BS: Spank, or No-Spank?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 12:57 PM

Excellent point, Nick.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:11 PM

Greg, I'm afraid what I did was to mix my own personal experience with my ex wife's belief. But, I can't help noting that you compare your, "less than a decade" with her nearly 30 years of hands on work with abused children.
Now, you have taken the liberty of calling my post "claptrap" and invalidating an expert's knowledge on child development, tell us, what are your qualifications?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,Seiri Omaar
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:24 PM

May I politely suggest that Greg and Kendall find some statistics or viable sources to support their claims?
Thank you.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,heric
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:26 PM

It was hardly an opinion he expressed. It was a discussion of what is or is not fact. I think he surprised many of us.

"The reality is that the vast majority of kids -- be they boys or girls -- who were sexually abused do not go on to become abusers," he said. 'By the same token, if you look at all of those adults who abuse children, a much higher proportion of them were, in fact, sexually abused than the general public.'" Newsday 10/06

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:27 PM

How about this from the American Academy of Children & Adolescent Psychiatry?

Often the severe emotional damage to abused children does not surface until adolescence or later, when many abused children become abusing parents. An adult who was abused as a child often has trouble establishing intimate personal relationships. These men and women may have trouble with physical closeness, touching, intimacy, and trust as adults. They are also at higher risk for anxiety, depression, substance abuse, medical illness, and problems at school or work. Without proper treatment, physically abused children can be damaged for life.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:36 PM

I don't see any way of coming to a firm conclusion in this. Without real statistics we can't know how many abused kids will become abusers, or how many won't.

I can't speak for Greg, but I've said all I need to.And without resorting to inflamatory words such as "clap trap".

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:41 PM

Greg: Name calling aside.. there is some truth to your arguments. I believe that physical abusers are fixable. Sexual abusers, never.
Many of the physically abused manage to break the cycle but not nearly enough. I just wish the statistics were so favourable for the sexual abuse victims but the sad reality is that they are not. I can see that as an advocate for the abused, this bothers you. Why wouldn't it? They are and always will be victims. We know that.
Baldeagle 2: I thought Slag & Kendall were having a decent debate for the most part. If you can get through some of the side issues you will find a reasonable exchange taking place.
On another issue related to this topic: Self examination can be a painful process. Some would rather be beaten than face their issues. Note the references to the "honest spanking rather than the psychology". Others would rather leave the room than challenge what they had previously thought to be true. The latter may well be in the process of changing their minds and just need the space to do so.
It's a complex issue, Baldeagle 2. Too complex for one liners and gruff pirate voices.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Desdemona
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 01:57 PM

I like Nick's philosophy: "catch them being GOOD!"

~D

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: jacqui.c
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 02:34 PM

I agree with Nick - I reckon that there should be something in the school curriculum about raising children and giving positive reinforcement. I suppose a start would be to make it part of the course for all student teachers who could then teach by example.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Greg B
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM

Nice back-pedaling Kendall. We've got you down from sexual abuse
victims who don't go on to be sexual abusers as adults being
'exceptions' because it's 'all they know.' That's a start.

I still maintain that you, and your ex-, are molding your
facts to fit your assumptions.

It's oh-so-very convenient to maintain that it's a 'cycle' of
abuse that needs to be broken, because, oh 'everybody' knows
that. Just like 'everybody' knew 30 years ago that schizophrenia
was a mental, not a physical, illness. The sad fact is (and it
was so when I got MY degree in Psychology) that most research
psychologists start out with an assumption and then set about
trying to prove it.

Thus we wound up with great 'scientific' support for the 'science'
of eugenics. Warm up the ovens.

Not long ago everyone 'knew' that homosexuals were apt to be
child molestors.

I don't have to defend my qualifications against those of your
ex-. We've seen one heck of a lot of shrinks who haven't the
foggiest notion as to how properly to work with abuse victims
and/or abusers. And who have some wierd and sadly archaic ideas
based on what 'colleagues' have told them and they've always
assumed to be true. When you've heard a few dozen stories in
gynocological/urolgical detail, followed by what the ensuing
decades following the abuse have been like, then you'll be in
a position to assess my 'qualifications.'

I'd almost rather have people folks speak honest hate speech than
to start mealy-mouthing around 'studies' and 'statistics' to 'prove'
their own fear-driven bigotry. I hear it around lunch tables all the
time--- there are a higher proportion of black men incarcerated
therefore 'they' (i.e., African Americans in general) must be more
lazy and pre-disposed to criminal behavior. There's not a damned
bit of difference between the connections you're trying to make
and that other pseudo-logical hate speech when it comes to looking
at individuals. Both keep the individual from ever being looked at
AS an individual, and both heap disadvantage upon disadvantage.

Heck, David Duke can construct logical 'arguments' for the hate
speech he spews. He can even find statistics to twist to his
purpose, just as you have.

It's all still hate speech.

But what really sticks in my craw, Kendall, is that you no doubt
have managed with your thrice-repeated calumny to re-victimize
the sexual abuse survivors who are here, reading this thread.
Oh, and they're here. That's one sad statistic that's all too true.
You've managed to push them back towards shame, and back towards
guilt, and back towards feeling like they somehow are not as good
as the rest of society.

And worse yet, you're not even stand-up enough to ask forgiveness
for saying that, if they don't abuse, they're just an 'exception.'

As they say in Jersey. Accept THIS.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:13 PM

Were you ever spanked as a child, kendall?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 05:56 PM

Well, we were all having this fine discussion on wether we thought it was ever right to paddle a three year old child when suddenly a hockey game broke out!

There is a difference between sophistry and logic. Mr. Duke may present a facade of reason but the light of reason will eventually dismantle said edifice. Sorry, I do tend to talk this way and I do tend to be pedantic, especially when one seems to intentionally be obtuse. I shall refrain.

If the topic were child rearing in general I have to say that Nick's comments are great. This is what really worked best with my kids. We would explore cause and effect together. I taught them how to evaluate a given situation, especially one that might have negative consequences if approached wrongly.

When you arrest a small child's attention or halt his dangerous progress you are reacting to an immediate situation. I don't know that I would call that a "spanking" or even punishment.

Spanking as a means of punishment might be the real subject under discussion. Does anyone know how the term is defined in the proposed legislation? Can we get the subject back on track?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:18 PM

Well put Slag: So here's where it started.

Subject: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: WYSIWYG - PM
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

Maybe the first one isn't so easy after all!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 06:36 PM

A definition from www.answers.com:

spank·ing (spãng'kĭng)

adj.
Informal. Exceptional of its kind; remarkable.
Swift and vigorous: a spanking pace.
Brisk and fresh: a spanking breeze.

adv.
Used as an intensive: a spanking clean shirt.

n.
A number of slaps on the buttocks delivered in rapid succession, as for punishment.

[Perhaps of Scandinavian origin.]

spankingly spank'ing·ly adv.



Damn those Scandinavians! What did they start this whole mess for anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 07:29 PM

Greg, neither you nor anyone else has any right to tell me that my opinion, based on MY personal experience is wrong.
Fact wise, I don't know what percentage of abused kids become abusers, and neither do you.I'm not going into personal experience just to bolster my argument, and if you are so desperate to have the last word, fire away. I'm out of here.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: kendall
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 07:32 PM

One last thing, to answer Cluin, no I was never spanked, and I do not spank.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 08:06 PM

!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 26 Jan 07 - 08:15 PM

Well, we are making progress.

JimLad admits we are dealing with a complex topic. Complex topics raise many points of view, and civilised debate will examine those views from many angles.

JimLAd was the one who once said:

"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"

And went on to say "If I am wrong then I have offended someone who honestly believes that slapping a small child is okay. I can live with that."

And topped it with "Others would rather leave the room than challenge what they had previously thought to be true. The latter may well be in the process of changing their minds and just need the space to do so.

But now comes the realisation that it really is not that simple.

So JimLad, how are you going to deal with the realisation that there are many shades of gray in this debate?   Are you going to apologise for the offence you dished out, are you going to leave the room rather than face the possibility that your belief is wrong, or are you going to continue to bypass the issue by complaining that someone once jokingly used a gruff pirate voice in your presence?

I would hate anyone to think I was making a personal attack on JimLad - I am just curious how he is going to reconcile his previous boorish behaviour with his new enlightened outlook.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Nick
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 05:40 AM

If you want me to be on topic I don't have a problem with that.

>>Should parents spank their children?

No, they shouldn't.

Is it enforceable? No.

In my opinion, however, legislation is often an agent of social change in it's effect on attitudes.

One of the things that has changed in my lifetime here in the UK is that it is no longer considered reasonable to hit your wife. Part of that social change has been the legislation which reinforces it as an unacceptable act. There are a small selection of songs here about the subject, but I can't recall many recent songs about it - especially portraying it as a reasonable thing to do.

Would it be better if we returned to that world?

(Slag, if you are a true pedant, then you shouldn't split infinitives!)

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Cluin
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 06:53 AM

Well, you ARE the fortunate one, kendall. You stand outside the viciously inescapable cycle of abuse.

Me, having been spanked on occasion while growing up, it's all I can do to resist rushing out the door and whacking the shit out of every infant I can snatch up. After all, It's all I know.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Ruth Archer
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 11:14 AM

I spanked in a controlled way. When my daughter was old enough to use and understand language, I stopped, because I used reason instead.

I have to say, she was a very well-behaved kid - you could take her anywhere, and she was never one of these nasty, undisciplined little terrors that run around making everyone's life a misery while their parents blithely ignore them.

Whenever I see kids like that, I usually murmer, "Hasn't been spanked enough."

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Genie
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 11:53 AM

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

No. Except maybe from his mates in Skull And Bones.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: Slag
Date: 27 Jan 07 - 01:42 PM

Bifurcation to you, Nick! I said "pedantic". Not a pedant! Like most everyone else, I shall continue to split infinitives, infinitely, or until we've got them all. That's one of those rules of grammar that is going by the wayside, so away with it! Unless it is a condition, up with which you will not put, why not join us!

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: BaldEagle2
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 10:33 AM

There has been strong support from some contributors to this thread that spanking can cause spinal damage, and therefore it is too dangerous an option for a responsible parent to consider.

There are many references on the Web to that this indeed so - but you will only find them on web sites set up to promote anti-spanking propaganda.

The source of this theory is very hard to track down.   

As far as I can tell, it all comes from a single report in 1994 that 3 children had "unusual" spinal damage.   The attending physician thought that spanking, shaking or other similar causes may explain how the damage occurred.   No evidence, no facts, just an opinion of what may have triggered it.

And that's the only study I can find.

I now feel comfortable in dismissing the "a spank damages the spine" theory on the grounds that there is not yet one single documented case of it ever having happened.

Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank?
From: GUEST,Parent
Date: 28 Jan 07 - 11:15 AM

Shaking a baby is far worse for it than spanking. Only if the child is twisted round violently and walloped really hard while still twisted can it cause injury. Shaking used to be seen as the soft option until it was proved that it causes whiplash type injuries and bruising to the brain.