BS: Spank, or No-Spank?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 03:39 PM

I agree with your definitions Kendal. I've never smacked more than once though...two smacks is already getting beyond the limit.

I thought about this a bit more today and I agree with Mrs Duck. When a child is very small any punishment has to be immediate and short or they don't understand or remember what it was about. It's also quite difficult to find an appropriate punishment. Sending them to their room or taking away something they like is no good. Later, punishemnts do work, once they are old enough to be consequential. That's probably why I haven't smacked mine for years

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 04:15 PM

If you smack a standing child on the bum, you can easily damage their spine.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:40 PM

I am LOL kendall. Now why did I think you'd disagree?? But with which part? Since you are being arbitrary, how many psi on the first smack? How many on the second? Time space between? Bare legs? Bare bottom? Any lecture to go with that? What if little Johnny turns around and kicks you in the leg after that second "smack"?

Again, parenting is more an art form than a science.

A loving parent who has her or his child's BEST interests at heart will do the right thing. Mistakes will always be made but the love will shine through it all. Parental indifference, compensated by permissiveness and material possessions will turn out monsterous children as often or more so than those who are beat. It's just another form of abuse.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 05:57 PM

"I also wonder about the long term effects of a leash (some people still use them"

By leash, do you mean a chest harness and walking reins or one of those curly straps that go from the hand of the adult to the wrist of the child?

I used one of those extending dog leads on Limpit - not only did it not impair her motor skills, it saved my back as the reins alone were too short for her to toddle far enough away that I didn't tread on her. I refused to have one of those curly wrist straps because I felt they were too flimsy to be of any use or liable to dislocate a shoulder or wrist. If anything impairs motor skills it's keeping children in pushchairs and buggies far longer than necessary because it's easier to hang shopping on or quicker than going at the child's pace.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM

It's too bad that good judgement can't be taught.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Desdemona
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 08:41 PM

I have 3 sons (now 20, 15 and 12) and have never been a spanker; my personal feeling has always been that hitting people is unacceptable, and that for a child to be hit by the very person whom they love and depend upon above everyone else in the world amounts to a betrayal of trust. It also sends the dangerous message that it's okay to use violence as a tool if you're bigger/stronger/more powerful, etc. than the other person; too many people make the mistake of confusing "respect" with "fear"...they are *not* the same thing, and what thinking parent would want their young child to be afraid of them? Finally, it's been shown time and time again in a number of studies that spanking does nothing to deter bad behaviour, but is actually more likely to promote aggression at worst, and have little if any effect at best.

NOW---having said all that, my gut feeling is that this proposed law sounds a bit weird: for starters, why the "under age 3" business? Are we to infer that it's okay to start beating on Little Johnny as soon as he turns 4? Additionally, making something illegal by no means guarantees its extinction...lots of things are illegal, and yet people still drive drunk, smoke pot, jaywalk, etc.; child abuse is already against the law, isn't it?

Introspective and sensitive parents know that they shouldn't be hitting their children and generally behave accordingly. Meanwhile, those who think it's okay to spank will continue to do so, just not in front of you in the supermarket checkout! Are all parents who use spanking as discipline abusers? Certainly not. But the danger inherent in this type of legislation is that the people who DO abuse their children are already in violation of the law; another statute on the books isn't going to make the difference. If the aim is to make people think twice before swatting their kids' behinds in the mall parking lot, then it may well have its desired effect; how much change will occur behind the closed doors of private homes is open to question.

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Genie
Date: 23 Jan 07 - 11:05 PM

When spanking is outlawed, only outlaws will spank. ;-)

Desdemona, I've got to dispute your statement about research showing that spanking is never effective.   It's not so much the particular form of sanction (e.g., scolding, spanking, positive attention, etc,) that's been shown to be the key factor as the consistency (are there clear boundaries and rules?) and the social context (is the discipline done in the context of a close relationship or not).   (I'm not taking about beating or other injurious physical punishment, of course. But the threat of physical punishment can and sometimes does deter behavior if the 'laws' are clear; unfortunately, it may have unnecessary and unfortunate side effects if the punishment is severe.)

Kendall, I've gotta laugh at your "spine injury" post too, when I picture a 100-lb. mom giving her kid an open-handed swat on the bum and sending him to hospital.   If the kid's spine is that easily damaged, better not let him go skating, horseback riding, or play most any sport. ;-D

Hitting a kid just proves that big people get to hit little people? Yeah.    But big people are also the ones who protect little people.   And give them toys, take away toys, feed them, etc.   Parents get to, and are obliged to, do lots of things because they're "bigger."

Being slapped on the bum is not the most damaging kind of parental treatment that can happen to you. Especially not psychologically.   Abusive people can make "verbal instruction," "time out," or most any form of discipline abusive.

Slag, I couldn't agree more with this:
"Parental indifference, compensated by permissiveness and material possessions will turn out monsterous children as often or more so than those who are beat. It's just another form of abuse."
Some of the most "damaged" people got that way by never having any limits set whatsoever.

(Uh-oh! Here come the parenting cops to write you up for giving your kids too much candy and too many toys!)

Finally (since we're weighing in on all sorts of child-rearing tools), my 2 cents' worth on "harnesses."
This is just my (limited) experience with them.   When I was a kid I used to babysit a toddler (about 3 or 4 y o) whose mom would have me take him for walks using a harness. (On him, not me.) It was a regular chest harness with a "leash" that attached roughly between his shoulder blades. Now, I have absolutely no idea how this kid "turned out," but I can tell you that he seemed quite content with this set-up, as it allowed him to pretty much go wherever he wanted and at whatever pace, as long as he didn't go anywhere dangerous (like into the street).   He had a lot more freedom of movement and natural posture and movement than he would have if I'd had hold of one of his hands.
It did not seem odd or demeaning or abusive in the least.   

Obviously, it was such a practical, common sense technique that I'm sure the governmental agencies have banned it by now. *G*

Genie

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:02 AM

I do think you'd have to hit pretty hard to damage a kid's spine. The slaps I've administered didn't even move a small child physically at all.

Slag, I think that's a big part of it. On the few occasions that my parents smacked me, I was never in any doubt that they still loved me, and I'm sure my kids would say the same. I think maybe attitude has a lot to do with how the smack affects the child. I always hugged my kids after smacked them, which may sound contradictory, but I think they understood.

There is also the fact of the smack administered when absolutely at the end of one's tether. Not a good thing at all, but an awful lot of parents have done it and felt terrible immediately after.



Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 07:30 AM

I think they should go easy when using the birch and the barbed wire flail.
These measures are effective, but only when used with love.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 07:40 AM

If I grab a child by the arm and smack it on the bum in anger, I can guarantee that child is in danger of suffering a spine injury. Never hit a child in anger.

As far as laws go, it's too bad that we even NEED laws to keep us in line, but there are too many knuckle draggers who don't like limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Desdemona
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 08:38 AM

Genie--LOL in re: "outlaws", I just said the same thing in discussing this topic with a friend this morning!

Your point about consistency is an excellent one: no matter what form of "discipline" is preferred (and I use the quotes because there are always some people who consider yellingidle threats at their kids from the sofa in the next room or similar "discipline"), it's the parent's reponsibility to follow through with it each and every time. Children are smart, and will quickly suss out that the threat of punishment is nothing to worry about if it's never enforced. If it's enforced sometimes but not others ("yesterday no-one cared if I jumped on the bed; today I got smacked for it"), they just become confused and can't know what to expect, which has got to make a little person feel pretty insecure.

As stated in my earlier post, I don't personally believe in spanking, and feel that there has to be a better way; it seems to me that when you're reduced to hitting someone---anyone---it's a clear indication that you're too frustrated, angry, and potentially out of control to come up with any better ideas. This is probably the time to do what all that helpful literature suggests and step out on the porch, phone a friend, etc. rather than set an example for your child of which few people could honestly feel proud afterwards.

Just my opinion. People obviously have to make their own choices, but I agree with Kendall that it's a sad state of affairs when the government ostensibly "needs" to legislate this sort of thing.

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 12:17 PM

"Smacking is not hitting" according to Mrs Duck

That's probably the most ridiculous denial of abuse I've ever heard. Effin' brilliant!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:03 PM

Hitting implies violence and therefore abuse. Smacking as I view it is neither!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:38 PM

So many good things have been said in this thread. I started out copying many of the posts- but there are so many of them I'm going to erase them and just make a few comments of my own.

Education is key. Child-rearing classes - and not just for the poor-will in time make all the difference. It has always astonished me that we human beings have all the equipment necessary to have offspring and that no one thinks it necessary to monitor what we do with it.


* As they say, an unenforceable law is a bad law. Unless we want Big Brother-type monitors in our homes- and in each room of our homes - there is no way that a law like that can be enforced.

* The point MUST be that a beating is different from a swat. Beatings should be against the law everywhere. And surely there is enough anecdotal evidence to show decisively that children react differently to a swat. In my (large) birth family the oldest daughter never got spanked- a severe look devastated her - and the third son was never spanked either, pretty much for the same reason. The rest of us did get spanked- and whipped. I think whipping is so over the top that I would NEVER defend it.

* My sister in law and I worked different shifts so we were able to babysit each other's daughters. She was a spanker, I was a talker. My daughter and her cousin to this day say that they much preferred a quick spanking to my reasoned dialogue. For one thing my method took longer- a quick spanking let them pay the punishment and the incident was over. Plus, as my daughter said, my method made them have to think. :)

"It's a scary thought to me that humans would need such a law in the first place." Peace

"Imagine the parent hysterical or just mean - mentally punishing a child - nothing physical, yet emotionally can do more harm to a child in the long term - how do they propose to check that ????"
Diesel

"Wife took her by the hand and said "Ok, you made your choice." and took her to the car and locked the doors." Kendall

* Kendall, I'm sure you realize that someone could have seen the child left alone in the car and reported it to police? A view from 'outside' looks very different from the inside one.

"I am uneasy about a law against spanking. Nobody should be hitting babies but a law like this could get messy. KB in Iowa

"What're you gonna do -- take a two-year-old away and put him in a "loving, caring foster home" because his mom or dad spanked him/her?   Yeah, that'll really help." Genie

"Rather than ban spanking, parents should be given compulsory lessons on parenthood - by experienced parents, not by do-gooders who haven't a clue!" Bernard

"What is not defined to my satisfaction is this: spanking." Peace

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Scoville
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 01:40 PM

So, do pro-smackers assume that it was the smack that did the trick and not any of 10,000 other positive things in their upbringing? Smacking had no positive outcome at all in our house. My brother and I literally beat each other black and blue, blaming the other for our "smacks" (these were "smacks" as defined here, not "beatings"--short but sound swats on the butt. Not even painful). I was four at the most and remember very clearly feeling humiliated and not at all sorry for whatever I had done to "earn" it. Didn't teach us a thing about respect and certainly not about boundaries, as we felt ours had just been violated.

And there is a huge difference between spanking and doing nothing. Making no effort at all at discipline is as big a disservice as slapping a kid around, but it is not at all the same thing as simply not spanking.

And I apologize for jumping to conclusions, Bernard.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:10 PM

"Never hit a child in anger."

Best thing said in this thread.

--from a guy who got his share of strappings, both at home and school, and the occasional boot in the ass, almost all of which I earned and none of them did me any harm.

I always knew when I was getting chastised and why. Give me the honest spanking when I step out of line rather than the two-bit confused psychology from people that don't know what they're doing.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Donuel
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 03:13 PM

Would anyone here be surprised if George W never got a spanking?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:18 PM

One of my Mates on the Explorer, when he was a rookie used to say "Hit me, but don't give me hell."

The matter of leaving the child in the car for 10 minutes, I had a problem with that myself, but when I saw how effective it was I had to admit that the wife knew what she was doing. That child was never in any danger because we were watching the whole time.

Besides, the wife, with 20 years of experience in early childhood development was better qualified than the average cop on the beat. She has 5 degrees, one of them in early childhood development, is a PhD.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:23 PM

Can you send Bush for a time-out now?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 04:35 PM

Shall we not flaunt degrees? Appeal to authority is also a fallacy.

I can imagine that some of the most backward and uneducated folks living in the tall piney woods may have whupped the daylights out of their kids (something we would all probably agree on as being child abuse) but if genuine love was in the motivation the majority of those children would see and understand it at some point in their lives, if not immediately.

The most techinically correct clinician of child psychology who followed the prescribed method(s) of child rearing without love is, in my opinion, going to have a messed up child, more than likely.

Communication, consistency, and love now abide, but love is the greatest of all. People of all sizes know when they are loved.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 24 Jan 07 - 06:02 PM

Education is definately the key and the lack of this is partly due (to my eternal shame as a woman and to the sound of Emmeline Pankhurst turning in her grave) to the sex discrimination act. Women are so eager to be treated as equal to men that schools no longer appear to teach home-maker skills to ANY sex. Not only do boys not get to play in the Wendy house with the dolls, but now girls don't have the chance to either.

I attended a grammar school where the onus was on getting qualifications for University (and thus into nursing or teaching) and for home making/parenthood. Whilst I was there, the Grammar/Secondary Modern schools were merged (thank you, Maggie Thatcher NOT!) and the Grammar School girls were given the opportunity to learn office skills. In order to make time in the curriculum for these lessons, the domestic sciences were drastically reduced or dropped. The boys, in moving from the mixed Secondary Modern to the single sex new boys Comprehensive also lost the opportunity to learn the domestic sciences - something that I consider has helped towards the decline in personal development and general 'taking care of oneself' ability in men of my age and younger.

When your only role model or teacher is your own parent, you end up repeating the same mistakes that they made.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:00 AM

Thank you Liz, you've said exactly what I've thought for a long time! So -called Women's Lib, was a good idea, like so many ideas, in theory. Trouble is, so many women took "Equality" to mean "Sameness" and have spent their lives trying to be like men instead of just equal to them. In consequence, we are severely short of "Homemakers" and nobody is totally sure of their role or place in life. Obviously this doesn't help parenting, or help children, who need stability and security.

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,of 12.42 and 12.17
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:56 AM

It's probable that most of the smackers were smacked themselves, so misguidedly believe they are doing the right thing because that's the way they were brought up.

There needs to be an enlightened generation in every family line that breaks the mould, so that their children do not grow up believing that physical abuse is OK, hence don't pass it down to their children.

Apologists, and those in extreme denial, claim there is a difference between smacking and hitting. There may be, in the eyes of the smacker/hitter because of the intent, but there is no difference in the eyes of the smackee/hittee - and that's what they are not understanding.

The role of a parent is, inter alia, to protect their children from any aggressors. What do you think happens to children at the point where, in their eyes, their supposed protector turns aggressor?

There are more intelligent ways to bring up children.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Mo the caller
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 05:40 AM

Our lecturer quoted "never strike a child except in anger......and then strike to kill"

An exageration obviously, and talking about school age children and teachers not parents. I think his point was that hurting children should be seen by both teacher and child should be seen as loss of control, not a cold blooded punishment. Or maybe just don't do it.

Watching wildlife films, you see animals cuffing their young. Preverbal children are could be seen as young animals, physical controls are needed - restraint where neccessary as well as lots of cuddles.

A study of child rearing in Sheffield found that parents who used smacking tended to need to escalate the punishment to get a result, and what some called a "tap" was quite severe.

So maybe a law stating that this is not acceptable is good, but it needs to be sensibly interpretted.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 05:58 AM

Shifting responsibility is also a problem... Here's a little tale from a Pre-school Nursery teacher - she teaches children aged between 3 and 5 years old.

Little *Johnny* turned up on his first day of Nursery wearing a nappy (diaper). Naomi, the teacher, asked his mother why he was wearing it.

Mother: 'He's not potty trained yet'.
Naomi: 'But he's nearly 4 years old, is there some problem I should know about?'
Mother: 'No problem, he's just never been taught to use the toilet'.
Naomi: 'Why not?'
Mother: 'Well, you're the teacher, you're supposed to teach him these things, aren't you!'

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 06:16 AM

MBSLynne
"I do think you'd have to hit pretty hard to damage a kid's spine. The slaps I've administered didn't even move a small child physically at all."
1) You don't think.
2) Do not hit a small child. Ever!
3) You administered nothing. You hit the baby.
4) If you still have small children, get counselling.
There is help out there for anyone who cannot control his/her temper.
The moment you begin to raise your voice or your hands you have begun to lose control. That's fixable.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:48 AM

Jim Lad, please do no tell me what to do. I do not need counselling for smacking my children maybe half a dozen times in their lives. You have your opinion and I have mine. You believe I am wrong but I believe you are

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 08:37 AM

Slag, as I stated, my ex wife was far more qualified to raise children than any hillbilly. Why do you have a problem with degrees? If you study a problem for 20 years, and you have normal intelligence, doesn't it follow that you know more about it than someone who doesn't even know there IS a problem?

I've run into this reverse snobbery thing before and it always irritates me. I know what I know because I saw it with my own eyes.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 12:11 PM

MBSLynne: What will you do? Give me a time out? Read your own reference to slapping the baby. You're not the only one on this thread with the same problem but that should give you little comfort.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:32 PM

Arrrr, Jim Lad, now free from the terrors of piracy on the Spanish Main, kindly offers to us his life experience as a Cabin Boy, and the grim effects that naval discipline has had upon him.   "Arrr Jim Lad, and it is ye who shall be inside the cask tonight!"    Such dreadful happenings can turn a lad's head inside out for the rest of his natural, you know

So, may I try to get some perspective into a topic that seems to be unable to be part of a rational discussion?   

The first thing I see is that the word spanking is used to describe a number of different activities, with the slapping of buttocks as the common theme.   For consenting adults, it may be part of sexual activity; for teenagers a fun way to mark a birthday; for members of a formal or informal association it may be a hazing ritual; and it is used to define a means of discipline.   When a word can assume so many shades of meaning, it is natural that debate about it become confused and, from some quarters, another way of yelling at the world at large.

Secondly, some adults abuse children.   Spanking is one of their methods of abuse; but not the only one.   They will abuse kids by any means available, and, I think, taking away one of those means is not going to make their kids' lives anymore more wholesome.

And thirdly, because some adults get a sexual kick out of spanking, that alone makes spanking a very bad thing for good people to participate in. (However, it would seem that every form of punishment ever invented in the history of mankind is a source of sexual gratification for someone somewhere.   I vote we ignore the sexual implications on this thread, and discuss them elsewhere at another time)

So ...

Can we agree that understanding that 'actions have consequences' is not an inherited trait: and that it is indeed learned?    Moreover, that it is learned at a very early age?   From experience, from trial and error, that this action (touching the flame of a candle) has a bad consequence (pain) while this action (eating candy) has a pleasant consequence (sweet taste in mouth)

Learning simple cause and effect rarely need a teacher.   But letting a child burn her fingers on a candle for her to learn that the consequence is unpleasant... well, that is probably is outside the wishes of most parents.   Therefore, sometimes the unpleasant consequence has to be supplied by a parent, teacher or other responsible adult entrusted with ensuring the safety of the child.

Can we also agree that not all cause and effects are simple?   For example, if a child takes another child's toy, the simple consequence is possession of the toy.   Understanding that the sorrow of the child who lost the toy is a bad consequence may not occur, or be of concern, to the child that took it.   There may be second and third levels of consequence beyond the intellectual grasp of the young.

Can we all agree that teaching children of all the consequences of an action relies in part in reasoning, and in part of correcting the child when that reasoning fails?   And that all the corrective measures (time out, grounding, early bed etc etc) are designed to be unpleasant is some way for the child?   The simple (pleasurable) consequence of an action has been replaced by a more immediate and understandable unpleasant consequence.   

The question of whether non-abusive corporal punishment is a valid method of correcting a child should be a simple one.   Does the long term benefit to the child, and indeed to society as a whole, outweigh the short term and mild pain inflicted by the spanking?
If you believe this to be true, I can debate with you where you think the benefits are, and if you think it false, I can debate with you on why the thought of short term pain gives you so much distress.

But if all you bring to the debate is the fact, say, that you hated being a cabin boy on the Hispanola, then we shall never be able to agree on pretty much anything.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:37 PM

Sorry, can't agree with that middle thing you said.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 03:58 PM

kendall, as one of my profs once said to me, "Just because there'e a little extra curl in the tail doesn't necessarily mean there's any more pork up front."

Degrees can be had by the bushel. You can buy them outright. You can get them because of your Daddy' name. You can attend Tijuana Tech or you can just print your own. I'll repeat: APPEAL TO AUTHORITY IS A FALLACY. Google informal fallacies if you don't believe me (that, in itself is a form of "appeal to authority"). In fact, that's something that all posters should do. Rules of logic are rules of REASON. Wouldn't you agree that we should all be reasonable? If you present a reasonable argument then REASON carries the day, not academic letters that a mutual admiration society may give to each other.

On the other side of the coin, I am not saying that academic credentials are worthless. I happen to have a couple myself. While they indicate that you have successfully completed a course of study and have reached a prescribed level of competency it does not necessarily mean that all you say is golden.

Many well educated people have differences of opinion and they can support their views many logical ways. Intelligent discussion demands CONSIDERED opinions. Let the weight of your words and the force of your logic carry your argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 05:56 PM

Shame that what was a sensible, well reasoned and dignified discussion has deteriorated into name calling and personal abuse.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 06:05 PM

BaldEagle2: All of that weird pirate stuff aside, you sound like a Skinner fan. I am not. There is a time for compromise and this is just not one of those times. Any violent act inflicted upon a child is abuse. There is no debate. Don't you wonder, when you see what some of these bloggers are owning up to, just how bad the situation really was. Sometimes a simple statement, like some of those we have witnessed here, is more a measuring stick than a declaration of their own beliefs. Thus, if someone makes an outrageous statement like "The slaps I've administered didn't even move a small child physically at all." then I would have to say that an honest response is not only necessary but may well be what the writer was trying to encourage.
If I am wrong then I have offended someone who honestly believes that slapping a small child is okay. I can live with that.
Now: Do you often revert to your gruff pirate voice during times of stress or is that what you sound like inside your own head?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:11 PM

Better a loving slap than a brain damaging shake.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:18 PM

Some people don't think there's a difference between a spanking and a beating.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 07:49 PM

Slag, we are not discussing pork. And, I guarantee that her degrees are ALL ligimate.She's also one of the most intelligent people I have ever met. I stand by what I know to be the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 09:37 PM

No kendall. We are not discussing pork. That is what is known as an analogy or and extended metaphor. Analogy means that you let one thing represent another so as to depict or highlight some aspect of the thing in question. A metaphor is a literary device wherein you allow one thing to represent another for the same intents and purposes as an analogy. Please don't not try and say that I was trying to talk about pork.

I am so happy that your lady is well educated and I just have to trust your judgment that she is one of the most intelligent people you have ever met. That is not in dispute. Reread my statements. The "truth" as you understand it to be is not in question either.

Enjoy your otherwise, fine day.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:23 PM

Jim Lad

Sorry Jim - I thought your handle was taken after young Jim Hawkings of Treasure Ireland fame.   I used the pirate talk simply to put you at your ease.   I unreservedly apologise if I caused you offence.

You will recall that I invited you to debate your point of view on this vexed topic.   

You replied that you are right, you will not compromise and then went on to repeat the points you had previously made.

And your offensiveness to others is something that you can live with.

Ok. No debate with you.

Next.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 10:55 PM

I know what I know and I know I'm right. Everyone who disagrees with me needs psychiatric help.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 25 Jan 07 - 11:33 PM

BaldEagle2: No you didn't offend me. I didn't know where you were coming from with all of the "Aaaaaarrrrs" and I get that all too often. Re your misinterpretation of what I wrote. Not necessary. I usually get my point across quite well by myself. I will make apologies if I accidentally offend anyone. Want a debate? Maybe try something a little more cerebral than "Arrr Jim Lad, and it is ye who shall be inside the cask tonight!"

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:25 AM

Thank you Cluin! Finally, someone understands completely the true force of logic!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: MBSLynne
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:53 AM

Yes Liz, you're right (again!) I have been enjoying this thread because, unlike so many Mudcat threads in the past, it has been a reasonable, civilized discussion between people who, despite having different points of view, didn't find it necessary to start being unpleasant. It's got to a much greater number of posts than I thought possible, in this vein. Now, unfortunately, it's deteriorating, so I'm outa here.

Love Lynne

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:59 AM

Right twice in one week... Whoo hoo!! I always knew it was so!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 08:27 AM

Slag, I'm well familiar with the meaning of metaphor. I also recongize snobbery when I see it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 09:24 AM

"Bye" from me too. I'll be going upstairs for a reasonable, civilized discussion with my three year old. 9well, she'll be 3 soon) Today's topic. How to dry out the "Playdough" when it gets too goopy.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 11:16 AM

Bye JimLad

Now, if we can get Slag and Kendall to stop cussing out each other, perhaps we can resume the civilized discourse on this thread.   :)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Greg B
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:31 PM

Kendall:

As someone who's spent the better part of the last decade
advocating for survivors of sexual abuse by Catholic priests
and religious and who has along the way gotten to know quite a
few of those fine human beings personally, I find the statement:

>Slag, I was married to a child psychologist. I've known her for 26
>years and I have seen her work. She knows what she is talking about.
>There are always exceptions, but the general rule still is, beaten kids
>will grow up to be beaters, and sexually abused kids will abuse others.
>It's all they know.

...not only to be patently false, but one of the single most
bigoted, offensive, re-victimizing, calumnious pieces of typewritten
crap ever to be posted to this forum.

It contains the classical Archie Bunker-esque appeal to authority
to justify bigotry. Look, I don't care if you shared a bed with
C.G. Jung himself for a couple decades...it's crap. A huge
proportion of abuse victims resolve NEVER to commit such atrocities
as a result of their experiences. Then again, there is an
extraordinary amount of abuse in the world, so it's no surprise
that abusers may have themselves been abused--- but then again
quite a few weren't. When caught, though, there's a pretty good
chance they'll use it as an excuse.

The idea that the abuse victim who does not go on to abuse
is an 'exception' (your words) is as offensive as the notion
of the black man who doesn't rob people on the street being
the 'exception.'

And 'It's all they know?'

Come ON Kendall! The abuse survivors I know seem to 'know'
a hell of a lot more than just how to abuse. I give you
Bishop Thomas Gumbleton of Detroit, one of the most significant
peace activists and scholars of our time. How about Leon Panetta,
congressman, politician, abuse victims' rights advocate, Chief
of Staff to Bill Clinton--- and abuse survivor? The list goes
on.

The fact is that abuse victims mostly go on to abuse THEMSELVES
and damage THEMSELVES as a result of their victimization.

What's worse, such claptrap casts a cloud of suspicion over anybody
who'll stand up and say "it happened to me" or worse yet, pursue

a case for restorative justice. Because the next thing we have
is some bright boy who was 'married to a child psychologist'
suggesting that the local school district not employ teachers
who admit in a pre-screening interview or on some form that they
were abused children, because 'the general rule is...sexually
abused kids will abuse others.'

Or maybe they'll just treat the person like a leper, taking care
to make sure that their own kids are never alone with the abuse
survivor. After all, there is 'the general rule!'

And if your 'child psychologist' REALLY views the world in that
way, then please let us have her name so we can know not to send
anything more sentient than a pet rock or a chia pet in her
direction.

This is a drum you should be bloody well ashamed of beating,
and invite you to stop it right now, lest we turn up something
in your past, or your genetic make up, or something else beyond
your control which 'as a general rule' proves that you're not
to be trusted, either.

It's statements like YOURS that perpetuate the consequences
of abuse, create a sense of an unbreakable 'cycle' and which
heap damage upon damage, and get in the way of healing and
recovery.

Abuse survivors didn't choose to be abused.

Can you say the same about your spouting of this defamatory crap?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:39 PM

Another opinion noted.

I suppose now you will try to tell me that pedophiles and homosexuals can be "cured"?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Nick
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:42 PM

I'm no spank - sons are now 19 and 15 and wonderful.

I've always thought that this argument is backwards. Noone ever seems to debate whether you should or shouldn't reward good behaviour, I presume that it is such an obvious thing that people would never bother to discuss it (strange perhaps though why people so rarely seem to practice it - even management gurus make huge amounts of money suggesting people have 'one minute praises' etc but you only have to look round workplaces to see how rarely people take notice). Everything is always focused on a reaction to bad behaviour. Perhaps if people thought more about good behaviour rather than bad then it might help the bad behaviour.

In the Uk I was always amused by the definition of ASDA (a supermarket now part of Walmart group) as the place that parents take their children to hit them, and I reckon that supermarkets and roads are two of the best places to watch people's behaviour and how much they take notice of the bad and how little (generally) they take notice of the good.

Bonk... (oops, fallen off my soapbox)