple occasions.
: You like to draw a parallel between spanking and hitting, but in my mind
: they are distinctly different.
In your mind, spanking and hitting are "distinctly different,"
but in the *dictionary* (Websters NW 2nd ed.), well, see for yourself:
SPANK vt. [echoic] to STRIKE with something flat, as the open hand, esp.
on the buttocks, as in punishment.
STRIKE vt. to HIT with the hand or a tool, weapon, etc.
Spanking = striking = hitting. QED. It is not possible to
"spank" a child without simultaneously hitting the child.
: Hitting is a result of anger.
My dictionary does not support your caveat about anger needing to
be present before a spanking qualifies as "hitting." Which dictionary
are *you* using?
: Spanking,
: on the other hand, if properly expained in a calm way to the child, can
: be a very important discipline tool that should NEVER be used in anger.
I was spanked as a child, sometimes in anger, sometimes not. It
was the spankings NOT given in anger which upset and traumatized me the
most. There is something horrific about a parent inflicting pain upon a
beloved child in a calm emotionless manner while the child screams and
begs for mercy. It made no sense to me then and it makes no sense to me
now. At least when the spanking parent was angry, their violent behavior
made a kind of emotional sense. Cold-bloodedly spanking the child
without anger? Brrrr!
: The child must know they are being punished and WHY they are being
: punished. If spanking is used out of anger, then I agree, there is
: little difference between it and hitting, but when administered as
: punishment without anger, it can be a very important tool.
Perhaps parental narcissism lies at the root of this bizarre
assertion that spanking is acceptable provided that the PARENT is not
experiencing any strong emotions. Just because the PARENT isn't
emotionally affected doesn't mean the CHILD isn't. I think this is
similar to the assertion that spankings "clear the air" because they make
the PARENT feel better and relieve the PARENT'S tension. Spanking only
meets the needs of parents, not children. This is the only reason this
discreditted practice continues.
: Paul
Chris
LaVonne Carlson
> Paul Pentz (ppe...@isd.net) wrote:
> : You like to draw a parallel between spanking and hitting, but in my mind
> : they are distinctly different.
>
> In your mind, spanking and hitting are "distinctly different,"
> but in the *dictionary* (Websters NW 2nd ed.), well, see for yourself:
>
> SPANK vt. [echoic] to STRIKE with something flat, as the open hand, esp.
> on the buttocks, as in punishment.
>
> STRIKE vt. to HIT with the hand or a tool, weapon, etc.
>
> Spanking = striking = hitting. QED. It is not possible to
> "spank" a child without simultaneously hitting the child.
I remember attending a lecture given by Murray Straus a few years ago,
where he discussed his survey data. When asked "Do you hit your child"
many parents said no; but when asked "Do you spank your child?" most of
those same parents said yes. When then asked how one administered a
spanking without hitting some part of the child's body, parents had no
answer--yet would continue to state "spanking is not hitting."
I think the idea of hitting a little child is odious to many parents who
want to continue to spank--thus they refused to acknowledge what is
reality. Spanking=striking a child's body=hitting a child.
LaVonne
Marguerite Petersen
In article <4tqcjj$e...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
<cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
> Perhaps parental narcissism lies at the root of this bizarre
>assertion that spanking is acceptable provided that the PARENT is not
>experiencing any strong emotions. Just because the PARENT isn't
>emotionally affected doesn't mean the CHILD isn't. I think this is
>similar to the assertion that spankings "clear the air" because they make
>the PARENT feel better and relieve the PARENT'S tension. Spanking only
>meets the needs of parents, not children. This is the only reason this
>discreditted practice continues.
>
I most *definitely* agree with the above! The person being *spanked*
is defiitely "emotionally affected" (even if the *spanking* doesn't
really hurt.) It is the subjugation of the individual that is truly
hurtful and not necessarily the actual spanking. And those parents
who DO feel relieved after spanking their children ought to consider
two things; 1) what message ARE they sending to their children? and
2) how will their children feel about them when they are older.
I always felt that it would be *truly* difficult to believe that
an individual (parent) would "be there" for one and *really* have
one's "best interests at heart" IF they could resort to spanking.
How can one expect an older child (say a teen) to open up to
his/her parent if that parent has a history of spanking. Is that
child(teen) going to reveal their innermost concerns, problems,
thoughts to such an individual? I don't think so. And although
I don't (and never did) *insist* that my children reveal anything
to me that they didn't feel comfortable revealing, I have felt
*very* privileged that they reveal almost *everything*. I believe
they feel a level of *trust* in me that they wouldn't have felt
IF I had been a "spanking" parent.
Kel Krosschell
LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
> > Paul Pentz (ppe...@isd.net) wrote:
> > : You like to draw a parallel between spanking and hitting, but in my mind
> > : they are distinctly different.
> >
> Chris wrote:
> > In your mind, spanking and hitting are "distinctly different,"
> > but in the *dictionary* (Websters NW 2nd ed.), well, see for yourself:
> >
> > SPANK vt. [echoic] to STRIKE with something flat, as the open hand, esp.
> > on the buttocks, as in punishment.
> >
> > STRIKE vt. to HIT with the hand or a tool, weapon, etc.
> >
> > Spanking = striking = hitting. QED. It is not possible to
> > "spank" a child without simultaneously hitting the child.
Now lets not make webster roll over in his grave!
This supposed "proof" Spanking = striking = hitting. QED would make a
mockery of method of proof.
I don't care if you are pro-spanking or anti-spanking, or somewhere in
between. Just because you find ONE WORD that is PART OF, but NOT THE
COMPLETE DEFINITION does not allow you to equate the two!! That's a
cheap ruse.
Quite simply if spank means to strike with something flat
particularly on the buttocks and strike means to hit with the hand or
something, That does not make all 3 words equal!
Obviously I can hit without spanking. I.e. I hit him up side the head
with a 2X4 to get his attention. That is not spanking!
I can hit you with a car as in Hit and run. but that is neither
striking nor spanking!
Catch my drift? If not, you deserve a good spanking with a baseball
bat...
Kel _._
P.s. Webster does not mention sex of the recipient as part of any of
these definitions! QED!
--
Kel_._ the MN_KiteNut (Kel Krosschell)
E-mail to kit...@millcomm.com
Home page at http://www.millcomm.com/~kitenut/
Orenda
Marguerite Petersen wrote:
>
> I always felt that it would be *truly* difficult to believe that
> an individual (parent) would "be there" for one and *really* have
> one's "best interests at heart" IF they could resort to spanking.
> How can one expect an older child (say a teen) to open up to
> his/her parent if that parent has a history of spanking. Is that
> child(teen) going to reveal their innermost concerns, problems,
> thoughts to such an individual? I don't think so. And although
> I don't (and never did) *insist* that my children reveal anything
> to me that they didn't feel comfortable revealing, I have felt
> *very* privileged that they reveal almost *everything*. I believe
> they feel a level of *trust* in me that they wouldn't have felt
> IF I had been a "spanking" parent.
>
> --
> Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL
> pet...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
> The Internet has Faster Karma - John Sechrest
Hate to burst your bubble, but my 22 year old son who I have
spanked confides in me about everything too. My daughter does too.
Maybe it was the amount of love and nurturing you gave your kid(s) not
just the discipline that inspires love and admiration.
Somehow, I don't think just the two of us have that in
common either. I know a lot of parents who spank who have trusting
loving kids. Find another theory.
Orenda
Tammy
A wonderful reply!!! Let's hope that good ol' Saint Nick brings all the Cohorts a copy
of Webesters dictonary and instructions on it use!
Tammy
--
Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition # 285:
" No good deed ever goes unpunished"
Quark
" The Collaborator"
Edward J. MacLennan
I
>> I don't care if you are pro-spanking or anti-spanking, or somewhere
in
>> between. Just because you find ONE WORD that is PART OF, but NOT
THE
>> COMPLETE DEFINITION does not allow you to equate the two!! That's a
>> cheap ruse.
>>
>> Quite simply if spank means to strike with something flat
>> particularly on the buttocks and strike means to hit with the hand
or
>> something, That does not make all 3 words equal!
>>
>> Obviously I can hit without spanking. I.e. I hit him up side the
head
>> with a 2X4 to get his attention. That is not spanking!
>>
So you can hit without spanking... but can you spank without hitting?
How do you propose to spank a child without
hitting/striking/swatting/slapping any part of his or her body with
your hand or other instrument?
seelan
Tammy wrote:
>
> Kel Krosschell wrote:
> >
> > LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Paul Pentz (ppe...@isd.net) wrote:
> > > > : You like to draw a parallel between spanking and hitting, but in my mind
> > > > : they are distinctly different.
> > > >
> > > Chris wrote:
> > > > In your mind, spanking and hitting are "distinctly different,"
> > > > but in the *dictionary* (Websters NW 2nd ed.), well, see for yourself:
> > > >
> > > > SPANK vt. [echoic] to STRIKE with something flat, as the open hand, esp.
> > > > on the buttocks, as in punishment.
> > > >
> > > > STRIKE vt. to HIT with the hand or a tool, weapon, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Spanking = striking = hitting. QED. It is not possible to
> > > > "spank" a child without simultaneously hitting the child.
> >
> > Now lets not make webster roll over in his grave!
> >
> > This supposed "proof" Spanking = striking = hitting. QED would make a
> > mockery of method of proof.
> >
> > between. Just because you find ONE WORD that is PART OF, but NOT THE
> > COMPLETE DEFINITION does not allow you to equate the two!! That's a
> > cheap ruse.
> >
> > Quite simply if spank means to strike with something flat
> > particularly on the buttocks and strike means to hit with the hand or
> > something, That does not make all 3 words equal!
> >
> > Obviously I can hit without spanking. I.e. I hit him up side the head
> > with a 2X4 to get his attention. That is not spanking!
> >
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Kel Krosschell (kit...@millcomm.com) wrote:
: LaVonne Carlson wrote:
: >
: > > Paul Pentz (ppe...@isd.net) wrote:
: > > : You like to draw a parallel between spanking and hitting, but in my mind
: > > : they are distinctly different.
: > >
: > Chris wrote:
: > > In your mind, spanking and hitting are "distinctly different,"
: > > but in the *dictionary* (Websters NW 2nd ed.), well, see for yourself:
: > >
: > > SPANK vt. [echoic] to STRIKE with something flat, as the open hand, esp.
: > > on the buttocks, as in punishment.
: > >
: > > STRIKE vt. to HIT with the hand or a tool, weapon, etc.
: > >
: > > Spanking = striking = hitting. QED. It is not possible to
: > > "spank" a child without simultaneously hitting the child.
[snip]
: Obviously I can hit without spanking. I.e. I hit him up side the head
: with a 2X4 to get his attention. That is not spanking!
: I can hit you with a car as in Hit and run. but that is neither
: striking nor spanking!
: Catch my drift? If not, you deserve a good spanking with a baseball
: bat...
: Kel _._
You have confused. The issue here is not whether one can"hit"
without "spanking," but whether on can "spank" without "hitting." These
are two completely different questions. I agree with everything you have
said above, btw. But nothing you have posted presents any challenge to my
assertion that all spanking, of necessity, involves hitting.
Presenting the relationship visually might help:
_________________________________________________________
| |
| ________________________ |
| | | |
| "Hitting" | "Spanking" | |
| | | |
| |_______________________| |
| |
|_______________________________________________________| |
Put into words: "all spanking is hitting but not all hitting is
spanking."
Chris
Kel Krosschell
NEVER SAID ANYTHING DIFFERENT, DID I?
My point was that using a=b=c implies that there is EQUALITY that goes
both ways: 1+1=2 implies that 2=1+1 .
Just want to keep the little subtle creepy crawlies out of important
discussions.
Here's a new thought: Does the word Strike imply any level of force?
Does to me. As compared to touch,pat,bump,etc. To me Strike implies
some level of force in its connotation.
So could one then spank, say in a playful manner, with little force,
and thereby not be hitting?
Imagine the couple into such things. They need not be hitting eachother
to get their spanking thrills...
Kel
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Edward J. MacLennan (nane...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: So you can hit without spanking... but can you spank without hitting?
: How do you propose to spank a child without
: hitting/striking/swatting/slapping any part of his or her body with
: your hand or other instrument?
I have never understood why certain prospankers will try to argue
that they possess the mysterious ability to "spank" their children without
simultaneously "hitting" them. It is an argument which they cannot
possibly win, yet they continue to try.
The fact that one can "hit" without "spanking" does NOT mean one
can "spank" without "hitting." By this same failure of logic, one could
"prove" that apples are not fruits. After all, an ORANGE is a fruit...
and it is obviously NOT an apple... so therefore anyone who tries to
insinuate that an apple is a fruit is really just engaging in a "cheap
ruse." Right? (Wrong!)
For those who still can't comprehend the difference between saying
"all spanking involves hitting" versus "all hitting involves spanking,"
perhaps the Mad Hatter, the Dormouse and the March Hare can help clarify
matters. The Mad Hatter asks Alice:
"Why is a raven like a writing desk?"
"Come, we shall have some fun now!" thought Alice. "I'm glad
they've begun asking riddles - I believe I can guess that," she added
aloud.
"Do you mean that you think you can find out the answer to it?"
said the March Hare.
"Exactly so," said Alice.
"Then you should say what you mean," the March Hare went on.
"I do," Alice hastily replied; "at least - at least I mean what I
say - that's the same thing, you know."
"Not the same thing a bit!" said the Hatter. "Why, you might
just as well say that 'I see what I eat' is the same thing as 'I eat what
I see.'!"
"You might just as well say," added the March Hare, "that 'I like
what I get' is the same thing as 'I get what I like'!"
"You might just as well say," added the Dormouse, which seemed to
be talking in its sleep, "that 'I breathe when I sleep' is the same thing
as 'I sleep when I breathe'!"
"It *is* the same thing with you," said the Hatter, and here the
conversation dropped, and the party sat silent for a minute, while Alice
thought over all she could remember about ravens and writing-desks, which
wasn't much.
-Alice's Adventures In Wonderland, chapter VII
by Charles Ludwidge Dodgeson (aka "Lewis Carroll")
Chris, who adds "You might just as well say, that 'I hit when I spank' is
the same thing as 'I spank when I hit'!" :-)
denise szecsei
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote in article
<4t5pn9$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu>...
> Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
> : Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate
for
> : girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
> : here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of
baring
> : one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
> : brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my
daughter
> : to feel about her body and her dignity!
>
"Spanking" is just a cutesy word for violence against children. I would
never hit my son (or daughter, if I had one) anywhere, since their entire
bodies are quite sensitive to pain. But then again, I would never cut off
a piece of my son's penis, especially just after he is born, as so many
parents in the US seem to do. Ritualized, and sanctioned abuse is still
abuse. Perhaps that's where the behavioral differences between boys and
girls begins.
Kevin Ishida
Cheryl,
I concur with your thoughts about circumcision (sp?) as I have two boys
and gave the subject much thought. About the spanking issue however, my
husband and I disagree. He is against and I am for. I have challenged
him to come up with some other diciplinary techniques we could try with
our boys, 2 & 4, but he came up dry. Perhaps you have some helpful
ideas.
Kate
Tami
>cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote in article
><4t5pn9$8...@carbon.cudenver.edu>...
>> Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
>> : Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate
>>:for girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
>> : here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of
>>:baring one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
>>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my
>>:daughter to feel about her body and her dignity!
>>
First of all, spanking should not involve contact with the bare skin.
Why would you pull the child's pants down? Why do you feel that this
is less damaging for a boy than for a girl? Is this not an intimate
area of the body for boys, also? To paraphrase you, it hardly
communicates to a boy what you should want your sons to feel about
their bodies and dignity.
Furthermore, I have seen no one defend the practice of brutalizing a
young girl. Rather, I have seen them argue *your* practice of
brutalizing young boys. I don't feel that spanking is necessarily
brutalizing them, but spanking them the way you apparently do, pulling
their pants down, and making them know that you do this because you
want them to feel subservient to women, is brutalizing them.
Tami
Mama to Sophia (9), Gena (7) and Keziah (9mo)
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
chery...@aol.com (Cheryl1955) wrote:
>I realize it is inconsistent with the new orthodoxy. But, boys are
>different in many important ways from girls. Boys grow up to fill our
>prisons, batter our women, engage in behavior that fills our hospitals and
>medical providers' offices, and teach women and girls that they are on
>this planet to be subservient to men and boys. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm
>not going to let me children grow up to go out into the world and continue
>those destructive, patriarchal roles.
If that is your goal, Cheryl, then you are going about it
backwards. Children who are physically punished the most have the highest
rather than the lowest rates of aggressive behavior, spousal abuse, and
crime as adults (Straus, 1991). Statisically speaking, you are increasing
the likelihood that your sons will grow up to become abusive men, not
decreasing it.
Physically punishing boys more often and more harshly than girls
is *already* the traditional status quo (Elder and Bowerman, 1963;
MacDonald, 1971; Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; Straus, 1971). Evidence
strongly suggests that the heavier amount of corporal punishment suffered
by boys is a CAUSE of the greater amount of violent behavior exhibited by
men (Straus, 1994). You are taking a traditional sexist doublestandard
and exaggerating it still further. Why would you think that doing so will
reverse problems of gender inequity rather than exacerbate them?
> Until we find a way to do something about the horrible side-effects
>of testosterone, it is imperative that we take steps to promote respect
>for female authority. And, like it or not, spanking is one way to get
>boys to respect female authority.
It is a good way to make your sons hate you. Of course, since
they are your children, they will not be able to integrate this sort of
devasting emotion brought on by your cruel treatment of them, so they will
have to repress it. This repressed hatred won't go away, it will just
stay hidden. One common way for males to act out the repressed hatred
brought about by violent degrading treatment at the hands of domineering
controlling mothers like yourself is to become misogynists. Every woman
in the world then becomes a symbolic stand-in for that one single woman
whom they REALLY hate deep down. (Ironically, men like this frequently
put their hurtful mothers up on metaphorical pedastals, exempting them
from the contempt they exhibit towards every other female on earth).
By the way, would you "respect" an abusive husband who hit YOU?
Why should your sons "respect" YOU as a result of your domestic violence
against THEM? Hitting people may make them fear you, but it will never
make them respect you. Please put yourself in the position of the hitee
for a moment and then tell me I am wrong, Cheryl.
>I agree that boys who are beaten by men
>become resentful and hardened by it. But, boys react completely
>differently when fairly and reasonably spanked by a woman.
So, Cheryl, when a man spanks a boy, this is a "beating" which
will cause the boy to "become resentful and hardened." But only when a
*woman* does the same thing to a boy it is reasonable and fair. Did I get
that right?
What you seem to be propounding here is yet another manifestation
of the old myth that women are intrinsically better suited for childcare
than men. This is an argument *against* gender equality, and you, a
self-described "feminist," are advancing it.
> Please don't tell me that because I'm a Feminist that I somehow
>believe that boys and men are "less than human."
No, of course not. They are just poisoned by the "harmful
side-effects of testosterone" and need "respect" to be beaten in to
them. Why should anyone think you perceive them as less human...
>I love my sons every bit
>as much as I love my daughter.
After what you tell us below about "the harmful side-effects of
testosterone" (which occurs in women as well as men, btw) I find the above
a little bit hard to believe.
>But, there are differences, both because
>of what our culture teaches them and because of the harmful side-effects
>of testosterone, between boys and girls and they way they should be
>raised.
Einstein once said, "you cannot simultaneously prevent and
prepare for war." You are trying to simultaneously prevent and prepare
for gender inequality.
Means are ends in embryo. If you want to see a world in which
women and men are equal, don't apply brazen doublestandards to the way
you treat your sons vs. your daughter.
>Until girls and women are far less vulnerable to the violence of
>men in this world, girls must be raised to believe that they are in
>complete control of their bodies, and that no one may touch them without
>their consent. And until men learn to treat women with respect, boys need
>to be raised to respect female authority.
When you spank your boys, you are modeling precisely the sort of
behavior you DON'T want them to reciprocate. You are violating their
physical boundaries and personal dignity. You are showing them that
violence is the way to deal with conflict in intimate relationships. You
are modeling nonconsensual touching behavior to them. In short, you are
demonstrating how to violate others and how to be perpetrators of
domestic violence. And all the while you imagine that you are teaching
them just the opposite. Please get some family counseling, Cheryl!
Dominating, subjugating, and hurting male children when they are
little and helpless will not make them "respect" your "female authority."
It will more likely fill them with an intense resolve to NEVER let a woman
get the better of them ever again, and perhaps, to take out on all women,
the revenge that they could never exact against their own mother. And of
course, they will have their entire childhoods to study, at close hand,
precisely how to dominate and subjugate others. You are their teacher.
>A properly administered
>spanking can have a profound impact on the way young males view women.
>Don't we all welcome the day when young men will look at women with
>deference and respect rather than with predatory eyes?
Cheryl, how would you feel if you logged onto the net tommorrow
and, under a thread entitled "WHY Only Wives Should Be Beaten," read the
following words:
"A properly administered wife-beating can have a profound impact
on the way married women view men. Don't we all welcome the day when
young women will look at men with deference and respect rather than with
gold-digging eyes?"
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.
Maccoby, E.E. and Jacklin, C.N. 1974. "The Psychology of Sex
Differences." Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
MacDonald, A.P. 1971. "Internal-External Locus of Control: Parental
Antecedents." _Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology_ 37:141-147.
Straus, M.A. 1971. "Social Class and Sex Differences in Socialization
for Problem Solving in Bombay, San Juan, and Minneapolis." Pp. 282-301 in
_Family Problem Solving_, edited by J. Aldous, T. Condon, R. Hill, M.
Straus, and I. Tallman. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
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. 1994. "Beating The Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment
In American Families." New York City: Lexington Books.
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Tami (ta...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: >> Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
: >> : Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate
: >>:for girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
: >> : here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of
: >>:baring one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
: >>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my
: >>:daughter to feel about her body and her dignity!
: >>
: First of all, spanking should not involve contact with the bare skin.
: Why would you pull the child's pants down? Why do you feel that this
: is less damaging for a boy than for a girl? Is this not an intimate
: area of the body for boys, also? To paraphrase you, it hardly
: communicates to a boy what you should want your sons to feel about
: their bodies and dignity.
It looks as if Cheryl considers boys' feelings about their bodies
and dignity irrelevant, and only girls' feelings about their bodies and
dignity worthy of concern. But sexism is karmic. Attempts to
discriminate against one sex in favor of the other always backfire. In
this case, raising boys in a manner which disrespects their bodies and
dignity will tend to yield men with a poor sense of the bodily integrity
and dignity of other people, including the women in their lives.
: Furthermore, I have seen no one defend the practice of brutalizing a
: young girl.
You are right, no one has done so. But Cheryl reacted as if they
did so anyhow. It is as if only girls even exist at all for her as
children worthy of compassion and concern.
: Rather, I have seen them argue *your* practice of
: brutalizing young boys. I don't feel that spanking is necessarily
: brutalizing them, but spanking them the way you apparently do, pulling
: their pants down, and making them know that you do this because you
: want them to feel subservient to women, is brutalizing them.
And the chances are good that these boys are going to get revenge
someday for the ways they are being humiliated and brutalized today. In
doing so, they will have become the sorts of men whom Cheryl is trying to
prevent them from becoming.
:
: Tami
: Mama to Sophia (9), Gena (7) and Keziah (9mo)
Chris
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
randm...@aol.com (RandmSampl) wrote:
: Well said, Cheryl! At last someone has contributed something to the
: discussion of spanking of boys that makes sense and addresses the real
: world we live in.
In "the real world" boys are *already* physically punished in
greater numbers, with greater frequency and with greater harshness, on the
average, than girls. This sort of treatment hardens boys and prepares
them to burn themselves out on the job, if they don't perish on the
battlefield first, and to commit suicide at a rate triple that of women,
who, on the average, will outlive them by seven years.
: As I've reported on here before, I too spank my boys,
: both teenagers, but not my daughter. And my reasons are very similar to
: yours. And while most of the posters to this group will not want to hear
: this, my boys are happy, healthy, well adjusted, and doing very well in
: life, thanks at least in part to the fact that I am not afraid to
: occasionally spank them when their behavior warrants it.
: Thank you for your posting, Cheryl.
Okay, I'll play along here. If being hit and hurt by you has
helped make your sons so "happy, healthy, [and] well-adjusted" why don't
you give your daughters the "benefits" of your painful blows also?
Chris
Robin E. Cook
In <3208eba6...@nntp.ix.netcom.com> ta...@ix.netcom.com (Tami )
writes:
>>> : Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate
>>>:for girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a
commotion
>>> : here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice
of
>>>:baring one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy
and then
>>>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my
>>>:daughter to feel about her body and her dignity!
>>>
What about your son's body and his dignity?
>
>First of all, spanking should not involve contact with the bare skin.
>Why would you pull the child's pants down? Why do you feel that this
>is less damaging for a boy than for a girl? Is this not an intimate
>area of the body for boys, also? To paraphrase you, it hardly
>communicates to a boy what you should want your sons to feel about
>their bodies and dignity.
Also, what is the purpose of physical punishment? I disapprove of it
because I don't think it works. I also don't think it teaches
discipline or respect for the parents.
>
>Furthermore, I have seen no one defend the practice of brutalizing a
>young girl. Rather, I have seen them argue *your* practice of
>brutalizing young boys. I don't feel that spanking is necessarily
>brutalizing them, but spanking them the way you apparently do, pulling
>their pants down, and making them know that you do this because you
>want them to feel subservient to women, is brutalizing them.
>
>
Agreed! :)
Marguerite Petersen
In article <4ubqoj$l...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
<cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>randm...@aol.com (RandmSampl) wrote:
>
>: Well said, Cheryl! At last someone has contributed something to the
>: discussion of spanking of boys that makes sense and addresses the real
>: world we live in.
>
> In "the real world" boys are *already* physically punished in
>greater numbers, with greater frequency and with greater harshness, on the
>average, than girls. This sort of treatment hardens boys and prepares
>them to burn themselves out on the job, if they don't perish on the
>battlefield first, and to commit suicide at a rate triple that of women,
>who, on the average, will outlive them by seven years.
I agree, this is certainly intolerable IMO.
>: As I've reported on here before, I too spank my boys,
>: both teenagers, but not my daughter. And my reasons are very similar to
>: yours. And while most of the posters to this group will not want to hear
>: this, my boys are happy, healthy, well adjusted, and doing very well in
>: life, thanks at least in part to the fact that I am not afraid to
>: occasionally spank them when their behavior warrants it.
>: Thank you for your posting, Cheryl.
And I would state that *any* parent who feels it necessary to *spank*
their teenage sons has already lost it as a parent. And I personally
worry about just how "heappy,healthy, well adjusted" these young men
are or will be. There *ARE* other means of conveying your sense of
*ethics* (such as they are) to your sons than by hitting them.
> Okay, I'll play along here. If being hit and hurt by you has
>helped make your sons so "happy, healthy, [and] well-adjusted" why don't
>you give your daughters the "benefits" of your painful blows also?
Good point. I guess this poster just doesn't feel it necessary to
*straighten out* his/her girl and/or to give her the benefits of
*spanking* that he/she is so certain is the end result.
>Chris
Marg
Foreigner
On Aug 08, 1996 04:34:27 in article <Re: SPANKING: "for boys only...">,
'cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( )' wrote:
>Path:
>psinntp!psinntp!portc01.blue.aol.com!newsxfer2.itd.umich.edu!newsfeed.internetmc
>i.com!csn!nntp-xfer-1.csn.net!carbon!ouray!cddugan
>From: cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu ( )
>Newsgroups:
>misc.kids,alt.parenting.spanking,soc.men,soc.women,alt.mens-rights,alt.activism.
>children,alt.kids-talk
>Subject: Re: SPANKING: "for boys only..."
>Followup-To:
>misc.kids,alt.parenting.spanking,soc.men,soc.women,alt.mens-rights,alt.activism.
>children,alt.kids-talk
>Date: 8 Aug 1996 04:34:27 GMT
>Organization: University of Colorado at Denver
>Lines: 26
>Message-ID: <4ubqoj$l...@carbon.cudenver.edu>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: ouray.cudenver.edu
>X-Newsreader: TIN [version 1.2 PL2]
>Xref: psinntp misc.kids:267211 alt.parenting.spanking:10791 soc.men:220568
>soc.women:198853 alt.mens-rights:40137 alt.activism.children:5713
>alt.kids-talk:114185
>randm...@aol.com (RandmSampl) wrote:
>
>: Well said, Cheryl! At last someone has contributed something to the
>: discussion of spanking of boys that makes sense and addresses the real
>: world we live in.
>
> In "the real world" boys are *already* physically punished in
>greater numbers, with greater frequency and with greater harshness, on the
>average, than girls. This sort of treatment hardens boys and prepares
>them to burn themselves out on the job, if they don't perish on the
>battlefield first, and to commit suicide at a rate triple that of women,
>who, on the average, will outlive them by seven years.
>
>: As I've reported on here before, I too spank my boys,
>: both teenagers, but not my daughter. And my reasons are very similar to
>: yours. And while most of the posters to this group will not want to
hear
>: this, my boys are happy, healthy, well adjusted, and doing very well in
>: life, thanks at least in part to the fact that I am not afraid to
>: occasionally spank them when their behavior warrants it.
>: Thank you for your posting, Cheryl.
>
> Okay, I'll play along here. If being hit and hurt by you has
>helped make your sons so "happy, healthy, [and] well-adjusted" why don't
>you give your daughters the "benefits" of your painful blows also?
>
>Chris
--
I think The mother here needs a good spanking... and by the way did your
boys tell you they are happy or are they afraid to tell the truth because
they are afraid of getting another spanking?
--
///, ////
\ /, / >.
\ /, _/ /.
\_ /_/ /.
\__/_ < ==============================
/<<< \_\_ | Steve K. |
/,)^>>_._ \ | tso_...@nyc.pipeline.com or |
(/ \\ /\\\ | tso_...@ix.netcom.com |
// ```` |
|
======((`========================================
Foreigner
On Aug 08, 1996 04:22:55 in article <Re: SPANKING: "for boys only...">,>psinntp!psinntp!howland.erols.net!cs.utexas.edu!swrinde!sdd.hp.com!night.primate
>.wisc.edu!carbon!ouray!cddugan
>Newsgroups:
>misc.kids,alt.parenting.spanking,soc.men,soc.women,alt.mens-rights,alt.activism.
>children,alt.kids-talk
>Subject: Re: SPANKING: "for boys only..."
>Followup-To:
>misc.kids,alt.parenting.spanking,soc.men,soc.women,alt.mens-rights,alt.activism.
>children,alt.kids-talk
>Message-ID: <4ubq2v$l...@carbon.cudenver.edu>
>References: <4t44jl$a...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
><4t74f2$3...@berlin.infomatch.com> <4t98jl$h...@kira.peak.org>
><4tbaka$5...@ren.cei.net> <4tclo5$m...@kira.peak.org>
><31F9EE...@maroon.tc.umn.edu> <31FEB5...@isd.net>
><4tqcjj$e...@carbon.cudenver.edu> <3200
>Xref: psinntp misc.kids:267208 alt.parenting.spanking:10789 soc.men:220564
>soc.women:198851 alt.mens-rights:40136 alt.activism.children:5712
>alt.kids-talk:114178
--
What scares me is that we are lead to believe that men are the child
abusers, but here is an example of the real abuse. All justified in her
warped mind, yet she would be awarded custody in a divorce proceding.
Makes you wonder.. don't it? ...
--
Marguerite Petersen
In article <4ubq2v$l...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
<cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
>chery...@aol.com (Cheryl1955) wrote:
>
>>I realize it is inconsistent with the new orthodoxy. But, boys are
>>different in many important ways from girls. Boys grow up to fill our
>>prisons, batter our women, engage in behavior that fills our hospitals and
>>medical providers' offices, and teach women and girls that they are on
>>this planet to be subservient to men and boys. Well, I'm sorry, but I'm
>>not going to let me children grow up to go out into the world and continue
>>those destructive, patriarchal roles.
>
> If that is your goal, Cheryl, then you are going about it
>backwards. Children who are physically punished the most have the highest
>rather than the lowest rates of aggressive behavior, spousal abuse, and
>crime as adults (Straus, 1991). Statisically speaking, you are increasing
>the likelihood that your sons will grow up to become abusive men, not
>decreasing it.
Precisely! And IF the *spanker* is a female, she is merely setting
up her son(s) to see women as *punishers* who in turn deserve to be
punished. Not a good scenario, IMO.
> Physically punishing boys more often and more harshly than girls
>is *already* the traditional status quo (Elder and Bowerman, 1963;
>MacDonald, 1971; Maccoby and Jacklin, 1974; Straus, 1971). Evidence
>strongly suggests that the heavier amount of corporal punishment suffered
>by boys is a CAUSE of the greater amount of violent behavior exhibited by
>men (Straus, 1994). You are taking a traditional sexist doublestandard
>and exaggerating it still further. Why would you think that doing so will
>reverse problems of gender inequity rather than exacerbate them?
Beats me why she would think this way! Let's see how the theory works;
boys are "by nature" *more* violent and *more* inclined to criminal
behavior SO they need to be hit/spanked corrected in order to beat
them into submission. Gee! That sounds like a *wonderful* philosophy
for raising non-violent, society-respecting and women-loving men. NOT!!
>> Until we find a way to do something about the horrible side-effects
>>of testosterone, it is imperative that we take steps to promote respect
>>for female authority. And, like it or not, spanking is one way to get
>>boys to respect female authority.
>
> It is a good way to make your sons hate you. Of course, since
>they are your children, they will not be able to integrate this sort of
>devasting emotion brought on by your cruel treatment of them, so they will
>have to repress it. This repressed hatred won't go away, it will just
>stay hidden. One common way for males to act out the repressed hatred
>brought about by violent degrading treatment at the hands of domineering
>controlling mothers like yourself is to become misogynists. Every woman
>in the world then becomes a symbolic stand-in for that one single woman
>whom they REALLY hate deep down. (Ironically, men like this frequently
>put their hurtful mothers up on metaphorical pedastals, exempting them
>from the contempt they exhibit towards every other female on earth).
Yup, seen it happen more than once. You see, Cheryl, it goes like
this; the child *cannot* hate the Mother that is doing the *correcting*
BUT the correcting is so abhorrent to the child that they harbor extreme
anger from the humiliation suffered at the hands of the *mother*. Sooo..
they transfer all the anger and rage to, guess who!?!?!? Other women.
Of course, in their eyes, they have every right to despise and hate
and will always be able to find reasonable excuses (to them) for feeling
as they do toward these individual women. However, the start of all
their misogynistic feelings toward women stems from mother humiliating
them in childhood.
> By the way, would you "respect" an abusive husband who hit YOU?
>Why should your sons "respect" YOU as a result of your domestic violence
>against THEM? Hitting people may make them fear you, but it will never
>make them respect you. Please put yourself in the position of the hitee
>for a moment and then tell me I am wrong, Cheryl.
I most definitely agree with you and would like to add, PLEASE stopy
hitting your sons!!!!
>>I agree that boys who are beaten by men
>>become resentful and hardened by it. But, boys react completely
>>differently when fairly and reasonably spanked by a woman.
>
> So, Cheryl, when a man spanks a boy, this is a "beating" which
>will cause the boy to "become resentful and hardened." But only when a
>*woman* does the same thing to a boy it is reasonable and fair. Did I get
>that right?
Fairly and reasonably spanked by a woman? What kind of drugs are you
ON woman!?!?!?! For the Goddess's sake, PLEASE reconsider your behavior!
You are setting your boys up for a lifetime of despising women.
> What you seem to be propounding here is yet another manifestation
>of the old myth that women are intrinsically better suited for childcare
>than men. This is an argument *against* gender equality, and you, a
>self-described "feminist," are advancing it.
It sounds to ME like Cheryl has decided that *women* are the only
ones who are truly capable of administering physical punishment
and are somehow *immune* by dint of being, what? Superior? And
what IF these young boys some day decide to retaliate either against
YOU (the mother) or some other woman? Is that alright too?
>> Please don't tell me that because I'm a Feminist that I somehow
>>believe that boys and men are "less than human."
>
> No, of course not. They are just poisoned by the "harmful
>side-effects of testosterone" and need "respect" to be beaten in to
>them. Why should anyone think you perceive them as less human...
Certainly sounds to me as though Cheryl believes that the males of
the species are some kind of testosterone poisoned *brutes*. Well,
the way that she advocates raising them, that is precisely what she
will get.
>>I love my sons every bit
>>as much as I love my daughter.
>
> After what you tell us below about "the harmful side-effects of
>testosterone" (which occurs in women as well as men, btw) I find the above
>a little bit hard to believe.
Me too.
>>But, there are differences, both because
>>of what our culture teaches them and because of the harmful side-effects
>>of testosterone, between boys and girls and they way they should be
>>raised.
>
> Einstein once said, "you cannot simultaneously prevent and
>prepare for war." You are trying to simultaneously prevent and prepare
>for gender inequality.
There is no such thing as "the harmful side-effects of testosterone",
only the harmful side-effects of cultural conditioning, which you,
Cheryl are most certainly continuing with your bizarre child-raising
attitudes and practices.
> Means are ends in embryo. If you want to see a world in which
>women and men are equal, don't apply brazen doublestandards to the way
>you treat your sons vs. your daughter.
Amen!! (or Awomen as I sometimes prefer)
>>Until girls and women are far less vulnerable to the violence of
>>men in this world, girls must be raised to believe that they are in
>>complete control of their bodies, and that no one may touch them without
>>their consent. And until men learn to treat women with respect, boys need
>>to be raised to respect female authority.
>
> When you spank your boys, you are modeling precisely the sort of
>behavior you DON'T want them to reciprocate. You are violating their
>physical boundaries and personal dignity. You are showing them that
>violence is the way to deal with conflict in intimate relationships. You
>are modeling nonconsensual touching behavior to them. In short, you are
>demonstrating how to violate others and how to be perpetrators of
>domestic violence. And all the while you imagine that you are teaching
>them just the opposite. Please get some family counseling, Cheryl!
Yes, men need to learn to treat women with respect, IF it is earned.
Mothers hitting/spanking their boys is certainly NOT a way of earning
respect, IMO. Counseling? I think it's gone beyond that. I would
think that Children's services might just be interested.
> Dominating, subjugating, and hurting male children when they are
>little and helpless will not make them "respect" your "female authority."
>It will more likely fill them with an intense resolve to NEVER let a woman
>get the better of them ever again, and perhaps, to take out on all women,
>the revenge that they could never exact against their own mother. And of
>course, they will have their entire childhoods to study, at close hand,
>precisely how to dominate and subjugate others. You are their teacher.
Precisely!!!!
>>A properly administered
>>spanking can have a profound impact on the way young males view women.
>>Don't we all welcome the day when young men will look at women with
>>deference and respect rather than with predatory eyes?
>
> Cheryl, how would you feel if you logged onto the net tommorrow
>and, under a thread entitled "WHY Only Wives Should Be Beaten," read the
>following words:
>
> "A properly administered wife-beating can have a profound impact
>on the way married women view men. Don't we all welcome the day when
>young women will look at men with deference and respect rather than with
>gold-digging eyes?"
And perhaps a little *submission* thrown in for good measure? Yuck!!!
>Chris
Marg
>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.
>
>Maccoby, E.E. and Jacklin, C.N. 1974. "The Psychology of Sex
>Differences." Stanford, CA: Stanford Univ. Press.
>
>MacDonald, A.P. 1971. "Internal-External Locus of Control: Parental
>Antecedents." _Journal of Consulting & Clinical Psychology_ 37:141-147.
>
>Straus, M.A. 1971. "Social Class and Sex Differences in Socialization
>for Problem Solving in Bombay, San Juan, and Minneapolis." Pp. 282-301 in
>_Family Problem Solving_, edited by J. Aldous, T. Condon, R. Hill, M.
>Straus, and I. Tallman. Hinsdale, IL: Dryden Press.
>
>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. 1994. "Beating The Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment
>In American Families." New York City: Lexington Books.
All good references, by the way. But do you honestly believe that
Cheryl will avail herself of them? One can only hope!
a...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca
In a dysfunctional environment there are rules and if the rules
are broken it leads to reprecussions, shame, being made to feel bad.
In a functional environment there are rules and if they are
broken it leads to conversation.
: I concur with your thoughts about circumcision (sp?) as I have two boys
: and gave the subject much thought. About the spanking issue however, my
: husband and I disagree. He is against and I am for. I have challenged
: him to come up with some other diciplinary techniques we could try with
: our boys, 2 & 4, but he came up dry. Perhaps you have some helpful
: ideas.
: Kate
--
Orenda
All the flamers
Who will deny they are.... like they deny everything else.
I don't think boys deserve spankings and girls not. But to call
this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
spankings she gives is outrageous.
My son earned a lot more spankings than my daugher ever did.
Now.... if she would have never deserved one, would I have been an
abuser because I didn't spank her ???? I haven't spanked her in years (
probably since she was 9.... and I spanked my son til he was 14.... He
treats women very well ( nicer than his friends ) adores his sister
above all else, and loves me.
And to talk about calling Children's services..... one reason
that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
So offer advice, state your opinion, but quit setting yourselves
up as judge and jury. You suck at it.
Orenda
Barbara A. Gilley
Orenda wrote:
> And to talk about calling Children's services..... one reason
> that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
> people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
> she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
> her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
Please provide information that can be independently verified to back up
your claim. I'd love to see a state by state analysis, but I'll be
satisfied with whatever you come up with for starters.
Marguerite Petersen
In article <320A89...@nexusprime.org>,
Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>All the flamers
> Who will deny they are.... like they deny everything else.
>
> I don't think boys deserve spankings and girls not. But to call
>this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
>spankings she gives is outrageous.
You spank your child, you are being physically violent with them, IMO.
I call that abuse. You may call it whatever you like, but it is still
wrong.
> My son earned a lot more spankings than my daugher ever did.
>Now.... if she would have never deserved one, would I have been an
>abuser because I didn't spank her ????
No, but you would *certainly* have been showing your *sexist*
tendancies considering that you DO/did spank your son.
I haven't spanked her in years (
>probably since she was 9.... and I spanked my son til he was 14.... He
>treats women very well ( nicer than his friends ) adores his sister
>above all else, and loves me.
I sincerely hope so for his (and your) sake. However, any parent
who spanks their child(ren), (certainly to the ages of teenagehood)
is setting themselves up for a whole lot of grief. What DO you
think that you have taught/shown him? That the one who is bigger
and stronger is the one who gets to hit others. That is all.
> And to talk about calling Children's services..... one reason
>that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
>people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
>she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
>her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
I have known personally kids who are/have been *terribly* abused
by their parent(s), and you know what, those kids absolutely *love*
those parents. Kids love their parents in spite of what they do.
However, IF the parents truly love their kids, it would behoove
them to at least treat their kids as well as they would wish to
be treated. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
> So offer advice, state your opinion, but quit setting yourselves
>up as judge and jury. You suck at it.
> Orenda
How intelligent of you.
Marg
Tami
Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>All the flamers
> Who will deny they are.... like they deny everything else.
>
> I don't think boys deserve spankings and girls not. But to call
>this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
>spankings she gives is outrageous.
Hello? Have you been *reading*? I'll tell you what kind of spankings
she's been giving: UNFAIR spankings. She's been spanking her sons and
not her daughters. Not only is this abusive to her sons, it's
borderline abusive to her daughters.
>
> My son earned a lot more spankings than my daugher ever did.
>Now.... if she would have never deserved one, would I have been an
>abuser because I didn't spank her ???? I haven't spanked her in years (
>probably since she was 9.... and I spanked my son til he was 14.... He
>treats women very well ( nicer than his friends ) adores his sister
>above all else, and loves me.
One child "earning" more spankings is not the same as you having a
policy that one child should be spanked and the other not.
As for your son treating you well, imagine how he would be treating
you if you constantly referred to his how he needed to be taught to
respect women, the "horrible side effects" of testosterone, regaling
him with tales about how *men* batter women (and ignoring when it
happens the other way around), making it clear that we should respect
the sanctity of the privacy of a woman's body while violating the
privacy of the boy's, teaching him that no one may touch a girl
without her consent while doing just that to her, saying that boys
should look at women with *deference* (when you defer, you yield to
the decisions of the other, I think mutual respect is much more
appropriate).
Now, do you *really* think that if your son would still feel respect
for you if you were to consistently, throughout his life, show him the
lack of respect this woman has shown for *her* son?
And if you think I'm making any of that up, you're wrong. I took it
from her post.
>
> And to talk about calling Children's services..... one reason
>that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
>people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
>she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
>her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
One reason why so many *real* abused children slip through the cracks
is because too many people like you, blinded by your own ignorance,
stand up to defend the actions of people like this woman.
Not only is she abusing her son, but, odds are, she's going to raise
another man who hates woman.
>
> So offer advice, state your opinion, but quit setting yourselves
>up as judge and jury. You suck at it.
>
> Orenda
>
Orenda....ah, what the hell...pot, kettle, black....ring a bell?
Tammy
Marguerite Petersen wrote:
>
> In article <320A89...@nexusprime.org>,
> Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
> >All the flamers
> > Who will deny they are.... like they deny everything else.
> >
> > I don't think boys deserve spankings and girls not. But to call
> >this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
> >spankings she gives is outrageous.
>
> I call that abuse. You may call it whatever you like, but it is still
> wrong.
Have you ever seen a victim of child abuse? You are entitled to your belief that
spanking is wrong but do not put it in the same catagory as childabuse. When you do,
you diminsh the crime inflicted on these children. I know your intention is to show the
severity of spanking but it doesn't. There was a case here in Florida where a little
girl named Felica "sunshine" Assaad ( the spelling is probably wrong can't find the book
right now) she didn't die of spankings, what she died of is what most abused children
die of, being punched, kicked, burned and tortured by a adult. Being forced to eat
soap, and go with out sleep, she was only 5 or 6 when she died in convulsions waiting
for her mother to help her. Save your rightous indignation for those victims of real
abuse not those who may recieve a swat on the butt from time to time, to equal the two
is a crime.
>
> I sincerely hope so for his (and your) sake. However, any parent
> who spanks their child(ren), (certainly to the ages of teenagehood)
> is setting themselves up for a whole lot of grief. What DO you
> think that you have taught/shown him? That the one who is bigger
> and stronger is the one who gets to hit others. That is all.
From what Orenda tells me her son is alot bigger that and stronger she is and I bet he
doesn't hit her.
>
> > And to talk about calling Children's services..... one reason
> >that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
> >people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
> >she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
> >her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
>
> I have known personally kids who are/have been *terribly* abused
> by their parent(s), and you know what, those kids absolutely *love*
> those parents. Kids love their parents in spite of what they do.
> However, IF the parents truly love their kids, it would behoove
> them to at least treat their kids as well as they would wish to
> be treated. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
Again I say, just how *terribly* abused where these children? Are we talking about
broken bones, black eyes, failure to thrive? Or did these abusers simply spank their
child or even worse yet put them in the dreaded time out? Your right little Felica
loved her mother to the end even though the woman stood right there and let her
boyfriend slowly kill her. If parents truly love their children, the discipline them.
If you really want to chamipion childrens causes, it would behoove you to pay a vist to
your local HRS or State Foster care facility and learn about real child abuse.
>
> > So offer advice, state your opinion, but quit setting yourselves
> >up as judge and jury. You suck at it.
> > Orenda
>
> How intelligent of you.
>
> Marg
>
> --
> Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL
> pet...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
> The Internet has Faster Karma - John Sechrest
Marguerite Petersen
In article <320B51...@nexusprime.org>, Tammy <ta...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>Marguerite Petersen wrote:
>>
>> In article <320A89...@nexusprime.org>,
>> Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>> >All the flamers
>> > Who will deny they are.... like they deny everything else.
>> >
>> > I don't think boys deserve spankings and girls not. But to call
>> >this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
>> >spankings she gives is outrageous.
>>
>> You spank your child, you are being physically violent with them, IMO.
>> I call that abuse. You may call it whatever you like, but it is still
>> wrong.
>
>
>
>Have you ever seen a victim of child abuse? You are entitled to your belief that
>spanking is wrong but do not put it in the same catagory as childabuse. When you do,
>you diminsh the crime inflicted on these children. I know your intention is to show the
>severity of spanking but it doesn't.
Ah, I see, so *only* if the child dies is it abuse? Wrongo!!
>Tammy
Paul Molina
Hello! I've got some awesome news that I think you need to take two
minutes to read if you have ever thought "How could I make some
serious cash in a hurry???" , or been in serious debt, ready to do
almost anything to get the money needed to pay off those bill
collectors. So grab a snack, a warm cup of coffee, or a glass of your
favorite beverage, get comfortable and listen to this interesting,
exciting find!
Let me start by saying that I FINALLY FOUND IT! That's right!. I
found it! And I HATE GET RICH QUICK SCHEMES!! I hate those schemes
like multi-level marketing, mail-order schemes, envelope stuffing
scams, 900 number scams... the list goes on forever. I have tried
every darn get rich quick scheme out there over the past 12 years. I
somehow got on mailing lists for people looking to make money (more
like 'desperate stupid people who will try anything for money!').
Well, when I was a teenager, these claims to 'get me rich quick'
sounded irresistible! I would shell out $14.95 here, $29.95 there,
$24.95 here, and another $49.95 there. I had maxed out my new Circuit
City Card AND my Visa...I was desperate for money!! So, I gave them
all a chance but failed at every one of them! Maybe they worked for
some people, but not for me. Eventually, I just tossed that JUNK MAIL
in the trash when I got the mail. I recognized it right away. I can
smell a money scam from a mile away these days, SO I THOUGHT....
I thought I could sniff out a scam easily. WAS I WRONG!! ....I LOVE
THE INTERNET!!!
I was scanning thru a NEWSGROUP and saw an article stating to
GET CASH FAST!! I thought..."Here on the Internet?? Well, I'll just
have to see what schemes could possibly be on the internet." The
article described a way to MAIL A ONE DOLLAR BILL TO ONLY FIVE PEOPLE
AND MAKE $50, 0000 IN CASH WITHIN 4 WEEKS! Well, the more I thought
about it, the more I became very curious. Why? Because of the way it
worked AND BECAUSE IT WOULD ONLY COST ME FIVE DOLLARS (AND FIVE
STAMPS), THAT'S ALL I EVER PAY....EVER!!
Ok, so the $50,000 in cash was maybe an tough amount to reach, but
it was possible. I knew that I could at least get a return of $1,000
or so. So I did it!! As per the instructions in the article, I mailed
out ('snail mail'for you e-mail fanatics) a single dollar bill to each
of the five people on the list that was contained in the article. I
included a small note, with the dollar, that stated "Please Add Me To
Your List." I then removed the first position name of the five names
listed and moved everyone up one position, and I put my name in
position five of the list. This is how the money starts rolling in!
I then took this revised article now with my name on the list and
REPOSTED IT ON AS MANY NEWSGROUPS AND LOCAL BULLETIN BOARD
MESSAGE AREAS THAT I KNEW. I then waited to watch the money come
in...prepared to maybe receive about $1000 to $1500 in cash or so....
But what a welcome surprise when those envelopes kept coming in!!! I
knew what they were as soon as I saw the return addresses from people
all over the world-Most from the U.S., but some from Canada, even some
from Australia! I tell you, THAT WAS EXCITING!! So how much did I
get in total return? $1000? $5000? Not even!!! I received a total of
$23,343!!! I couldn't believe it!!
I now have a brand new black Acura Integra to speak for, due to
this!! Now after almost 8 months, I am ready to do it again!!! So
maybe it was possible to get $50,000 in cash, I don't know, but IT
COMPLETELY DEPENDS ON YOU, THE INDIVIDUAL! You must follow through
and repost this article everywhere you can think of! The more
postings you achieve will determine how much cash will arrive in your
very own mailbox!! It's just too easy to pass up!!!
Let's review the reasons why you should do this: The only cost
factors are for the five stamps, the 5 envelopes and the 5 one dollar
bills that you send out to the listed names by snail mail (US Postal
Service Mail). Then just simply repost the article (WITH YOUR NAME
ADDED) to all the newsgroups and local BBS's you can. Then sit back
and, (ironically), enjoy walking (you can run if you like! :o ) down
your driveway to your mailbox and scoop up your rewards!! We all have
five dollars to put into such an easy effortless investment with
SPECTACULAR REALISTIC RETURNS OF $15,000 to $25,000 in about 3-5
weeks! So HOLD OFF ON THOSE LOTTERY NUMBERS FOR TODAY,EAT AT HOME
TONIGHT INSTEAD OF TAKEOUT FROM McDONALDS AND INVEST FIVE DOLLARS IN
THIS AMAZING MONEY MAKING SYSTEM NOW!!! YOU CAN'T LOSE!!
So how do you do it exactly, you ask? I have carefully provided
the mostdetailed, yet straightforward instructions on how to easily
get this underway and get your cash on its way. SO, ARE YOU READY TO
MAKE SOME CASH!!!?? HERE WE GO!!!
*** THE LIST OF NAMES IS AT THE END OF THIS ARTICLE. ***
OK, Read this carefully. Get a printout of this information, if you
like, so you can easily refer to it as often as needed.
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Take a sheet of paper and write on it the following:
"Please add my name to your list". This creates a service out of this
money making system and thus making it completely legal. You are not
just randomly sending a dollar to someone, you are paying one dollar
for a legitimate service. Make sure you include your name and
address. I assure you that, again, this is completely legal! For a
neat little twist, also write what slot their name was in: "You were
in slot 3", Just to add a little fun! This is all about having fun
and making money at the same time!
2. Now fold this sheet of paper around a dollar bill ,(no checks or
money orders), and put them into an envelope and send it on its way to
the five people listed. The folding of the paper around the bill will
insure its arrival to its recipient. THIS STEP IS IMPORTANT!!
3. Now listen carefully, here's where you get YOUR MONEY COMING TO
YOUR MAILBOX. Look at the list of five people; remove the first
name from position one and move everyone on the list up slot one on
the list. Position 2 name will now move to the position 1 slot ,
position 3 will now become position 2, 4 will be be 3, 5 wil be 4.
Now put your name, address, zipcode AND COUNTRY in position 5, the
bottom position on the list.
4. Now upload this updated file to as many newsgroups and local
bulletin boards' message areas & file section as possible. Give a
catchy description of the file so it gets noticed!! Such as:
"NEED FAST CASH?, HERE IT IS!" or "NEED CASH TO PAY OFF
YOUR DEBTS??", etc. And the more uploads, the more money you will
make, and of course, the more money the others on the list will make
too. LET'S ALL TAKE CARE OF EACH OTHER BY BEING HONEST AND BY PUTTING
FORTH 120 PERCENT INTO THIS PROFITABLE & AMAZING SYSTEM!!! You'll reap
the benefits, believe me!!! Set a goal for the number of total uploads
you'll post, such as 15-20 postings or more! Always have a goal in
mind!!! If you can UUE encode the file when uploading, that will make
it easier for the people to receive it and have it downloaded to their
hard drive. That way they get a copy of the article right on their
computer without hassles of viewing and then saving the article from
the File menu. Don't alter the file type, leave it as an MS-DOS Text
file. The best test is to be able to view this file using Microsoft's
Notepad for Windows 3.x or WordPad for Windows '95. If the margins
look right without making the screen slide left or right when at the
ends of the sentences, you're in business!
5. If you need help uploading, simply ask the sysop of the BBS, or
"POST" a message on a newsgroup asking how to post a file, tell them
who your Internet provider is and PEOPLE WILL ALWAYS BE GLAD TO HELP.
I would try to describe how to do it but there are simply too many
internet software packages with slightly different yet relatively
simple ways to post or upload a file. Just ask for help or look in
the help section for 'posting'. I do know that for GNN, you simply
select 'POST' then enter a catchy description under the subject box,
choose 'ATTACH', selecting 'UUE' and NOT 'TXT', then choose 'Browse'
to go look for the file. Find your text file CASH.TXT and click on it
and choose 'OK'. Place a one line statement in the main body section
of the message post screen. Something like "Download this to read how
to get cash arriving in your mailbox with no paybacks!" or whatever.
Just make sure it represents its true feasibility, NOT something
like..."Get one million dollars flooding in your mailbox in two days!"
You'll never get ANY responses!
6. And this is the step I like. JUST SIT BACK AND ENJOY LIFE BECAUSE
CASH IS ON ITS THE WAY!! Expect to see a little money start to
trickle in around 2 weeks, but AT ABOUT WEEKS 3 & 4, THE MONEY STORM
WILL HIT YOUR MAILBOX!! All you have to do is take it out of the
mailbox and try not to scream too loud (outside anyway) when you
realize YOU HIT THE BIG TIME AT LAST!!
7. So go PAY OFF YOUR BILLS AND DEBTS and then get that something
special you always wanted or buy that special person in your life (or
the one you want in your life) a gift they'll never forget. ENJOY
LIFE!
8. Now when you get low on this money supply, simply re-activate
this file again; Reposting it in the old places where you originally
posted and possibly some new places you now know of. Don't ever lose
this file, always keep a copy at your reach for when you ever need
cash. THIS IS AN INCREDIBLE TOOL THAT YOU CAN ALWAYS RE-USE TIME AND
TIME AGAIN WHEN CASH IS NEEDED!
******************************************************************
******************************************************************
THE NAMES LIST THE NAMES LIST THE NAME LIST
******************************************************************
* HONESTY IS WHAT MAKES THIS PROGRAM SUCCESSFUL!!!
*
* 1. Sandy Kim
* 3047 David Ave #10
* Campbell, CA 95128
* USA
*
* 2. Jonathan Walker
* Rt. 4 Box 218-C
* Abbeville, SC 29620
* USA
*
* 3. Exavia Wafer
* 2721 Beau Drive
* Mesquite, Tx 75181
* USA
*
* 4. Marko Cehaja
* Stangenstr. 63
* 70771 L.-Echterdingen
* GERMANY
*
* 5. Paul Molina
* 8014 N.W. 15th Manor
* Plantation, FL 33322
* USA
*
Tammy
Barbara A. Gilley wrote:
>
> Orenda wrote:
>
> > And to talk about calling Children's services..... one reason
> > that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
> > people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
> > she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
> > her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
>
> your claim. I'd love to see a state by state analysis, but I'll be
> satisfied with whatever you come up with for starters.
Well I don't have any state by state analysis for you but I do know a child who is
slpping thru the cracks right now, he is developmently delayed, neglected and abused.
He has been removed once from his mother into his grandmothers care, who promptly gave
him back to his mother. There are just not enough workers to follow up this child, but
there are hundreds of workers handling calls that come in on the abuse hot line daily,
because here in FL it is mandatory that a worker check out reported alleged abuse
imediatly. And there are hundreds coming in daily. So if by your standards of abuse
even half of those resopnses are to just spankings how many workers do you suppose that
ties up? Or do you not report abuse of a child when you see it, or maybe some abuse is
worthy of a report and others not. Maybe we report broken arms, but not sprained arms,
we report cigerette burns ,not scalding water burns, we report beating with a stick not
spanking with a hand? You can't have it both ways if it is abuse you must report it (at
least in this state, a state worker ( any state employee, not just HRS) teacher, health
care personnel can lose their jobs and face crimminal prosecution for not reporting
abuse) So go ahead and call next time you see a parent spank their child, report
spanking and let us all know what the out come is, we really would like to know.
Hillel
In article <320B99...@satelnet.org>,
Paul Molina <gts...@satelnet.org> wrote:
>INSTRUCTIONS:
>1. Take a sheet of paper and write on it the following:
>2. Now fold this sheet of paper around a dollar bill ,(no checks or
>3. Now listen carefully, here's where you get YOUR MONEY COMING TO
>YOUR MAILBOX. Look at the list of five people; remove the first
>name from position one and move everyone on the list up slot one on
>the list. Position 2 name will now move to the position 1 slot ,
>position 3 will now become position 2, 4 will be be 3, 5 wil be 4.
>Now put your name, address, zipcode AND COUNTRY in position 5, the
>bottom position on the list.
>4. Now upload this updated file to as many newsgroups and local
If any of you want to participate in this illegal pyramid scheme then
you can do it without wasting any money:
1) Ignore step 1.
2) Pass $5 from your right pocket to your left pocket.
3) Write your name and the names of your 4 best friends anywhere you
want in the list. Be sure to check that Paul Molina is not one of
your friend.
4) Do step 4.
Hillel ga...@cs.duke.edu
"Don't worry about me. I'll survive. I survived PORTAL..." -- Oleg Kiselev
Tami
Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
<much snippage>
> So it wouldn't have been sexist to spank her for no other reason
>than I was keeping things even ??? You have a very warped way of
>looking at things, all the more reason not to throw stones at
>people who post here.
Orenda, you're avoiding the point that has been made: Cheryl doesn't
spank her sons and not her daughter because her sons *deserve* it and
her daughter doesn't, but ONLY because of their gender. THAT is
sexist.
>
> Did you parents spank you ?? And that was ALL you learned ??
>You must have been an extremely dull child. My son is 6'6" tall and
>doesn't hit anyone. According to you, he should be king of the hill by
>now, no one's bigger than him.
Hmm...this reminds me of when Sophia was teething and my MIL told me
to rub whiskey on her gums. I, of course, was shocked at the thought
of it. I told her that alcohol can cause seizures in infants and
children. Her response? "Well, I did that for my boys and *they* never
had seizures." My response? "You're lucky."
The point is that just because the known bad side-effect doesn't
happen to *you* doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
>>
> I treat my kids with a lot of respect ( something that your
>psychic abilities must have failed you on ) and they are kids ( and
>adult ) that other people respect in return. Learn the difference
>between abuse and spanking.... it's sort of like the difference between
>your ?humble? opinion and law.
You may treat your children with respect. I really couldn't comment on
that. I *can*, however, comment on Cheryl's lack of respect for her
kids. It's there in her post.
WRT your comment "Learn the difference between abuse and spanking,"
are you saying that abuse and spanking are *never* the same thing?
Randy
In article <4ue6qv$m...@kira.peak.org>, on 8 Aug 1996 19:12:47 -0700,
pet...@kira.peak.org, Marguerite Petersen says
>You spank your child, you are being physically violent with them, IMO.
>I call that abuse. You may call it whatever you like, but it is still
>wrong.
I agree. Spank or hit, slap or beat, swat or flog... it's all
physical and it's all violent. Spanking children is abusive in
intent. The purpose is to cause pain. How much pain and for what
reason the pain is caused, is pretty much a matter of whim.
The law establishes the limit between legal and illigal whim, and,
so far, some abusive treatment, maltreatment, is yet legal. BTW,
behavior is considered wrong before it is made illegal and not the
other way. Deviation has nothing to do with right, wrong, legal
or illegal. All the hubbub about abuse and not abuse is just a
distraction. We needn't look to Webster's to determine what is
wrong. To intentionally cause pain, humiliation... misery, is to
do wrong to another.
cut
>I have known personally kids who are/have been *terribly* abused
>by their parent(s), and you know what, those kids absolutely *love*
>those parents. Kids love their parents in spite of what they do.
>However, IF the parents truly love their kids, it would behoove
>them to at least treat their kids as well as they would wish to
>be treated. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
I agree here, too. FWIW, I've had to look at abused children for
over fifteen years. The phenomenon Marg describes about abused
and discarded kids loving their parents is one I have marveled,
also. To exploit that love can never be described as responsible.
It's condemnable.
I condemn spanking parents and their advocates BECAUSE they are adults.
The standards I hold myself and other adults to are not met when a
parent strikes a child. Because I think I hear parents saying that
adulthood means "more", I expect "more". When they fail to BE "more",
I think them worthy of condemnation. It is wrong to hold separate a
status for others that allows one to hurt or demean the others based
merely on a perceived "less than" status.
Now, I actually think that children are equal to parents in rights to
integrity, mutual respect, and protection from physical harm. Certainly
they are not "same" in size, experience, or levels of development. That,
however, is a reason to be compassionate and not punitive. Condemnation
of children warrants condemnation by them and by their advocates.
>Marg
> Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL
> pet...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
> The Internet has Faster Karma - John Sechrest
Randy Cox
The NoSpan King Page
http://www.cei.net/~rcox/nospan.html
Orenda
Randy wrote:
>
> In article <4ue6qv$m...@kira.peak.org>, on 8 Aug 1996 19:12:47 -0700,
> pet...@kira.peak.org, Marguerite Petersen says
>
> >You spank your child, you are being physically violent with them, IMO.
> >I call that abuse. You may call it whatever you like, but it is still
> >wrong.
This is your opinion. Thank god you are not a queen or anyone
with any authority over anyone but your own family. ( of course, the
King down below agrees with you, but he isn't an authority other
than his family either. ) How nice that you are allowed to have an
opinion. Too bad we can't have one that thinks yours is excessive.
> I agree. Spank or hit, slap or beat, swat or flog... it's all
> physical and it's all violent. Spanking children is abusive in
> intent. The purpose is to cause pain. How much pain and for what
> reason the pain is caused, is pretty much a matter of whim.
>
All the same huh ??? Well... if you had your choice... and had to
accept one of the following, what would you chose ?? A swat on the
behind. A punch in the nose ? A 2x4 upside your head ? being hit by a
car going 50 miles an hour ? According to you, it's all the same.
Right??
> The law establishes the limit between legal and illigal whim, and,
> so far, some abusive treatment, maltreatment, is yet legal. BTW,
> behavior is considered wrong before it is made illegal and not the
> other way. Deviation has nothing to do with right, wrong, legal
> or illegal. All the hubbub about abuse and not abuse is just a
> distraction. We needn't look to Webster's to determine what is
> wrong. To intentionally cause pain, humiliation... misery, is to
> do wrong to another.
Actually, most of us think you need a dictionary on a regular
basis... ;-) We are causing a quick, small amount of pain to our own
child in order to spare him a greater pain and humiliation when he isn't
a responsible adult when he's grown up. A swat on the butt vs being
hit by a car...( oh, sorry.... forgot that you view them the same...)
Well, the pro-spankers will understand.
> cut
>
> >I have known personally kids who are/have been *terribly* abused
> >by their parent(s), and you know what, those kids absolutely *love*
> >those parents. Kids love their parents in spite of what they do.
> >However, IF the parents truly love their kids, it would behoove
> >them to at least treat their kids as well as they would wish to
> >be treated. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
>
> I agree here, too. FWIW, I've had to look at abused children for
> over fifteen years. The phenomenon Marg describes about abused
> and discarded kids loving their parents is one I have marveled,
> also. To exploit that love can never be described as responsible.
> It's condemnable.
We aren't throwing our kids out on the street. We are
teaching them to grow to be good citizens. Get a dictionary and check to
see if spanking and abuse are the same.....
>
> I condemn spanking parents and their advocates BECAUSE they are adults.
> The standards I hold myself and other adults to are not met when a
> parent strikes a child. Because I think I hear parents saying that
> adulthood means "more", I expect "more". When they fail to BE "more",
> I think them worthy of condemnation. It is wrong to hold separate a
> status for others that allows one to hurt or demean the others based
> merely on a perceived "less than" status.
>
> Now, I actually think that children are equal to parents in rights to
> integrity, mutual respect, and protection from physical harm. Certainly
> they are not "same" in size, experience, or levels of development. That,
> however, is a reason to be compassionate and not punitive. Condemnation
> of children warrants condemnation by them and by their advocates.
Should I tremble when you speak, you sound so high and
mighty. Yet your own rhetoric proves that you see no difference between
abuse and spanking, and we know that there is. ( ask us how we know?
experience and common sense....)
> >Marg
> > Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL
> > pet...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
> > The Internet has Faster Karma - John Sechrest
>
> Randy Cox
> The NoSpan King Page
> http://www.cei.net/~rcox/nospan.html
Orenda
Mother of Christopher, the Great, 22
and Marvelous Marilyn ( ALMOST 12 )
Iggy Drougge
Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
: All the flamers
: Who will deny they are.... like they deny everything else.
:
: I don't think boys deserve spankings and girls not. But to call
: this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
: spankings she gives is outrageous.
Hitting teenage boys on their bare buttocks is definitely abuse to me.
: My son earned a lot more spankings than my daugher ever did.
: Now.... if she would have never deserved one, would I have been an
: abuser because I didn't spank her ???? I haven't spanked her in years (
: probably since she was 9.... and I spanked my son til he was 14.... He
: treats women very well ( nicer than his friends ) adores his sister
: above all else, and loves me.
Well, do you know why I never hit my mother, but sometimes my father?
Because my mother does not hit me, so she does not get any strikes from
me, being a civilized person. My father, OTOH, hits me, and so, receives
the same treatment from me. If someone does not respect my physical
integrity, why should I respect theirs?
: And to talk about calling Children's services..... one reason
: that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
: people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
: she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
: her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
Would you say the same thing if it was this woman's boys who hit her, or
her husband who hit her, perhaps her father or mother?
: So offer advice, state your opinion, but quit setting yourselves
: up as judge and jury. You suck at it.
This woman is mentally ill, just look at her silly reasoning about all the
differences between girls and boys, only women being able to hit in the
right way (There is no right ay to hit), and the testosterone poisoning.
It is proven that testosterone makes men stable and calm, while osterogen
makes them more prone to be violent and insecure.
--
__/\________________ __ ______ _____________________________
\/ /_ /\__ /\_ _// // //\ /\ / ____________________________\
/ / / / __/ / / / / // / / // / / // / __ __
/ /_/ / / __/ / / / // / / // /_/ // / alias | | _' | _' |__|
/_____/ /_/ /_/ /_//_/\/_/ \_____\\ \ | |__| |__| .__|
________________________________________\ \ D r o u g g e
\_________________________________________/
Scott Gilbert
Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
:
: I don't think boys deserve spankings and girls not. But to call
: this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
: spankings she gives is outrageous.
And therein lies the difference between yourself and this woman
is that you have made clear that spanking is for the child who has
-earned- a spanking.
"this woman" on the other hand -seems- to be saying that spanking
is for the -boy- who has earned a spanking.... a major difference IMO
:
: Orenda
:
--
_________________________________________________________
sha...@sydney.dialix.oz.au|"Distinguished Order of Tesla"| \ | | /
Shayk-E | Virtual Geographic League | - CCCCC -
__________________________|______________________________| / | | \
delosreyes francis l
This is an illegal pyramid scheme.
If I were you, I'd think twice about doing this kind of
scam again.
Francis
Tami
opt...@canit.se (Iggy Drougge) wrote:
>
>This woman is mentally ill, just look at her silly reasoning about all the
>differences between girls and boys, only women being able to hit in the
>right way (There is no right ay to hit), and the testosterone poisoning.
>It is proven that testosterone makes men stable and calm, while osterogen
>makes them more prone to be violent and insecure.
>
>
Don't denigrate the mentally ill by putting this woman in their ranks.
She is not mentally ill, she's just stupid (and more than likely a
troll, but that's another story).
Tami
Orenda
Iggy Drougge wrote:
>
> Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
> : All the flamers
> : Who will deny they are.... like they deny everything else.
> :
> : this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
> : spankings she gives is outrageous.
>
Would over jeans or underwear make a difference in the abuse
factor ?? ( and when did she say she spanked her boys bare ???)
>
> : My son earned a lot more spankings than my daugher ever did.
> : Now.... if she would have never deserved one, would I have been an
> : abuser because I didn't spank her ???? I haven't spanked her in years (
> : probably since she was 9.... and I spanked my son til he was 14.... He
> : treats women very well ( nicer than his friends ) adores his sister
> : above all else, and loves me.
>
> Well, do you know why I never hit my mother, but sometimes my father?
> Because my mother does not hit me, so she does not get any strikes from
> me, being a civilized person. My father, OTOH, hits me, and so, receives
> the same treatment from me. If someone does not respect my physical
> integrity, why should I respect theirs?
> My son has never hit me. I'll bet most boys who were spanked
didn't hit their mothers. No one I know complains of being hit except
the few I know who don't spank their kids. You must just love this
thread since it gives you "permission" to hit your dad now. If he has
spanked you, to discipline you, maybe you should think about all the
giving and sacrifice that goes into be a parent, to try to do the best
for the child you love. I'll bet you feel real good after you hit your
old man, don't you?? I never knew a responsible parent who felt good
after spanking their child. It's considered a duty, not a pleasure.
Thank goodness I was lucky enough to have my son as my son.
> : And to talk about calling Children's services..... one reason
> : that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
> : people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
> : she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
> : her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
>
> Would you say the same thing if it was this woman's boys who hit her, or
> her husband who hit her, perhaps her father or mother?
If someone slugs a child around like women get beat up.... If
someone is beat up.... then it is assault. We are talking about
spanking...... something that makes the bottom area merely tender for
a very short amount of time. And not very often.
Parents are obligated to raise their children. Kids don't
raise their parents, husbands don't raise their wives. Why do you all
see it as the same thing ??? Kids are not old enough to concent to
anything legally. They can't even buy things with their own money.
It's like saying you can hit your wife, and have sex with your kids.
They aren't interchangeable.... different positions in life call for
different treatments. And no one is talking about beating, or child
abuse. We are talking about spanking. And responsible spanking.....
no injury, and only in rare cases. This woman said in earlier posts
that she rarely spanked her sons. My daughter is more well behaved
than my son was at her age. Yet, I would have been "sexist" if I
hadn't spanked her too, whether she deserved it or not..... that's
REAL good logic. :-7
>
> : So offer advice, state your opinion, but quit setting yourselves
> : up as judge and jury. You suck at it.
>
> This woman is mentally ill, just look at her silly reasoning about all the
> differences between girls and boys, only women being able to hit in the
> right way (There is no right ay to hit), and the testosterone poisoning.
> It is proven that testosterone makes men stable and calm, while osterogen
> makes them more prone to be violent and insecure.
Her reasoning didn't make sense to me either. If you were
paying attention, I said as much. But I don't think you can call her
a child abuser if she responsibly spanked her sons on a few needed
occasions. Who are any of you to judge ?? A lot of parents have a lot
stranger ideas. I was amazed to be at the Space Center one day and
hear a group of young pre-teens discussing how we had never really
sent a man into space, that it was all a movie done by someone like
Disney... Now... is that child abuse ? To raise your children to be
so ignorant that the other kids will mock them ?? Or to be so
bigoted, like some kids are ??
The woman didn't attack me, so I saw no reason to attack her.
I disagreed calmly, and I'll bet she was much more inclined to listen
to my words than that of the flaming cohort fraction.
Your reasoning tends to lack a little too. I can't imagine
having a son that would hit me. Did you read my son's post by any
chance? He always knew why he was getting spanked and he knew it was
his own choice. Had the bats in your belfrey checked lately ??? Or
do you too have one of those five and dime psychology degrees that
seem to be making the rounds ?
Orenda
Killing Time
Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
: Iggy Drougge wrote:
: > : probably since she was 9.... and I spanked my son til he was 14.... He
Hmmm, about the age when he is big enough to strike back and cause some
real damage. Interestingly enough my stepdad did the same to me
: > Well, do you know why I never hit my mother, but sometimes my father?
: > Because my mother does not hit me,
[...]
: > My father, OTOH, hits me, and so, receives
: > the same treatment from me.
: My son has never hit me. I'll bet most boys who were spanked
: didn't hit their mothers.
Which doesn't necessarily make it right in any way though. I have heard
that it is rare that those in concentration camps attacked those running
them for instance
: You must just love this
: thread since it gives you "permission" to hit your dad now. If he has
: spanked you, to discipline you, maybe you should think about all the
: giving and sacrifice that goes into be a parent, to try to do the best
: for the child you love. I'll bet you feel real good after you hit your
: old man, don't you?? I never knew a responsible parent who felt good
: after spanking their child. It's considered a duty, not a pleasure.
: Thank goodness I was lucky enough to have my son as my son.
And of course, the parent is *always* right aren't they. No parents *ever*
makes a mistake. Parents, being in the god-given position of omniscience
(relative to their children) never hit, sorry 'spank' their childrens when
they haven't done anything
Its a situation analagous (although, of course, much milder) to that of
hanging people
And just because the parent means well doesn't make the trauma any less
(I remember the time a guy kicked a football under my bike, if he had
meant to hurt me it would have really damaged me, but as I he was only
joking I didn't fly over the handlebars, scrape half of my face off on the
road and loase teeth, oh hang on, thats not quite how things work is it?),
in fact, surely being spanked for nothing is worse, from the childs point
of view, as they didn't actually do anything
: Parents are obligated to raise their children. Kids don't
But often not very good at it, not very good at it in the slightest
: Kids are not old enough to concent to
: anything legally.
Ah, I see, children aren't human beings, but pieces of property that
belong to their parents. ~good point, well made~
: And no one is talking about beating, or child abuse.
Abuse is still as bad if it isn't meant to be abuse
I'm sure kids in a playground bullying another don't want for that kid to
end up seriously fucked up, suicidal, whatever, but it still happens
terry
--
In your heart, there's no emotion, and your soul just dried away
There's no love, no love left in you body
Standing empty forever, and colder every day
'there's no emotion'-Pulp
Orenda
Killing Time wrote:
>
> Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
> : Iggy Drougge wrote:
> : > : probably since she was 9.... and I spanked my son til he was 14.... He
>
> Hmmm, about the age when he is big enough to strike back and cause some
> real damage. Interestingly enough my stepdad did the same to me
>
> : > Because my mother does not hit me,
> : > My father, OTOH, hits me, and so, receives
> : > the same treatment from me.
> : didn't hit their mothers.
>
> that it is rare that those in concentration camps attacked those running
> them for instance
I doubt very seriously if there was any love between the inmates
and the guards, do you ?? How can you compare a loving family, where
I used spanking very rarely and for only the most extreme occasions
with a concentration camp, where I believe it was a hated, "sub-human"
group ran by people who despised them ?? I love my children. They love
me. In fact, everyone loves my kids.
>
> : You must just love this
> : thread since it gives you "permission" to hit your dad now. If he has
> : spanked you, to discipline you, maybe you should think about all the
> : giving and sacrifice that goes into be a parent, to try to do the best
> : for the child you love. I'll bet you feel real good after you hit your
> : old man, don't you?? I never knew a responsible parent who felt good
> : after spanking their child. It's considered a duty, not a pleasure.
> : Thank goodness I was lucky enough to have my son as my son.
>
> And of course, the parent is *always* right aren't they. No parents *ever*
> makes a mistake. Parents, being in the god-given position of omniscience
> (relative to their children) never hit, sorry 'spank' their childrens when
> they haven't done anything
Parents make mistakes. No one wants to correct an innocent child
in any way, do they ??
> Its a situation analagous (although, of course, much milder) to that of
> hanging people
Hardly.... but even hanging has it's place if the hanged is truly
guilty of a hanging offense... say the murdering of someone's loved one?
> And just because the parent means well doesn't make the trauma any less
> (I remember the time a guy kicked a football under my bike, if he had
> meant to hurt me it would have really damaged me, but as I he was only
> joking I didn't fly over the handlebars, scrape half of my face off on the
> road and loase teeth, oh hang on, thats not quite how things work is it?),
> in fact, surely being spanked for nothing is worse, from the childs point
> of view, as they didn't actually do anything
>
I rarely spanked my kids. And I know I didn't spank them when
they were innocent. Responsible parents don't just smack their kids
everytime they are angry with them. I don't understand why you can't see
that. You don't "accidentally hurt" your kids .... there are no
accidental spankings. If you discipline your child, and you hurt them,
you are doing something wrong. I turned around the other day and caught
my daughters nose with a plastic hanger in the store. That was an
accident. We both knew I would never hit her like that. Now, if the guy
that kicked the ball under your tires did it on purpose and called it
accidental, well, you wouldn't believe him would you ?? Intentions are
important you know.
> : Parents are obligated to raise their children. Kids don't
>
> But often not very good at it, not very good at it in the slightest
>
> : Kids are not old enough to concent to
> : anything legally.
>
> Ah, I see, children aren't human beings, but pieces of property that
> belong to their parents. ~good point, well made~
No one said my children were mere property. They are my life. I
would do anything for my kids. Part of being a happy well rounded adult
is to have respect for authority and other human beings. I was pointing
out the often pointed out fact that kids are made to eat properly, and go
to school, bathe, and a number of other things that they don't
neccessarily want to do at certain ages. When my children did something
I knew was potentionally dangerous, after repeatedly being told not to,
then they were spanked. If they would have gotten seriously hurt, how
would I have forgiven myself for not stressing the danger enough ??
Do you have children ?? Ever had to be responsible for raising
someone ?? If not, I probably can't ever make you understand the
implications of trying to raise a responsible adult.
>
> : And no one is talking about beating, or child abuse.
>
> Abuse is still as bad if it isn't meant to be abuse
> I'm sure kids in a playground bullying another don't want for that kid to
> end up seriously fucked up, suicidal, whatever, but it still happens
The bully on the playground is just being mean and cruel. It
makes him feel good to hurt the littler kids. The monitor trying to make
sure they use the playground safely on the other hand, is trying to keep
the kids from being hurt. Do you honestly not see a difference ??
>
> terry
It amazes me how widespread this has become has far as
newsgroups. And how things are spread taken out of context to change the
meaning of what was actually written. I recommend that anyone infuriated
by this thread try looking up all the actual posts on dejanews. I do not
think that boys are in need of spankings anymore than girls. They may be
more adventuresome, and get into more trouble, but it is by their
actions, and not their physical makeup, that they might get spanked more.
I suppose my son was more daring physically than my daughter will ever
be. He was also hurt more seriously and more painfully by the things he
did... ( I'm talking stitches from things he chose to do after I warned
him it was dangerous. ) I thought a spanking was preferable to him
killing himself. Now that he has managed to live to be an adult, he's
very glad I made that choice. ( read the post "son of Orenda" to get his
viewpoint. )
Responsible parents who chose to spank their kids do it rarely
and usually use alternative methods to get good behavior from their
children. They don't injure their kids. ( if you can't control a
spanking, then it could possibly turn into abuse, so you don't do it !)
My kids were rewarded for good behavior and negative reenforcement was
very rarely used. And spanking, only once, had to be repeated for the
same offence.
Orenda ( who is sorry this is so long, but I have no intention of
misquoting anyone. )
Tami
Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>Iggy Drougge wrote:
>>
>> Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
>> : All the flamers
>> : Who will deny they are.... like they deny everything else.
>> :
>> : I don't think boys deserve spankings and girls not. But to call
>> : this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
>> : spankings she gives is outrageous.
>>
>> Hitting teenage boys on their bare buttocks is definitely abuse to me.
>
> Would over jeans or underwear make a difference in the abuse
>factor ?? ( and when did she say she spanked her boys bare ???)
Personally, removing any article of a child's clothing is a violation
of their body. That said, I'll copy something Cheryl wrote next in
answer to your last question. Are you sure you know who you're arguing
for Orenda?
*****
>> Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
>> : Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate
>>:for girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
>> : here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of
>>:baring one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my
>>:daughter to feel about her body and her dignity!
*****
>>
>> : My son earned a lot more spankings than my daugher ever did.
>> : Now.... if she would have never deserved one, would I have been an
>> : abuser because I didn't spank her ???? I haven't spanked her in years (
>> : probably since she was 9.... and I spanked my son til he was 14.... He
>> : treats women very well ( nicer than his friends ) adores his sister
>> : above all else, and loves me.
>>
>> Well, do you know why I never hit my mother, but sometimes my father?
>> Because my mother does not hit me, so she does not get any strikes from
>> me, being a civilized person. My father, OTOH, hits me, and so, receives
>> the same treatment from me. If someone does not respect my physical
>> integrity, why should I respect theirs?
>> My son has never hit me. I'll bet most boys who were spanked
>didn't hit their mothers. No one I know complains of being hit except
>the few I know who don't spank their kids. You must just love this
>thread since it gives you "permission" to hit your dad now. If he has
>spanked you, to discipline you, maybe you should think about all the
>giving and sacrifice that goes into be a parent, to try to do the best
>for the child you love. I'll bet you feel real good after you hit your
>old man, don't you?? I never knew a responsible parent who felt good
>after spanking their child. It's considered a duty, not a pleasure.
>Thank goodness I was lucky enough to have my son as my son.
Orenda, you've gone over the line here and you owe this kid an apology
NOW. You don't know that this kid is being spanked. He never said
that. What he said is that his dad "hits" him. And I'd wager that if
there were any love behind that type of action, he wouldn't feel
violent towards his father. I'm not saying it's ok to hit your
parents, but if your parents beat you, you might feel the need to
defend yourself.
>
>> : And to talk about calling Children's services..... one reason
>> : that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
>> : people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
>> : she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
>> : her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
>>
>> Would you say the same thing if it was this woman's boys who hit her, or
>> her husband who hit her, perhaps her father or mother?
>
> If someone slugs a child around like women get beat up.... If
>someone is beat up.... then it is assault. We are talking about
>spanking...... something that makes the bottom area merely tender for
>a very short amount of time. And not very often.
BS ALERT! He makes an honest point that really puts it into
perspective. Too often we feel it's ok to treat kids one way and
adults another (usually better) way.
I'm trying to convince myself that you probably do believe that kids
should be treated with the same respect as adults. That would also
explain your unwillingness to admit the *fact* that anyone who hits a
woman - including spanking - could be charged with abusing her.
OTOH, I have to go on what you say, which is that if someone were to
beat on a kid "like women get beat up" then that is wrong. But turn
that around and say that it's ok if someone hit a woman the way kids
get hit with spankings. Orenda, you're dead wrong. If anyone held me
down and spanked me, their ass would be in jail.
If someone were to spank a woman (against her will of course), that
would be abuse. Orenda, if you're doubtful, call up your local police
department or women's shelter.
>
> Parents are obligated to raise their children. Kids don't
Being obligated to raise your children doesn't include spanking.
Discipline, yes, spanking, no.
>raise their parents, husbands don't raise their wives. Why do you all
>see it as the same thing ??? Kids are not old enough to concent to
At what age? You lump all kids together here (just as you lump all
people who didn't like this woman together). The fact is that there
are some things a kid *can* consent to - such as obtaining an
abortion.
>anything legally. They can't even buy things with their own money.
ROFLMAO. Wrong again. They can take their money to the store and blow
it any way they want, except buying alcohol. What world do you live
in?
>It's like saying you can hit your wife, and have sex with your kids.
Um, did you miss the part where he pointed out that you *can't* hit
your wife, so why can you hit your kid? Your analogy fails (actually,
it crashes to earth in a fireball).
>They aren't interchangeable.... different positions in life call for
>different treatments. And no one is talking about beating, or child
>abuse. We are talking about spanking. And responsible spanking.....
>no injury, and only in rare cases. This woman said in earlier posts
>that she rarely spanked her sons. My daughter is more well behaved
>than my son was at her age. Yet, I would have been "sexist" if I
>hadn't spanked her too, whether she deserved it or not..... that's
>REAL good logic. :-7
Orenda, why do you continually and repeatedly refuse to answer to this
part? Or are you a troll too?
This woman made clear that she does not spank her sons and not her
daughter based on who deserves what, but rather based on gender. And
what I've quoted of her clearly shows that. She wouldn't even consider
spanking her daughter. She defines that as "brutalizing" her.
>> : So offer advice, state your opinion, but quit setting yourselves
>> : up as judge and jury. You suck at it.
>>
>> This woman is mentally ill, just look at her silly reasoning about all the
>> differences between girls and boys, only women being able to hit in the
>> right way (There is no right ay to hit), and the testosterone poisoning.
>> It is proven that testosterone makes men stable and calm, while osterogen
>> makes them more prone to be violent and insecure.
>
>
> Her reasoning didn't make sense to me either. If you were
Then right now *you* don't make much sense. If someone doesn't make
sense to you, why do you defend them?
>paying attention, I said as much. But I don't think you can call her
>a child abuser if she responsibly spanked her sons on a few needed
If you had actually read what she'd said, there would be no way for
you to call what she does responsible.
>occasions. Who are any of you to judge ?? A lot of parents have a lot
Everyone has to judge at one time or another. How dare you make this
statement after trying to accuse the people who were angered by the
twit of being responsible for abused kids falling through the cracks.
Don't you know that if people never judge, always keep their opinion
to themselves, that more kids will fall through the cracks?
>stranger ideas. I was amazed to be at the Space Center one day and
>hear a group of young pre-teens discussing how we had never really
>sent a man into space, that it was all a movie done by someone like
>Disney... Now... is that child abuse ? To raise your children to be
>so ignorant that the other kids will mock them ?? Or to be so
>bigoted, like some kids are ??
>
> The woman didn't attack me, so I saw no reason to attack her.
> I disagreed calmly, and I'll bet she was much more inclined to listen
>to my words than that of the flaming cohort fraction.
Uh, no, actually, you're wrong again. I disagreed calmly too. Guess
what, she made a lot of sexist accusations there, too. Not only that,
but she made comments about how the men who disagreed with her
(ignoring that more women did so) she kill themselves.
>
> Your reasoning tends to lack a little too. I can't imagine
>having a son that would hit me. Did you read my son's post by any
>chance? He always knew why he was getting spanked and he knew it was
>his own choice. Had the bats in your belfrey checked lately ??? Or
>do you too have one of those five and dime psychology degrees that
>seem to be making the rounds ?
>
>Orenda
>
That's right Orenda, do your cause a lot of "good" by sinking to petty
flames.
Tami
P.S. A psychology degree is not "five and dime". It involves going to
school for a few years. Besides, how many degrees have you managed
that you have room to talk?
Orenda
Tami wrote:
>
> Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>
> >Iggy Drougge wrote:
> >>
> >> Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
> >> : All the flamers
> >> : Who will deny they are.... like they deny everything else.
> >> :
> >> : I don't think boys deserve spankings and girls not. But to call
> >> : this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
> >> : spankings she gives is outrageous.
> >>
> >> Hitting teenage boys on their bare buttocks is definitely abuse to me.
> >
> > Would over jeans or underwear make a difference in the abuse
> >factor ?? ( and when did she say she spanked her boys bare ???)
>
> Personally, removing any article of a child's clothing is a violation
> of their body. That said, I'll copy something Cheryl wrote next in
> answer to your last question. Are you sure you know who you're arguing
> for Orenda?
them, getting their shots???? ( see, things aren't all or nothing )
Sometimes it's called for.
> *****
> >> Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
> >> : Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate
> >>:for girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
> >> : here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of
> >>:baring one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my
> >>:daughter to feel about her body and her dignity!
> *****
> >>
Anyone read that I thought it was STRANGE to think that what was
brutal for one wasn't brutal for the other ?? ( but thanks for pointing
out what she said about bare.) I had commented on this post, but my
server doesn't hold them for long, so I no longer had it to see it was
the same woman. But... WOULD it be 'better' if it were over clothing?
(personally, I never spanked either of my kids bare.) I figure they are
due their modesty, but some parents don't feel that way, and it doesn't
make them monsters.
The discussion was about SPANKING... not slugging or hitting in
any other sense. And I put " IF he SPANKED you...." I'm talking about
responsible spankings. My mother broke my back with a broomstick when I
was 9 years old. I never raised my hand to her ( I did finally start
taking the broom away though ) I left home the day I graduated from high
school and made my own way from age 17. I know the difference between
child abuse and a responsible spanking. If his father beat him up, then
he had the right to defend himself. He didn't say this. I have the
utmost respect for anyone who survives real child abuse, no matter what
form it takes. If he wasn't talking about spanking, I do apologize for
not understanding, but SPANKING is what the subject was. I wish he would
have clarified, because now, of course, it would be hard to say he just
spanked him, if that's what he did.
My mother never beat the other kids. I saw her spank my one
brother one time for playing dr., and she used to spank my little brother
on occasion. Don't think she ever spanked my sister . ( you can tell
too... ;-) ) Was she being sexist ?? I don't think so. She just
didn't care for me.... I was the reason she was so miserable in life.
> >
> >> : And to talk about calling Children's services..... one reason
> >> : that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
> >> : people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
> >> : she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
> >> : her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
> >>
> >> Would you say the same thing if it was this woman's boys who hit her, or
> >> her husband who hit her, perhaps her father or mother?
> >
> > If someone slugs a child around like women get beat up.... If
> >someone is beat up.... then it is assault. We are talking about
> >spanking...... something that makes the bottom area merely tender for
> >a very short amount of time. And not very often.
>
> BS ALERT! He makes an honest point that really puts it into
> perspective. Too often we feel it's ok to treat kids one way and
> adults another (usually better) way.
Responsible spankings are about discipline, not abuse. I was
just pointing out that his reasoning fell short of actuality. It
wasn't a bad attempt, but it wasn't acurate. I can't try to explain how
I look at things ? Sometimes I disagree with a lot of what I read here,
but explanations at least help me see where people are coming from.
> I'm trying to convince myself that you probably do believe that kids
> should be treated with the same respect as adults. That would also
> explain your unwillingness to admit the *fact* that anyone who hits a
> woman - including spanking - could be charged with abusing her.
>
I don't think parents are supposed to "raise" each other. So
spanking, or any discipline is just ridiculas in my book. ( I have a
friend who isn't allowed to even see the checkbook... some marriage )
You are obligated by law, and God to raise your children. I do not
understand why you can't understand that. I treat my children with the
same respect I do my friends. But, I am not responsible for raising my
friends to be good human beings.
> OTOH, I have to go on what you say, which is that if someone were to
> beat on a kid "like women get beat up" then that is wrong. But turn
> that around and say that it's ok if someone hit a woman the way kids
> get hit with spankings. Orenda, you're dead wrong. If anyone held me
> down and spanked me, their ass would be in jail.
>
> If someone were to spank a woman (against her will of course), that
> would be abuse. Orenda, if you're doubtful, call up your local police
> department or women's shelter.
Not arguing this point at all. But that person isn't deemed in
"charge" of you, is he ?? Do you realize that they are starting to make
parents totally accountable for their childrens actions in some states??
Which means, if they don't go to school, you can go to jail, if they
steal, you can be libel.... doesn't work that way with husbands and
wives. I didn't say you could spank a woman like a child and it would be
right. ( please quote me if I did... must have been a typo.)
>
> >
> > Parents are obligated to raise their children. Kids don't
>
> Being obligated to raise your children doesn't include spanking.
> Discipline, yes, spanking, no.
> Some parents very effectively and very lovingly spank their
children. And some children are grateful to know that their parents put
forth the effort. ( please read "son of Orenda" at dejanews )
> >raise their parents, husbands don't raise their wives. Why do you all
> >see it as the same thing ??? Kids are not old enough to concent to
>
> At what age? You lump all kids together here (just as you lump all
> people who didn't like this woman together). The fact is that there
> are some things a kid *can* consent to - such as obtaining an
> abortion.
>
> >anything legally. They can't even buy things with their own money.
>
> ROFLMAO. Wrong again. They can take their money to the store and blow
> it any way they want, except buying alcohol. What world do you live
> in?
I don't know what ROFLMAO means.... but... a child can't buy a
car, and in this state, and others I have lived in, if a child buys
something, a parent can return it in it's original condition and get the
money back. And I don't know too many people who spank daughters old
enough to get an abortion. What age can you do that ??? Younger than 15
?? ( I'm really curious, so let me know )
> >It's like saying you can hit your wife, and have sex with your kids.
>
> Um, did you miss the part where he pointed out that you *can't* hit
> your wife, so why can you hit your kid? Your analogy fails (actually,
> it crashes to earth in a fireball).
You are not supposed to hit your wife. You aren't supposed to
beat up your kids. And normal people don't even think about having sex
with their children. Or beating their mates. And some don't think you
should spank your kids. Good for them. but let it be a choice if it
isn't abuse.
> >They aren't interchangeable.... different positions in life call for
> >different treatments. And no one is talking about beating, or child
> >abuse. We are talking about spanking. And responsible spanking.....
> >no injury, and only in rare cases. This woman said in earlier posts
> >that she rarely spanked her sons. My daughter is more well behaved
> >than my son was at her age. Yet, I would have been "sexist" if I
> >hadn't spanked her too, whether she deserved it or not..... that's
> >REAL good logic. :-7
>
> Orenda, why do you continually and repeatedly refuse to answer to this
> part? Or are you a troll too?
>
> This woman made clear that she does not spank her sons and not her
> daughter based on who deserves what, but rather based on gender. And
> what I've quoted of her clearly shows that. She wouldn't even consider
> spanking her daughter. She defines that as "brutalizing" her.
I repeat, I challenged her on that too. You seemed determined to
make me out to be the bad guy... I was only saying we shouldn't be
flaming people.
>
> >> : So offer advice, state your opinion, but quit setting yourselves
> >> : up as judge and jury. You suck at it.
> >>
> >> This woman is mentally ill, just look at her silly reasoning about all the
> >> differences between girls and boys, only women being able to hit in the
> >> right way (There is no right ay to hit), and the testosterone poisoning.
> >> It is proven that testosterone makes men stable and calm, while osterogen
> >> makes them more prone to be violent and insecure.
> >
> >
> > Her reasoning didn't make sense to me either. If you were
>
> Then right now *you* don't make much sense. If someone doesn't make
> sense to you, why do you defend them?
I was fighting the flames. ( god, you people make me sound so
redundant.) I wasn't arguing that I think what she does is right. I
just said that based on the frequency, I don't see how you can call her a
child abuser. and this group is really good on totally judging someone
on a few posts. Sometimes inaccurate posts.
>
> >paying attention, I said as much. But I don't think you can call her
> >a child abuser if she responsibly spanked her sons on a few needed
>
> If you had actually read what she'd said, there would be no way for
> you to call what she does responsible.
>
> >occasions. Who are any of you to judge ?? A lot of parents have a lot
>
> Everyone has to judge at one time or another. How dare you make this
> statement after trying to accuse the people who were angered by the
> twit of being responsible for abused kids falling through the cracks.
>
If you called the child abuse people and told them she spanked
her boy and not her girl, what do you think they would do ? They would
come and see if the child was physically abused, and if he wasn't ( and
it doesn't sound like he was) They would talk to her, and the young
man both. They would probably wonder why you weren't happy she wasn't
spanking her daughter too. The point is, they have to check out all the
complaints, and checking out one like this is going to short the people
needed to remove the child who is in real danger of his or her life.
People need to report real abuse.... there is nothing here that is going
to get any real notice by the child protection agencies. They have to
have PROOF the child is being hurt. They might ( small might) try to
talk to her, and I think she might have responded to that on the
newsgroup if certain people hadn't made her so defensive. It only takes
one nasty letter to put you on your guard.
> Don't you know that if people never judge, always keep their opinion
> to themselves, that more kids will fall through the cracks?
Opinions are fine. That's what this NG is for. But to attack
someone is something else.
>
> >stranger ideas. I was amazed to be at the Space Center one day and
> >hear a group of young pre-teens discussing how we had never really
> >sent a man into space, that it was all a movie done by someone like
> >Disney... Now... is that child abuse ? To raise your children to be
> >so ignorant that the other kids will mock them ?? Or to be so
> >bigoted, like some kids are ??
No comments here ? Is this a form of child abuse or what ??
I wonder if these kids still think the earth is flat ?? My daughter was
amazed that their parents would teach them this.
> > The woman didn't attack me, so I saw no reason to attack her.
> > I disagreed calmly, and I'll bet she was much more inclined to listen
> >to my words than that of the flaming cohort fraction.
>
> Uh, no, actually, you're wrong again. I disagreed calmly too. Guess
> what, she made a lot of sexist accusations there, too. Not only that,
> but she made comments about how the men who disagreed with her
> (ignoring that more women did so) she kill themselves.
The men were a lot nastier in their posts. I thought her sarcasm
was rather clever. She didn't post me any nasty flames. I repeat,
being told you abuse your child in any form is a terrible accusation. It
makes you angry and you strike back. How would you feel if you were
judged that way, knowing that you have a good loving relationship with
your kids ?? Angry ?? Furious ?? probably not like listening to
anymore anyone had to say.
> >
> > Your reasoning tends to lack a little too. I can't imagine
> >having a son that would hit me. Did you read my son's post by any
> >chance? He always knew why he was getting spanked and he knew it was
> >his own choice. Had the bats in your belfrey checked lately ??? Or
> >do you too have one of those five and dime psychology degrees that
> >seem to be making the rounds ?
> >
> >Orenda
> >
> That's right Orenda, do your cause a lot of "good" by sinking to petty
> flames.
>
> It wasn't a "flame" He said she was mentally ill. I was a
little nicer about it. but it made the same point. And I know it takes
years to be a psychologist. Obviously this person, and many more think
they can analize and tell us all when someone is crazy or not.... thus
the five and dime reference.... ( didn't you ever know someone who
seemed to have bought his driver's license at the five and dime rather
than passing any sort of simple test ??) They are everywhere in Florida.
The flames are what I am trying to get rid of.
Tami
>
> P.S. A psychology degree is not "five and dime". It involves going to
> school for a few years. Besides, how many degrees have you managed
> that you have room to talk?
I think the problem with these flames is they have spread too
far, too fast, and no one is really reading what is written down. If you
don't think kids should be spanked at all, that should be the stance. If
you think she was sexist, well, I thought she was too, but I don't think
that spanking her boy(s) a few times makes her a child abuser.... which
was what I was arguing.
Orenda
Killing Time
Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:[I make a rather overstrong analogy. I didn't mean to say spanking is like
the camps, just that the point made has a massive flaw, because you could
use exactly the same arguement about a concentration camp]
(her kids don't hit her back...)
: > Which doesn't necessarily make it right in any way though. I have heard
: > that it is rare that those in concentration camps attacked those running
: > them for instance
: I doubt very seriously if there was any love between the inmates
: and the guards, do you ?? How can you compare a loving family, where
: I used spanking very rarely and for only the most extreme occasions
: with a concentration camp, where I believe it was a hated, "sub-human"
'sub-human', but you later describe kids as being less than adults, not
capable of making their own decisions, or, to put it another way 'sub-human'
: > And of course, the parent is *always* right aren't they. No parent *ever*
: > makes a mistake. Parents, being in the god-given position of omniscience
: > (relative to their children) never hit, sorry 'spank' their childrens when
: > they haven't done anything
: Parents make mistakes. No one wants to correct an innocent child
: in any way, do they ??
Well, I'd say a lot of people do, I can bring an example immediately to
mind, but I don't think you are talking about such people, so...
The fact that the parent doesn't want to harm the child doesn't stop them
doing so
: > Its a situation analagous (although, of course, much milder) to that of
: > hanging people
: Hardly.... but even hanging has it's place if the hanged is truly
: guilty of a hanging offense... say the murdering of someone's loved one?
Yes, this is my point it may (or may not) be justified (or justifiable) to
spank/hang a child/person if they misbehave/murder but what if you get it
wrong.
Obviously the consequences of hanging are far worse than those of hitting
someone for absolutely no reason, but when the latter is done to you,
especialy by someone who claims to love and care for you, well, its not
good is it?
: > And just because the parent means well doesn't make the trauma any less
: I rarely spanked my kids. And I know I didn't spank them when
: they were innocent.
How do you know this, i don't believe you will claim any omniscience, or
that you 'can just tell' when they have done something (some people's
reaction to being accused of something is to look guilty anyway, even if
they are innocent), so how do you know
: Intentions are important you know.
But they aren't everything. I could playfully shove someone, and if they
fell under a bus it wouldn't make a whole deal of difference to them that
I didn't mean it
That is why there is a crime called manslaughter, less severe than murder,
but nevertheless
: I was pointing
: out the often pointed out fact that kids are made to eat properly, and go
: to school, bathe, and a number of other things that they don't
: neccessarily want to do at certain ages.
What you say is true, I don't deny that, but a lot of people take it too far.
For instance if you get mad at your kids because they were half an hour
late for a midday meal and you got worried, you would get mad at them,
a perfectly normal and reasonable reaction, they were in no danger though,
so the parental discipline isn't entirely altruistic, as you seem to be
trying to imply
Also, what some parents see as 'wrong' isn't necessarily so. I have a
friend who's father is really shitty to her because she is friends with
me, she, and her friends have known me a long time, long enough to know I
am no danger to them. She knows that to be with me is no danger to her,
and yet her dad treats her like shit for being friends with me ,(amongst
other things, he is a *very* bad father). and yet he thinks he is right,
he could use your arguments to justify himself
: Do you have children ??
No, I haven't. At the moment I don't feel that I would make a good parent,
so i am not going to have children until I feel I would be, if that ever
happens.
If only more people felt like that
: > : And no one is talking about beating, or child abuse.
: > Abuse is still as bad if it isn't meant to be abuse
: > I'm sure kids in a playground bullying another don't want for that kid to
: > end up seriously fucked up, suicidal, whatever, but it still happens
: The bully on the playground is just being mean and cruel. It
Someone who hits their kids for, what turns out to be nothing, even if he
thought they were doing wrong, might as well be mean and cruel
: Do you honestly not see a difference ??
I do see the difference yes. I am not saying the situations are the same,
but they do have things in common
Do you honestly not see a similarity
Orenda
Killing Time wrote:
>
> Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
> : Killing Time wrote:
> : > Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
> [I make a rather overstrong analogy. I didn't mean to say spanking is like
> the camps, just that the point made has a massive flaw, because you could
> use exactly the same arguement about a concentration camp]
> (her kids don't hit her back...)
> : > Which doesn't necessarily make it right in any way though. I have heard
> : > that it is rare that those in concentration camps attacked those running
> : > them for instance
> : I doubt very seriously if there was any love between the inmates
> : and the guards, do you ?? How can you compare a loving family, where
> : I used spanking very rarely and for only the most extreme occasions
> : with a concentration camp, where I believe it was a hated, "sub-human"
>
> 'sub-human', but you later describe kids as being less than adults, not
> capable of making their own decisions, or, to put it another way 'sub-human'
Kids have far less experience dealing with the world than
adults. They are not subhuman, but they are children and need to be
taught right from wrong and how to be safe and happy, as kids and
adults. Children with no discipline in their lives infringe upon the
rights and happiness of others. Is that fair ??
>
> : > And of course, the parent is *always* right aren't they. No parent *ever*
> : > makes a mistake. Parents, being in the god-given position of omniscience
> : > (relative to their children) never hit, sorry 'spank' their childrens when
> : > they haven't done anything
> : Parents make mistakes. No one wants to correct an innocent child
> : in any way, do they ??
>
> Well, I'd say a lot of people do, I can bring an example immediately to
> mind, but I don't think you are talking about such people, so...
>
Well, good.... at least we are trying to talk about the same
thing now <g>
> The fact that the parent doesn't want to harm the child doesn't stop them
> doing so
>
> : > Its a situation analagous (although, of course, much milder) to that of
> : > hanging people
> : Hardly.... but even hanging has it's place if the hanged is truly
> : guilty of a hanging offense... say the murdering of someone's loved one?
>
> Yes, this is my point it may (or may not) be justified (or justifiable) to
> spank/hang a child/person if they misbehave/murder but what if you get it
> wrong.
You will not hurt a child turning it over your knee and smacking
their bottom with your hand. ( I'm not talking about hitting a child as
hard as you can ) When they get older, if you can't control the swats,
then you need to quit spanking them, because they could get hurt.
> Obviously the consequences of hanging are far worse than those of hitting
> someone for absolutely no reason, but when the latter is done to you,
> especialy by someone who claims to love and care for you, well, its not
> good is it?
I spanked my daughter MAYBE 5 or 6 times in her whole life. ( my
son says 2 or 3 ) and I spanked my son probably double that. She's going
to be 12 next month. I never spanked her for a suspicion of anything, it
was always when she chose to do something that she knew she wasn't to do.
And not just some little thing, something that could have gotten her
hurt if she continued to do it. My son and daughter know that I love
them, and they never thought it unfair ( and we've talked about it) She
hasn't been spanked in over 2 years... I may never have to spank her
again. I sincerely hope not.
> : > And just because the parent means well doesn't make the trauma any less
> : I rarely spanked my kids. And I know I didn't spank them when
> : they were innocent.
>
> How do you know this, i don't believe you will claim any omniscience, or
> that you 'can just tell' when they have done something (some people's
> reaction to being accused of something is to look guilty anyway, even if
> they are innocent), so how do you know
>
> : Intentions are important you know.
>
> But they aren't everything. I could playfully shove someone, and if they
> fell under a bus it wouldn't make a whole deal of difference to them that
> I didn't mean it
You'd be surprized at how much less it hurts knowing someone
didn't intentionally harm you. Intentions aren't everything but they
mean a lot. My kids knew what spankings were for before they got
them, before they made the choice to do something that would
get them spanked. A few times I didn't spank my son, I took him the the
emergency room instead to get stitches.... if he repeated the dangerous
behavior, then I spanked him. ( I thought the hurt of the hospital visit
might be punitive enough, but not all the time.)
> That is why there is a crime called manslaughter, less severe than murder,
> but nevertheless
> Exactly... and that's a good example of how spanking isn't child
abuse.
> : I was pointing
> : out the often pointed out fact that kids are made to eat properly, and go
> : to school, bathe, and a number of other things that they don't
> : neccessarily want to do at certain ages.
>
> What you say is true, I don't deny that, but a lot of people take it too far.
> For instance if you get mad at your kids because they were half an hour
> late for a midday meal and you got worried, you would get mad at them,
> a perfectly normal and reasonable reaction, they were in no danger though,
> so the parental discipline isn'
I wouldn't spank my children for this. My being mad doesn't
mean I spank. I have a ton of other parenting tactics I use. The
biggest is, my children love to please me. So reward plays a major
role at my house.
> Also, what some parents see as 'wrong' isn't necessarily so. I have a
> friend who's father is really shitty to her because she is friends with
> me, she, and her friends have known me a long time, long enough to know I
> am no danger to them. She knows that to be with me is no danger to her,
> and yet her dad treats her like shit for being friends with me ,(amongst
> other things, he is a *very* bad father). and yet he thinks he is right,
> he could use your arguments to justify himself
I think it's sad that he doesn't want her to be your friend. Is
there any reason you couldn't get to know him ?? Anything tangible he's
afraid of ??/ Sometimes parents tend to be overly cautious of people
we don't know... people older than our children ( they may be
wonderful, but what if they aren't so good for our kids ?? ) My son
was angry when he was 10 because I wouldn't let him play at the man
across the street house. He seemed nice enough, but there were way too
many kids over there, way too late at night. Turned out that a few
months later, he was busted for partying with them ( alcohol and pot) ,
and two boys filed charges for molestation. Now, my son was mad... and I
wasn't sure, but something told me things weren't right over there. I
didn't like him being angry with me, but in the long run, it was worth
the chance. I hope that your friends dad takes the chance to get to know
you. ( Maybe someone else's parents could talk to him in your behalf ??
)
>
> : Do you have children ??
>
> No, I haven't. At the moment I don't feel that I would make a good parent,
> so i am not going to have children until I feel I would be, if that ever
> happens.
> If only more people felt like that
Good point. But I am a very good mother. NOT a very good
housekeeper, but real good at every thing else.
> : > : And no one is talking about beating, or child abuse.
> : > Abuse is still as bad if it isn't meant to be abuse
> : > I'm sure kids in a playground bullying another don't want for that kid to
> : > end up seriously fucked up, suicidal, whatever, but it still happens
> : The bully on the playground is just being mean and cruel. It
>
> Someone who hits their kids for, what turns out to be nothing, even if he
> thought they were doing wrong, might as well be mean and cruel
>
> : Do you honestly not see a difference ??
>
> I do see the difference yes. I am not saying the situations are the same,
> but they do have things in common
> Do you honestly not see a similarity
>
> terry
>
I can see your points. But there are very good parents just like
there are very bad parents. Most of the ill-behaved kids I know
personally have no discipline at all. I think that is what is wrong with
kids today. If people can raise their kids well without spanking them,
that's a great thing, and maybe they can share some of that knowledge.
But to brand someone an abuser because she spanks, isn't fair. No more
fair that that father not trusting you when he doesn't know you.
And I have to go buy school supplies.... we can continue this
discussion later.
Orenda
Marguerite Petersen
In article <320D4E...@nexusprime.org>,
Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>Randy wrote:
>>
>> In article <4ue6qv$m...@kira.peak.org>, on 8 Aug 1996 19:12:47 -0700,
>> pet...@kira.peak.org, Marguerite Petersen says
>>
>> >You spank your child, you are being physically violent with them, IMO.
>> >I call that abuse. You may call it whatever you like, but it is still
>> >wrong.
>
> This is your opinion. Thank god you are not a queen or anyone
>with any authority over anyone but your own family. ( of course, the
>King down below agrees with you, but he isn't an authority other
>than his family either. ) How nice that you are allowed to have an
>opinion. Too bad we can't have one that thinks yours is excessive.
And you ARE a queen? Thanks for letting us know that. :-)
And no matter what or who *I* am, hitting one's kids (for whatever
reason) is wrong. Oh, you may justify it to yourself and to others
as being "for their own good", but reality is that it is for no
one's *good* except the hitter's. (And even that is suspect.)
>> I agree. Spank or hit, slap or beat, swat or flog... it's all
>> physical and it's all violent. Spanking children is abusive in
>> intent. The purpose is to cause pain. How much pain and for what
>> reason the pain is caused, is pretty much a matter of whim.
>
> All the same huh ??? Well... if you had your choice... and had to
>accept one of the following, what would you chose ?? A swat on the
>behind. A punch in the nose ? A 2x4 upside your head ? being hit by a
>car going 50 miles an hour ? According to you, it's all the same.
>Right??
I note that nowhere in your *list* do you have "sit down and talk
to/with me about the *problem* (whatever it may be). That says a
LOT about how you handle conflict, IMO.
>> The law establishes the limit between legal and illigal whim, and,
>> so far, some abusive treatment, maltreatment, is yet legal. BTW,
>> behavior is considered wrong before it is made illegal and not the
>> other way. Deviation has nothing to do with right, wrong, legal
>> or illegal. All the hubbub about abuse and not abuse is just a
>> distraction. We needn't look to Webster's to determine what is
>> wrong. To intentionally cause pain, humiliation... misery, is to
>> do wrong to another.
>
> Actually, most of us think you need a dictionary on a regular
>basis... ;-) We are causing a quick, small amount of pain to our own
>child in order to spare him a greater pain and humiliation when he isn't
>a responsible adult when he's grown up. A swat on the butt vs being
>hit by a car...( oh, sorry.... forgot that you view them the same...)
>Well, the pro-spankers will understand.
And just why would anyone wish to cause their own child pain, if
there were other alternatives? I believe there are other alternatives
to hitting/spanking. It takes an intelligent, motivated, *thinking*
person to care to find them however. Hitting is so *childish*, but
then *some* people never grow up.
>> cut
>>
>> >I have known personally kids who are/have been *terribly* abused
>> >by their parent(s), and you know what, those kids absolutely *love*
>> >those parents. Kids love their parents in spite of what they do.
>> >However, IF the parents truly love their kids, it would behoove
>> >them to at least treat their kids as well as they would wish to
>> >be treated. As ye sow, so shall ye reap.
>>
>> I agree here, too. FWIW, I've had to look at abused children for
>> over fifteen years. The phenomenon Marg describes about abused
>> and discarded kids loving their parents is one I have marveled,
>> also. To exploit that love can never be described as responsible.
>> It's condemnable.
>
> We aren't throwing our kids out on the street. We are
>teaching them to grow to be good citizens. Get a dictionary and check to
>see if spanking and abuse are the same.....
I see, so punishment is the way to being a good citizen and/or a
mature adult? Sadly your attitude IS a prevalent one among some
people. Has it never occurred to you that reason and logic may
just be preferable to punishment?
>> I condemn spanking parents and their advocates BECAUSE they are adults.
>> The standards I hold myself and other adults to are not met when a
>> parent strikes a child. Because I think I hear parents saying that
>> adulthood means "more", I expect "more". When they fail to BE "more",
>> I think them worthy of condemnation. It is wrong to hold separate a
>> status for others that allows one to hurt or demean the others based
>> merely on a perceived "less than" status.
>>
>> Now, I actually think that children are equal to parents in rights to
>> integrity, mutual respect, and protection from physical harm. Certainly
>> they are not "same" in size, experience, or levels of development. That,
>> however, is a reason to be compassionate and not punitive. Condemnation
>> of children warrants condemnation by them and by their advocates.
>
> Should I tremble when you speak, you sound so high and
>mighty. Yet your own rhetoric proves that you see no difference between
>abuse and spanking, and we know that there is. ( ask us how we know?
>experience and common sense....)
Well, I would agree that you are quite *common* but as for having
any *sense*.....well that does seem to be lacking in your case.
>> Randy Cox
>> The NoSpan King Page
>> http://www.cei.net/~rcox/nospan.html
>Orenda
>Mother of Christopher, the Great, 22
>and Marvelous Marilyn ( ALMOST 12 )
>
Marg
--
Marguerite Petersen
In article <320E20...@nexusprime.org>,
Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>
> No one said my children were mere property. They are my life. I
>would do anything for my kids. Part of being a happy well rounded adult
>is to have respect for authority and other human beings.
And you have a very warped way (IMO) of doing that. What kind of
respect CAN children have for those who spank/hit them or for a
society that condones that?
[snip]
> Do you have children ?? Ever had to be responsible for raising
>someone ?? If not, I probably can't ever make you understand the
>implications of trying to raise a responsible adult.
I have 3 children, one grandchild. And yes, I *fully* understand
the implications of trying to raise responsible adults. I also
understand the message that spanking of one's children gives to
those children. It IS possible to raise children to be responsible,
decent, respectful (when warranted) adult citizens *without* resorting
to physical punishment. I have done so. Surely we owe it to our
children to *try* to be as respectful to them as we wish them to
be towards US and the society in which they live.
> It amazes me how widespread this has become has far as
>newsgroups. And how things are spread taken out of context to change the
>meaning of what was actually written. I recommend that anyone infuriated
>by this thread try looking up all the actual posts on dejanews. I do not
>think that boys are in need of spankings anymore than girls. They may be
>more adventuresome, and get into more trouble, but it is by their
>actions, and not their physical makeup, that they might get spanked more.
Good, for that at least, I am glad.
>I suppose my son was more daring physically than my daughter will ever
>be. He was also hurt more seriously and more painfully by the things he
>did... ( I'm talking stitches from things he chose to do after I warned
>him it was dangerous. ) I thought a spanking was preferable to him
>killing himself. Now that he has managed to live to be an adult, he's
>very glad I made that choice. ( read the post "son of Orenda" to get his
>viewpoint. )
>
> Responsible parents who chose to spank their kids do it rarely
>and usually use alternative methods to get good behavior from their
>children. They don't injure their kids. ( if you can't control a
>spanking, then it could possibly turn into abuse, so you don't do it !)
>My kids were rewarded for good behavior and negative reenforcement was
>very rarely used. And spanking, only once, had to be repeated for the
>same offence.
And it IS possible to raise children *without* spankings at all.
Surely, if one is truly interested in the "well being" of one's
children, it behooves a parent to at least *attempt* to raise
them without resorting to spankings. We owe it to our children.
>Orenda ( who is sorry this is so long, but I have no intention of
>misquoting anyone. )
>
Tami
Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
<snip>
>Tami wrote:
>> Personally, removing any article of a child's clothing is a violation
>> of their body. That said, I'll copy something Cheryl wrote next in
>> answer to your last question. Are you sure you know who you're arguing
>> for Orenda?
> Ever change your kids clothes before bathing them, diapering
>them, getting their shots???? ( see, things aren't all or nothing )
>Sometimes it's called for.
Don't be stupid Orenda. Of course I have. But that's not what we're
talking about, is it? We're talking about removing clothing to PUNISH
a child. That's beyond punishment, that's humiliation.
Define when it's called for to remove a child's clothing to punish
them.
>
>> *****
>> >> Cheryl1955 (chery...@aol.com) wrote:
>> >> : Apparently my suggestion that I think spanking is inappropriate
>> >>:for girls, but sometimes acceptable for boys, has caused quite a commotion
>> >> : here. I'm not at all sure why anyone would defend the practice of
>> >>:baring one of the most intimate areas of a young woman's anatomy and then
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> >>: brutalizing it. It hardly communicates to a girl what I want my
>> >>:daughter to feel about her body and her dignity!
>> *****
>> >>
>
> Anyone read that I thought it was STRANGE to think that what was
>brutal for one wasn't brutal for the other ?? ( but thanks for pointing
>out what she said about bare.) I had commented on this post, but my
>server doesn't hold them for long, so I no longer had it to see it was
>the same woman. But... WOULD it be 'better' if it were over clothing?
Duh. Of course it would. Being spanked is bad enough. Removing their
clothing to do so is humiliation. Why do you need to humiliate your
child to "discipline" them?
>(personally, I never spanked either of my kids bare.) I figure they are
>due their modesty, but some parents don't feel that way, and it doesn't
>make them monsters.
Your opinion. I think you're wrong.
<snip>
>> Orenda, you've gone over the line here and you owe this kid an apology
>> NOW. You don't know that this kid is being spanked. He never said
>> that. What he said is that his dad "hits" him. And I'd wager that if
>> there were any love behind that type of action, he wouldn't feel
>> violent towards his father. I'm not saying it's ok to hit your
>> parents, but if your parents beat you, you might feel the need to
>> defend yourself.
>
> The discussion was about SPANKING... not slugging or hitting in
The conversation was *also* about violence towards children from their
parents in general. You're the one who keeps going on and on about how
there's a difference between hitting and spanking, refusing to read
spanking as hitting, but then you read hitting as spanking.
>any other sense. And I put " IF he SPANKED you...." I'm talking about
You said that *after* he made it clear his father had been abusive to
him. You were being deliberately cruel.
>responsible spankings. My mother broke my back with a broomstick when I
>was 9 years old. I never raised my hand to her ( I did finally start
>taking the broom away though ) I left home the day I graduated from high
>school and made my own way from age 17. I know the difference between
>child abuse and a responsible spanking. If his father beat him up, then
>he had the right to defend himself. He didn't say this. I have the
YES, he did. He said his father hit him. Or do you also have a good
way and a bad way to hit your kids? Have you thought that maybe the
abusive you suffered at the hands of your mother is responsible for
your attitude here and your refusal to see anything that Cheryl said
as abusive?
>utmost respect for anyone who survives real child abuse, no matter what
>form it takes. If he wasn't talking about spanking, I do apologize for
>not understanding, but SPANKING is what the subject was. I wish he would
>have clarified, because now, of course, it would be hard to say he just
>spanked him, if that's what he did.
Violence against children has been the subject. It has come up over
and over. You have no right to define the subject.
As a survivor of child abuse, I resent your use of the phrase "real
child abuse." Orenda, you really need to get your ego in check. Just
as you don't define the subject, neither do you define what is and
isn't real child abuse.
>
> My mother never beat the other kids. I saw her spank my one
>brother one time for playing dr., and she used to spank my little brother
>on occasion. Don't think she ever spanked my sister . ( you can tell
>too... ;-) ) Was she being sexist ?? I don't think so. She just
>didn't care for me.... I was the reason she was so miserable in life.
Orenda, either you're a troll or you need help if you think you were
the cause of your mother's unhappiness. Abusive parents quite often
choose a child or children to vent their unhappiness on. This
unhappiness is something they carried *into* parenthood, not something
that one certain child or combination of children created.
With this attitude, no wonder you excuse Cheryl for abusing her sons.
You must just assume they "deserve it" because they are the ones who
made her miserable.
That's pathetic.
>> >> Would you say the same thing if it was this woman's boys who hit her, or
>> >> her husband who hit her, perhaps her father or mother?
>> >
>> > If someone slugs a child around like women get beat up.... If
>> >someone is beat up.... then it is assault. We are talking about
>> >spanking...... something that makes the bottom area merely tender for
>> >a very short amount of time. And not very often.
>>
>> BS ALERT! He makes an honest point that really puts it into
>> perspective. Too often we feel it's ok to treat kids one way and
>> adults another (usually better) way.
>
> Responsible spankings are about discipline, not abuse. I was
>just pointing out that his reasoning fell short of actuality. It
>wasn't a bad attempt, but it wasn't acurate. I can't try to explain how
>I look at things ? Sometimes I disagree with a lot of what I read here,
>but explanations at least help me see where people are coming from.
Not only was it completely accurate, but it has convinced me to never,
ever spank my children again.
Tell me this Orenda, if you came up to me, held me down and spanked
me, would that be ok?
>
>> I'm trying to convince myself that you probably do believe that kids
>> should be treated with the same respect as adults. That would also
>> explain your unwillingness to admit the *fact* that anyone who hits a
>> woman - including spanking - could be charged with abusing her.
>
> I don't think parents are supposed to "raise" each other. So
>spanking, or any discipline is just ridiculas in my book. ( I have a
There are other ways to discipline children than spanking.
>friend who isn't allowed to even see the checkbook... some marriage )
>You are obligated by law, and God to raise your children. I do not
Not. You can surrender your children for adoption and not everyone
believes in your God. Your development seems to not have gone past the
stage of believing the world revolves around you.
>understand why you can't understand that. I treat my children with the
I do not understand why you do not understand the theory of treating
children with respect and not violating their bodies.
>same respect I do my friends. But, I am not responsible for raising my
>friends to be good human beings.
>> OTOH, I have to go on what you say, which is that if someone were to
>> beat on a kid "like women get beat up" then that is wrong. But turn
>> that around and say that it's ok if someone hit a woman the way kids
>> get hit with spankings. Orenda, you're dead wrong. If anyone held me
>> down and spanked me, their ass would be in jail.
>>
>> If someone were to spank a woman (against her will of course), that
>> would be abuse. Orenda, if you're doubtful, call up your local police
>> department or women's shelter.
>
> Not arguing this point at all. But that person isn't deemed in
>"charge" of you, is he ?? Do you realize that they are starting to make
Being in charge of a person is not the point. The simple point is that
we don't treat children with the same respect as adults. That if we
*did* spank an adult, it would be abuse.
>parents totally accountable for their childrens actions in some states??
> Which means, if they don't go to school, you can go to jail, if they
>steal, you can be libel.... doesn't work that way with husbands and
ROFLMAO. Bull. If you steal via, say, credit cards, your spouse can be
made to pay that.
>wives. I didn't say you could spank a woman like a child and it would be
>right. ( please quote me if I did... must have been a typo.)
>>
>> Being obligated to raise your children doesn't include spanking.
>> Discipline, yes, spanking, no.
> Some parents very effectively and very lovingly spank their
>children. And some children are grateful to know that their parents put
>forth the effort. ( please read "son of Orenda" at dejanews )
But being obligated to discipline your child does not mean you are
obligated to spank.
>
>> At what age? You lump all kids together here (just as you lump all
>> people who didn't like this woman together). The fact is that there
>> are some things a kid *can* consent to - such as obtaining an
>> abortion.
>>
>> >anything legally. They can't even buy things with their own money.
>>
>> ROFLMAO. Wrong again. They can take their money to the store and blow
>> it any way they want, except buying alcohol. What world do you live
>> in?
>
> I don't know what ROFLMAO means.... but... a child can't buy a
>car, and in this state, and others I have lived in, if a child buys
Oh, so you're going to change what you said? You didn't say kids
couldn't buy a car, you said kids couldn't "even buy things with their
own money."
>something, a parent can return it in it's original condition and get the
As can the child.
>money back. And I don't know too many people who spank daughters old
>enough to get an abortion. What age can you do that ??? Younger than 15
>?? ( I'm really curious, so let me know )
A child who is pregnant can obtain an abortion at whatever age they
get pregnant.
>
>> >It's like saying you can hit your wife, and have sex with your kids.
>>
>> Um, did you miss the part where he pointed out that you *can't* hit
>> your wife, so why can you hit your kid? Your analogy fails (actually,
>> it crashes to earth in a fireball).
>
> You are not supposed to hit your wife. You aren't supposed to
>beat up your kids. And normal people don't even think about having sex
>with their children. Or beating their mates. And some don't think you
>should spank your kids. Good for them. but let it be a choice if it
>isn't abuse.
But is *IS* abuse if you say "I'm going to spank my sons but not my
daughters, not based on their actions equaling who deserves what, but
based on their gender." Please refer back to Cheryl's multiple
references to boy's testosterone.
>
>> >They aren't interchangeable.... different positions in life call for
>> >different treatments. And no one is talking about beating, or child
>> >abuse. We are talking about spanking. And responsible spanking.....
>> >no injury, and only in rare cases. This woman said in earlier posts
>> >that she rarely spanked her sons. My daughter is more well behaved
>> >than my son was at her age. Yet, I would have been "sexist" if I
>> >hadn't spanked her too, whether she deserved it or not..... that's
>> >REAL good logic. :-7
>>
>> Orenda, why do you continually and repeatedly refuse to answer to this
>> part? Or are you a troll too?
>>
>> This woman made clear that she does not spank her sons and not her
>> daughter based on who deserves what, but rather based on gender. And
>> what I've quoted of her clearly shows that. She wouldn't even consider
>> spanking her daughter. She defines that as "brutalizing" her.
>
> I repeat, I challenged her on that too. You seemed determined to
>make me out to be the bad guy... I was only saying we shouldn't be
>flaming people.
If you disagree with her, then why do you keep saying asking if it's
wrong of you to spank your son more than your daughter based on who
deserves what? I'm finding it difficult to reconcile those statements
with what you're saying now.
Bull. If you don't like the heat, get out of the fire. If you're not
prepared for people to disagree with you, then keep it to yourself. If
you *don't* keep it to yourself, then you have nothing to whine about.
>>
>> >> : So offer advice, state your opinion, but quit setting yourselves
>> >> : up as judge and jury. You suck at it.
>> >>
>> >> This woman is mentally ill, just look at her silly reasoning about all the
>> >> differences between girls and boys, only women being able to hit in the
>> >> right way (There is no right ay to hit), and the testosterone poisoning.
>> >> It is proven that testosterone makes men stable and calm, while osterogen
>> >> makes them more prone to be violent and insecure.
>> >
>> >
>> > Her reasoning didn't make sense to me either. If you were
>>
>> Then right now *you* don't make much sense. If someone doesn't make
>> sense to you, why do you defend them?
>
> I was fighting the flames. ( god, you people make me sound so
>redundant.) I wasn't arguing that I think what she does is right. I
>just said that based on the frequency, I don't see how you can call her a
>child abuser. and this group is really good on totally judging someone
>on a few posts. Sometimes inaccurate posts.
She was judged on her own words. Not on some fantasy made up by the
rest of the group. And not solely on the fact that she spanks only her
sons.
>>
>> >paying attention, I said as much. But I don't think you can call her
>> >a child abuser if she responsibly spanked her sons on a few needed
>>
>> If you had actually read what she'd said, there would be no way for
>> you to call what she does responsible.
>>
>> >occasions. Who are any of you to judge ?? A lot of parents have a lot
>>
>> Everyone has to judge at one time or another. How dare you make this
>> statement after trying to accuse the people who were angered by the
>> twit of being responsible for abused kids falling through the cracks.
>>
>
> If you called the child abuse people and told them she spanked
>her boy and not her girl, what do you think they would do ? They would
Actually, if I called CPS and told them that not only did she spank
the boys and not the girls, but believed it's wrong to spank girls and
not boys *and*:
Boys grow up to fill our prisons, batter our women, engage in behavior
that fills our hospitals and medical providers' offices, and teach
women and girls that they are on this planet to be subservient to men
and boys; horrible side-effects of testosterone; boys who are beaten
by men become resentful and hardened by it, but, boys react completely
differently when spanked by a woman.
Then I think what they would do is investigate it.
>come and see if the child was physically abused, and if he wasn't ( and
>it doesn't sound like he was) They would talk to her, and the young
Hello? Ever heard of emotional abuse.?
>man both. They would probably wonder why you weren't happy she wasn't
>spanking her daughter too. The point is, they have to check out all the
That is a gross exaggeration and you can apologize now. I never said -
nor has anyone else - that we weren't happy the woman isn't spanking
her daughter too. We're concerned about the way she's treating her
sons.
>complaints, and checking out one like this is going to short the people
>needed to remove the child who is in real danger of his or her life.
Yeah, maybe in your narrow-minded view of things - in the view where
emotional abuse doesn't occur. You may be willing to sacrifice
emotionally abused children because there are children who are worse
off, but *I* am not.
>People need to report real abuse.... there is nothing here that is going
Again, you do not define abuse. But I would like to know what is, in
*your* opinion, abuse. You've gone on and on about how *we* don't have
the right to say this is abuse, and we've defended why we feel it is
so. You keep referring to "real abuse", but I have yet to see you
define what you consider to be "real" abuse.
>to get any real notice by the child protection agencies. They have to
>have PROOF the child is being hurt. They might ( small might) try to
There is more than just physical abuse.
>talk to her, and I think she might have responded to that on the
>newsgroup if certain people hadn't made her so defensive. It only takes
>one nasty letter to put you on your guard.
>
>> Don't you know that if people never judge, always keep their opinion
>> to themselves, that more kids will fall through the cracks?
>
> Opinions are fine. That's what this NG is for. But to attack
>someone is something else.
Pot, kettle, black. Consider your response to the kid here.
>>
>> >stranger ideas. I was amazed to be at the Space Center one day and
>> >hear a group of young pre-teens discussing how we had never really
>> >sent a man into space, that it was all a movie done by someone like
>> >Disney... Now... is that child abuse ? To raise your children to be
>> >so ignorant that the other kids will mock them ?? Or to be so
>> >bigoted, like some kids are ??
>
>
> No comments here ? Is this a form of child abuse or what ??
>I wonder if these kids still think the earth is flat ?? My daughter was
>amazed that their parents would teach them this.
Child abuse that a kid doesn't know *one* thing? I didn't comment
because it was too stupid and ludicrous.
Orenda, I can understand your daughter's attitude, she's just a child.
But, you, as one who has raised children, SHOULD have seen what
happened _right_away_. Let's see, kids watch a movie, say "mom, dad,
did that really happen?" Parents say "Yeah, and they made a movie
about it." Maybe at another part the kid gets a little frightened
(like in Apollo 13 when they were stuck, maybe??), and the parents
reassure them with, "It's just a movie honey, you know, make believe."
Kids, being unable to keep too many things together sometimes, take
from that - this never happened, it's just a movie. You've never
really heard of kids misunderstanding what their parents told them?
>
>> > The woman didn't attack me, so I saw no reason to attack her.
>> > I disagreed calmly, and I'll bet she was much more inclined to listen
>> >to my words than that of the flaming cohort fraction.
>>
>> Uh, no, actually, you're wrong again. I disagreed calmly too. Guess
>> what, she made a lot of sexist accusations there, too. Not only that,
>> but she made comments about how the men who disagreed with her
>> (ignoring that more women did so) she kill themselves.
>
> The men were a lot nastier in their posts. I thought her sarcasm
Guess what? That doesn't make her belittling a problem as huge as
suicide.
>was rather clever. She didn't post me any nasty flames. I repeat,
>being told you abuse your child in any form is a terrible accusation. It
I never told her she abused her child. I'll wait for your next
justification.
>makes you angry and you strike back. How would you feel if you were
>judged that way, knowing that you have a good loving relationship with
>your kids ?? Angry ?? Furious ?? probably not like listening to
>anymore anyone had to say.
If so, I'd probably just drop it. Also, I'd examine what I'd said
instead of acting like a stupid, spoiled little brat who is caught up
mid-fit.
>> >
>> > Your reasoning tends to lack a little too. I can't imagine
>> >having a son that would hit me. Did you read my son's post by any
>> >chance? He always knew why he was getting spanked and he knew it was
>> >his own choice. Had the bats in your belfrey checked lately ??? Or
>> >do you too have one of those five and dime psychology degrees that
>> >seem to be making the rounds ?
>> >
>> >Orenda
>> >
>> That's right Orenda, do your cause a lot of "good" by sinking to petty
>> flames.
>>
>> It wasn't a "flame" He said she was mentally ill. I was a
>little nicer about it. but it made the same point. And I know it takes
>years to be a psychologist. Obviously this person, and many more think
>they can analize and tell us all when someone is crazy or not.... thus
>the five and dime reference.... ( didn't you ever know someone who
>seemed to have bought his driver's license at the five and dime rather
>than passing any sort of simple test ??) They are everywhere in Florida.
>
> The flames are what I am trying to get rid of.
Then don't participate in them (it's *that* simple).
>
>Tami
>>
>> P.S. A psychology degree is not "five and dime". It involves going to
>> school for a few years. Besides, how many degrees have you managed
>> that you have room to talk?
>
>
> I think the problem with these flames is they have spread too
>far, too fast, and no one is really reading what is written down. If you
Bull. I have based everything I have said on what has been written.
>don't think kids should be spanked at all, that should be the stance. If
>you think she was sexist, well, I thought she was too, but I don't think
>that spanking her boy(s) a few times makes her a child abuser.... which
>was what I was arguing.
>
>Orenda
>
But if you combine that with all the things she said (as I outlined
above), then what? Care to answer to that?
And another answer I'm (still) waiting for - how many degrees do you
have that give you room to talk?
Tami
LaVonne Carlson
Tammy wrote:
> Have you ever seen a victim of child abuse? You are entitled to your belief that
> spanking is wrong but do not put it in the same catagory as childabuse. When you do,
> you diminsh the crime inflicted on these children. I know your intention is to show the
> severity of spanking but it doesn't. There was a case here in Florida where a little
> girl named Felica "sunshine" Assaad ( the spelling is probably wrong can't find the book
> right now) she didn't die of spankings, what she died of is what most abused children
> die of, being punched, kicked, burned and tortured by a adult. Being forced to eat
> soap, and go with out sleep, she was only 5 or 6 when she died in convulsions waiting
> for her mother to help her. Save your rightous indignation for those victims of real
> abuse not those who may recieve a swat on the butt from time to time, to equal the two
> is a crime.
I recently posted studies references to studies linking corporal
punishment and abuse. I can repost if you missed them. Not all
spanking ends up to be legally considered "abuse" nor does all
spanking result in your horror story described above---but enough
cases do to place spanking in a risk category. It is impossible to
address abuse without addressing risk factors which may lead to abuse.
Corporal punishment is one of those risk factors.
LaVonne
LaVonne Carlson
Orenda wrote:
>
> Randy wrote:
> >
> > In article <4ue6qv$m...@kira.peak.org>, on 8 Aug 1996 19:12:47 -0700,
> > pet...@kira.peak.org, Marguerite Petersen says
> >
> > >You spank your child, you are being physically violent with them, IMO.
> > >I call that abuse. You may call it whatever you like, but it is still
> > >wrong.
>
> This is your opinion. Thank god you are not a queen or anyone
> with any authority over anyone but your own family. ( of course, the
> King down below agrees with you, but he isn't an authority other
> than his family either. ) How nice that you are allowed to have an
> opinion. Too bad we can't have one that thinks yours is excessive.
You do seem stuck on opinion, Orenda. Of course, the point of
validity seems to be whether or not that opinion agrees or disagrees
with yours. You have berated those of us who have posted research
against spanking, claiming validity of your pro-spank opinion. You
recently berated a poster's opinion (different from yours) because he
relied on opinion. Which is it?
When Scott Morizot wrote:
> It's been my personal experience (from back in the days when I did
> spank) and my experience with many others, that the majority spank
> from ignorance, not from any strongly held beliefs.
You responded:
> And what is it that makes your personal experience so much
> better than ours ??? Other than your personal opinion, that is.
>
> Orenda
LaVonne
LaVonne Carlson
Orenda wrote:
>
> Iggy Drougge wrote:
> Well, do you know why I never hit my mother, but sometimes my
father?
> > Because my mother does not hit me, so she does not get any strikes from
> > me, being a civilized person. My father, OTOH, hits me, and so, receives
> > the same treatment from me. If someone does not respect my physical
> > integrity, why should I respect theirs?
> > My son has never hit me. I'll bet most boys who were spanked
> didn't hit their mothers. No one I know complains of being hit except
> the few I know who don't spank their kids. You must just love this
> thread since it gives you "permission" to hit your dad now. If he has
> spanked you, to discipline you, maybe you should think about all the
> giving and sacrifice that goes into be a parent, to try to do the best
> for the child you love.
Our children owe us nothing, Orenda. We owe our children all the
giving and the sacrifice that goes into being a parent and doing our
best. When we fail to treat our children with respect, we do not
deserve to be respected by our children, simply because we are
parents.
I'll bet you feel real good after you hit your
> old man, don't you?? I never knew a responsible parent who felt good
> after spanking their child. It's considered a duty, not a pleasure.
> Thank goodness I was lucky enough to have my son as my son.
I'm sure Iggy can address this better than I. Violence doesn't
justify violence, but sometimes explains why it occurs. Iggy hitting
his father may not be justified, but it is certainly
understandable--he is treating his father in the same way his father
treats him. As parents, we are the strongest role models our children
will ever have. Violence seldom results in good feelings, though
there can be some satisfaction in deciding not to take it anymore!
> Your reasoning tends to lack a little too. I can't imagine
> having a son that would hit me. Did you read my son's post by any
> chance? He always knew why he was getting spanked and he knew it was
> his own choice. Had the bats in your belfrey checked lately ??? Or
> do you too have one of those five and dime psychology degrees that
> seem to be making the rounds ?
Whose five and dime psychology degrees are you referring to? I didn't
understand this accusation.
LaVonne
>
> Orenda
LaVonne Carlson
> > : > Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
> Kids have far less experience dealing with the world than
> adults. They are not subhuman, but they are children and need to be
> taught right from wrong and how to be safe and happy, as kids and
> adults. Children with no discipline in their lives infringe upon the
> rights and happiness of others. Is that fair ??
So, Orenda, are you back to arguing that in order to have discipline
and in order to teach right from wrong, spanking must be present? I
thought this argument had died. You have stated that your children
are not well behaved because you spanked them but because you used
other forms of discipline as well. Why resort again to the "children
with no discipline" line to refute the anti-spanking position?
> >
>
> You will not hurt a child turning it over your knee and smacking
> their bottom with your hand. ( I'm not talking about hitting a child as
> hard as you can ) When they get older, if you can't control the swats,
> then you need to quit spanking them, because they could get hurt.
How do you define hurt? You have stated in a previous post that a
little pain and humiliation is better than being hit by a car.
Doesn't pain and humiliation hurt children? Why does research reveal
spanking, even rare and mild spanking, to be a risk factor if it
doesn't hurt children?
LaVonne
LaVonne Carlson
Orenda wrote:
> You'd be surprized at how much less it hurts knowing someone
> didn't intentionally harm you. Intentions aren't everything but they
> mean a lot. My kids knew what spankings were for before they got
> them, before they made the choice to do something that would
> get them spanked. A few times I didn't spank my son, I took him the the
> emergency room instead to get stitches.... if he repeated the dangerous
> behavior, then I spanked him. ( I thought the hurt of the hospital visit
> might be punitive enough, but not all the time.)
The point of intentionality is interesting in relation to spanking.
How children respond to acts of aggression is highly dependent on
their understanding of intentionality. (Did the person mean to hit me,
hurt me, or was it an accident?) As children's social cognition
develops, they become better able to accurately determine intent.
Acts which are determined to be accidental cause far less anger and
are less apt to be cause for retaliation than acts determined
intentional. We help children develop this understanding when we say
"He/she didn't mean to hurt you--it was an accident."
Yet, when a parent hits (spanks) a child, that is clearly an act of
intentionality--especially when the parent calmly explains to the
child what he/she did and why he/she is now going to be hit. This
places the child in a position where he/she is intentionally hit and
hurt, yet not in a position to safely express anger or retaliate.
The social cognition aspects of perspective taking and intentionality
is clearly documented in child development literature. Intentionally
hurting (hitting) a child who is not in a position to safely retaliate
causes confusion and anger. There is speculation that this may be one
contributing factor in the link between spanking and aggression
towards peers and animals. The anger becomes displaced and is enacted
upon others perceived as "safer targets" than the all-powerful
spanking parents.
LaVonne
peter
opt...@canit.se (Iggy Drougge) wrote:
>Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
>: All the flamers
>: Who will deny they are.... like they deny everything else.
>:
>: I don't think boys deserve spankings and girls not. But to call
>: this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
>: spankings she gives is outrageous.
>Hitting teenage boys on their bare buttocks is definitely abuse to me.
>: My son earned a lot more spankings than my daugher ever did.
>: Now.... if she would have never deserved one, would I have been an
>: abuser because I didn't spank her ???? I haven't spanked her in years (
>: probably since she was 9.... and I spanked my son til he was 14.... He
>: treats women very well ( nicer than his friends ) adores his sister
>: above all else, and loves me.
>Well, do you know why I never hit my mother, but sometimes my father?
>Because my mother does not hit me, so she does not get any strikes from
>me, being a civilized person. My father, OTOH, hits me, and so, receives
>the same treatment from me. If someone does not respect my physical
>integrity, why should I respect theirs?
>: And to talk about calling Children's services..... one reason
>: that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
>: people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
>: she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
>: her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
>Would you say the same thing if it was this woman's boys who hit her, or
>her husband who hit her, perhaps her father or mother?
>: So offer advice, state your opinion, but quit setting yourselves
>: up as judge and jury. You suck at it.
>This woman is mentally ill, just look at her silly reasoning about all the
>differences between girls and boys, only women being able to hit in the
>right way (There is no right ay to hit), and the testosterone poisoning.
>It is proven that testosterone makes men stable and calm, while osterogen
>makes them more prone to be violent and insecure.
>--
> __/\________________ __ ______ _____________________________
> \/ /_ /\__ /\_ _// // //\ /\ / ____________________________\
> / / / / __/ / / / / // / / // / / // / __ __
> / /_/ / / __/ / / / // / / // /_/ // / alias | | _' | _' |__|
> /_____/ /_/ /_/ /_//_/\/_/ \_____\\ \ | |__| |__| .__|
>________________________________________\ \ D r o u g g e
>\_________________________________________/
It is becoming more and more realized that a crime which the
female gender has a corner of the market is in killing their own
kids. Let us recall the Susan Smith case in Union, South
Carolina. In fact it is becoming understood that in cases where
a woman kills a child of hers, the child is typically a male
child. The theory is that the boy reminds her of the husband, or
exhusband, whaterver. Well the woman who hits her sons and not
her daughters may be having a propensity in this direction. Also
I think in general that our society is such that we tend to
punish males in more violent ways then females who commit the
same crime. Just look at how the death penalty is doled out. It
is nearly impossible to convict a woman to death. Well now
trhere is sexism working in favor of woman. There is no dought
that though these inequalities exist in majority within the world
around us, intelligent people transend and see it and don't
follow it. this woman is dumb and sick. Man could you imagine
being her and waking up and thinking DUUUUUH hehehehe.
Ed Falk
In article <4ucv8u$h...@news.sas.ab.ca>, <a...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>
> In a dysfunctional environment there are rules and if the rules
> are broken it leads to reprecussions, shame, being made to feel bad.
>
> In a functional environment there are rules and if they are
> broken it leads to conversation.
I saw a harried mother on an airplane yesterday. She was travelling
alone with two small children. During the descent, when the seatbelt
lights come on and you're supposed to strap in, one two-year-old was
screaming her head off and refusing to stay in her seat, no matter how
many times her mother put her back into it. Eventually the mother gave
up and the child rode out the landing sitting on the floor.
Please describe the conversation you envision should have taken place.
One of the feminist books in my library (Barbara Seamans? I'll have to
look it up) states that all the child psychologists (and would-be child
psychologists) who believe that a child should *never* be spanked,
should be sentenced to spend six hours in an airliner full of screaming
children.
The example the book gave was of a mother who insisted on disciplining
a child by making her sit quietly in a chair (time out.) But the child
refused to sit in the chair, and the mother wound up spanking the child
to make her sit in the chair. The child thought she was being punished
for not sitting in the chair, rather than what she was actually being
punished for.
All punishments based on "reasoning" with a child work on the
assumption that the child is willing to be reasonable.
I agree that excessive violence and other abuse should never be used
against a child, and that ideally you should never punish in anger; but
to say that you should *never* spank a child is tantamount to saying
that you should allow children to run wild. One could argue that this
constitutes abuse in itself.
--
-ed falk, sun microsystems -- fa...@sun.com
If there's ever a nuclear holocaust, the only things left
alive afterward will be cockroaches and spammers
-- Dan Gillmor, Mercury News
Marguerite Petersen
In article <4unu77$8...@engnews1.Eng.Sun.COM>,
Ed Falk <fa...@peregrine.eng.sun.com> wrote:
>In article <4ucv8u$h...@news.sas.ab.ca>, <a...@freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> wrote:
>>
>> In a dysfunctional environment there are rules and if the rules
>> are broken it leads to reprecussions, shame, being made to feel bad.
>>
>> In a functional environment there are rules and if they are
>> broken it leads to conversation.
>
>I saw a harried mother on an airplane yesterday. She was travelling
>alone with two small children. During the descent, when the seatbelt
>lights come on and you're supposed to strap in, one two-year-old was
>screaming her head off and refusing to stay in her seat, no matter how
>many times her mother put her back into it. Eventually the mother gave
>up and the child rode out the landing sitting on the floor.
>Please describe the conversation you envision should have taken place.
Oh, like a discussion about *safety* issues and the fact that it
is safer to have one's seatbelt on than not? Rather like in other
vehicles wherein parents must have their children seatbelted or
risk a ticket.
>One of the feminist books in my library (Barbara Seamans? I'll have to
>look it up) states that all the child psychologists (and would-be child
>psychologists) who believe that a child should *never* be spanked,
>should be sentenced to spend six hours in an airliner full of screaming
>children.
And what makes you think that spanking the child (in your above
scenario) would have *ended* the screaming? Some children scream
even *more* when spanked. Of course, the onlookers might have
felt more comfortable knowing the little *demon* got what she
*deserved*. But would it have changed anything?
>The example the book gave was of a mother who insisted on disciplining
>a child by making her sit quietly in a chair (time out.) But the child
>refused to sit in the chair, and the mother wound up spanking the child
>to make her sit in the chair. The child thought she was being punished
>for not sitting in the chair, rather than what she was actually being
>punished for.
And the error this mother made was in resorting to spanking.
>All punishments based on "reasoning" with a child work on the
>assumption that the child is willing to be reasonable.
No, it does not. It is based on the *assumption* that the
parents are/can be reasonable. The child has to learn how to
be reasonable. What possible chance does any child have to
learn this if the parents are not reasonable?
>
>I agree that excessive violence and other abuse should never be used
>against a child, and that ideally you should never punish in anger; but
>to say that you should *never* spank a child is tantamount to saying
>that you should allow children to run wild. One could argue that this
>constitutes abuse in itself.
No, my children were not spanked and they did not "run wild." They
were talked to (and with) and given time outs. Postitive re-inforcement
works a whole lot better than punishment (including spanking).
> -ed falk, sun microsystems -- fa...@sun.com
Marg
Hemp Man
Orenda wrote:
>
> All the flamers
> Who will deny they are.... like they deny everything else.
>
> I don't think boys deserve spankings and girls not. But to call
> this woman a child abuser when you have no idea as to the sort of
> spankings she gives is outrageous.
>
> Now.... if she would have never deserved one, would I have been an
> abuser because I didn't spank her ???? I haven't spanked her in years (
> probably since she was 9.... and I spanked my son til he was 14.... He
> treats women very well ( nicer than his friends ) adores his sister
> above all else, and loves me.
>
> that the real abused children go between the cracks and DIE is because
> people like Margerite clog up the system with bogus calls made just so
> she can break her arm patting herself on the back. You can't judge how
> her children feel about her, or how she spanks....
>
> up as judge and jury. You suck at it.
>
Did I miss something here? Are you really trying to justify domestic
violence by admitting that this is what you do? Ah, well, I guess I can
understand this sort of attitude in a society that let OJ go free.
Tammy
LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
>
> Yet, when a parent hits (spanks) a child, that is clearly an act of
> intentionality--especially when the parent calmly explains to the
> child what he/she did and why he/she is now going to be hit. This
> places the child in a position where he/she is intentionally hit and
> hurt, yet not in a position to safely express anger or retaliate.
>
> The social cognition aspects of perspective taking and intentionality
> is clearly documented in child development literature. Intentionally
> hurting (hitting) a child who is not in a position to safely retaliate
> causes confusion and anger. There is speculation that this may be one
> contributing factor in the link between spanking and aggression
> towards peers and animals. The anger becomes displaced and is enacted
> upon others perceived as "safer targets" than the all-powerful
> spanking parents.
>
> LaVonne
When putting child in timeout for breaking a rule in the house is he angry? Yes of
course. Can he retaliate? No Is he confused? I doubt it, if he is old enough to be
expected to follow rules he knows when he breaks them there are consequences.
How about my 14 year old daughter? When she broke the rules for the telephone she loss
the privilage for a week. Was she angry? You bet she was (she hollered for an hour!)
Could she retaliate? No, not as long as I pay the bills ( well I suppose she could get
a job(?) and put in her own phone line IF, she could get past the payless shoe store to
do it) Was she confused, nope not even for a minute. Will she repeat the offense I
doubt she will in this household.
So you see again your arguments against spanking don't hold up against other disciplines
either.
While I think about it please give me a Anti-spank soulution to this real life child:
April age 6 or 7 second child never spanked never saw any other child spanked. Had a
loving doting mother. When mom got engaged to a very nice quiet man ( non spank too had
a grown son never spanked him) they all moved into a beautiful house. man loved child
child loved man one big happy family right? no. One day April was not allowed a friend
to come over and play the mother told me she was very angry but never said anything
much, latter april appeared to get "over it" when mother went into the bathroom to
clean she found someone had taken a razor and put hundreds of tiny slashes in the floor,
and seat. Both were ruined, and When April was asked if she knew anything about it all
she got was a large grin, a shrug and another request for the playmate. The Mother was
very upset as she knew that their was no one else in the house except the two of them.
April is now a 16 year old drop out who is a cronic liar and has had every
advantage,including loving parents. What happened and what would you have done.
Tammy
--
Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition # 285:
" No good deed ever goes unpunished"
Quark
" The Collaborator"
chri...@orion.ieu.comtra.org
uards@cr47c (Angilion) writes:
> Once it gets to that stage, it wouldn't take anything more than a
> determined group to remove the basic human rights from men. Don't
> forget that men will by this point form a fairly small minority, whose
> wishes can be ignored in a vote. For example, a first stage could be to
> ignore all the male victims of violence. The USA has already officially
> done this with the Violence Against Women Act. This lends legal support
> to the social value that violence against women is terrible and violence
> against men is unimportant. As the 'male means abuser, female means
> victim' twin sexist stereotypes become more and more deeply embedded in
> society (replacing the previous protector&protected stereotypes),
> further measures will become seen as reasonable. A curfew on men is a
> likely next stage. It will be suggested by extremists first, and
> rejected. But it will be talked about. The idea will be aired. A
> decade or two later and it will be adopted by more moderate pressure
> groups. A decade or two after that it will become law, and that will be
> the crucial turning point.
True up to here. That may well be the course things take, but it would
the stupidest thing Feminism ever did. It would put even the most obtuse
male collaborators on notice as to which side of the gender war they
were born on.
Who would enforce the curfew? Women? Immediate rout! The effect of such
a curfew would be that the gender war would finally get to open,
physical battle. That means the physical death of Feminism, a lot of
dead women and the enslavement of the rest of the female population.
Probably not for very long nor very harshly, because men have too much
goddamn chivalry, but long enough that reign of Feminism would be
regarded as The Dark Ages for many generations.
If machines enforced the curfew, it would go about the same way, but a
hell of a lot more decisively. Which sex hacks? Which sex fixes
mechanical and electronic stuff? Which sex has *always* had a monopoly
on the leading edge? (Don't bother pointing to the 0.01% of women that
could, or the 70-80% of men that couldn't. It doesn't change the
picture)
You've hit on Feminism's biggest problem: It doesn't dare attempt a pure
Final Solution, because men do everything (Again, don't bother
0.01%-ing). No matter how loyal your dupes are, ordering them to turn
the gun on themselves gets you one less dupe and one more enemy.
Now, if you mean that *some* men would be curfewed, and other men would
enforce it, and Feminists would make sure the latter were unquestioning
Feminist dupes, it's already tending that way. Take restraining orders
or witchhunt sexual allegations. This is what's behind Feminism's
attempts to colonize the military (VMI, The Citadel, Tailhook, etc) and
the police (Surely you have heard of some instance in your own
precinct.).
> And yes, I still want to try for it, even though I think it's futile.
^^ "it" == equality, I assume, not
the Feminist Final Solution.
CLaK
--
Sing the Feminist song:
La dee dee, I didn't work as much.
La dee dee, I didn't work as much.
La dee dee, I didn't work as much.
UNFAIR!!!! I didn't get paid as much!!!!
Anthony Trainor
[Given the state of my news server, this may never reach the light
of day. Snip.]
Iggy Drougge <opt...@canit.se> wrote in article
<4uirqm$u...@dos.canit.se>...
>
> Hitting teenage boys on their bare buttocks is definitely abuse to me.
Yes, it is. That a parent would want to do this is perversion, pure
and simple.
> Well, do you know why I never hit my mother, but sometimes my father?
> Because my mother does not hit me, so she does not get any strikes from
> me, being a civilized person. My father, OTOH, hits me, and so, receives
> the same treatment from me. If someone does not respect my physical
> integrity, why should I respect theirs?
Because they're hitting you to make you a better person. Can't you
feel yourself growing more noble and moral with every blow?
> Would you say the same thing if it was this woman's boys who hit her, or
> her husband who hit her, perhaps her father or mother?
No, because that's not the way Orenda's self-delusion works.
If you get a response at all it'll most likely be a tirade about how out
of touch with reality you are.
> This woman is mentally ill, just look at her silly reasoning about all
the
> differences between girls and boys, only women being able to hit in the
> right way (There is no right ay to hit), and the testosterone poisoning.
> It is proven that testosterone makes men stable and calm, while osterogen
> makes them more prone to be violent and insecure.
If she's serious then yes, she's clearly very troubled and confused.
However, I doubt that she even exists.
> __/\________________ __ ______ _____________________________
> \/ /_ /\__ /\_ _// // //\ /\ / ____________________________\
> / / / / __/ / / / / // / / // / / // / __ __
> / /_/ / / __/ / / / // / / // /_/ // / alias | | _' | _' |__|
> /_____/ /_/ /_/ /_//_/\/_/ \_____\\ \ | |__| |__| .__|
> ________________________________________\ \ D r o u g g e
> \_________________________________________/
sors immanis Trakka rex sedet in vertici
et inanis -==(UDIC)==- caveat ruinam
Pontiac Dragon
Orenda
LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
> Orenda wrote:
WWWWHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH !!!
Another bit of sarcasm soars once again over the head of a
cohort. Guess they can dish it out, but just can't take it.
Opinions are great. Everyone should get one. ( what is that
line about how opinions are like assholes ? Everyone has one and
most of them stink ??) Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I
thought newsgroups were to discuss opinion, and possibly change a few in
the process.
However, we quote someone, and your OPINION is that his opinion
sucks. Even that's not bad.... You shoot down our own and any
pro-spankers experience, call us child abusers, say we get off on
spanking our kids, etc, etc. We're just trying to express that spanking
does not have to be child abuse. That the two words are not the same.
You can abuse by spanking... by starving ( from food, attention, love,
emotion, discipline, and on and on....) By berating, by sex, by a
million different ways. It's child abuse in my opinion to put your child
in a car and not secure them safely... Going to outlaw cars ??? Or
pools and lakes, since a great deal of kids drown... or nearly drown,
and end up vegtables.
I will admit, the pro-spankers have gotten a little sarcastic, me
included. I was grossly maligned and insulted, and I'm only human, I'm
pissed off at all of it. Going to deny there is never any sarcasm in a
cohort post ???
Orenda
LaVonne Carlson
Orenda wrote:
>
> LaVonne Carlson wrote:
> >
> > Orenda wrote:
> > You do seem stuck on opinion, Orenda. Of course, the point of
> > validity seems to be whether or not that opinion agrees or disagrees
> > with yours. You have berated those of us who have posted research
> > against spanking, claiming validity of your pro-spank opinion. You
> > recently berated a poster's opinion (different from yours) because he
> > relied on opinion. Which is it?
> >
> > When Scott Morizot wrote:
> >
> > > It's been my personal experience (from back in the days when I did
> > > spank) and my experience with many others, that the majority spank
> > > from ignorance, not from any strongly held beliefs.
> >
> > You responded:
> >
> > > And what is it that makes your personal experience so much
> > > better than ours ??? Other than your personal opinion, that is.
> > >
> > > Orenda
> >
> > LaVonne
>
> WWWWHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH !!!
>
> Another bit of sarcasm soars once again over the head of a
> cohort. Guess they can dish it out, but just can't take it.
Yes, if your response to Scott was intended as sarcasm, I certainly missed
it! You have repeatedely denegrated anyone with the audacity to post
actual scientific research studies, denouncing them out of hand because
the conclusions did not uphold your "opinion." You have repeatedly
claimed your opinion to be superior over years of scientific studies,
because your opinion was based on individual experience. You have
repeatedly praised "Dr. Dobson" for his "courage" in sticking to his
opinions (that apparently match yours), and for disregarding scientific
research evidence. Then, when Scott dared to differ with you in the form
of an opinion--you asked him what made his opinion superior to
yours--other than of course HIS personal experiences!
Let me ask again, Orenda... What constitutes validity---conclusions from
literature and research, opinion based solely on belief and personal
experience, or opinion THAT AGREES WITH YOURS????
>
> Opinions are great. Everyone should get one. ( what is that
> line about how opinions are like assholes ? Everyone has one and
> most of them stink ??) Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I
> thought newsgroups were to discuss opinion, and possibly change a few in
> the process.
Not quite sure what your point is. Everyone IS entitled to an opinion;
whether or not that opinion carries validity is based on the foundation of
the opinion. Opinions may be informed or uninformed. Some individuals
may cling to preconceived notions regardless of contradictory evidence;
others may revise their opinion in light of new evidence.
Let's say I am of the opinion that the world is flat. I am not an
astronomer, so I am going to form my opinion based on my experience and on
neighbor's beliefs and experiences. I look out my window and see flat
land stretching before my eyes. I walk through the prairie and feel the
flat land under my feet. Daily I see flat land meeting the horizon line,
above and below which the sun rises and sets each day.
Now, you come to me and say "LaVonne, we have centuries of evidence by
noted scientists that have shown the world to be a round ball, rotating on
its axis and revolving around the sun." And I say, "Good heavens woman,
are you nuts? I don't care what your experts say. I have eyes. I can
see the world is flat. I have experience--I have walked on this flat
world. Not only that, you are going to tell me that the EARTH moves
around the sun, when I can clearly see and experience the sun moving
across the sky each and every day of my life.?"
You see, I have this opinion that the world is flat. An uninformed
opinion, but an opinion nevertheless. I have a right to voice that
opinion, and I have a right to cling to my preconceived idea in the face
of all opposing evidence. However, it is just possible, that my opinion
could be subjected to a certain amount of criticism.
>
> However, we quote someone, and your OPINION is that his opinion
> sucks.
Do you still have no idea of the difference between research conclusions
and opinion, or is this "missing the point" deliberate?
Even that's not bad.... You shoot down our own and any
> pro-spankers experience, call us child abusers, say we get off on
> spanking our kids, etc, etc. We're just trying to express that spanking
> does not have to be child abuse.
And we are saying that we believe hitting other individuals to be abusive,
regardless of whether the recepient of the hit is an adult or a child.
That the two words are not the same.
> You can abuse by spanking... by starving ( from food, attention, love,
> emotion, discipline, and on and on....)
Yup, and while spanking is still legal, starving is legally considered
neglect.
By berating, by sex, by a
> million different ways.
In my state, verbal abuse is considered abuse--so is sex with children.
It's child abuse in my opinion to put your child
> in a car and not secure them safely... Going to outlaw cars ???
Nope, just pass laws requiring children to be secured safely in approved
seatbelts and/or carseats, as has been done in my state.
Or
> pools and lakes, since a great deal of kids drown... or nearly drown,
> and end up vegtables.
Nope, not going to outlaw pools or lakes. Just pass laws requiring
certain safety considerations--life jackets, etc., which has been done in
my state.
Looks like all your above concerns have already been legally addressed (at
least in my state) with the exception of spanking, that is.
LaVonne
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu
Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
: WWWWHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH !!!
: Another bit of sarcasm soars once again over the head of a
: cohort. Guess they can dish it out, but just can't take it.
: Opinions are great. Everyone should get one. ( what is that
: line about how opinions are like assholes ? Everyone has one and
: most of them stink ??)
Chery...@aol.com seems to have disappeared, and this thread has
become yet another way for Ore...@nexusprime.org to take up a
disproportionate amount of the time and energy of the antispank net
"regulars."
In July, a long-time apologist for spanking and prolific poster
to the alt.parenting.spanking newsgroup, stated on the alt.sex.spanking
newsgroup that he enjoys hurting people in his notes and being hurt back
by them as a form of sexual gratification. I was furious when I realized
that this was precisely what he had been doing with me for months on end,
knowing that I definitely never consented to being part of such an online
eroticized punishment game.
Now I am beginning to wonder if Orenda, also a self-proclaimed
spanking fetishist, is doing something similar. She continually complains
that people "flame" her, yet she continually feeds the flames with name
calling, sarcasm, accusing others of doing what she herself does. She
also posts what look suspiciously like deliberate and repeated displays of
"missing the point," in order to infuriate her critics and keep still more
of their negative attention rivetted on herself. On the alt.sex.spanking
newsgroup, Orenda describes herself as a submissive who craves spankings.
Perhaps, antispankers on the net are unwittingly being manipulated into
giving her the "punishment" she says she craves?
Orenda has said that she was severely abused as a child. Some
abused children will deliberately provoke harsh punishments from their
parents because negative attention is better than no attention at all. In
some individuals, this substitution of corporal punishment for love
appears to lead to an eroticization of corporal punishment and a
masochistic fetish. If this is indeed the sort of scenario Orenda is
acting out online, with opponents of spanking (ironically!) as stand-ins
for her abusive parents, then there will be no end to the threads
centered around Orenda, at least, not as long as she can find
antispankers to provoke; and Orenda will never "get it," and will never
play fair because to do so would bring the game to a conclusion instead
of keeping it going... and going... and going...
Just a thought.
Chris
Tami
Orenda <ore...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
<snip>
> However, we quote someone, and your OPINION is that his opinion
>sucks. Even that's not bad.... You shoot down our own and any
>pro-spankers experience, call us child abusers, say we get off on
>spanking our kids, etc, etc. We're just trying to express that spanking
>does not have to be child abuse. That the two words are not the same.
>You can abuse by spanking... by starving ( from food, attention, love,
>emotion, discipline, and on and on....) By berating, by sex, by a
>million different ways. It's child abuse in my opinion to put your child
>in a car and not secure them safely... Going to outlaw cars ??? Or
Stupid analogy. It's not the car that is neglecting the child, it's
the parent.
For example, WRT the issues of outlawing spanking, no one is proposing
we outlaw the belt a person may use to spank a child with. It's not
the belt doing the spanking, it's the parent.
>pools and lakes, since a great deal of kids drown... or nearly drown,
>and end up vegtables.
>
You're comparing accidents with purposefully hitting your child?
Another faulty analogy.
Personally, I didn't have a strong opinion on the subject of spanking
until I got dragged into this (ok, I jumped) argument. It was when
Iggy pointed out that if we do to adults what we do to kids, it would
be assault.
Tami
Killing Time
: > spank/hang a child/person if they misbehave/murder but what if you get it
: > wrong.
: You will not hurt a child turning it over your knee and smacking
: their bottom with your hand. ( I'm not talking about hitting a child as
The entire point of spanking the child is t hurt them
To quote my stepdad 'I'd get hit (as he put it) and it never hurt me', but
then it gave him the idea that it was right to do so, so in a way it did
hurt him (and me). He was worse than you say you are however
: You'd be surprized at how much less it hurts knowing someone
: didn't intentionally harm you.
That all depends, you could be hurt less because you knwo they didn't wish
to harm you, or hurt more because it is just unfair
I know that the world is unfiar, but there is no need to make it more so
: > That is why there is a crime called manslaughter, less severe than murder,
: > but nevertheless
: Exactly... and that's a good example of how spanking isn't child
: abuse.
To me it would show how spanking would be wrong, but not as wrong as child
abuse
: > Also, what some parents see as 'wrong' isn't necessarily so. I have a
: > friend who's father is really shitty to her because she is friends with
: > me, she, and her friends have known me a long time, long enough to know I
: I think it's sad that he doesn't want her to be your friend. Is
: there any reason you couldn't get to know him ?? Anything tangible he's
: afraid of ??/ Sometimes parents tend to be overly cautious of people
MAny many reasons. He is an evil person, and that is not an accusation I
would make casually. He is also very closeminded, at least as far aas I
can tell
: you. ( Maybe someone else's parents could talk to him in your behalf ??
Hmmm, actually everyone elses parents appear to like me, I seem tto have
that talent, of sending people entirely one way or the other
terry
--
I've used so many people for no reason and no gain
Sometimes its just for fun or a way to keep me sane
There's someone lost inside of me, drowned in risky games
You ask too many questions for me to feel ok 'users'-whipping boy
Tammy
Tami wrote:
>
> Personally, I didn't have a strong opinion on the subject of spanking
> until I got dragged into this (ok, I jumped) argument. It was when
> Iggy pointed out that if we do to adults what we do to kids, it would
> be assault.
>
> Tami
Children are not "little adults" they are children. And children come into this world
needing love and guidence to be taught right from wrong for their own safty as well as
to be able to fit into society as a adult when they are grown. It is not our
responsibility to "raise" other adults ( no matter the temptation) for they should
already know right from wrong. There is a reason children are not given all the same
rights and privilages as adults, think about it.
Tammy, with a "Y" not a "i" so the cohorts won't confuse us ;7
Killing Time
LaVonne Carlson (carl...@maroon.tc.umn.edu) wrote:
: Violence doesn't
Violence is Wrong, at least in the way I see the world, but sometimes is
unavoidable, the lesser of two eveils so as to say
Tammy
cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
>
> Orenda (ore...@nexusprime.org) wrote:
> : WWWWHHHHHOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOSSSSSSSSSSSSSSHHHHHHHHH !!!
>
> : Another bit of sarcasm soars once again over the head of a
> : cohort. Guess they can dish it out, but just can't take it.
>
> : Opinions are great. Everyone should get one. ( what is that
> : line about how opinions are like assholes ? Everyone has one and
> : most of them stink ??)
BTW you want to start quoting people correctly??? That wasn't her entire quote.
>
> Chery...@aol.com seems to have disappeared, and this thread has
> become yet another way for Ore...@nexusprime.org to take up a
> disproportionate amount of the time and energy of the antispank net
> "regulars."
Gee and all she did was answer this person's post, what do you think she oughta do?
Maybe apologize to Chris for not having his incredible amazing ablity to automatically
recognize a troll right off the bat? Or maybe just in the future just promise to get
Chris' permission on who she can answer? And speaking of answers, she posted a couple
very long answers to a post of yours with quotes you asked for ( back when you were
accusing her of sexual abuse) and you never answered or acknowledged them, and we know
how fond of dejanews you are so " I didn't see them" isn't a good excuse.
< EL Snippo>
>
> Orenda has said that she was severely abused as a child. Some
> abused children will deliberately provoke harsh punishments from their
> parents because negative attention is better than no attention at all. In
> some individuals, this substitution of corporal punishment for love
> appears to lead to an eroticization of corporal punishment and a
> masochistic fetish. If this is indeed the sort of scenario Orenda is
> acting out online, with opponents of spanking (ironically!) as stand-ins
> for her abusive parents, then there will be no end to the threads
> centered around Orenda, at least, not as long as she can find
> antispankers to provoke; and Orenda will never "get it," and will never
> play fair because to do so would bring the game to a conclusion instead
> of keeping it going... and going... and going...
Holy Moley it must be christmas! ( You musta heard I hurt my foot and just made this
easy target to make me smile) ;7
I want to know WHERE in the HELL you got this information!!!! "Some abused children
will "DELIBERATELY!!?? Provoke harsh punishments their parents.." Again you people
haven't the slightest clue on what is a abuse child. I bet you probably think that some
victims of rape "wanted it".
You wonder why Orenda thinks your always flamimg her?? Anyone who reads this ng on a
regular basis ( cohorts aside) see that your a constant flamer. And as far as I can
tell the Thread that seemed to revolve around Orenda in the begining ("single mom- pro-
spank" who we now believe to be a troll) have long since stopped revolving around
Orenda, and unless somone appointed you the moderator of this group, as Lavonne once
pointed out nobody needs permisson (mine or yours) to post here regardless of their
opinion. I doubt that Orenda has any time to "look" for anti-spankers to provoke,
she's usually too busy looking for answers to your ( all the cohorts that is) posts, and
I guess if having the nerve to dare to disagree with the cohorts can be construed as
"being provoking" then I guess that Orenda is guilty, as am I ,Lynn, Michelle, Hal, Jeff
,Mick, Chris Calvin, Rebecca and the rest of us who critize the cohort tactics. You
want fair, well Chris what is fair? The tactics you use? Nope.
>
> Just a thought.
>
> Chris
Just a thought? Here is one.... How about it if you stop passing off your opinions as
facts? Give you opinions, listen to others agree or disagree, before you denagrate
someone for poor tactics take a good look at your own. And yes I am very prepared to
quote chapter and verse on a slew of your post with examples. But you knew that didn't
you?
Tammy
Tammy
I believe THAT is the question she was trying to ask, which of course you couldn't
answer either so you just try to redirect it to put her on the defensive.
Do you ever really read the things you post? First of all read the above paragraph^.
We are all aware that our views on discipline whatever they are could be subject to a
certain amount of criticism, what we object to is your tactics. You can critize our
references but we shouldn't critize your reasons for doing so.
> > However, we quote someone, and your OPINION is that his opinion
> > sucks.
>
> Do you still have no idea of the difference between research conclusions
> and opinion, or is this "missing the point" deliberate?
Yes we do. In this day and age when medical research reverses it's self almost on a
daily basis, all we are saying is that while you have your opinion about spanking and
may even have a few books on the subject to support your views, That the fact that
spanking has remained a form of discipline for centuries may hold a little more for us
than you. And someone (I'm not sure if it was you) asked for just ONE book on spanking
that shows it as a effective discipline well you got it and then YOU tore it down
because you disagree, no other reasonable reason. And yes we do think that YOUR Missing
the point IS deliberate.
>
> Even that's not bad.... You shoot down our own and any
> > pro-spankers experience, call us child abusers, say we get off on
> > spanking our kids, etc, etc. We're just trying to express that spanking
> > does not have to be child abuse.
>
> And we are saying that we believe hitting other individuals to be abusive,
> regardless of whether the recepient of the hit is an adult or a child.
>
> That the two words are not the same.
> > You can abuse by spanking... by starving ( from food, attention, love,
> > emotion, discipline, and on and on....)
>
> Yup, and while spanking is still legal, starving is legally considered
> neglect.
No, Neglect and/or starving a child is child abuse!
>
> By berating, by sex, by a
> > million different ways.
>
> In my state, verbal abuse is considered abuse--so is sex with children.
>
> It's child abuse in my opinion to put your child
> > in a car and not secure them safely... Going to outlaw cars ???
>
> Nope, just pass laws requiring children to be secured safely in approved
> seatbelts and/or carseats, as has been done in my state.
This state too not all parents comply even with a $155.00 fine per child! Maybe we need
parent police?
>
> Or
> > pools and lakes, since a great deal of kids drown... or nearly drown,
> > and end up vegtables.
>
> Nope, not going to outlaw pools or lakes. Just pass laws requiring
> certain safety considerations--life jackets, etc., which has been done in
> my state.
What state do you live in???? That makes it illegal to let a child go swimming without
a life vest in a private swimming pool?
And How in the world do you enforce that?! I live in the State of FLorida where
childhood deaths by swimming accidents are among the leading causes of death for
children, and they haven't figured out a way, maybe you could write Gov. Chiles and clue
him in?
>
> Looks like all your above concerns have already been legally addressed (at
> least in my state) with the exception of spanking, that is.
Don't think so... What state is that again??
>
> LaVonne
Tammy, who thinks Lavonne lives in the state of confusion.
Tami
Tammy <ta...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>Tami wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Personally, I didn't have a strong opinion on the subject of spanking
>> until I got dragged into this (ok, I jumped) argument. It was when
>> Iggy pointed out that if we do to adults what we do to kids, it would
>> be assault.
>>
>> Tami
>
>
>
>Children are not "little adults" they are children. And children come into this world
No kidding. The point, however, is one of respect and not violating
one's body. It is illegal to do such a thing to an adult because it is
a violation of their body. How, then, is it not a violation of a
child's body? It is wrong to hit an adult also because it shows no
respect. Does a child not deserve respect?
>needing love and guidence to be taught right from wrong for their own safty as well as
Is there no other way to offer a child guidance than applying your
hand to their backside?
>to be able to fit into society as a adult when they are grown. It is not our
Do you really believe that the child would be unable to fit into
society if they weren't spanked?
>responsibility to "raise" other adults ( no matter the temptation) for they should
>already know right from wrong. There is a reason children are not given all the same
>rights and privilages as adults, think about it.
Rights and privileges? You think not spanking a child is about rights
and privileges? No, it is about violating one's body and respect.
>
>Tammy, with a "Y" not a "i" so the cohorts won't confuse us ;7
>--
>Ferengi Rule Of Acquisition # 285:
>" No good deed ever goes unpunished"
> Quark
> " The Collaborator"
>
>
Tami
Tami
Tammy <ta...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu wrote:
>>
<snip>
>>
>> Orenda has said that she was severely abused as a child. Some
>> abused children will deliberately provoke harsh punishments from their
>> parents because negative attention is better than no attention at all. In
>> some individuals, this substitution of corporal punishment for love
>> appears to lead to an eroticization of corporal punishment and a
>> masochistic fetish. If this is indeed the sort of scenario Orenda is
>> acting out online, with opponents of spanking (ironically!) as stand-ins
>> for her abusive parents, then there will be no end to the threads
>> centered around Orenda, at least, not as long as she can find
>> antispankers to provoke; and Orenda will never "get it," and will never
>> play fair because to do so would bring the game to a conclusion instead
>> of keeping it going... and going... and going...
>
>
>
>
>Holy Moley it must be christmas! ( You musta heard I hurt my foot and just made this
>easy target to make me smile) ;7
>
>
>
>I want to know WHERE in the HELL you got this information!!!! "Some abused children
>will "DELIBERATELY!!?? Provoke harsh punishments their parents.." Again you people
>haven't the slightest clue on what is a abuse child. I bet you probably think that some
>victims of rape "wanted it".
Tammy, speaking as one who was abused as a child, I can vouch for the
validity of what he said. If your parents are extremely neglectful,
there is the chance that some children will act out to get attention,
even negative attention. This is nowhere near saying that a rape
victim deserved it.
Why are you so narrow minded to assume that, because our views differ,
or because we know one aspect you're not familiar with, that we know
nothing about child abuse?
>
>You wonder why Orenda thinks your always flamimg her?? Anyone who reads this ng on a
>regular basis ( cohorts aside) see that your a constant flamer. And as far as I can
>tell the Thread that seemed to revolve around Orenda in the begining ("single mom- pro-
>spank" who we now believe to be a troll) have long since stopped revolving around
>Orenda, and unless somone appointed you the moderator of this group, as Lavonne once
>pointed out nobody needs permisson (mine or yours) to post here regardless of their
>opinion. I doubt that Orenda has any time to "look" for anti-spankers to provoke,
>she's usually too busy looking for answers to your ( all the cohorts that is) posts, and
>I guess if having the nerve to dare to disagree with the cohorts can be construed as
>"being provoking" then I guess that Orenda is guilty, as am I ,Lynn, Michelle, Hal, Jeff
>,Mick, Chris Calvin, Rebecca and the rest of us who critize the cohort tactics. You
>want fair, well Chris what is fair? The tactics you use? Nope.
>
>
>
>>
>> Just a thought.
>>
>> Chris
>
>
>
>
>
>Just a thought? Here is one.... How about it if you stop passing off your opinions as
>facts? Give you opinions, listen to others agree or disagree, before you denagrate
>someone for poor tactics take a good look at your own. And yes I am very prepared to
>quote chapter and verse on a slew of your post with examples. But you knew that didn't
>you?
Excuse me tammy, but isn't that what *you* just did? Did *you* just
denigrate what Scott said about abused kids acting out?
Tami
Marguerite Petersen
In article <4uqca0$m...@carbon.cudenver.edu>,
<cdd...@ouray.cudenver.edu> wrote:
>
> Now I am beginning to wonder if Orenda, also a self-proclaimed
>spanking fetishist, is doing something similar. She continually complains
>that people "flame" her, yet she continually feeds the flames with name
>calling, sarcasm, accusing others of doing what she herself does. She
>also posts what look suspiciously like deliberate and repeated displays of
>"missing the point," in order to infuriate her critics and keep still more
>of their negative attention rivetted on herself. On the alt.sex.spanking
>newsgroup, Orenda describes herself as a submissive who craves spankings.
>Perhaps, antispankers on the net are unwittingly being manipulated into
>giving her the "punishment" she says she craves?
Yup, that is most definitely a possibility. It was only just
occuring to me.
> Orenda has said that she was severely abused as a child. Some
>abused children will deliberately provoke harsh punishments from their
>parents because negative attention is better than no attention at all.
Yes, this has been my experience as well, both with my brother
and myself.
In
>some individuals, this substitution of corporal punishment for love
>appears to lead to an eroticization of corporal punishment and a
>masochistic fetish. If this is indeed the sort of scenario Orenda is
>acting out online, with opponents of spanking (ironically!) as stand-ins
>for her abusive parents, then there will be no end to the threads
>centered around Orenda, at least, not as long as she can find
>antispankers to provoke; and Orenda will never "get it," and will never
>play fair because to do so would bring the game to a conclusion instead
>of keeping it going... and going... and going...
>
> Just a thought.
And a very good one as well, IMO. I feel sorry for her if this
is the case as well as sorry for the children that she (and others
who spank) are visiting on the next generation of children.
Marg
>Chris
Marguerite Petersen
In article <3210b631...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Tami <ta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>Personally, I didn't have a strong opinion on the subject of spanking
>until I got dragged into this (ok, I jumped) argument. It was when
>Iggy pointed out that if we do to adults what we do to kids, it would
>be assault.
>
> Tami
A very good point Tami. It was precisely this argument that
convinced me 20 years ago to be a "non-spanking" parent. I
was raised with parents who believed that children should be
spanked on a regular basis just to "keep them in line."
Otherwise they would run amok. It was the *only* time my
parents ever paid any attention to me; ie. when they were
angry enough to spank. By the time I was 15, I had figured
out that they were simply put, "bad parents". I have forgiven
them but I have also sworn to NEVER be like them. I don't/didn't
spank my kids and they have all turned out to be model people
with decent behaviors and are respectable citizens. They are
non-violent people and they don't *hit*.
Marg
Marguerite Petersen
In article <3210EB...@nexusprime.org>, Tammy <ta...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>Tami wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Personally, I didn't have a strong opinion on the subject of spanking
>> until I got dragged into this (ok, I jumped) argument. It was when
>> Iggy pointed out that if we do to adults what we do to kids, it would
>> be assault.
>>
>> Tami
>
>
>
And you would advocate *hitting* them as a means to this end?
It is not our
>responsibility to "raise" other adults ( no matter the temptation) for they should
>already know right from wrong. There is a reason children are not given all the same
>rights and privilages as adults, think about it.
Yes, there is, simply because they are not capable of accepting
the responsibility of adults. But the adults? What of them?
Are they not to be held responsible for acting as adults either?
Hitting/spanking one's children is NOT the *adult* thing to do.
Think about it.
>Tammy, with a "Y" not a "i" so the cohorts won't confuse us ;7
>--
Marguerite Petersen
In article <32114673...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
Tami <ta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>Personally, I didn't have a strong opinion on the subject of spanking
>>>until I got dragged into this (ok, I jumped) argument. It was when
>>>Iggy pointed out that if we do to adults what we do to kids, it would
>>>be assault.
>>>
>>> Tami
>>
>>convinced me 20 years ago to be a "non-spanking" parent. I
>>was raised with parents who believed that children should be
>>spanked on a regular basis just to "keep them in line."
>>Otherwise they would run amok. It was the *only* time my
>>parents ever paid any attention to me; ie. when they were
>>angry enough to spank. By the time I was 15, I had figured
>>out that they were simply put, "bad parents". I have forgiven
>>them but I have also sworn to NEVER be like them. I don't/didn't
>>spank my kids and they have all turned out to be model people
>>with decent behaviors and are respectable citizens. They are
>>non-violent people and they don't *hit*.
>>
>>Marg
>
>effective way to punish without spanking. My daughter had not put her
>clothes away last night. I somehow didn't notice til this morning. I
>told her that it wasn't right for her to just shove things in her
>drawer (my god, she couldn't even close them!) when she knew that's
>not what I asked her to do. I also explained how much easier it is to
>find your clothes when you're neat about putting them away. I told her
>she would be grounded to her room until she fixed it.
>
>A while later, when my husband woke up and asked Gena what she was
>doing, Gena told him: Mom is teaching me a lesson. John says, "What's
>that?" and she very carefully explained that she didn't follow my
>directions about putting the clothes away, so she had to fix her
>drawers all over. Then she explained why it's important to put your
>clothes away neatly.
Sounds to ME like she at least *heard* what you said and was
trying to follow through on it. Would she have done that IF
she had been spanked for misbehavior instead? I don't believe
so.
>She would not have understood this point so well had I spanked her for
>it. In the past when Sophia & Gena have received spankings, they've
>gotten upset about it. Being upset is not conducive to understanding
>the point the parent is trying to make.
Nope, it certainly isn't. Hurt feelings, anger, resentment,
and perhaps even rage are more likely the end result of spankings.
These are NOT conducive, IMO, to raising caring, thinking, *feeling*
children. Nor are they conducive to children seeing their parents
as sensible, *reasonable* human beings.
> Tami
Marg
>Mama to Sophia (9), Gena (7) and Keziah (9mo)
Tami
pet...@kira.peak.org (Marguerite Petersen) wrote:
>In article <3210b631...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Tami <ta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>>Personally, I didn't have a strong opinion on the subject of spanking
>>until I got dragged into this (ok, I jumped) argument. It was when
>>Iggy pointed out that if we do to adults what we do to kids, it would
>>be assault.
>>
>> Tami
>
>A very good point Tami. It was precisely this argument that
>convinced me 20 years ago to be a "non-spanking" parent. I
>was raised with parents who believed that children should be
>spanked on a regular basis just to "keep them in line."
>Otherwise they would run amok. It was the *only* time my
>parents ever paid any attention to me; ie. when they were
>angry enough to spank. By the time I was 15, I had figured
>out that they were simply put, "bad parents". I have forgiven
>them but I have also sworn to NEVER be like them. I don't/didn't
>spank my kids and they have all turned out to be model people
>with decent behaviors and are respectable citizens. They are
>non-violent people and they don't *hit*.
>
>Marg
>
>
>--
> Member PSEB Official Sonneteer JLP SoL
> pet...@peak.org http://www.peak.org/~petersm
> The Internet has Faster Karma - John Sechrest
I had something happen to me today that I felt illustrated an
effective way to punish without spanking. My daughter had not put her
clothes away last night. I somehow didn't notice til this morning. I
told her that it wasn't right for her to just shove things in her
drawer (my god, she couldn't even close them!) when she knew that's
not what I asked her to do. I also explained how much easier it is to
find your clothes when you're neat about putting them away. I told her
she would be grounded to her room until she fixed it.
A while later, when my husband woke up and asked Gena what she was
doing, Gena told him: Mom is teaching me a lesson. John says, "What's
that?" and she very carefully explained that she didn't follow my
directions about putting the clothes away, so she had to fix her
drawers all over. Then she explained why it's important to put your
clothes away neatly.
She would not have understood this point so well had I spanked her for
it. In the past when Sophia & Gena have received spankings, they've
gotten upset about it. Being upset is not conducive to understanding
the point the parent is trying to make.
Tami
Tami
pet...@kira.peak.org (Marguerite Petersen) wrote:
>In article <32114673...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>Tami <ta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>pet...@kira.peak.org (Marguerite Petersen) wrote:
>>
>>>In article <3210b631...@nntp.ix.netcom.com>,
>>>Tami <ta...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>Personally, I didn't have a strong opinion on the subject of spanking
>>>>until I got dragged into this (ok, I jumped) argument. It was when
>>>>Iggy pointed out that if we do to adults what we do to kids, it would
>>>>be assault.
>>>>
>>>> Tami
>>>
>>>A very good point Tami. It was precisely this argument that
>>>convinced me 20 years ago to be a "non-spanking" parent. I
>>>was raised with parents who believed that children should be
>>>spanked on a regular basis just to "keep them in line."
>>>Otherwise they would run amok. It was the *only* time my
>>>parents ever paid any attention to me; ie. when they were
>>>angry enough to spank. By the time I was 15, I had figured
>>>out that they were simply put, "bad parents". I have forgiven
>>>them but I have also sworn to NEVER be like them. I don't/didn't
>>>spank my kids and they have all turned out to be model people
>>>with decent behaviors and are respectable citizens. They are
>>>non-violent people and they don't *hit*.
>>>
>>>Marg
>>
>>I had something happen to me today that I felt illustrated an
>>effective way to punish without spanking. My daughter had not put her
>>clothes away last night. I somehow didn't notice til this morning. I
>>told her that it wasn't right for her to just shove things in her
>>drawer (my god, she couldn't even close them!) when she knew that's
>>not what I asked her to do. I also explained how much easier it is to
>>find your clothes when you're neat about putting them away. I told her
>>she would be grounded to her room until she fixed it.
>>
>>A while later, when my husband woke up and asked Gena what she was
>>doing, Gena told him: Mom is teaching me a lesson. John says, "What's
>>that?" and she very carefully explained that she didn't follow my
>>directions about putting the clothes away, so she had to fix her
>>drawers all over. Then she explained why it's important to put your
>>clothes away neatly.
>
>Sounds to ME like she at least *heard* what you said and was
>trying to follow through on it. Would she have done that IF
>she had been spanked for misbehavior instead? I don't believe
>so.
I can guarantee the answer to that would've been a resounding NO.
>
>>She would not have understood this point so well had I spanked her for
>>it. In the past when Sophia & Gena have received spankings, they've
>>gotten upset about it. Being upset is not conducive to understanding
>>the point the parent is trying to make.
>
>Nope, it certainly isn't. Hurt feelings, anger, resentment,
>and perhaps even rage are more likely the end result of spankings.
>These are NOT conducive, IMO, to raising caring, thinking, *feeling*
>children. Nor are they conducive to children seeing their parents
>as sensible, *reasonable* human beings.
I agree.
Tammy
Tami wrote:
>
> Tammy <ta...@nexusprime.org> wrote:
>
> >Tami wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >> Personally, I didn't have a strong opinion on the subject of spanking
> >> until I got dragged into this (ok, I jumped) argument. It was when
> >> Iggy pointed out that if we do to adults what we do to kids, it would
> >> be assault.
> >>
> >> Tami
> >
> >
> >
>
> one's body. It is illegal to do such a thing to an adult because it is
> a violation of their body. How, then, is it not a violation of a
> child's body? It is wrong to hit an adult also because it shows no
> respect. Does a child not deserve respect?
Yes I give the my children respect, and they me. But there are a multitude of things
that you do for and to a child that you can't do to or for an adult. And mostly you can
not discipline another adult, think so? give me a example. It is a parents
responsiblitiy to discipline their child, In Michigan there was just a case in which the
PARENTS were found gulity of their sons crime of burglary, because they failed to
control their son under the community's Parental-Responsibility law. Now if your
husband, parent, nextdoor neighbor, or best friend commits a crime there is no law that
would hold YOU responsible. So your anology is not valid.
>
> >needing love and guidence to be taught right from wrong for their own safty as well as
>
> Is there no other way to offer a child guidance than applying your
> hand to their backside?
Yes, try reading some of the posts on both sides of the issue completly before being so
criptic. If you had you would see that pro-spankers never said that is the preferred or
most used method of discipline that we use. In FACT what was said time and time again
and has been ignored time and time again was: That " if all a parent does is spank than
they are a lousy parent..." and that spanking is usually a "last resort" or for and
"extreme" offense. In fact we are great users of timeout, loss of privilages etc... all
which are extremly non-violent. And if you pay attention you will see that more than a
few of our biggest critcs are against timeout and loss of privilages, so where is the
violence in that??? Its discipline that they are against, spanking is just the easiest
target, they would find it difficult to dispute the use of the other methods we use.
>
> >to be able to fit into society as a adult when they are grown. It is not our
>
> Do you really believe that the child would be unable to fit into
> society if they weren't spanked?
No, but children need to have discipline. If you do not teach a child while they are
young that negative actions result in unpleasant consequences, what will happen when
they do become adults?
>
> >responsibility to "raise" other adults ( no matter the temptation) for they should
> >already know right from wrong. There is a reason children are not given all the same
> >rights and privilages as adults, think about it.
>
> Rights and privileges? You think not spanking a child is about rights
> and privileges? No, it is about violating one's body and respect.
> Tami
I make decisions about my children's bodies everyday, like when they get their hair cut,
what they may or may not wear to school,church,& out to play, and when they bathe.
These are things you can NOT decide for or make another adult do and they have
everything to do with a persons body and the respect of it.