spanking as abuse?
gruvystarchild
'There is a great
difference in abuse and in a parent discliplining their child with a
spanking,
though.
Myranda"
Is there really?
It's a mild form of violence, true, but that doesn't make it peaceful
or nonviolent nonetheless.
Hitting is hitting. Call it what it is. The adult can't do it to
another adult or they'd have the cops called on them for sure.
It's ILLEGAL for an adult to hit another adult. But ok for parents to
hit? That's all spanking is.
NO, I don't think children should be removed from their parents over
spanking. I was spanked and felt loved and safe and all that, but it
was still wrong. Fortunately for me, my parents had HUGE regrets over
ever spanking me and apologized profusely and sent me books on
positive parenting ad nauseum.
My Dad will never forgive himself fully I don't think.
I don't think my Mom ever did either.
Just because it's a mild form of abuse, doesn't make it right.
Just because you are desensitized to other parents hitting their
children, doesn't make it ok either.
I get physically ill, sick to my stomache when I see children being
hit.
Ren
difference in abuse and in a parent discliplining their child with a
spanking,
though.
Myranda"
Is there really?
It's a mild form of violence, true, but that doesn't make it peaceful
or nonviolent nonetheless.
Hitting is hitting. Call it what it is. The adult can't do it to
another adult or they'd have the cops called on them for sure.
It's ILLEGAL for an adult to hit another adult. But ok for parents to
hit? That's all spanking is.
NO, I don't think children should be removed from their parents over
spanking. I was spanked and felt loved and safe and all that, but it
was still wrong. Fortunately for me, my parents had HUGE regrets over
ever spanking me and apologized profusely and sent me books on
positive parenting ad nauseum.
My Dad will never forgive himself fully I don't think.
I don't think my Mom ever did either.
Just because it's a mild form of abuse, doesn't make it right.
Just because you are desensitized to other parents hitting their
children, doesn't make it ok either.
I get physically ill, sick to my stomache when I see children being
hit.
Ren
Myranda
The definition of abuse is so wide, and can mean so many different things, but you made some good points here. I've never considered it abuse, and neither do most laws and families. Many doctors promote it. So I think legally, it is not abuse. Personally, I'll have to think on it more. I suspect I feel that light swats on the bottom are NOT abuse, while licks with a belt on a naked backside are.
Myranda
Is there really?
It's a mild form of violence, true, but that doesn't make it peaceful
or nonviolent nonetheless.
Hitting is hitting. Call it what it is. The adult can't do it to
another adult or they'd have the cops called on them for sure.
It's ILLEGAL for an adult to hit another adult. But ok for parents to
hit? That's all spanking is.
NO, I don't think children should be removed from their parents over
spanking. I was spanked and felt loved and safe and all that, but it
was still wrong. Fortunately for me, my parents had HUGE regrets over
ever spanking me and apologized profusely and sent me books on
positive parenting ad nauseum.
My Dad will never forgive himself fully I don't think.
I don't think my Mom ever did either.
Just because it's a mild form of abuse, doesn't make it right.
Just because you are desensitized to other parents hitting their
children, doesn't make it ok either.
I get physically ill, sick to my stomache when I see children being
hit.
Ren
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Myranda
Is there really?
It's a mild form of violence, true, but that doesn't make it peaceful
or nonviolent nonetheless.
Hitting is hitting. Call it what it is. The adult can't do it to
another adult or they'd have the cops called on them for sure.
It's ILLEGAL for an adult to hit another adult. But ok for parents to
hit? That's all spanking is.
NO, I don't think children should be removed from their parents over
spanking. I was spanked and felt loved and safe and all that, but it
was still wrong. Fortunately for me, my parents had HUGE regrets over
ever spanking me and apologized profusely and sent me books on
positive parenting ad nauseum.
My Dad will never forgive himself fully I don't think.
I don't think my Mom ever did either.
Just because it's a mild form of abuse, doesn't make it right.
Just because you are desensitized to other parents hitting their
children, doesn't make it ok either.
I get physically ill, sick to my stomache when I see children being
hit.
Ren
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
gruvystarchild
"I suspect I feel that light
swats on the bottom are NOT abuse, while licks with a belt on a naked
backside
are.
Myranda"
Personally, I don't know people that only use light swats on the
bottom and never swat a bit hard.
How hard is a "light swat"? Does it hurt?
If not, is it necessary?
I don't think a "light swat" would do anything to promote family
peace, nor would it be a sufficient detterant in a home where
punishment is used.
So if it is unecessary, why do it? If it hurts, then it's back to the
hitting issue again.
And hitting people to solve problems is WRONG. Especially when a
bigger, stronger person is using it on a smaller, more defenseless
person.
I see spanking as not only a non-creative way to accomplish what you
want, but hugely lacking in self control.
Is that the example a parent wants for their child?
I stand by my view that any form of spanking is abusive. Not to the
point that a child should be removed of course, but certainly to the
point that the person should learn some better skills and quit doing
damage to the parent/child relationship.
Because any form of physical punishment, any form of punishment
actually, damages the trust and the peace of the relationship.
The best thing as you ponder this, is to ask yourself if it would be
a good way for a husband to treat a wife. If it isn't, then it's
probably not a good idea for a parent to do to the child.
Ren
swats on the bottom are NOT abuse, while licks with a belt on a naked
backside
are.
Myranda"
Personally, I don't know people that only use light swats on the
bottom and never swat a bit hard.
How hard is a "light swat"? Does it hurt?
If not, is it necessary?
I don't think a "light swat" would do anything to promote family
peace, nor would it be a sufficient detterant in a home where
punishment is used.
So if it is unecessary, why do it? If it hurts, then it's back to the
hitting issue again.
And hitting people to solve problems is WRONG. Especially when a
bigger, stronger person is using it on a smaller, more defenseless
person.
I see spanking as not only a non-creative way to accomplish what you
want, but hugely lacking in self control.
Is that the example a parent wants for their child?
I stand by my view that any form of spanking is abusive. Not to the
point that a child should be removed of course, but certainly to the
point that the person should learn some better skills and quit doing
damage to the parent/child relationship.
Because any form of physical punishment, any form of punishment
actually, damages the trust and the peace of the relationship.
The best thing as you ponder this, is to ask yourself if it would be
a good way for a husband to treat a wife. If it isn't, then it's
probably not a good idea for a parent to do to the child.
Ren
Myranda
Personally, I don't know people that only use light swats on the
bottom and never swat a bit hard.
** I can't know for sure since I don't live with them, but I try not to doubt what I'm told.
How hard is a "light swat"?
** Lighter than playing "punch buggies", for sure!
Does it hurt?
** nope.
If not, is it necessary?
** Never. But it obviously serves some purpose to the ones who do it, or they wouldn't continue doing it, right?
I don't think a "light swat" would do anything to promote family
peace, nor would it be a sufficient detterant in a home where
punishment is used.
** Agreed!!!
So if it is unecessary, why do it? If it hurts, then it's back to the
hitting issue again.
And hitting people to solve problems is WRONG.
** I don't think parents look at it as a way to solve problems, but rather a punishment when the child doesn't follow the rules. Most people see these two things as completely seperate - "it wouldn't be a problem if he had listened to me".
Especially when a
bigger, stronger person is using it on a smaller, more defenseless
person.
I see spanking as not only a non-creative way to accomplish what you
want, but hugely lacking in self control.
Is that the example a parent wants for their child?
I stand by my view that any form of spanking is abusive. Not to the
point that a child should be removed of course, but certainly to the
point that the person should learn some better skills and quit doing
damage to the parent/child relationship.
Because any form of physical punishment, any form of punishment
actually, damages the trust and the peace of the relationship.
The best thing as you ponder this, is to ask yourself if it would be
a good way for a husband to treat a wife. If it isn't, then it's
probably not a good idea for a parent to do to the child.
Ren
** OK, I'm not getting into wives who like spankings! <eg>
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
bottom and never swat a bit hard.
** I can't know for sure since I don't live with them, but I try not to doubt what I'm told.
How hard is a "light swat"?
** Lighter than playing "punch buggies", for sure!
Does it hurt?
** nope.
If not, is it necessary?
** Never. But it obviously serves some purpose to the ones who do it, or they wouldn't continue doing it, right?
I don't think a "light swat" would do anything to promote family
peace, nor would it be a sufficient detterant in a home where
punishment is used.
** Agreed!!!
So if it is unecessary, why do it? If it hurts, then it's back to the
hitting issue again.
And hitting people to solve problems is WRONG.
** I don't think parents look at it as a way to solve problems, but rather a punishment when the child doesn't follow the rules. Most people see these two things as completely seperate - "it wouldn't be a problem if he had listened to me".
Especially when a
bigger, stronger person is using it on a smaller, more defenseless
person.
I see spanking as not only a non-creative way to accomplish what you
want, but hugely lacking in self control.
Is that the example a parent wants for their child?
I stand by my view that any form of spanking is abusive. Not to the
point that a child should be removed of course, but certainly to the
point that the person should learn some better skills and quit doing
damage to the parent/child relationship.
Because any form of physical punishment, any form of punishment
actually, damages the trust and the peace of the relationship.
The best thing as you ponder this, is to ask yourself if it would be
a good way for a husband to treat a wife. If it isn't, then it's
probably not a good idea for a parent to do to the child.
Ren
** OK, I'm not getting into wives who like spankings! <eg>
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
marji
At 17:17 10/22/02 -0400, Mryanda wrote:
I completely disagree that any "light swats on the bottom" are not
abuse. It is violence. It is a big person being violent towards a little
person. It is a big person communicating - unwittingly - that it is okay
to hit. What is the point of a "light swat on the bottom" other than to
dominate and humiliate. Do you really want your kids to learn that it is
okay to dominate and humiliate other people, especially if they are smaller
and less powerful than you!? If you are angry enough to hit, then you, as
a mature adult, should be able to communicate your anger in meaningful and
nonviolent ways. If you cannot, walking away is the best model for a
kid. "I'm so angry, I cannot talk to you right now" is much more honest
than a "swat on the bottom" and it's much better for a kid to know that
when they are that angry, they can walk away. If you're telling your kid
it's not okay to hit, but hitting them, how confusing is that?
Someone recently asked about anger management for a 5-year-old. I believe
that anyone who feels hitting children (no matter how "lightly") is an
appropriate way to deal with their angry feelings, further explore anger
management for themselves.
Hitting is not okay. It is abuse. It is mean.
I'm done. Back to work.
marji
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>The definition of abuse is so wide, and can mean so many different things,!!!!!
>but you made some good points here. I've never considered it abuse, and
>neither do most laws and families. Many doctors promote it. So I think
>legally, it is not abuse. Personally, I'll have to think on it more. I
>suspect I feel that light swats on the bottom are NOT abuse, while licks
>with a belt on a naked backside are.
>Myranda
I completely disagree that any "light swats on the bottom" are not
abuse. It is violence. It is a big person being violent towards a little
person. It is a big person communicating - unwittingly - that it is okay
to hit. What is the point of a "light swat on the bottom" other than to
dominate and humiliate. Do you really want your kids to learn that it is
okay to dominate and humiliate other people, especially if they are smaller
and less powerful than you!? If you are angry enough to hit, then you, as
a mature adult, should be able to communicate your anger in meaningful and
nonviolent ways. If you cannot, walking away is the best model for a
kid. "I'm so angry, I cannot talk to you right now" is much more honest
than a "swat on the bottom" and it's much better for a kid to know that
when they are that angry, they can walk away. If you're telling your kid
it's not okay to hit, but hitting them, how confusing is that?
Someone recently asked about anger management for a 5-year-old. I believe
that anyone who feels hitting children (no matter how "lightly") is an
appropriate way to deal with their angry feelings, further explore anger
management for themselves.
Hitting is not okay. It is abuse. It is mean.
I'm done. Back to work.
marji
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Myranda
From: marji
I completely disagree that any "light swats on the bottom" are not
abuse. It is violence.
** But by definition, not abuse because it doesn't hurt.
If you're telling your kid
it's not okay to hit, but hitting them, how confusing is that?
Someone recently asked about anger management for a 5-year-old. I believe
that anyone who feels hitting children (no matter how "lightly") is an
appropriate way to deal with their angry feelings, further explore anger
management for themselves.
Hitting is not okay. It is abuse. It is mean.
I'm done. Back to work.
marji
** Um, if this was directed towards me and not just a philosophy in general, rest assured I don't spank!!!
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
I completely disagree that any "light swats on the bottom" are not
abuse. It is violence.
** But by definition, not abuse because it doesn't hurt.
If you're telling your kid
it's not okay to hit, but hitting them, how confusing is that?
Someone recently asked about anger management for a 5-year-old. I believe
that anyone who feels hitting children (no matter how "lightly") is an
appropriate way to deal with their angry feelings, further explore anger
management for themselves.
Hitting is not okay. It is abuse. It is mean.
I'm done. Back to work.
marji
** Um, if this was directed towards me and not just a philosophy in general, rest assured I don't spank!!!
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Tia Leschke
> The definition of abuse is so wide, and can mean so many different things,but you made some good points here. I've never considered it abuse, and
neither do most laws and families. Many doctors promote it. So I think
legally, it is not abuse. Personally, I'll have to think on it more. I
suspect I feel that light swats on the bottom are NOT abuse, while licks
with a belt on a naked backside are.
But an adult lightly swatting another adult on the bottom (without
permission) can be charged. So why is it ok to lightly swat a child on the
bottom? Or is it ok for adults to swat other adults?
Tia
Myranda
From: Tia Leschke
But an adult lightly swatting another adult on the bottom (without
permission) can be charged. So why is it ok to lightly swat a child on the
bottom?
** Because the government says it's ok. <sigh>
Or is it ok for adults to swat other adults?
Tia
** Well, they do. I suppose it's up the swattee whether or not the swatter was in the wrong.
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
But an adult lightly swatting another adult on the bottom (without
permission) can be charged. So why is it ok to lightly swat a child on the
bottom?
** Because the government says it's ok. <sigh>
Or is it ok for adults to swat other adults?
Tia
** Well, they do. I suppose it's up the swattee whether or not the swatter was in the wrong.
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mary Bianco
>From: "gruvystarchild" <starsuncloud@...><<Personally, I don't know people that only use light swats on the bottom
and never swat a bit hard.
How hard is a "light swat"? Does it hurt?
If not, is it necessary?
I don't think a "light swat" would do anything to promote family
peace, nor would it be a sufficient detterant in a home where
punishment is used.
So if it is unecessary, why do it? If it hurts, then it's back to the
hitting issue again.>>
I really did not want in on this one but Ren dragged me in.<bg> Since I've
shared other short comings here with my oldest, I might as well add more
fuel. Well Ren, now you know someone who did use to use light swats on the
butt. Again I have to say, when I knew better, I did better. I grew up being
swatted here and there. A vivid memory is getting slapped across the face
from my mom when I repeated her saying "up your ass!" I never thought it
really damaged me (it did) and also had a husband at the time that believed
in spanking as being no big deal. He had wooden spoons broken on his butt
well into adolescents. He always thought fearing your parents was a good
thing. I could never justify hitting Tara to physically hurt her no matter
how difficult she was. And she was a tough kid to have as a first child. I
never was around kids and had no experience what so ever with them. But,
when Tara wouldn't listen like I thought she should, I would pop her on the
diaper. I can guarantee you it didn't physically hurt her. It got her
attention but at the same time, I'm not saying it didn't harm her. Just not
to physically hurt. I just thought that was the right thing to do and it
never got any harder than that, even when she was out of diapers. It let her
know I was there and I was bigger and she needed to listen to me. Again, I'm
not saying this is a good thing. Just that I did it, and I never hit hard,
or repeatedly spanked as in turning over ones knee and hitting more than
once. Never popped her anywhere but her diaper or butt. Again, not proud,
just glad I learned and sorry I didn't sooner.
Mary B
_________________________________________________________________
Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online
http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/22/02 5:44:54 PM Central Daylight Time,
myrandab@... writes:
far I have come to understand, from you, that it is okay to hit children, if
its just a swat, but not by using a belt (or other device, spoon, switch...)
And that you shouldn't interfere with another parent who is using this method
of discipline on their child because you might not know the circumstances,
and you can't really gauge how hard someone is hitting another. But that you
don't, well only sometimes, swat children. And you would or wouldn't (?) call
authorities if you saw abuse taking place, because the *government says its
okay*.
I wouldn't hit my husband, or the lady who rang up my groceries. I would go
to jail. But I don't hit them because I would go to jail, I don't hit them
because I have more respect for them. The same goes for my kids. How can it
be okay just because the government says it is so? (the government says lots
of things are or aren't okay to do, but that doesn't make it so.)
It seems to me that on one hand you will say *no don't do ____* but someone
else will rebut with something and you will say *well, no, it is okay to do
____* and then three posts later you will contradict yourself again. This is
a general observation, and not limited to just this particular thread. I
guess I am asking that you clarify your position a little better, and listen
to what others are really saying.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
myrandab@... writes:
>HUH? Myranda, I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to follow this thread. So
>
>
>
> From: Tia Leschke
> But an adult lightly swatting another adult on the bottom (without
> permission) can be charged. So why is it ok to lightly swat a child on
> the
> bottom?
>
> ** Because the government says it's ok. <sigh>
>
> Or is it ok for adults to swat other adults?
> Tia
>
> ** Well, they do. I suppose it's up the swattee whether or not the
> swatter was in the wrong.
> Myranda
far I have come to understand, from you, that it is okay to hit children, if
its just a swat, but not by using a belt (or other device, spoon, switch...)
And that you shouldn't interfere with another parent who is using this method
of discipline on their child because you might not know the circumstances,
and you can't really gauge how hard someone is hitting another. But that you
don't, well only sometimes, swat children. And you would or wouldn't (?) call
authorities if you saw abuse taking place, because the *government says its
okay*.
I wouldn't hit my husband, or the lady who rang up my groceries. I would go
to jail. But I don't hit them because I would go to jail, I don't hit them
because I have more respect for them. The same goes for my kids. How can it
be okay just because the government says it is so? (the government says lots
of things are or aren't okay to do, but that doesn't make it so.)
It seems to me that on one hand you will say *no don't do ____* but someone
else will rebut with something and you will say *well, no, it is okay to do
____* and then three posts later you will contradict yourself again. This is
a general observation, and not limited to just this particular thread. I
guess I am asking that you clarify your position a little better, and listen
to what others are really saying.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Myranda
HUH? Myranda, I have been trying (unsuccessfully) to follow this thread.
** Good, I keep getting lost too! LOL It seems this one basic issue has turned into at least 3 more!
So
far I have come to understand, from you, that it is okay to hit children, if
its just a swat, but not by using a belt (or other device, spoon, switch...)
** No it's not something I'm comfortable with doing, but it is ok with some parents to do so, and it is allowed by law.
And that you shouldn't interfere with another parent who is using this method
of discipline on their child because you might not know the circumstances,
and you can't really gauge how hard someone is hitting another.
** Kind of, pretty much, yes.
But that you
don't, well only sometimes, swat children.
** No, no sometimes to it, I don't.
And you would or wouldn't (?) call
authorities if you saw abuse taking place, because the *government says its
okay*.
** No, I'm saying call if abuse as in seriously hurting a child, not just a light spanking.
I wouldn't hit my husband, or the lady who rang up my groceries. I would go
to jail. But I don't hit them because I would go to jail, I don't hit them
because I have more respect for them. The same goes for my kids. How can it
be okay just because the government says it is so? (the government says lots
of things are or aren't okay to do, but that doesn't make it so.)
** It's not ok to me, or to you, or to a lot of other people. But it's a fact that it is ok to some parents to do this.
It seems to me that on one hand you will say *no don't do ____* but someone
else will rebut with something and you will say *well, no, it is okay to do
____* and then three posts later you will contradict yourself again. This is
a general observation, and not limited to just this particular thread.
** Yes, I know. Things tend to get all twisted around on here, and somehow people think I say things I never did. Like above, you thought I'd hit my kids sometimes? I never mentioned any such thing! I also never said I thought it was OK to hit kids.
I
guess I am asking that you clarify your position a little better, and listen
to what others are really saying.
~Nancy
** Gladly. Here is my position, plain and simple, and without all the OT questions I keep getting thrown. Parents have the right to raise their kids any way they deem fit, excepting abuse. I disagree strongly with a stranger, who does not know circumstances and will likely never see the person/family again, telling people how they should be raising their kids or telling them they are doing whatever-it-is wrong or they should be doing so-and-so instead. It does nothing but anger and/or upset the mother, the child assumes permission has been granted to act whatever way or do whatever the stranger mentions, and all it does is cause problems and chaos and sore feelings. People should offer help or advice instead of forcing it. Then the person, if the offer is accepted, can talk about it away from the child, away from the situation, and with a lot more of an open mind.
In the case of child abuse, the law should be called in to protect the child.
That's all I was saying, and have NO idea where all the questions came in about drunks, sexual abuse, and husbands beating their wives. ??????
Listen to what everyone else is saying? I've definitely tried, but this has gone in twenty different directions! I don't expect or want to be agreed with on this, just throwing my opinion out there!
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
** Good, I keep getting lost too! LOL It seems this one basic issue has turned into at least 3 more!
So
far I have come to understand, from you, that it is okay to hit children, if
its just a swat, but not by using a belt (or other device, spoon, switch...)
** No it's not something I'm comfortable with doing, but it is ok with some parents to do so, and it is allowed by law.
And that you shouldn't interfere with another parent who is using this method
of discipline on their child because you might not know the circumstances,
and you can't really gauge how hard someone is hitting another.
** Kind of, pretty much, yes.
But that you
don't, well only sometimes, swat children.
** No, no sometimes to it, I don't.
And you would or wouldn't (?) call
authorities if you saw abuse taking place, because the *government says its
okay*.
** No, I'm saying call if abuse as in seriously hurting a child, not just a light spanking.
I wouldn't hit my husband, or the lady who rang up my groceries. I would go
to jail. But I don't hit them because I would go to jail, I don't hit them
because I have more respect for them. The same goes for my kids. How can it
be okay just because the government says it is so? (the government says lots
of things are or aren't okay to do, but that doesn't make it so.)
** It's not ok to me, or to you, or to a lot of other people. But it's a fact that it is ok to some parents to do this.
It seems to me that on one hand you will say *no don't do ____* but someone
else will rebut with something and you will say *well, no, it is okay to do
____* and then three posts later you will contradict yourself again. This is
a general observation, and not limited to just this particular thread.
** Yes, I know. Things tend to get all twisted around on here, and somehow people think I say things I never did. Like above, you thought I'd hit my kids sometimes? I never mentioned any such thing! I also never said I thought it was OK to hit kids.
I
guess I am asking that you clarify your position a little better, and listen
to what others are really saying.
~Nancy
** Gladly. Here is my position, plain and simple, and without all the OT questions I keep getting thrown. Parents have the right to raise their kids any way they deem fit, excepting abuse. I disagree strongly with a stranger, who does not know circumstances and will likely never see the person/family again, telling people how they should be raising their kids or telling them they are doing whatever-it-is wrong or they should be doing so-and-so instead. It does nothing but anger and/or upset the mother, the child assumes permission has been granted to act whatever way or do whatever the stranger mentions, and all it does is cause problems and chaos and sore feelings. People should offer help or advice instead of forcing it. Then the person, if the offer is accepted, can talk about it away from the child, away from the situation, and with a lot more of an open mind.
In the case of child abuse, the law should be called in to protect the child.
That's all I was saying, and have NO idea where all the questions came in about drunks, sexual abuse, and husbands beating their wives. ??????
Listen to what everyone else is saying? I've definitely tried, but this has gone in twenty different directions! I don't expect or want to be agreed with on this, just throwing my opinion out there!
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mary Bianco
>From: "Tia Leschke" <leschke@...><<But an adult lightly swatting another adult on the bottom (without
permission) can be charged. So why is it ok to lightly swat a child on the
bottom? Or is it ok for adults to swat other adults?>>
Okay now, are we still just talking about a reprimand here and discipline?
Because now I'm thinking that everyone here in this house smacks each other
on the butt in fooling around. Not a hit (I think hits as harder) but a
light smack. My husband and I do it to each other and we also do it with the
kids and they to us just fooling around. And what about football players?
Maybe you just have to know someone to be able to "have" the permission and
not have it be in anger?
Mary B
_________________________________________________________________
Get faster connections�-- switch to�MSN Internet Access!
http://resourcecenter.msn.com/access/plans/default.asp
Mike Ebbers
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Myranda" <myrandab@b...> wrote:
anyway. <g>
In an imperfect world, in an imperfect society, with imperfect
people, the best way to raise children is to let the parents that
conceived them, birthed them (hmm, well, I was there for all three
while my wife did rest), and love them, do the raising.
I do have two additional points, which you might have already said.
1. The word abuse seems to have many and broad definitions, so
perhaps another word needs to be used (like traumatized or
brutalized) for what parents definitely do not have the right to do
to their kids or to anyone.
2. In light of a number of experiences cited on this list, up to an
including death, there needs to be a mechanism to step in where the
line in point 1 is crossed. Brutal parents will not automatically
stop what they are doing to their children. So someone else needs
to.
With you, I agree that the ideal solution is a close family or
community of friends. They know the situation best and when to step
in. In this case, the "it takes a village" should come into play.
Not Big Brother the state, but a local community (as someone pointed
out, like in tribal Africa).
Mike
with you on this, and wishing I had a better solution to this problem
>Here is my position, plain and simple, and without all the OTMyranda, you said you don't want agreement, but I agree with you
>questions I keep getting thrown. Parents have the right to raise
>their kids any way they deem fit, excepting abuse.
>I don't expect or want to be agreed with on this, just throwing my
>opinion out there!
anyway. <g>
In an imperfect world, in an imperfect society, with imperfect
people, the best way to raise children is to let the parents that
conceived them, birthed them (hmm, well, I was there for all three
while my wife did rest), and love them, do the raising.
I do have two additional points, which you might have already said.
1. The word abuse seems to have many and broad definitions, so
perhaps another word needs to be used (like traumatized or
brutalized) for what parents definitely do not have the right to do
to their kids or to anyone.
2. In light of a number of experiences cited on this list, up to an
including death, there needs to be a mechanism to step in where the
line in point 1 is crossed. Brutal parents will not automatically
stop what they are doing to their children. So someone else needs
to.
With you, I agree that the ideal solution is a close family or
community of friends. They know the situation best and when to step
in. In this case, the "it takes a village" should come into play.
Not Big Brother the state, but a local community (as someone pointed
out, like in tribal Africa).
Mike
with you on this, and wishing I had a better solution to this problem
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/22/02 3:19:27 PM, myrandab@... writes:
<< I've never considered it abuse, and neither do most laws and families.
Many doctors promote it. So I think legally, it is not abuse. >>
I think it's Sweden that made it illegal 20 years or more ago. Other
countries have followed.
If a man spanks a 150 lb. woman outside a library, that's battery.
If a man spanks a 30 lb. girl outside a library, you want to defend that?
I won't.
Sandra
<< I've never considered it abuse, and neither do most laws and families.
Many doctors promote it. So I think legally, it is not abuse. >>
I think it's Sweden that made it illegal 20 years or more ago. Other
countries have followed.
If a man spanks a 150 lb. woman outside a library, that's battery.
If a man spanks a 30 lb. girl outside a library, you want to defend that?
I won't.
Sandra
Mike Ebbers
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., "Tia Leschke" <leschke@i...> wrote:
thread) to narrow down the definition of spanking. In my opinion, it
would be one or more swats on the rear end (and only there, because
it is padded) that may hurt momentarily but do not bruise (or leave
any marks that don't disappear quickly). It may not even hurt at
all, but provide a warning. I personally think it should take place
only between the ages of understanding and accountability (say 2 up
to 8), because under 2 they don't understand well enough to avoid a
spanking and over 7 there are other age-appropriate ways to learn
things. I would finally add that it would be a last resort, if the
age 2-7 child refused to heed other means of communication and if the
child was headed down the wrong path (making those actions into wrong
habits).
My understanding of "spanking", as used in this thread, is parent to
child, not adult to someone else's child or adult to adult. I think
we would all agree (maybe not?) that adult to adult spanking is not
desired.
If we want to discuss the propriety of an adult spanking someone
else's chld, I think that is a different (certainly valid) thread. I
realize that it has been posted here that parents do not own their
children. However you view that, there is still a relationship
between parent and child that does not exist between any other adult
and the child (or state and child). I doubt if anyone here (or
anywhere) would give blanket permission for any adult to spank any
child not his/her own.
So, as I see it, we are left on this thread with the defensibility of
a parent spanking her/his child. That unique relationship, I
believe, makes this activity different from the other examples of
adult to adult and non-parent to child.
Every single child is different. While some don't budge for (or seem
to mind) a spanking, and other are heartbroken, there are some
children in between for which at times it could be just the
communication method needed.
My wife and I rarely spank anymore (haven't in a long time anyway),
but when we did (when our children were younger), we cuddled them
afterwards and the kids were always more loving and well-behaved
afterwards. Not saying this was the only way, but am saying it
worked. And knowing it was a possibility allowed us to use it
sparingly.
Mike
> But an adult lightly swatting another adult on the bottom (withoutMaybe it would help (although I know it has been tried in this
> permission) can be charged. So why is it ok to lightly swat a
>child on the bottom? Or is it ok for adults to swat other adults?
>If a man spanks a 150 lb. woman outside a library, that's battery.
>If a man spanks a 30 lb. girl outside a library, you want to defend
>that?
thread) to narrow down the definition of spanking. In my opinion, it
would be one or more swats on the rear end (and only there, because
it is padded) that may hurt momentarily but do not bruise (or leave
any marks that don't disappear quickly). It may not even hurt at
all, but provide a warning. I personally think it should take place
only between the ages of understanding and accountability (say 2 up
to 8), because under 2 they don't understand well enough to avoid a
spanking and over 7 there are other age-appropriate ways to learn
things. I would finally add that it would be a last resort, if the
age 2-7 child refused to heed other means of communication and if the
child was headed down the wrong path (making those actions into wrong
habits).
My understanding of "spanking", as used in this thread, is parent to
child, not adult to someone else's child or adult to adult. I think
we would all agree (maybe not?) that adult to adult spanking is not
desired.
If we want to discuss the propriety of an adult spanking someone
else's chld, I think that is a different (certainly valid) thread. I
realize that it has been posted here that parents do not own their
children. However you view that, there is still a relationship
between parent and child that does not exist between any other adult
and the child (or state and child). I doubt if anyone here (or
anywhere) would give blanket permission for any adult to spank any
child not his/her own.
So, as I see it, we are left on this thread with the defensibility of
a parent spanking her/his child. That unique relationship, I
believe, makes this activity different from the other examples of
adult to adult and non-parent to child.
Every single child is different. While some don't budge for (or seem
to mind) a spanking, and other are heartbroken, there are some
children in between for which at times it could be just the
communication method needed.
My wife and I rarely spank anymore (haven't in a long time anyway),
but when we did (when our children were younger), we cuddled them
afterwards and the kids were always more loving and well-behaved
afterwards. Not saying this was the only way, but am saying it
worked. And knowing it was a possibility allowed us to use it
sparingly.
Mike
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/22/02 8:01:48 PM Central Daylight Time,
myrandab@... writes:
know the family dynamics, but do call if a child is being seriously hurt? A
spanking is a spanking, pain is pain. I know there are degrees to pain, but
really! Honestly, are you saying that if it is just a little pain, a little
hurt then calmly ignore it?
you don't know the situation, or how much a child is hurting then ignore it.
And since you have stated you can't know how hard, or how much it hurts then
how can you say to call police if a child is hurting? Ignoring or not
stepping in or not calling police is the same as saying its okay to hit a
child. Don't you see?
why do anything at all? (this is a rhetorical question.)
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
myrandab@... writes:
>So you don't like it, but since the law says its okay, then its okay by you.
> So
> far I have come to understand, from you, that it is okay to hit children,
> if
> its just a swat, but not by using a belt (or other device, spoon,
> switch...)
> ** No it's not something I'm comfortable with doing, but it is ok with
> some parents to do so, and it is allowed by law.
>So don't call if you don't know the situation, don't interfere if you don't
>
> And that you shouldn't interfere with another parent who is using this
> method
> of discipline on their child because you might not know the
> circumstances,
> and you can't really gauge how hard someone is hitting another.
>
> ** Kind of, pretty much, yes. <<<~~ You, these are your words. I didn't
> pull them out of thin air.
>
> And you would or wouldn't (?) call
> authorities if you saw abuse taking place, because the *government says
> its
> okay*.
>
> ** No, I'm saying call if abuse as in seriously hurting a child, not just
> a light spanking.
know the family dynamics, but do call if a child is being seriously hurt? A
spanking is a spanking, pain is pain. I know there are degrees to pain, but
really! Honestly, are you saying that if it is just a little pain, a little
hurt then calmly ignore it?
>No! See, it isn't okay for me, or you, or anyone else. Not some, no one!
>
> I wouldn't hit my husband, or the lady who rang up my groceries. I would
> go
> to jail. But I don't hit them because I would go to jail, I don't hit
> them
> because I have more respect for them. The same goes for my kids. How can
> it
> be okay just because the government says it is so? (the government says
> lots
> of things are or aren't okay to do, but that doesn't make it so.)
>
> ** It's not ok to me, or to you, or to a lot of other people. But it's a
> fact that it is ok to some parents to do this.
>But you have said it. Here in this post and in others. You have said that if
>
> It seems to me that on one hand you will say *no don't do ____* but
> someone
> else will rebut with something and you will say *well, no, it is okay to
> do
> ____* and then three posts later you will contradict yourself again. This
> is
> a general observation, and not limited to just this particular thread.
>
> ** Yes, I know. Things tend to get all twisted around on here, and
> somehow people think I say things I never did. Like above, you thought I'd
> hit my kids sometimes? I never mentioned any such thing! I also never said
> I thought it was OK to hit kids.
you don't know the situation, or how much a child is hurting then ignore it.
And since you have stated you can't know how hard, or how much it hurts then
how can you say to call police if a child is hurting? Ignoring or not
stepping in or not calling police is the same as saying its okay to hit a
child. Don't you see?
>But according to your very words, you can't know if it is abuse or not. So
> I
> guess I am asking that you clarify your position a little better, and
> listen
> to what others are really saying.
>
> ~Nancy
>
> ** Gladly. Here is my position, plain and simple, and without all the OT
> questions I keep getting thrown. Parents have the right to raise their kids
> any way they deem fit, excepting abuse. I disagree strongly with a
> stranger, who does not know circumstances and will likely never see the
> person/family again, telling people how they should be raising their kids
> or telling them they are doing whatever-it-is wrong or they should be doing
> so-and-so instead. It does nothing but anger and/or upset the mother, the
> child assumes permission has been granted to act whatever way or do
> whatever the stranger mentions, and all it does is cause problems and chaos
> and sore feelings. People should offer help or advice instead of forcing
> it. Then the person, if the offer is accepted, can talk about it away from
> the child, away from the situation, and with a lot more of an open mind.
>
> In the case of child abuse, the law should be called in to protect the
> child.
why do anything at all? (this is a rhetorical question.)
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Myranda
From: Mike Ebbers
Myranda, you said you don't want agreement, but I agree with you
anyway. <g>
In an imperfect world, in an imperfect society, with imperfect
people, the best way to raise children is to let the parents that
conceived them, birthed them (hmm, well, I was there for all three
while my wife did rest), and love them, do the raising.
** You know, as tempting as perfection sounds, it would really make for a boring world!
I do have two additional points, which you might have already said.
1. The word abuse seems to have many and broad definitions, so
perhaps another word needs to be used (like traumatized or
brutalized) for what parents definitely do not have the right to do
to their kids or to anyone.
** I like brutalized, I think. It can't be mistaken for the "abuse" of not sending your children to public school or of not vaccinating your children or of choosing to formula-feed your children. All of which are abuses to some people.
2. In light of a number of experiences cited on this list, up to an
including death, there needs to be a mechanism to step in where the
line in point 1 is crossed. Brutal parents will not automatically
stop what they are doing to their children. So someone else needs
to.
With you, I agree that the ideal solution is a close family or
community of friends. They know the situation best and when to step
in. In this case, the "it takes a village" should come into play.
Not Big Brother the state, but a local community (as someone pointed
out, like in tribal Africa).
Mike
with you on this, and wishing I had a better solution to this problem
** Wonder if a "back-to-family" campaign could be started? :-)
Myranda
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Myranda, you said you don't want agreement, but I agree with you
anyway. <g>
In an imperfect world, in an imperfect society, with imperfect
people, the best way to raise children is to let the parents that
conceived them, birthed them (hmm, well, I was there for all three
while my wife did rest), and love them, do the raising.
** You know, as tempting as perfection sounds, it would really make for a boring world!
I do have two additional points, which you might have already said.
1. The word abuse seems to have many and broad definitions, so
perhaps another word needs to be used (like traumatized or
brutalized) for what parents definitely do not have the right to do
to their kids or to anyone.
** I like brutalized, I think. It can't be mistaken for the "abuse" of not sending your children to public school or of not vaccinating your children or of choosing to formula-feed your children. All of which are abuses to some people.
2. In light of a number of experiences cited on this list, up to an
including death, there needs to be a mechanism to step in where the
line in point 1 is crossed. Brutal parents will not automatically
stop what they are doing to their children. So someone else needs
to.
With you, I agree that the ideal solution is a close family or
community of friends. They know the situation best and when to step
in. In this case, the "it takes a village" should come into play.
Not Big Brother the state, but a local community (as someone pointed
out, like in tribal Africa).
Mike
with you on this, and wishing I had a better solution to this problem
** Wonder if a "back-to-family" campaign could be started? :-)
Myranda
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
~~~~ Don't forget! If you change topics, change the subject line! ~~~~
If you have questions, concerns or problems with this list, please email the moderator, Joyce Fetteroll (fetteroll@...), or the list owner, Helen Hegener (HEM-Editor@...).
To unsubscribe from this group, click on the following link or address an email to:
[email protected]
Visit the Unschooling website: http://www.unschooling.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Myranda
Accepting isn't the same thing as defending.
Myranda
From: SandraDodd@...
I think it's Sweden that made it illegal 20 years or more ago. Other
countries have followed.
If a man spanks a 150 lb. woman outside a library, that's battery.
If a man spanks a 30 lb. girl outside a library, you want to defend that?
I won't.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Myranda
From: SandraDodd@...
I think it's Sweden that made it illegal 20 years or more ago. Other
countries have followed.
If a man spanks a 150 lb. woman outside a library, that's battery.
If a man spanks a 30 lb. girl outside a library, you want to defend that?
I won't.
Sandra
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/22/02 8:13:47 PM, myrandab@... writes:
<<
** Wonder if a "back-to-family" campaign could be started? :-) >>
It's called "Christian homeschooling," and there are hundreds of sites online
which will not only say spanking is okay, they will tell you failure to
spank is a sin.
They'll tell you what to wear and who to vote for, too.
Do you want links?
Or just go to www.google.com and put in spanking Christian obedience
homeschooling and have a real good time!!
Sandra
<<
** Wonder if a "back-to-family" campaign could be started? :-) >>
It's called "Christian homeschooling," and there are hundreds of sites online
which will not only say spanking is okay, they will tell you failure to
spank is a sin.
They'll tell you what to wear and who to vote for, too.
Do you want links?
Or just go to www.google.com and put in spanking Christian obedience
homeschooling and have a real good time!!
Sandra
Myranda
From: Mike Ebbers
Maybe it would help (although I know it has been tried in this
thread) to narrow down the definition of spanking. In my opinion, it
would be one or more swats on the rear end (and only there, because
it is padded) that may hurt momentarily but do not bruise (or leave
any marks that don't disappear quickly). It may not even hurt at
all, but provide a warning.
** Yes, that is what I see as spanking. Anything more would probably fall into the "abuse" catagory.
Myranda :::Still wondering how this got turned into a spanking debate <g>:::
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Maybe it would help (although I know it has been tried in this
thread) to narrow down the definition of spanking. In my opinion, it
would be one or more swats on the rear end (and only there, because
it is padded) that may hurt momentarily but do not bruise (or leave
any marks that don't disappear quickly). It may not even hurt at
all, but provide a warning.
** Yes, that is what I see as spanking. Anything more would probably fall into the "abuse" catagory.
Myranda :::Still wondering how this got turned into a spanking debate <g>:::
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Myranda
From: Dnowens@...
So you don't like it, but since the law says its okay, then its okay by you.
** I can't say whether it's ok or not, that's up to individual parents/families. I'm ok with it if that's the choice they make, I don't fly into a purple rage and threaten to have them arrested, if that's what you mean.
So don't call if you don't know the situation, don't interfere if you don't
know the family dynamics, but do call if a child is being seriously hurt?
** Right.
A
spanking is a spanking, pain is pain. I know there are degrees to pain, but
really! Honestly, are you saying that if it is just a little pain, a little
hurt then calmly ignore it?
** Right again. But maybe offer to talk to them about other, calmer, nicer parenting methods.
No! See, it isn't okay for me, or you, or anyone else. Not some, no one!
** You can't force your values onto other people, no matter how much you would like to. Some people DO have the opinion that it is ok to spank their kids, and they are every bit as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours.
But you have said it. Here in this post and in others. You have said that if
you don't know the situation, or how much a child is hurting then ignore it.
** That doesn't say that I think it's ok for kids to be spanked! I think it's ok for parents to make the decision of whether they will or won't, and I don't think it's ok for others to force people to listen to a moral lesson about it.
And since you have stated you can't know how hard, or how much it hurts then
how can you say to call police if a child is hurting?
** No, I don't believe I ever said that, someone else did. I said that light swats don't hurt. You can tell when a child is hurting, surely. If you can't, something's wrong.
Ignoring or not
stepping in or not calling police is the same as saying its okay to hit a
child. Don't you see?
** No, I don't see it that way at all. I can understand how you could see it that way, though.
Myranda
But according to your very words, you can't know if it is abuse or not. So
why do anything at all? (this is a rhetorical question.)
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
So you don't like it, but since the law says its okay, then its okay by you.
** I can't say whether it's ok or not, that's up to individual parents/families. I'm ok with it if that's the choice they make, I don't fly into a purple rage and threaten to have them arrested, if that's what you mean.
So don't call if you don't know the situation, don't interfere if you don't
know the family dynamics, but do call if a child is being seriously hurt?
** Right.
A
spanking is a spanking, pain is pain. I know there are degrees to pain, but
really! Honestly, are you saying that if it is just a little pain, a little
hurt then calmly ignore it?
** Right again. But maybe offer to talk to them about other, calmer, nicer parenting methods.
No! See, it isn't okay for me, or you, or anyone else. Not some, no one!
** You can't force your values onto other people, no matter how much you would like to. Some people DO have the opinion that it is ok to spank their kids, and they are every bit as entitled to their opinion as you are to yours.
But you have said it. Here in this post and in others. You have said that if
you don't know the situation, or how much a child is hurting then ignore it.
** That doesn't say that I think it's ok for kids to be spanked! I think it's ok for parents to make the decision of whether they will or won't, and I don't think it's ok for others to force people to listen to a moral lesson about it.
And since you have stated you can't know how hard, or how much it hurts then
how can you say to call police if a child is hurting?
** No, I don't believe I ever said that, someone else did. I said that light swats don't hurt. You can tell when a child is hurting, surely. If you can't, something's wrong.
Ignoring or not
stepping in or not calling police is the same as saying its okay to hit a
child. Don't you see?
** No, I don't see it that way at all. I can understand how you could see it that way, though.
Myranda
But according to your very words, you can't know if it is abuse or not. So
why do anything at all? (this is a rhetorical question.)
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deborah Lewis
Myranda, you can't really be spending all these posts defending
spankers... You don't believe in spanking but you're speaking on behalf
of "generic" spankers everywhere? My stomach is churning.
It's not illegal for parents to spank and we all know that.
Wife beating used to be legal, don't tell me you're going to defend that.
There is no difference Myranda.
Today if you spanked or "lightly swated" any other person in your life
you could face legal consequences.
So you can say it's legal. But there is no logical way to conclude it's
right, or good.
I would hope, if someone was hitting me or my son, there would be one
decent person willing to say STOP.
I would hope my son will one day be that decent person should he witness
an assault.
I hope I never look him in the eye and say I didn't help because it was
"none of my business."
Today my little boy pushed the shopping cart back inside the store for me
and came out pushing a cart for an older lady. He helped her put the
groceries in her car and he took her cart away. She wasn't in any
danger, she wasn't being threatened or hurt and he knew it was right to
offer help.
How could I ever say to him, look it's fine to help people when they
don't really, desperately need help but if you should ever see some kid
being hit, well, then you need to mind your own business?
Man, I've made so many changes in my life and I've put aside so many
things I thought I knew for sure, and I live every single day with the
hope my child will have a better world and have the courage to make a
better world, it just is unbelievable to me that you would work so hard
here to defend a thing that will never make any life better.
Deb L
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
spankers... You don't believe in spanking but you're speaking on behalf
of "generic" spankers everywhere? My stomach is churning.
It's not illegal for parents to spank and we all know that.
Wife beating used to be legal, don't tell me you're going to defend that.
There is no difference Myranda.
Today if you spanked or "lightly swated" any other person in your life
you could face legal consequences.
So you can say it's legal. But there is no logical way to conclude it's
right, or good.
I would hope, if someone was hitting me or my son, there would be one
decent person willing to say STOP.
I would hope my son will one day be that decent person should he witness
an assault.
I hope I never look him in the eye and say I didn't help because it was
"none of my business."
Today my little boy pushed the shopping cart back inside the store for me
and came out pushing a cart for an older lady. He helped her put the
groceries in her car and he took her cart away. She wasn't in any
danger, she wasn't being threatened or hurt and he knew it was right to
offer help.
How could I ever say to him, look it's fine to help people when they
don't really, desperately need help but if you should ever see some kid
being hit, well, then you need to mind your own business?
Man, I've made so many changes in my life and I've put aside so many
things I thought I knew for sure, and I live every single day with the
hope my child will have a better world and have the courage to make a
better world, it just is unbelievable to me that you would work so hard
here to defend a thing that will never make any life better.
Deb L
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Myranda
From: SandraDodd@...
** Wonder if a "back-to-family" campaign could be started? :-) >>
It's called "Christian homeschooling," and there are hundreds of sites online
which will not only say spanking is okay, they will tell you failure to
spank is a sin.
They'll tell you what to wear and who to vote for, too.
Do you want links?
Or just go to www.google.com and put in spanking Christian obedience
homeschooling and have a real good time!!
Sandra
** What??? I know I'm tired, and I'm guessing you are too, but I'm really really lost this time!!!!!! I was talking about families staying together and supporting and helping each other. That doesn't have anything to do with Christians or homeschooling or spanking or obedience!
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
** Wonder if a "back-to-family" campaign could be started? :-) >>
It's called "Christian homeschooling," and there are hundreds of sites online
which will not only say spanking is okay, they will tell you failure to
spank is a sin.
They'll tell you what to wear and who to vote for, too.
Do you want links?
Or just go to www.google.com and put in spanking Christian obedience
homeschooling and have a real good time!!
Sandra
** What??? I know I'm tired, and I'm guessing you are too, but I'm really really lost this time!!!!!! I was talking about families staying together and supporting and helping each other. That doesn't have anything to do with Christians or homeschooling or spanking or obedience!
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/22/02 9:13:52 PM Central Daylight Time,
myrandab@... writes:
Homeschooling. You can pay HSLDA a few (hundred) bucks a year and go to all
the web sites and buy the Sonlight and A Beka and BJU curriculums and be
justified.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
myrandab@... writes:
> ** Wonder if a "back-to-family" campaign could be started? :-)The campaign got started a few years ago. It's called Christian
> Myranda
Homeschooling. You can pay HSLDA a few (hundred) bucks a year and go to all
the web sites and buy the Sonlight and A Beka and BJU curriculums and be
justified.
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Deborah Lewis
***That doesn't say that I think it's ok for kids to be spanked! I think
it's ok for parents to make the decision of whether they will or won't,
and I don't think it's ok for others to force people to listen to a moral
lesson about it. ***
So, it's ok for parents to spank...but spanking isn't ok.... and saying
spanking isn't ok, isn't ok.
Guess what? That's just crazy.
Deb L
it's ok for parents to make the decision of whether they will or won't,
and I don't think it's ok for others to force people to listen to a moral
lesson about it. ***
So, it's ok for parents to spank...but spanking isn't ok.... and saying
spanking isn't ok, isn't ok.
Guess what? That's just crazy.
Deb L
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/22/02 9:43:24 PM Central Daylight Time,
myrandab@... writes:
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
myrandab@... writes:
> ** Yes, that is what I see as spanking. Anything more would probably fallBecause it isn't an either or thing. Spanking is abuse.
> into the "abuse" catagory.
> Myranda :::Still wondering how this got turned into a spanking debate <g>
> :::
>
~Nancy
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Myranda
From: Deborah Lewis
Myranda, you can't really be spending all these posts defending
spankers... You don't believe in spanking but you're speaking on behalf
of "generic" spankers everywhere? My stomach is churning.
** I'm defending the right of parents to raise their kids how they see fit, whether it's light spankings, or unschooling, or boarding school, or attachment parenting, or Dr Spock. It's a choice, and we live in a country that's about free choice. I'm not going to say "that's the wrong choice for everyone" because that's just not true, no one can make that decision for everyone.
It's not illegal for parents to spank and we all know that.
Wife beating used to be legal, don't tell me you're going to defend that.
There is no difference Myranda.
Today if you spanked or "lightly swated" any other person in your life
you could face legal consequences.
So you can say it's legal. But there is no logical way to conclude it's
right, or good.
** I never said I believed it was good, just that I believe it is a choice.
I would hope, if someone was hitting me or my son, there would be one
decent person willing to say STOP.
I would hope my son will one day be that decent person should he witness
an assault.
I hope I never look him in the eye and say I didn't help because it was
"none of my business."
Today my little boy pushed the shopping cart back inside the store for me
and came out pushing a cart for an older lady. He helped her put the
groceries in her car and he took her cart away. She wasn't in any
danger, she wasn't being threatened or hurt and he knew it was right to
offer help.
How could I ever say to him, look it's fine to help people when they
don't really, desperately need help but if you should ever see some kid
being hit, well, then you need to mind your own business?
** You said the difference. Your son offered help. I'm sure he didn't say to her "you shouldn't be doing this, I'll do it" and take off without so much as a by-your-leave. Yes, offer, don't force!
Man, I've made so many changes in my life and I've put aside so many
things I thought I knew for sure, and I live every single day with the
hope my child will have a better world and have the courage to make a
better world, it just is unbelievable to me that you would work so hard
here to defend a thing that will never make any life better.
Deb L
** Free choice is always best, IMO.
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Myranda, you can't really be spending all these posts defending
spankers... You don't believe in spanking but you're speaking on behalf
of "generic" spankers everywhere? My stomach is churning.
** I'm defending the right of parents to raise their kids how they see fit, whether it's light spankings, or unschooling, or boarding school, or attachment parenting, or Dr Spock. It's a choice, and we live in a country that's about free choice. I'm not going to say "that's the wrong choice for everyone" because that's just not true, no one can make that decision for everyone.
It's not illegal for parents to spank and we all know that.
Wife beating used to be legal, don't tell me you're going to defend that.
There is no difference Myranda.
Today if you spanked or "lightly swated" any other person in your life
you could face legal consequences.
So you can say it's legal. But there is no logical way to conclude it's
right, or good.
** I never said I believed it was good, just that I believe it is a choice.
I would hope, if someone was hitting me or my son, there would be one
decent person willing to say STOP.
I would hope my son will one day be that decent person should he witness
an assault.
I hope I never look him in the eye and say I didn't help because it was
"none of my business."
Today my little boy pushed the shopping cart back inside the store for me
and came out pushing a cart for an older lady. He helped her put the
groceries in her car and he took her cart away. She wasn't in any
danger, she wasn't being threatened or hurt and he knew it was right to
offer help.
How could I ever say to him, look it's fine to help people when they
don't really, desperately need help but if you should ever see some kid
being hit, well, then you need to mind your own business?
** You said the difference. Your son offered help. I'm sure he didn't say to her "you shouldn't be doing this, I'll do it" and take off without so much as a by-your-leave. Yes, offer, don't force!
Man, I've made so many changes in my life and I've put aside so many
things I thought I knew for sure, and I live every single day with the
hope my child will have a better world and have the courage to make a
better world, it just is unbelievable to me that you would work so hard
here to defend a thing that will never make any life better.
Deb L
** Free choice is always best, IMO.
Myranda
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/22/02 8:45:57 PM Central Daylight Time,
[email protected] writes:
<< Never popped her anywhere but her diaper or butt. Again, not proud,
just glad I learned and sorry I didn't sooner. >>
Same here Mary.
I still fight the urges that I was raised with...and I had relatively gentle
parents compared with many of the stories I'm reading here.
I don't even recall being spanked much at all, especially after about 6 y.o.
And yet, I perpetuated it on my oldest.
My point was that we don't really know what physically hurts another person,
a "light swat" may not be so light to the reciever of the swat.
And the main point I made, was that it's useless in a punishment oriented
home if it does not hurt.
So you've either got a physical assault, or an ineffective method of dealing
with problems.
Dumb either way.
The worst thing about any kind of swat is that it's done in anger (don't even
get me started on how sick people are that do it in "cold blood") and trying
to deal with any problem when angry is a very bad idea.
I LOVE Sandra Dodd and Richard Prytowsky's "gentle parenting" talk from the
hsc conference in Cali....I listened to it in the car on the way home from SC.
I want to go beyond fighting my wrong ( yes, WRONG) urges to lash out at
people, I want to quit being angry too easily, I want to go WAY beyond just
not spanking and get to not angry.
A Peaceful home is not only ideal in my mind, but absolutely necessary.
Ren
[email protected] writes:
<< Never popped her anywhere but her diaper or butt. Again, not proud,
just glad I learned and sorry I didn't sooner. >>
Same here Mary.
I still fight the urges that I was raised with...and I had relatively gentle
parents compared with many of the stories I'm reading here.
I don't even recall being spanked much at all, especially after about 6 y.o.
And yet, I perpetuated it on my oldest.
My point was that we don't really know what physically hurts another person,
a "light swat" may not be so light to the reciever of the swat.
And the main point I made, was that it's useless in a punishment oriented
home if it does not hurt.
So you've either got a physical assault, or an ineffective method of dealing
with problems.
Dumb either way.
The worst thing about any kind of swat is that it's done in anger (don't even
get me started on how sick people are that do it in "cold blood") and trying
to deal with any problem when angry is a very bad idea.
I LOVE Sandra Dodd and Richard Prytowsky's "gentle parenting" talk from the
hsc conference in Cali....I listened to it in the car on the way home from SC.
I want to go beyond fighting my wrong ( yes, WRONG) urges to lash out at
people, I want to quit being angry too easily, I want to go WAY beyond just
not spanking and get to not angry.
A Peaceful home is not only ideal in my mind, but absolutely necessary.
Ren
[email protected]
In a message dated 10/22/02 9:57:46 PM Central Daylight Time,
myrandab@... writes:
when a child or wife or dog was being hit then we would all be defending the
abuser. I've said it before, and I will say it again, just because there is
or isn't a law for or against something, doesn't make it right.
Advance apologies to everyone, this list is long. <g>
~Nancy
In Michigan, it is illegal for barbers to cut hair on Sunday unless the
person is dead.
In Kansas, it is illegal to bake blueberry pies on Sundays.
Until recently, in Missouri, it was legal to shoot and kill a person if said
person is a Mormon.
In Michigan, it is illegal to paint a sparrow yellow and call it a canary.
In Pocatello, Idaho, the city prohibits "frowns, grimaces, scowls,
threatening and lowering looks, gloomy and depressed facial appearances,
generally all of which reflect unfavorably upon the reputation of the city."
A Michigan State law allows the board of embalming and funeral directors to
revoke the license of a licensee found guilty of using profane, indecent, or
obscene language in the presence of a dead human body.
Alabama
It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.
Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.
It is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church.
California
Sunshine is guaranteed to the masses.
Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern,
school, or place of worship.
Bathhouses are against the law.
It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle,
unless the target is a whale.
Women may not drive in a house coat.
Florida
Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the salon
owner.
A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she
shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.
If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be
paid just as it would for a vehicle.
It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.
Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.
It is illegal to skateboard without a license.
When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.
Kansas
Prohibits shooting rabbits from a motorboat.
Louisiana
It is illegal to rob a bank and then shoot at the bank teller with a water
pistol.
Indiana
It is illegal for a liquor store to sell cold soft drinks.
Liquor stores may not sell milk.
Michigan
You may not swear in front of women and children in the state of Michigan.
Nebraska
It is illegal for bar owners to sell beer unless they are simultaneously
brewing a kettle of soup.
New York
A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits
men from turning around on any city street and looking "at a woman in that
way." A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the
violating male to be forced to wear a "pair of horse-blinders" wherever and
whenever he goes outside for a stroll.
It is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head for fun.
A license must be purchased before hanging clothes on a clothesline.
The penalty for jumping off a building is death.
North Dakota
Beer and pretzels can't be served at the same time in any bar or restaurant.
It is illegal to lie down and fall asleep with your shoes on.
Ohio
It is illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.
It is illegal to get a fish drunk.
Pennsylvania
A person is not eligible to become Governor if he/she has participated in a
duel.
Texas
It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.
It is illegal to drive without windshield wipers. You don't need a
windshield, but you must have the wipers.
It is illegal for one to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel.
It is illegal to milk another person's cow.
A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24
hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the
crime to be committed.
The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a
formula for making beer at home.
Wisconsin
You must manually flush all urinals in a building.
Butter substitutes are not allowed to be served in state prisons.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
myrandab@... writes:
> Accepting isn't the same thing as defending.Well, in a way it is. If everyone calmly accepted and looked the other way
> Myranda
when a child or wife or dog was being hit then we would all be defending the
abuser. I've said it before, and I will say it again, just because there is
or isn't a law for or against something, doesn't make it right.
Advance apologies to everyone, this list is long. <g>
~Nancy
In Michigan, it is illegal for barbers to cut hair on Sunday unless the
person is dead.
In Kansas, it is illegal to bake blueberry pies on Sundays.
Until recently, in Missouri, it was legal to shoot and kill a person if said
person is a Mormon.
In Michigan, it is illegal to paint a sparrow yellow and call it a canary.
In Pocatello, Idaho, the city prohibits "frowns, grimaces, scowls,
threatening and lowering looks, gloomy and depressed facial appearances,
generally all of which reflect unfavorably upon the reputation of the city."
A Michigan State law allows the board of embalming and funeral directors to
revoke the license of a licensee found guilty of using profane, indecent, or
obscene language in the presence of a dead human body.
Alabama
It is illegal for a driver to be blindfolded while operating a vehicle.
Dominoes may not be played on Sunday.
It is illegal to wear a fake mustache that causes laughter in church.
California
Sunshine is guaranteed to the masses.
Animals are banned from mating publicly within 1,500 feet of a tavern,
school, or place of worship.
Bathhouses are against the law.
It is a misdemeanor to shoot at any kind of game from a moving vehicle,
unless the target is a whale.
Women may not drive in a house coat.
Florida
Women may be fined for falling asleep under a hair dryer, as can the salon
owner.
A special law prohibits unmarried women from parachuting on Sunday or she
shall risk arrest, fine, and/or jailing.
If an elephant is left tied to a parking meter, the parking fee has to be
paid just as it would for a vehicle.
It is illegal to sing in a public place while attired in a swimsuit.
Men may not be seen publicly in any kind of strapless gown.
Having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal.
It is illegal to skateboard without a license.
When having sex, only the missionary position is legal.
Kansas
Prohibits shooting rabbits from a motorboat.
Louisiana
It is illegal to rob a bank and then shoot at the bank teller with a water
pistol.
Indiana
It is illegal for a liquor store to sell cold soft drinks.
Liquor stores may not sell milk.
Michigan
You may not swear in front of women and children in the state of Michigan.
Nebraska
It is illegal for bar owners to sell beer unless they are simultaneously
brewing a kettle of soup.
New York
A fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law specifically prohibits
men from turning around on any city street and looking "at a woman in that
way." A second conviction for a crime of this magnitude calls for the
violating male to be forced to wear a "pair of horse-blinders" wherever and
whenever he goes outside for a stroll.
It is against the law to throw a ball at someone's head for fun.
A license must be purchased before hanging clothes on a clothesline.
The penalty for jumping off a building is death.
North Dakota
Beer and pretzels can't be served at the same time in any bar or restaurant.
It is illegal to lie down and fall asleep with your shoes on.
Ohio
It is illegal to fish for whales on Sunday.
It is illegal to get a fish drunk.
Pennsylvania
A person is not eligible to become Governor if he/she has participated in a
duel.
Texas
It is illegal to take more than three sips of beer at a time while standing.
It is illegal to drive without windshield wipers. You don't need a
windshield, but you must have the wipers.
It is illegal for one to shoot a buffalo from the second story of a hotel.
It is illegal to milk another person's cow.
A recently passed anticrime law requires criminals to give their victims 24
hours notice, either orally or in writing, and to explain the nature of the
crime to be committed.
The entire Encyclopedia Britannica is banned in Texas because it contains a
formula for making beer at home.
Wisconsin
You must manually flush all urinals in a building.
Butter substitutes are not allowed to be served in state prisons.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mike Ebbers
--- In Unschooling-dotcom@y..., Dnowens@a... wrote:
may have been way ahead of its time as one of the first sexual
harrassment laws. That's my state, standing for equal rights.
Mike
who has been up too long and needs to get some sleep
>A list of what is illegal:Hey, way to GO, Empire State! You don't say how old, but this law
> In New York, a fine of $25 can be levied for flirting. This old law
>specifically prohibits men from turning around on any city street
>and looking "at a woman in that way." A second conviction for a
>crime of this magnitude calls for the violating male to be forced to
>wear a "pair of horse-blinders" wherever and whenever he goes
>outside for a stroll.
may have been way ahead of its time as one of the first sexual
harrassment laws. That's my state, standing for equal rights.
Mike
who has been up too long and needs to get some sleep