BS: Spank, or No-Spank?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 03:11 AM

Politician, give 'em an inch and they'll be telling you how to raise your kids. The problems are similar to gun control.

Responsible people seek to obey the laws. Gun laws are ostensibly made to control criminal and potential criminal behavior. People who own guns for target, sport or personal protection are not out doing drive-bys or taking down banks and liquor stores. Many gun laws infringe upon the honest citizens' ability to pursue the aforementioned, honest endeavors. The criminal, by definition, doesn't give a damn about the law and isn't going to obey any law that stands between him and what he wants. Do you think the Columbine killers were checking to make sure their clips only held ten rounds each?

The people who are beating the Hell out of their kids aren't going to pay any attention to anti-spnking laws in CA. First of all, they aren't discipling the kid. They are hitting the child because they are inconveienced or annoyed or drunk or worse. They are already criminals or people who are in some way impaired. What they are doing only remotely resembles discipline to a moronic legislator who doesn't have children and has no idea of what it is like to raise a child. She's kinda like the Pope giving marital advice.

Parents who LOVE their children find a way that works best. It may or may not involove spanking or corporeal punishment. Each child is different. Some kids, a good swat on the bottom is about the only way to get their attention. I was one of those kids and even at that it barely phased me. The spanking was just part of the calculated risk of whatever mischief I was into at the time. With some kids (like my own ) just a stern look or a snap of the fingers is enough to command attention.

In CA a child under the age of 5 is not considered a credible witness in any legal proceeding and such a law would probably be unenforcable. Also I am sure that our judicial system which is already stretched to the max would just love to have a whole new category of complaints with which to deal. This legislator needs to find a hobby like beekeeping or something else that is constructive and keep her BIG nose out of private people's families.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 21 Jan 07 - 12:25 AM

"Are we suppose to let our children kill before they finally get spanked? That's what it boils down to"

The law is intended to protect children under three years old. Ain't too many of them committing murder, Gnu. Don't you see sometjhing just plain wrong with hitting an infant?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: mack/misophist
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 10:56 PM

Speaking historically, every method of child rearing works about as well as any other. Being given 'licks' in junior high school made an outsider more acceptable to the main run of students. I know this to be true because it was how I became accepted. (Only that one time, though) Skipy and I have much in common save that I believe my mother enjoyed making me bleed. The only effect it had on me that I'm aware of is that I came to hate her. Even then, when I was 15 and got a chance to kill her, I passed it up. Still not sure why. So. Spanking may be necessary from time to time to get a child's attention. Historically, there's much to be said for it. Violence for it's own sake is sick. Note. I have no children. But then I never liked the little buggers anyhow.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,JTT
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 09:41 PM

No one should ever hit anyone else.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,MarkS
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 09:30 PM

Giving proper credit to Monty Python:

Spanking? Sure. Every Thursday night at my place!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: skipy
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:54 PM

I was never "spanked" as far as I can remember, I was beaten & kicked, I was beaten with a leather razor strop (many times), I was hit with pieces of wood, I was hit with a bottle, I was punched, I was whipped with a leather belt with a brass buckle, and NO this is not my sence of humour, this is sad fact!
However, I decided as a father that the circle would be broken, my two have not been "spanked" or in any way treated as I was.
My father did to me what had been done to him etc.
Unwittingly he gave to me my motivation to leave home at 15 & join the Royal Air Force, I just had to get out of there, so I did.
Sadly a friend I was to meet in later life who served 22 years with the Fleet Air Arm (and who works with me to this day) has the same story to tell, and guess what, he has not hit his boys either.
If I had to resort to hitting them then I will feel that I have failed.
Skipy (still bitter).
However you are what you drink & I am a bitter man! (humour)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: skipy
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:42 PM

Peace, I was never tow!
Skipy

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Scoville
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:40 PM

As if spanking in school would accomplish anything beyond giving said lax and inattentive parents an excuse to sue the school system and play the martyrs.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:30 PM

I'm glad you all live in bucolic places. In many school districts today, there are children being raised by incompetent parents, who send wildly defiant kids to school where no one is allowed to touch them. The endgame in some of these schools is nobody learns anything and the teachers are subject to assault. The problem kids have no respect for authority and no fear of anything, because they know teacher and administrator hands are tied, the only effective 'punishment' they may dole out is suspension, which to a child = get out of school free day. When they return after their vacation, they again render the classrooms zoos where the kids who are willing to learn can't. There are worse things than a child getting spanked, there is raising criminals unchecked.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Scoville
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 08:30 PM

My brother and I got spanked twice. After that, my mother realized it didn't work at all because we just got angry that we'd been spanked and beat each other up. Probably the world's most concise example of violence begetting violence.

Of course, my parents actually paid attention to us and listened to us, so we were very rarely behavior problems in the first place.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Folkiedave
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:40 PM

For years when we allowed beating is schools in the UK we had to record the beatings. It was realised then - that it was the same kids time after time. That's when they stopped it.

Spanking should be used as a last resort. Everyone agrees on that. So if everything else has failed so far - what makes you think spanking works?

The only people legally allowed to spank people are prostitutes and children.

Nice company you keep.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: LilyFestre
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:31 PM

Corporal punishment is permitted in the state of Pennsylvania in the schools. If you do not agree that your child be subjected to this, you have to send in a written note.

Having worked in 2 of the local schools recently, I can tell you that not one teacher would THINK about putting their hands on a student for punishment purposes.

Having many years of experience as a social worker, I can tell you that spanking (NOT BEATING)is permitted but not to any kind of extreme (in Pennsylvania). If there is a visible mark, the parent has a problem.

Michelle

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 07:24 PM

I never had to whack my kids because they believed I would if they pushed me too far.
The thing is, kids don't think like we do, and the only thing they learn from being spanked is that big people get to hit little people. It is a known fact that boys who were sexually abused grow up to be abusers too. Charles Manson is one example.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:52 PM

In one of my Jr Hi classes, the instructor was a sort of "old-fart" (by Jr. Hi/Middle school standards) who believed that "responsibility" in a work environment was part of what he needed to teach. (shop classes)

"Spats" were a regular part of the routine, subject to rather strict standards.

The student was given the option of accepting a specified number of "spats," OR of being required to "stay after" in the punishment study hall.

The spats were administered in class, with the entire class present.

The recipient was required to autograph the "spat board" at completion of the punishment.

Abuse of the recipient, or in fact any future reference once the student faced up and took the "punishment" - or bragging about how much (or little) it hurt, was also a "spattable offense."

1. Misbehaviour acknowledged.
2. Punishment chosen by the student, with realistic options available.
3. Punishment administered and accepted in the presence of all peers.

4. CASE CLOSED.

[point 4 is the most important, IMO]

No student EVER chose any punishment that was offered other than "take it and be done with it."

No one ever had a real problem returning to his (an all male class at that time) seat and resuming the class.

This teacher was highly respected, with, in most cases, as much "affection" as Middle School students can muster. Class discipline contributed to an unusually favorable learning environment. Unlike other similar classes, in the presence of mildly hazardous machines and materials, his class had NO INJURIES during, so far as I know, his entire tenure at the school.

What he did probably was "illegal" even then, but you'd have had a very difficult time finding one of his students who would support any complaint about him.

A Kansas legislator is attempting to introduce a bill to permit corporal punishment in the schools. If I could expect Mr. S's standards, I might support it; but I'm afraid the legislator hasn't had my advantage and experience, and likely will f**** it up, so I'm reserving an opinion. (It's unlikely his bill wil be seriously considered.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: gnu
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:42 PM

Bullshit. No child of any age should be spanked if it is not necessary. HOWEVER, any child of any age should be spanked if necessary. And, why should you decide if someone elses child needs a spanking or not?

Are we suppose to let our children kill before they finally get spanked? That's what it boils down to.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:34 PM

At the ages of one, tow or three, would he have understood? And, maybe that's the RESULT of spanking, Gnu.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: gnu
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:33 PM

Okay... here we go.... everyone knows everyone elses child.

Think this lad should have been spanked?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Bee
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 06:11 PM

No spanking under 18, I say.

Seriously, it's entirely possible to raise a child without hitting them anywhere. I was never hit, and while no saint, I've never stolen, plundered, pillaged, cheated on my taxes, assaulted anyone or otherwise was lawless. I also worked with kids for many years, and besides that we weren't legally permitted to hit them, none of us would have ever considered doing so, and we were still able to maintain discipline.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: pdq
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM

We need a bill that allows irate parents to smack worthless politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM

BTW, I agree with the proposed bill.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Alec
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:32 PM

Note in ads at bottom of this thread one is for sheet music & the other is for Church music training. Just thought I'd mention it: )

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: John Hardly
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:31 PM

According to Tommy James, his baby does the Hanky Spanky.

I wonder if Ms McFarlane has an opinion on the subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:25 PM

Not on their birthdays I hope!

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Peace
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:24 PM

This doesn't pertain to consenting adults though, does it?

Subject: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: wysiwyg
Date: 20 Jan 07 - 04:22 PM

No-spank bill on way
By Mike Zapler
MediaNews Sacramento Bureau

SACRAMENTO - The state Legislature is about to weigh in on a question that stirs impassioned debate among moms and dads: Should parents spank their children?

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, wants to outlaw spanking children up to 3 years old. If she succeeds, California would become the first state in the nation to explicitly ban parents from smacking their kids.

What do you think?

1. Spank or no-spank?
2. Who gets to decide?

IMO the first one's easy.... then it gets more than a little complicated.

~Susan