|
20 Jan 07 - 04:22 PM (#1942730) Subject: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: wysiwyg 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 |
|
20 Jan 07 - 04:24 PM (#1942732) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Peace This doesn't pertain to consenting adults though, does it? |
|
20 Jan 07 - 04:25 PM (#1942733) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: wysiwyg Not on their birthdays I hope! ~S~ |
|
20 Jan 07 - 04:31 PM (#1942739) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: John Hardly According to Tommy James, his baby does the Hanky Spanky. I wonder if Ms McFarlane has an opinion on the subject. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 04:32 PM (#1942745) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Alec 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: ) |
|
20 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM (#1942746) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Peace BTW, I agree with the proposed bill. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM (#1942747) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: pdq We need a bill that allows irate parents to smack worthless politicians. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 06:11 PM (#1942816) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bee 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. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 06:33 PM (#1942844) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: gnu Okay... here we go.... everyone knows everyone elses child. Think this lad should have been spanked? |
|
20 Jan 07 - 06:34 PM (#1942845) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Peace At the ages of one, tow or three, would he have understood? And, maybe that's the RESULT of spanking, Gnu. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 06:42 PM (#1942851) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: gnu 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. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 06:52 PM (#1942859) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: JohnInKansas 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 |
|
20 Jan 07 - 07:24 PM (#1942890) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall 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. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 07:31 PM (#1942896) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: LilyFestre 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 |
|
20 Jan 07 - 07:40 PM (#1942900) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Folkiedave 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. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 08:30 PM (#1942926) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Scoville 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. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 08:30 PM (#1942927) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST 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. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 08:40 PM (#1942931) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Scoville 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. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 08:42 PM (#1942933) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: skipy Peace, I was never tow! Skipy |
|
20 Jan 07 - 08:54 PM (#1942939) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: skipy 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) |
|
20 Jan 07 - 09:30 PM (#1942953) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST,MarkS Giving proper credit to Monty Python: Spanking? Sure. Every Thursday night at my place! |
|
20 Jan 07 - 09:41 PM (#1942959) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST,JTT No one should ever hit anyone else. |
|
20 Jan 07 - 10:56 PM (#1942985) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: mack/misophist 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. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 12:25 AM (#1943004) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Peace "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? |
|
21 Jan 07 - 03:11 AM (#1943044) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag 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. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 06:30 AM (#1943113) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: gnu Peace... "...hitting an infant?" ??? Man, that is hitting below the belt! I am outta here. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 06:54 AM (#1943121) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: MBSLynne My parents smacked (Not quite sure what is meant by 'spanking') me possibly four or five times in my whole childhood. Each incident stands out in my memory and were mostly a result of me pushing to the limit to see how far I could go. They finally smacked me as being the last resort, and then I knew what the limits were. I believe this is good for children. A smack constituted one open hand blow (really more of a tap) to either my hand ( as in the case of me ignoring what I'd been told and messing about with a little paraffin heater) the others to the fleshy part of my thigh or my bottom. I was aware at the time that my parents did this only because I had pushed too far. It didn't make me believe that hitting was ok generally, or make me hit anyone else. I have smacked both my kids in the same sort of circumstances, though I can't remember the last time...must be years ago. I think my children are lovely, well-balanced and mainly well-behaved people. Neither of them has EVER been accused of bullying, getting into fights or gratuitously hitting anyone else. I also find it deeply offensive that anyone should try to tell me whether or not I may smack my children. However, there is a world of difference between smacking and beating and between smacking once with an open hand and puching with a fist or hitting with any weapon. No-one should do those to anyone and particularly not to children. Love Lynne |
|
21 Jan 07 - 08:54 AM (#1943183) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall Lynn, those children are not your PROPERTY. Now, I didn't infer that you think you have the right to do whatever you wish to them, but too many parents think just that way. If a smack on the butt with an open hand that doesn't cause permanent damage will keep a kid from death or other real danger, ok. A smack on the bum is better than watching a kid overturn a heater, or to run into the street while you yell at them to stop. Here in Maine, the city of Bangor just passed a law that forbids anyone to smoke in their own car if children under 18 are present. There is sure to be an outcry..."They are my kids, and I'll do as I please in MY car"!! People who smoke in the same room with small children should be educated about the kid's rights as well as their own. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 11:39 AM (#1943271) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bernard The big problem, as I've seen it, is when an unruly child knows that spanking isn't permitted. They will push and push and push, knowing that the 'ultimate deterrent' isn't available... I never needed to spank my children, though they were always led to believe that I might if pushed too hard... Violence begets violence, and I'm not suggesting that all children respond or react in the same way. That just isn't so. It's a difficult issue with no 'right answer'. Some parents are irresponsible, so for them having the spanking option is like giving a loaded gun to a five-year-old child. A responsible parent knows how far they need to go without having their bluff called. It's called 'respect'... and it has to be earned, not demanded. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 11:56 AM (#1943287) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Megan L Spare the rod and spoil the child. PS anyone can take that any way they want :) |
|
21 Jan 07 - 12:17 PM (#1943308) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: John MacKenzie With children as with dogs, if caught in the act, a smack is appropriate. Always explain why, never smack for no reason, never do the 'You wait till your Father gets home' trick as that lends fear and apprehension to what should be instant retribution. Smacking should never be too hard and it should never be done because you are in a bad mood, it's not the child's fault you can't keep your temper under control. Most importantly, both parents in a 2 parent household should keep the same rules, and any request from a child should always be answered by the question, 'Have you asked your Mother/Father' It is no good one parent saying different to the other, letting a child play one parent off against the other is a recipe for a badly behaved child. Consistency is good for kids! Giok |
|
21 Jan 07 - 12:18 PM (#1943309) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall Now, if we could just make them stop feeding junk food at McDonald's... |
|
21 Jan 07 - 12:18 PM (#1943310) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Strollin' Johnny I smacked both of my sons (smacked, not beat-up, and only when all else failed). One studied hard at school, got good grades, loves and respects his mum and me, has a lovely partner, got a good well-paid job and is now the manager of a fairly large store in a very swish area in Yorks. The other one pratted around at school, flunked his exams, is a heroin addict and doesn't seem to care much about his parents one way or the other. Conclusion - being smacked either:- 1) Had opposite effects on the two of them, or 2) Makes no difference, either good or bad. So which one is it? I find it strange that so many people are so absolute in their opinions - "Smacking's always wrong", or "There's nothing wrong with a good slap" - on a subject which has no absolutes, no 100% correct answers. Like the "Which is the best guitar" question, it's up to the individual to decide, there's no such thing as absolutely right, or absolutely wrong. IMHO! :-) |
|
21 Jan 07 - 12:25 PM (#1943319) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bill D There are so many sub-issues and side-issues in this that it is impossible to ever have agreement. The proposed Calif. law might be a good start, but obviously it will only be enforceable if someone is seen doing it in public and can be caught, or if they injure a child enough to be suspected....kids UNDER 3 sure aren't gonna know they can report it! Once the kids are OVER 3, all bets are off? That is silly..... I don't think this law would solve much. Just like jaywalking laws, it would be only a way to prosecute and place blame if something bad happens....which is fine, but doesn't solve the problem. A careful, universal program of education, continuously repeated like drug awareness programs, might gradually get parents to change habits...but among certain....ummmmm.."demographic groups"....it will be VERY hard to explain why violence, which is all they know, never solves much. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 12:28 PM (#1943321) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall I raised three, and they all respect me. None fear me, and they all turned out just fine. Two of them told me in their later years that the thing that kept them in line was not wanting to disappoint me. The third says I'm her hero. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 03:05 PM (#1943477) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: pdq This is a very nasty type of legislation. Typical of what we get when lawyers become politicians. It prepares a trap for those who oppose the bill. They can be asked "Why are you opposed to stopping child abuse?" or "Why are you in favor of beating two-year-old children?". Normal people will not beat children nor will they sexually abuse or starve them. Nor will they leave a two-year-old locked in a hot car in July while they go shopping. This type of behavior is tragic, but it happens, and no amount of Nanny State meddling will prevent it. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 03:35 PM (#1943521) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: dianavan Old school - The freedom to raise your children in your own way. New school - Parents should not have the right to choose how to discipline their children. Physical abuse of anyone is against the law. Spanking, when delivered by a judicious parent, is not a beating. Its a fine line but the responsibility rests with the parents, not the government. If a parent goes too far, we already have laws to deal with it. Its just a way to deprive citizens of one of the last freedoms they have left - the right to raise your child according to your own beliefs. btw - My oldest (boy) was spanked (occasionally) but the law changed and the youngest (girl) was not spanked. He is a gentle, loving and generous young man. She is self-centered and competitive with little or no concern for others. Was it the spanking that made the difference? I only know that she was much more difficult to raise and highly demanding of my time and attention. She was an unhappy, brat. He, on the other hand, was a happy child that everyone loved. He always remembered his manners. As adults, I'd definitely say that he is a happy person with many friends and excellent social skills. She is still struggling to understand other people's boundaries. If you, as parents, can't enforce the rules, who can? |
|
21 Jan 07 - 05:58 PM (#1943618) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bernard As Bill D already mentioned - legislation is often brought in to deal with the people who abuse their privileges. How sad that the self-same legislation usually deprives responsible people of their freedom of choice... Nobody said life was fair... |
|
21 Jan 07 - 06:44 PM (#1943653) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST Spanking, when delivered by a judicious parent, is not a beating. Spanking someone younger and smaller than you is abuse. You can be in favour of abuse but don't insult us by trying to re-define it. Plain and simple abuse. No matter how judicious the parent. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 07:08 PM (#1943674) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Scoville I never, ever, hit my dogs, either, and every last one of them has turned out just fine, including several very fearful and very unruly adult rescues. Sorry, but I just don't believe it's necessary to smack a child (or an animal). The situation shouldn't be allowed to get to the point where an adult feels it's necessary to do that to get a kid's attention. Some kids are more difficult than others, but reacting in kind solves nothing long-term. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 07:12 PM (#1943675) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Folkiedave Hear, hear. Dave |
|
21 Jan 07 - 09:28 PM (#1943766) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag We may not OWN our children but we come pretty close to it. You may believe that they are given from on High or that you made them yourself, regardless Nature has entrusted them to your being, initially. Initially being the key word here. We already have laws aplenty to deal with child abuse when detected. We need courts that will uphold those laws ( are you listening Vermont, Massachusetts?). More legislation and grandstanding opprotunities for politicians is not what is needed. Parenting, like life, is more art than science. The most basic foundation for the whole enterprise is LOVE. That's the magic that ultimately makes the whole thing work, if it's going to work at all. Again, if you are REACTING to your children out of frustration, anger, chemical dependence, mental illness, emotional illness, indifference, sexual perversion or any such like! that is WRONG! Some folks don't need to be having children because of aforementioned problems which remain unresolved. I don't think this thread should expand beyond the question of the proposed legislation but these are all factors that enter into the question of discipline and what mode that discipline should take. We all play it by ear in family dynamics. We all have baggage. We all need to be aware of what is in our baggage and its potential to harm our children. If you have your head on straight and your emotional baggage squared away. Good. If your child needs a swat to get their attention do so but without physical injury to the child. Listen to your child. They will let you know what you need to do. Love them always. If you can't handle it admit it. No shame in that. Find help. Find what works right, in the best interest of the child. And as a footnote. If a child's crying "bothers" you, know that crying is a natural and healthy exercise for a child. They NEED to do it to develope their lungs and tweak their hormone system. If the crying is unnatural or it makes you suspect that something else may be going on, go to a doctor or clinic. If you need a break (and we ALL need a break from time to time) by all means arrange some downtime for yourself. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 09:36 PM (#1943771) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Peace "Peace... "...hitting an infant?" ??? Man, that is hitting below the belt! I am outta here." Gnu, the law being discussed pertained to children three and under. It's a scary thought to me that humans would need such a law in the first place. However, I guess some folks in California figure a law of that nature is necessary. I have no idea whether or not Clifford Olsen was spanked as a child or not. Or Hitler, or bin Laden. But one thing I do know is that YOU wouldn't hit a child fer krissake. If I have offended you or implied I thought that of you, please accept my sincere apology. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 09:56 PM (#1943796) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall Hitler was ,in fact, beaten by his father. I've known plenty of adults my age who were beaten as kids, and none of them turned out worth a damn. No amount of anecdotal evidence will convince me otherwise. Beaten children grow up to be beaters. Sexually abused kids grow up to be abusers. There is a mountain of evidence to prove it. Every child is born with a clean slate, and there are no "bad" kids; they are made that way by failed parenting. |
|
21 Jan 07 - 11:36 PM (#1943891) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag Nothing like a hasty generalization to cap off all dialogue kendall! Cite your evidence and condemn all those who may have suffered to an abysmal Hell. If no anecdotal evidence will convince you why do you use anecdotal evidence to try to convince me? |
|
22 Jan 07 - 12:04 AM (#1943912) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST,Diesel My Child is tough, I mean that, on both myself and my wife - he was tough bringing up. At 3+1/2 he ran ahead of me in a shopping aisle - straight out toward a main road where the buses drive. Calling and shouting for him to stop meant nothing - and I have a loud voice when I need, it was his 'fun' to ignore us. I ran and caught him about a metre or two from the road edge - he may have been in the process of stopping - I wasn't ! My hand met his bum as I lifted him - and I apologise to no-one for this. Either instant punishment then and there for what he nearly done - the consequence of him under a bus is a much harder alternative. He has gotten a few smaller slaps on the bum, or the hands over the years. And I do wish I never did that.Yet on reflection - I wouldn't consider it OTT, but still regret I ever felt I had to. He's now 6, I love him to bits, he's still very very tough, but not half as bold. And no he doesn't need a slap anymore, now a stern 'Stop' or even a little 'cough-cough' is sufficient. His sister is now nearly 3 - hasn't ever needed the same approach - pure different personality. And that is where it comes from - how far beyond the edge the child pushes balanced with how much the parent tries. Good parents struggle to get it right, and every parent/child is different. No legislation will ever get it right - so with existing laws for obvious harm - leave it alone. 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 |
|
22 Jan 07 - 01:26 AM (#1943953) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bert ...A smack on the bum is better than watching a kid overturn a heater, or to run into the street while you yell at them to stop... Well said kendall! They will push the limit until they get that little pat on the butt, and it's a thousand times better than days of brainwashing for the smallest infraction, believe me. I'm not surprised your kids turned out fine, bet they love you lots. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 01:28 AM (#1943955) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: dianavan "Gnu, the law being discussed pertained to children three and under." Thanks for the clarification, Peace. The only time a child under three may need a spank is if he/she is repeatedly doing something unsafe like hitting their forehead against a window pane. I know that sounds strange but... If all else fails... I pretty much agree with what slag has said. kendall I disagree with your statement, " Beaten children grow up to be beaters. Sexually abused kids grow up to be abusers. There is a mountain of evidence to prove it." Most abusers and beaters have a history of abuse; but not all abusers and beaters continue the abuse. Some people do learn not to pass it on. I repeat, a swat or a spank is not abuse. Its just politics to make more laws on this issue while we sit back and turn a blind eye to real abuse, like sexual abuse and beatings. Do something about that instead of focussing on parents who are doing their best to curb anti-social behaviour and behaviour that might endanger their lives. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 06:45 AM (#1944075) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: MBSLynne I didn't really intend to get into this debate but..... My children are not my property, but it is my job, as a parent, to look after and protect them while they are too small to do it themselves, to make sure they are healthy, clean and loved; to make sure they know how to take their place in society and behave with kindness, courtesy and decency; to be able (and as soon as possible) to look after themselves. If I feel, along the way, that a smack is necessary for my job to be done right, then I WILL smack them and I do not believe it is anybody's right, nor anybody's business, to tell me how I should perform my job. The fact that part of the job is to keep them healthy and loved (and that means mentally healthy too) immediately precludes beatings, hitting with an object, or even smacking on a regular basis, since that would damage them, mentally, if not physically. An occasional smack will not harm them and may be necessary, but it's up to me to judge that Love Lynne |
|
22 Jan 07 - 07:00 AM (#1944087) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: John MacKenzie Well said Lynne, so many parents think that because they can put up with their ill behaved little monsters, we should also be expected to do so. BTW Kendall, it's nice to know I'm not worth a damn! Giok |
|
22 Jan 07 - 07:19 AM (#1944098) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bernard In answer to GUEST 06:44 PM who claims ANY smack is 'redefined abuse'. I hope you've read subsequent posts which show how irresponsible you sound. Allowing a child to play with fire or run into the street when a 'short sharp shock' will prevent it is also a form of abuse. Which is preferable? A good parent knows where to draw the line, and by the same token, their children know where that line is. It's easy to be pompous and claim that a great big adult is abusing a tiny little child, but that is fatuous and being used for effect. Nobody seriously believes such wild accusations!! A tiny child will accept a light tap on the hand as a symbolic of a real slap - the child isn't hurt or abused, but knows he/she has crossed a line. In the ideal world this would not ever be necessary, but this is far from an ideal world. The real problem is those who abuse for pleasure... Let's not lump conscientious, caring parents in with such animals. We all know where the line is! |
|
22 Jan 07 - 07:33 AM (#1944107) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Liz the Squeak "The only time a child under three may need a spank is if he/she is repeatedly doing something unsafe like hitting their forehead against a window pane. I know that sounds strange but..." Sometimes a spank isn't necessary then. When she was 2, Limpit used to bang her head on the floor in a rage when she didn't get her own way. I let her do it, because the third or fourth time she did it, it was on a concrete floor and she learned the hard way that it wasn't as nice as carpet to bang her head on. She didn't hurt herself much (she wasn't THAT stupid) and she was halfway through her second bash when she paused.. You could see the little wheels go round in her head connecting her bad temper with the head banging and the pain and she stopped and was all smiles again. Sometimes the burnt hand teaches best. She was also a runner - would dash off at every opportunity. I had her on walking reins but they were too short. I bought one of those extending dog leads and clipped that onto the harness. It meant she had about 10' to run before she was brought up short. Now I can barely get her out of my ruddy pockets! LTS |
|
22 Jan 07 - 07:53 AM (#1944115) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bernard Aah, Liz, exactly. The responsible parent knows best. ;o) |
|
22 Jan 07 - 08:04 AM (#1944128) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Liz the Squeak Bernard - you've met me and yet you still call me 'responsible'?!!! LTS |
|
22 Jan 07 - 08:15 AM (#1944142) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Strollin' Johnny dianavan and Lynne - very well balanced opinions, I'm with you! Kendall - your kid's right, you ARE a great guy, I have the good fortune to know you personally and you have my sincere respect. But I also think you have been very fortunate with your family, and that good fortune has served to reinforce your views (and of course I respect your right to have and express those views). If things had gone the other way with one or more of your kids, I'm certain you'd see it another way. Pax mate! S:0) |
|
22 Jan 07 - 08:47 AM (#1944190) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST,Shimrod I really, really hate the idea of hitting kids - or anyone, for that matter! But I have come to the sad conclusion that some people only understand the threat of force and it is the only way that their anti-social proclivities can be deterred. Also, especially in a school situation, it's only the threat of instant retribution that seems to work. I would hate to be a teacher in one of today's schools in which some kids seem to be completely out of control. On the other hand I remember my own school days in which some teachers used their power to hit wisely, and were able to control their classes with the absolute minimum of force, whilst others were just sadistic bastards who seemed to really enjoy hitting kids. Sadly it would seem that if you give some people any power at all they will abuse it. I think that this dilemma is a very profound one and our society has no idea how to cope with it. At the moment all we have, as with most ethical questions, is thousands of people jumping on the 'holier than thou bandwagon' and out-competing each other to scream, "hitting people is wrong!!". Of course it's wrong, in most cases, but is it wrong in all cases? |
|
22 Jan 07 - 09:12 AM (#1944208) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall Giok, don't missunderstand me. I said I have known kids who were beaten and abused..I that is. Personal experience. Thats not to say that ALL kids who were beaten will gtrow up to be beaters, but there is a damn good chance of it. My father was a drunk. I have 4 brothers who have or have had a problem with booze. I am the one exception. So does that mean that one in 5 will grow up booze free? 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. Now, let's be clear here; There are cases where a stubborn child needs more than to be yelled at, and a smack on the bum gets their attention. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about BEATING children, and I find it hard to believe that any of the group that comes here is a beater. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 09:30 AM (#1944223) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bernard Liz - what can I say...?? Benefit of the doubt...?!! ;o) |
|
22 Jan 07 - 10:33 AM (#1944281) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Strollin' Johnny Nice post Kendall. Cleared some points up (for me at least). Cheers, S:0) |
|
22 Jan 07 - 11:04 AM (#1944311) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Wesley S I'm in the no spank camp. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 11:46 AM (#1944371) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST I was beaten across the back and rear with belts, yard sticks and hands on minimum a dozen occasions before I fought back at the age of 12 and took a knife to my step-dad. (He ran out of the house and that was the last corporal punishment I ever got at home from either mom or him.) In school, I received the strap five or six times that I can recall. Truth is, it never taught me a damned thing except to 'get tough' and just not give a shit about the adult world. However, all it took to make me 'see the light' or 'error of my ways' was a word from my grandfather. He never once raised his hand to me. I thought the world of him, and just a look of disapproval would make me rethink whatever had brought on 'the look'. I have never hit children. Not mine or those of others. Hitting kids is not right IMO. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 12:12 PM (#1944404) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bernard GUEST 11:46... What you claim to have been subjected to is undoubtedly abuse. Sorry about the use of the word 'claim', but I hope you will understand - I'm not trying to trivialise your experiences, believe me. I, too, was 'bullied' by adults. They including my father, who is still alive, and my primary school headmaster who died some years ago. The headmaster used to slap me to 'make me learn my arithmetic and I'd thank him for it one day', and the net result is I'm still hopeless at it - and no, I don't thank him at all. I believe it has made me into a potential bully, but I am able to recognise it and avoid it. I accept that others may not. The difficulty, as has already been said, is 'where do we draw the line?' I don't think we're addressing the 'corporal punishment' issue here, but the parent's right to 'smack', which is a completely different thing. It is very rare that a total ban (on anything) achieves its objective, possibly because it isn't fair to both camps. The big problem is in catching and sorting out the bullies - whose activities will continue despite any legislation. Preventing parents from bringing up their children as they see fit sets a dangerous precedent. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 12:20 PM (#1944411) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST gOVERMENTS ARE REALLY GETTING FAR TO INTUSIVE. tHIS OUGHT TO BE A PRIVATE MATTER. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 12:50 PM (#1944454) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall What should be a private matter, beating children? |
|
22 Jan 07 - 01:04 PM (#1944467) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall Here is an example of my ex wife's expertise with unruly kids. We took in a little girl who had been beaten and sexually abused by her relatives, mainly, her MOTHER! We were having dinner in a nice restaurant, and the child, who was three at the time, went charging up and down the isle bothering people and generally making a nuisance of herself. No amount of talking did a bit of good, so my wife held her and looked directly into her eyes and said "You have a choice, either sit here with us, or, be put into the car and wait for us to finish. Which will it be"? Of course, the child didn't like either option, so she continued to raise hell. Wife took her by the hand and said "Ok, you made your choice." and took her to the car and locked the doors. Where we were sitting we could see the car, otherwise I would have had a real problem with leaving her alone there. About ten minutes later, wife went out and brought the child in. She sat with us and acted like a civilized human from then on. We continued this "choice" thing for the whole time we had her. I was amazed to see just how easy it was for someone who knew what they were doing. Somehow, people get the idea that they automatically know how to raise kids, but that just isn't so. We have to learn. One question to ask yourself is, what is most important here, to get the child to behave without a fuss, or to be in charge and break their spirit by bullying. If winning is more important than teaching by example, go back and read Guest 11:46. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 02:14 PM (#1944555) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bernard Children need to be protected. The Government has the power to intervene where necessary. What we need to avoid is unnecessary intervention... and that's the problem!! Teaching by example is the ideal, but there are rare occasions when it is neither practical nor desirable... "Don't touch that, you'll..."! Maybe a smack is justified? The "choice" thing is very sound - it reinforces good behaviour and penalises bad behaviour. 'Behave, or lose your privileges'. But what happens when all the privileges are gone? There's nothing left to bargain with. I don't have the answer. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 03:07 PM (#1944622) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall The final answer is isolation. It is the ultimate punishment. Time out is a mild form of it, but if that doesn't work, lock them in their room. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 03:09 PM (#1944623) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Scoville The choice thing is great. I do that all the time with my First Day School kids (many of whom are well-practiced at parent/child power struggles). They get A or B--I don't care which, they can choose. If they don't, they get handed back over to their parents, who will either make them sit quietly or take them home. They don't get to do whatever the rest of the kids are doing. They shape up very quickly when everyone else is doing something interesting and they can't because they hit somebody or threw a tantrum and locked horns with me. Furthermore, none of these children are at all afraid of me. Even the most difficult ones rarely give me any trouble any more, and they look for me first thing when they get to meeting. One in particular is a very high-strung, temperamental, needy, little boy and is pretty much an attention sink, but it's paid off very well to go the extra mile with him and has ended a lot of the issues teachers were having with him. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 03:25 PM (#1944635) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: KB in Iowa When we had children we discussed whether to spank or not. We chose not to. The deciding factor for me was when I thought about when I was most likely to spank. It seemed I would be most likely to spank when I was mad which is exactly the wrong time to be hitting a child, no matter how or how hard. I am not strictly anti-spanking, ours was a personal choice. I am uneasy about a law against spanking. Nobody should be hitting babies but a law like this could get messy. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 05:23 PM (#1944755) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST KB - my feelings exactly. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 05:34 PM (#1944775) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Genie Spanking can be as mild and non-traumatic as a little swat on the clothed buttocks or as severe and traumatizing as a bloody beating. Verbal "chastising" can be as mild as a gently "That behavior is not acceptable" or as severe and damaging as "You worthless little piece of sh*t, I'm sorry you were ever born and you will never amount to anything! Now go outside and play in the traffic!" Well, you get the point. People can abuse a child with almost any form of "discipline," and many a child would probably prefer a slap on the butt to being deprived of affection and approval for an extended period or having horrible things said to him/her. Moreover, any 'system' of discipline is ineffective if it's arbitrarily and inconsistently applied. Ironically, I think if there's any age when spanking might be more useful than other forms of discipline, it's during the pre-verbal years. No, I'm not recommending spanking babies. It' generally "overkill," But in the first year or two of a kid's life, you can't ethically withhold food or use "time outs" without risking being MORE abusive than you'd be if you gave the kid a slap on the tush. "Reasoning" with a toddler isn't gonna work. And I think things like yelling "Bad boy!" may do more lasting harm than moderate spanking. The most important point is that you're not going to turn bad parents into decent ones by legally specifying what form their (bad) parenting may take. Yes, the law should step in when parents produce injuries or use "cruel or unusual" punishments, but a total ban on spanking before age 3 seems not only unnecessary but bound to penalize many a reasonably responsible parent. 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. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 05:52 PM (#1944800) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Little Hawk Being given a choice is a hell of a lot better than being screamed at and hit by a parent who can't control his or her own temper when not getting his or her own way. I say this as one who was not given a choice when he was a child, but who was hit, yelled at, humiliated, and verbally intimidated into doing whatever the hell the parent wanted and NOT given any choice about it, and I still bear the scars of it to this day. I would have been delighted to have been given some coherent choices instead, believe me. Then I could have used my intelligence, which was considerable, and made some decisions of my own. That would have been nice. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 06:11 PM (#1944823) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Jim Lad No Spank. Parents should consult with each other long and hard before deferring to me. Who needs monsters when there's plenty of parents to go around? |
|
22 Jan 07 - 06:46 PM (#1944870) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bernard Rather than ban spanking, parents should be given compulsory lessons on parenthood - by experienced parents, not by do-gooders who haven't a clue! Excuse me... must nip out and re-surface the runway. Some pigs are needing flying lessons... |
|
22 Jan 07 - 07:12 PM (#1944903) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST,JTT It's extraordinary how this debate goes. Because *every* time I've seen the debate, people make the same points, and rebut them the same way. It would do more good if people actually looked at the research on the effects of different methods of child rearing. Saying what your own experience was and taking it as a universal rule is about like saying "I've walked across five-storey roofs hundreds of times and I've never fallen off, so it's perfectly safe"! |
|
22 Jan 07 - 07:16 PM (#1944905) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall And what about experienced parents who believe in beatings? |
|
22 Jan 07 - 07:25 PM (#1944909) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Peace Most pro-spanking literature (research) seems to come from 'religious proponents of one form or other'. Most other research indicates that spanking leads to many other disorders. What is not defined to my satisfaction is this: spanking. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 07:35 PM (#1944920) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Becca72 First I will say that there is definitely a difference between "spanking" and "beating". Spanking may not necessarily be that bad...I don't think. That said, I have one parent (Kendall) who in my almost 35 years on this planet has never laid a hand on me for any reason. I love and respect him with all my heart, and I have always been able to talk to him about any subject, knowing that I would get an honest answer, help, advice or whatever it was that I needed. The other parent was (I say was because she suffers from severe dementia now) a bitter, mean-spirited, jealous awful person who would sooner hit us than tell us the time of day. When my sisters and I moved her into assisted living a few years back we found the old metal yard stick that she used to whack us with...you can tell because all the paint is worn off the end that connected with our butts. She is the reason I chose not to have children of my own. I watched my eldest sister turn into her and there is no way in hell I'm going to let that happen to me. I haven't spoken to my mother in several years and even though she's very sick now I just can't feel sorry for her. Karma is a bitch. I have absolutely NO respect for the woman and never have because she didn't earn it. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 07:45 PM (#1944932) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag kendall, I was reacting to the illogicality of that initial post. You made a sweeping generalization "ALL" and then you cited anectodal evidence of some you had known and then turned around and stated that you would not accept anecdotal evidence. Further you stated that you had other evidence but cited none of it. I got your general drift and by and large I agree with you but you certainly did NOT mount a logical argument!! The things done to children usually sink into the deep subconscious and become part of the matrix of pesonality and it is amazing how learned behaviors such as beating or molestation comes out in a given situation. It takes a lot of personal insight, self awareness and work to not take the easy road and follow the paradigm laid down for you in infancy. Most never confront it and many who do need assistance from those in the mental health field. The less some form of corporeal punishment is used, the more significant it becomes. It estabilishes an ultimate line. Unfortunately that is a two-edged sword (so to speak) in that some little ones like to keep butting up against that line to see if it really is there. And so, for consistency's sake, some may feel trapped into continually repeating the punishment. Not so! Get creative! At some point you may even try "reason" with the little tykes. In fact, you should never stop talking to them. Teach them communication. Tell them the truth. Explain things over and over again. A little more gets through each time and some day they WILL thank you for it. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 08:07 PM (#1944949) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Scoville Wait--so everyone who thinks kids shouldn't be spanked is a do-gooder without a clue? Isn't it safe to assume that at least SOME of the lawmakers in question have raised productive, functional children without spanking, too? |
|
22 Jan 07 - 08:55 PM (#1944989) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Genie Guest: "It would do more good if people actually looked at the research on the effects of different methods of child rearing. " Guest, that's what my post was based on. (Plus some common sense -- which is often corroborated by childrearing research findings.) The bulk of research on childrearing practices indicates that consistency of discipline is far more important than specific disciplinary techniques, both in terms of controlling behavior and in terms of producing non-neurotic kids and adults. Another key factor seems to be the parent-child affectional bond. Which is why I made that sarcastic remark about taking a toddler away from a bad old parent who spanks and placing him/her in a foster home where such practices are not used. But again, "spanking" is a term that covers an awfully broad territory. (Especially if the "spankee" has a weight problem, but that's another topic.) ;-D Banning "spanking" is as ridiculous as banning "negative verbal sanctions." The term is way too imprecise. Again, I am not endorsing any form of physical punishment. Just saying the body of research on childrearing does not support the idea that it cannot be used effectively as a disciplinary technique, regardless of when and how and by whom it is used. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 08:58 PM (#1944992) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Peace But the body of research does draw a line between spanking and beating. I'd like a clear definition of 'spanking'. |
|
22 Jan 07 - 09:34 PM (#1945013) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Genie I'd like one too, Peace. Especially when the law gets involved. That said, non-"physical" abuse can be as damaging to a child's psychological development (and maybe even physical health) as "beating" if it's extremely cruel. So can extreme rejection that consists of just withholding attention or affection. OK, I'm not going to draw a direct parallel between rodent and human behavior (even though some of us are rats), but some research on infant mice found that early stimulation had a positive effect on mental and physical development, whether the stimulation was from mild electric shock, sudden temperature change, or fondling the infant mice. The lack of stimulation was the most negative condition. I don't think it's much of a stretch from common sense to think that a child who is provided a lot of stimulation and contact with caregivers, including an occasional mild spanking, may be better off than one who is deprived of close human contact and kept in a severely restrictive environment. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 05:30 AM (#1945235) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Liz the Squeak You can shout, yell, scream, declare all you like that 'I will never do *such and such* to my child like my parents did to me'... but rest assured, one day you will do something to your child and find you HAVE turned into that parent. If you can recognise this moment for what it is, stop your own behaviour and go get professional help, then you are a good parent. If you cannot recognise yourself in your child and remember how frustrating it was for YOU to be ignored, misunderstood or abused, then the pattern will continue down the generations until someone DOES decide not to accept it and says stop. Remember how once upon a time everyone thought it was OK to own another human being and make them work for you for a pittance? How it used to be OK to beat your wife? How it was accepted behaviour to mistreat people because their skin was a different colour? How all this was justified because that's how your father and his father and his father's father had done it?? That behaviour had to stop somewhere. In this day and age, there is no excuse for excessive beating or abuse of any person, regardless of race, gender, sexual preference or age. It is true that the burnt hand teaches best, we learn by experience. It's not true that a 'good slap now and then never hurt me as a kid'... I was slapped as a child, usually by my father, mother only threatened me with him. When his slaps started getting harder, more frequent and with a fist, I hit back and he never touched me again. I admit I have spanked Limpit, when she was younger and deserved it. When I found I was doing it more often for less reasons, I investigated my own behaviour first and found it was me that had the problem. From what I can see of her behaviour (pretty appalling at times...) spanking her hasn't made any difference, so we don't do it any more. When she was 2, it stopped her biting people and trying to get in the washing machine because she was too young to understand the consquences of those actions. Now she's nearly 11 (ye Gods!!) it is not an appropriate punishment because her communication skills mean we should be able to reason out the argument and make ourselves understood. It's US who have to learn to sit and listen and work out what the problem really is. I'd far rather reassure her with a cuddle and a conversation than slap her into silence. LTS |
|
23 Jan 07 - 05:59 AM (#1945254) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bernard Scoville - my comment above about 'do-gooders who haven't a clue' did not specifically refer to the anti-spanking lobby. You've read something into my words that I did not say. Quite the contrary - my remarks are tempered by many years of primary school teaching. In the 1980s I had classes of over forty nine-year-old children, and such 'do-gooders who haven't a clue' were being paid by the local education authority as 'advisers'. These people would go into a classroom and try to tell the teacher how to organise their classroom. Yet these people had no formal teacher-training, and had no first hand experience of teaching. They were a waste of space in many cases, and there for political reasons rather than educational. That is the thinking behind my remark - parents are in a better position to advise other parents tempered with experience. Rather than waste effort on banning smacking, I believe parent training would be more useful and effective. I could plainly see the results of poor parenting when I was teaching. Some children were constantly talking, and it emerged their parents rarely chatted with them at home. Children who were aggressive often had aggressive parents... My own daughter (29) has two children of her own now, aged 6 and 3. She is not a violent person, and was not brought up ruled by violence. She is a very caring Mum, and makes sure they know what constitutes acceptable behaviour, and what does not. Even so, they will push the boundaries, as they are intelligent, inquisitive children. It is impossible for anyone to comment accurately about circumstances they neither know nor understand. That is why educating the parents is the correct answer, I believe. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 08:05 AM (#1945338) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: gnu After some reflection, I realize that my choice of words, "any child of any age", was, at best, a very poor choice. My apologies to Peace. I guess I just figured that "child" means an individual that is mentally aware of what s/he is doing and continues poor behaviour, despite reasoning with s/he, and a warning of punishment, whatever that punishment might be, with physical punishment being a last resort. As an example, my great nephew, at the age of five years old, at a family gathering, began kicking me in the shins because it was great fun. The first time, I told him not to it as it was impolite and it hurt. Ten minutes later, after another sneak attack, I told him not to do it again, and I warned him I would hit him back. Same thing a few minutes later, so, as he turned to flee, I flicked his ear lobe with my middle finger. No damage done, but it does smart. His mother was rather upset. I said to her something like, "You had better teach him not to kick people because when he comes home from school this fall with a black eye and a fat lip after kicking the wrong kid, it will be your fault." Anyway, sorry Peace. I'll leave youse all to it... again. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 08:16 AM (#1945347) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST I get very nervous every time a government tries to control people in the area of family. I do not believe in hitting children but outlawing it will not stop it. It will simply lead to hiding it away. Whenever are we going to learn that outlawing things simply makes them illegal, it does not stop them happening. We need to look at the issue of parenting skills, not the result of not having any skills. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 08:16 AM (#1945349) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST,redhorse at work The difference between spanking (UK "smacking") and beating couldn't be simpler. When I do it it's spanking, when someone I disapprove of does it it's beating nick |
|
23 Jan 07 - 09:52 AM (#1945440) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: MBSLynne Guest, you are absolutely right. Also, it's a fairly unenforcable law and we are getting more and more of them. The more unenforceable laws the government passes the less people will respect the law. Love Lynne |
|
23 Jan 07 - 10:05 AM (#1945453) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: dianavan "You had better teach him not to kick people because when he comes home from school this fall with a black eye and a fat lip after kicking the wrong kid, it will be your fault." - a very good point. Children need to learn that other people have boundaries. I had a neighbor who never spanked. In fact she never held that kid accountable for anything. He would do things like hit another kid over the head with a Tonka truck and laugh. He grew into a self-centered adult with no empathy. I also knew a parent who used a chair in the corner as punishment for his hyper son. The kid had to face the wall and not move. It looked like torture to me. I also wonder about the long term effects of a leash (some people still use them). Seems to me it might impede the development of motor skills. In any event, its such a broad question that it is best left to the parent unless the spankings are severe and with such regularity that it constitutes abuse. I don't see how such a law could be enforced without neighbors turning on neighbors. Even then, if 'the authorities' can't find foster homes for the kids who have definitely been abused, what are they going to do with those who are spanked? Education is the answer, not legislation. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 10:15 AM (#1945468) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall Spanking = no more than two smacks on the bum with an open palm. Beating = Using an implement of any kind, or smacking more than twice. That is, of course, my own definition. Slag, I disagree. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 10:58 AM (#1945522) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: jacqui.c My parents never, in my memory laid a hand on me. However, both were verbally abusive and neglectful the vast majority of the time. On a couple of occasions, when I was about 10 or 11 my mother packed my baby brother into his pram and walked out on me and my other brother when we had done something to upset her, telling us that she was going back to her mother's and we could explain to my father why. She would stay out for an hour or two, leaving Mike and me in real fear of our father's reaction. I grew up feeling unloved and worthless, ended up pregnant at 17 because someone showed me some affection. I was estranged from my parents for a few years and, more recently, estranged from my mother for about 20 years because there was no love there and she still tended to be abusive, even when I was an adult. With my own children I occasionally spanked them, particularly when I was the only parent after my divorce. My daughter, in particular, could be very defiant and needed definite boundaries set. I did realise that I was tending to scream at them, in the same way as my parents had screamed at me. I tried to tone that down once I became aware of the problem. The difference was, I always told my children how much I loved them, showed interest in what they were doing and tried to give them confidence in their own abilities. They have both grown up to be good people who have shown their love for me on many occasions. Both have a child and have used smacks occasionally. However, they both make sure that their child knows it is loved and work to build a good relationship while the child is small. I think that, if you can avoid it, then don't spank. IMHO it is more important to inculcate a sense of worth into any child and to make them feel that someone really cares for them. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 11:36 AM (#1945554) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall Trying to raise children by yelling at them is like trying to drive a car by blowing the horn. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 11:40 AM (#1945562) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bernard Jacqui, that's probably the most important point anyone has made so far. My own daughter was insulted by my ex-wife a few years ago (in her early twenties) by a suggestion that she was 'a mistake'. Whilst it's true her birth hadn't been planned, the suggestion seemed to be that she wasn't wanted, either. Fortunately I was luckier with my choice of words when she told me what her mother had said - I said 'The best things often happen by accident'... it raised a lovely big smile. Yes, words can be as abusive as violence - often more so, as the effects are more far reaching. The story goes that a man told lies about his neighbour. He quickly regretted what he had said, and went to the Wise Old Woman for advice on how to put things right. She told him to fill a carrier bag with feathers and take it to her, which he did. She then asked him to go to the top of a nearby hill, empty the bag into the wind, then return with the empty bag, which he did. She then said 'Now go and bring back every one of those feathers..." |
|
23 Jan 07 - 12:08 PM (#1945604) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Bernard Yes, Kendall - one thing that has always irritated me is the way people shout rather than walking an extra couple of yards. Adults do it to other adults, too... It seems so silly. Shouting from a small distance instead of walking over and taking charge... and then wondering why the child ignores you. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 12:08 PM (#1945607) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Genie Liz said, "When she [Limpit] was 2, it [a slap] stopped her biting people and trying to get in the washing machine because she was too young to understand the consquences of those actions. Now she's nearly 11 (ye Gods!!) it is not an appropriate punishment because her communication skills mean we should be able to reason out the argument and make ourselves understood." Excellent example. When a child is too young for verbal instruction to be effective, sometimes "aversion training" may be the only viable way of helping them learn to avoid dangerous situations (since you are unlikely to be able to physically guard them every second). Sometimes this is done using "natural consequences," such as letting the kid pull the cat's tail and letting the cat deliver its own lesson. But obviously letting a toddler learn everything that way can be perilous. This is why I find it odd that a law would prohibit spanking under the age of 3. Let me repeat that unnecessary and excessive force should not be sanctioned, nor beating permitted, regardless of age. But if a slap on the wrist, or on the backside, is ever a very useful teaching technique, it's probably in the first 2 or 3 years. After that, if you can't keep a kid's behavior within reasonable boundaries by reasoning, time outs, modelling, reinforcement of desired behavior, etc., you've got real childrearing problems and using physical punishment is not likely to make things better. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 12:25 PM (#1945625) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Mrs.Duck I find it strange that people want to put an age limit on smacking. I have on various occasions smacked all my children but as they grew older and therefore more able to be reasoned with I never felt the need. Sending a two or three year old to their room would to me seem far more cruel than a smack on the bum. A smack is a short sharp shock and should not be confused with beating where the purpose is to hurt! |
|
23 Jan 07 - 12:42 PM (#1945648) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST In any civilized society, Adults are not allowed to hit other adults Children are not allowed to hit other children Children are not allowed to hit adults Need I go on to ask why children sometimes get confused? I've heard some of the wierdest people claim that they were smacked "and it didn't do me any harm". |
|
23 Jan 07 - 02:50 PM (#1945781) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Mrs.Duck I would never claim that being smacked 'didn't do me any harm' I would state categorically that it did me good as it taught me to grow up to be a caring responsible adult who sees it as important that I bring my children up in the same loving way my parents brought me. Smacking is not hitting and in any civilised society parents should be responsible for educating their children responsibly. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 02:53 PM (#1945785) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: KB in Iowa 100 |
|
23 Jan 07 - 03:39 PM (#1945835) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: MBSLynne 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 |
|
23 Jan 07 - 04:15 PM (#1945865) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall If you smack a standing child on the bum, you can easily damage their spine. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 05:40 PM (#1945944) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag 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. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 05:57 PM (#1945966) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Liz the Squeak "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 |
|
23 Jan 07 - 07:27 PM (#1946074) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall It's too bad that good judgement can't be taught. |
|
23 Jan 07 - 08:41 PM (#1946150) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Desdemona 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 |
|
23 Jan 07 - 11:05 PM (#1946205) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Genie 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 |
|
24 Jan 07 - 03:02 AM (#1946301) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: 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. 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 |
|
24 Jan 07 - 07:30 AM (#1946463) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Big Al Whittle 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. |
|
24 Jan 07 - 07:40 AM (#1946467) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall 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. |
|
24 Jan 07 - 08:38 AM (#1946519) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Desdemona 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 |
|
24 Jan 07 - 12:17 PM (#1946711) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST "Smacking is not hitting" according to Mrs Duck That's probably the most ridiculous denial of abuse I've ever heard. Effin' brilliant! |
|
24 Jan 07 - 01:03 PM (#1946769) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Mrs.Duck Hitting implies violence and therefore abuse. Smacking as I view it is neither! |
|
24 Jan 07 - 01:38 PM (#1946810) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Ebbie 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 |
|
24 Jan 07 - 01:40 PM (#1946813) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Scoville 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. |
|
24 Jan 07 - 03:10 PM (#1946903) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Cluin "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. |
|
24 Jan 07 - 03:13 PM (#1946908) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Donuel Would anyone here be surprised if George W never got a spanking? |
|
24 Jan 07 - 04:18 PM (#1946979) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall 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. |
|
24 Jan 07 - 04:23 PM (#1946980) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Cluin Can you send Bush for a time-out now? |
|
24 Jan 07 - 04:35 PM (#1946992) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag 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. |
|
24 Jan 07 - 06:02 PM (#1947079) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Liz the Squeak 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 |
|
25 Jan 07 - 03:00 AM (#1947343) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: MBSLynne 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 |
|
25 Jan 07 - 03:56 AM (#1947358) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST,of 12.42 and 12.17 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. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 05:40 AM (#1947403) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Mo the caller 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. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 05:58 AM (#1947414) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Liz the Squeak 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 |
|
25 Jan 07 - 06:16 AM (#1947427) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Jim Lad 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. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 07:48 AM (#1947479) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: MBSLynne 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 |
|
25 Jan 07 - 08:37 AM (#1947521) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall 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. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 12:11 PM (#1947721) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Jim Lad 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. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 03:32 PM (#1947927) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: BaldEagle2 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. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 03:37 PM (#1947936) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST,heric Sorry, can't agree with that middle thing you said. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 03:58 PM (#1947948) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag 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. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 05:56 PM (#1948040) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Liz the Squeak Shame that what was a sensible, well reasoned and dignified discussion has deteriorated into name calling and personal abuse. LTS |
|
25 Jan 07 - 06:05 PM (#1948044) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Jim Lad 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? |
|
25 Jan 07 - 07:11 PM (#1948095) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Liz the Squeak Better a loving slap than a brain damaging shake. LTS |
|
25 Jan 07 - 07:18 PM (#1948105) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Cluin Some people don't think there's a difference between a spanking and a beating. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 07:49 PM (#1948148) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall 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. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 09:37 PM (#1948212) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag 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. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 10:23 PM (#1948233) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: BaldEagle2 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. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 10:55 PM (#1948253) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Cluin I know what I know and I know I'm right. Everyone who disagrees with me needs psychiatric help. |
|
25 Jan 07 - 11:33 PM (#1948278) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Jim Lad 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!" |
|
26 Jan 07 - 02:25 AM (#1948321) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag Thank you Cluin! Finally, someone understands completely the true force of logic!!! |
|
26 Jan 07 - 02:53 AM (#1948339) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: MBSLynne 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 |
|
26 Jan 07 - 02:59 AM (#1948344) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Liz the Squeak Right twice in one week... Whoo hoo!! I always knew it was so! LTS |
|
26 Jan 07 - 08:27 AM (#1948551) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall Slag, I'm well familiar with the meaning of metaphor. I also recongize snobbery when I see it. |
|
26 Jan 07 - 09:24 AM (#1948602) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Jim Lad "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. |
|
26 Jan 07 - 11:16 AM (#1948709) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: BaldEagle2 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. :) |
|
26 Jan 07 - 12:31 PM (#1948802) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Greg B 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? |
|
26 Jan 07 - 12:39 PM (#1948810) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall Another opinion noted. I suppose now you will try to tell me that pedophiles and homosexuals can be "cured"? |
|
26 Jan 07 - 12:42 PM (#1948816) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Nick 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) |
|
26 Jan 07 - 12:57 PM (#1948838) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall Excellent point, Nick. |
|
26 Jan 07 - 01:11 PM (#1948852) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall 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? |
|
26 Jan 07 - 01:24 PM (#1948862) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST,Seiri Omaar May I politely suggest that Greg and Kendall find some statistics or viable sources to support their claims? Thank you. |
|
26 Jan 07 - 01:26 PM (#1948866) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST,heric 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 |
|
26 Jan 07 - 01:27 PM (#1948868) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall 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. |
|
26 Jan 07 - 01:36 PM (#1948876) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall 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". |
|
26 Jan 07 - 01:41 PM (#1948882) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Jim Lad 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. |
|
26 Jan 07 - 01:57 PM (#1948896) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Desdemona I like Nick's philosophy: "catch them being GOOD!" ~D |
|
26 Jan 07 - 02:34 PM (#1948935) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: jacqui.c 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. |
|
26 Jan 07 - 04:34 PM (#1949055) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Greg B 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. |
|
26 Jan 07 - 05:13 PM (#1949086) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Cluin Were you ever spanked as a child, kendall? |
|
26 Jan 07 - 05:56 PM (#1949119) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag 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? |
|
26 Jan 07 - 06:18 PM (#1949143) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Jim Lad 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! |
|
26 Jan 07 - 06:36 PM (#1949166) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Cluin 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? |
|
26 Jan 07 - 07:29 PM (#1949219) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall 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. |
|
26 Jan 07 - 07:32 PM (#1949223) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: kendall One last thing, to answer Cluin, no I was never spanked, and I do not spank. |
|
26 Jan 07 - 08:06 PM (#1949244) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag ! |
|
26 Jan 07 - 08:15 PM (#1949249) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: BaldEagle2 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. |
|
27 Jan 07 - 05:40 AM (#1949430) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Nick 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!) |
|
27 Jan 07 - 06:53 AM (#1949467) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Cluin 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. |
|
27 Jan 07 - 11:14 AM (#1949640) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Ruth Archer 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." |
|
27 Jan 07 - 11:53 AM (#1949682) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Genie Donuel asked "Would anyone here be surprised if George W never got a spanking?" No. Except maybe from his mates in Skull And Bones. |
|
27 Jan 07 - 01:42 PM (#1949777) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: Slag 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! |
|
28 Jan 07 - 10:33 AM (#1950370) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: BaldEagle2 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. |
|
28 Jan 07 - 11:15 AM (#1950395) Subject: RE: BS: Spank, or No-Spank? From: GUEST,Parent 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. |