Yes of course you are welcome to join the discussion. It is unfortionate
that people confuse these two issues. There is no "fine line" between
spanking and abuse, there is a broad valley. Spanking is a loving and
effective form of disclipline. Abuse is cruel and a criminal act. Hitting
a child with an impliment such as a cat-of-nine-tails is definetely abuse.
If you are leaving bruises, welts or anything like that it is abusive.


"kathleen" wrote in message
oups.com...
Can anyone join this discussion?

We were brutalized as kids. My parents were among
the most violent people in the neighborhood. Physical
discipline took place on a daily basis.

But they were *usually* light-weight assaults. A cat of nine tails.
Plenty of pain. No broken bones.

You could call this "the fine art of child abuse."

They were also Church people. Few people knew about
it. I felt vindicated when the gym teacher asked my brother
(in the 1960s) if he wanted to press charges when he
saw the welts.

Jim knew such an action would bring even more welts.

And the violence wasn't just about the violence, you know?


The other family in our neighborhood who was high-ranking
for violence used a baseball bat.


I think it is regrettable that people think child abuse is
helpful.

I don't know how they think this is a good thing.

I truly believe it is ignorance, lack of self-control,
and in especially our case, I can tell you no one was ever
"bad" enough to deserve a beating. I think there was a lot
of transferred hatred going on there. Anger towards the
spouse, running both ways, was taken out on the kids.

For example, my sister was LOUD a lot. This was a
definitely a crime in that house.

I had the good fortune of being naturally quiet.

In modern times being banished to the bedroom, or some
assignment of toil, with exclusion of some desirable activity
seems so much more logical.


Nobody, none of my siblings, ever got over this abuse.

And when my brother was killed when he 18, my father deeply
regretted his tactics. Then *he* never got over it. I never
saw the man cry before in my life or since. And the extreme
abuse towards this boy was what the tears were about.

Now he knows he, alone, should not have felt so guilty.

'Because of the beatings that when on when Dad wasn't
there. That's when the assaults were no longer what you
could call "light-weight."


These are church people. 'Wouldn't think of missing a
Holy Day of Obligation. Small time hypocrites, I imagine
you could call them.

Look at what Bush has done.


There are a lot of variables to this equation, obviously, and your
kid is your kid, but anyone who says violence is a good way
to raise kids is very, very ignorant- I would declare that ignorance is
primary.

But it's when ignorance and pure hatred combine, in my opinion,
that you can't expect a good outcome. It's hard to *find* or see
this hatred, because usually the abusers do a better job of explaining
why the kid deserved it, than the kid explaining why he didn't.

And Mom and Dad pay the Psychiatrist's bills. If the Psychiatrist
says "STOP ABUSING THE KID," the parents will simply take
the child to someone else who agrees to see the kid as the
problem.


Once in a while the kid *is* the problem 1% of the time in females
and 6% of the time in males. Therefore it's a better bet that
the parents are not telling the whole story.


It seems that only the people who did not survive a violent
childhood think physical discipline is a good idea. Maybe it's
a function of orders of magnitude.

The current social era suffers an undeniable dearth of love
and an undeniable excessive degree of violence in the media.

We are a violent nation, no doubt about it.

Note also that there isn't an entry in the DSM for "SURVIVED
INSANELY VIOLENT PARENTS." The victim gets the assignment
of the "mental illness" diagnosis. So we can thank the APA
for serving their own ends and their clear lack of success in helping
people, across the board.

Remember Freud started out with the premise that his "hysterical"
patients were victims of childhood sexual abuse. Later this became
the notion that these women were "sexually repressed," because the
fathers of these abused women were not fond of the notion of
being discovered to be the cause of the "hysteria."

Freud even performed nasal surgery on a woman because somehow
he thought the nose was connected to the... libido? I kid you not.


Anyway, "blame the victim," seems to be the perceptual framework
of psychiatry and that is probably why we are still having this
discussion today. It's the lack of love, and things don't appear
to be taking a course for a correction.

"BRING EM ON!!!"

That's our fearless leader- George W. AWOL during the Swift
Boat Years Bush.



Anyone who thinks violent discipline of children is a good idea
should experience it themselves. Tie the person down. Face
down. Get a cat of nine tails... Then throw them in a cage for
a while until the evidence of the welts is gone.

Then, when the person complains, everyone together say the
abusee is lying.

Repeat...

Kathleen

wrote:
Opinions wrote:
Deep inside, older no-spanks are usually very wrath-filled people.

What an odd speculation.

Often they were mistreated as children and never got over it.

I venture that no one every really get's over it.

Anytime

Absolutes...hmmm...what could that mean, I wonder?

they are confronted with a parent who does not agree with their
extremist point of view,

It's extremist to not want children hit? What would non-extremist be?
To want them hit?

painful memories emerge from their childhood.

Pure, refined, Maple Projection. No Additives or Extenders.

The angry child within lashes out at the new proxy parent in their
life.

Funny, you and monkeyboy seem to be the best examples here. Yet we have
no desire to be your parent, proxy or otherwise. And you've misused the
term "proxy,' in this context.

Much like antisocial children, no-spanks take great delight in
antagonizing parents who do not cater to their whim.

I'm sure it's just horrible for you to have your assualtive behaviors
pointed out to you. I'll try to be more gentle next time. Really, I
will. Really.

Whether in person
or in a newsgroup, trying to communicate to a no-spank is much like
trying to talk to a grizzly that feels cornered.

Hmmm....feeling that threatened are you? Now what would that indicate?

Oh, I know.

That you have good reason to feel that way. You and those like you
will, in the not too distant future (and already if they are teachers
in some states), face fines, and possible imprisonment for assualting
children. The rubric of "spanking" is not going to continue fooling
anyone, and even your delusional denying selves will have to face it
when look up at the judge on the bench. Spanking will be seen as what
it is not...that you claim it is, "discipline."

The word has been a place to hide. But no longer. The act you now know
as "spanking" will receive it's proper name: "ASSAULT."

Or you can quit spanking now.

Watching you in your despiration reminds us this isn't an easy task,
and that we need to keep pressing forward.

There are no state laws against spanking, although 27 states have
policies against the practice and this year Pennsylvania has become the
28th. These apply to schools.

One state already has a statute that is more on the side of the child
being protected than the parent's "right" to hit them.

I wonder what would happen to an American parent that was traveling in
one of the countries that ban spanking as criminal and were caught by
authorities spanking their child?

To a child, a parent that hits, is simply a big terrorist.

Eventually they'll get you back, just like YOU are using US as your
surrogate parent.

Poor boy. You go ahead and pour your heart out. We understand.

0:-




Jeremy James wrote:
Fellow parents:

What has happenned to this newsgroup? It used to consist primarily
of
parenets like myself, parents that know that when spanking is used as
a
loving discliplinary tool, it is very effective. Parents that wanted
to be
able to discuss this with other parents that felt the same way.
Recently
however it seems to consist more of people that simply want to argue
with
each other. I.E. people like Kane and LaVonne. These two people
have
somehow managed to convince themselves that they are enlightened in
some
way, or that they are intellectually superior to the other members
here, or
some other thing. They are neither of course. When I first joined
this
group I tried to debate with them, however they do not debate, they
dictate.
Debating means that you are willing to listen to ther other person's
opinion, however they are totally obtuse. They are so convinced that
their
own opinion is right that your opinion must be wrong. If you
disagree with
them you must be a horrible person and you are abusive toward your
children.
When they run out of logical arguments, they resort to insults. In
their
world if you spank your children it means that you are an ingorant
redneck,
and probably a pedophile with latent homesexual tendencies as well.
Kane
has even implied that I spank my children because I get sexually
aroused
when I do so. I have an 8year old and a 5 year old daughter and a 2
year
old son. I use spanking for all three of them because it works. And
this
drives them crazy because I refuse to convert over to their narrow
point of
view. From their viewpoint, if I am spanking my children I must have
some
alterior motive, they cannot accept the fact that there are times
when
spanking is the best way to handle the situation. And that I spank
my
children because I love them and because IT WORKS!

I have stopped reading anything by either of them and I refuse to
reply to
anything they say. I am sure they will have something to say about
this
post but I will not read or respond to it. Not because I am
admitting that
they must be right or because I can't think of anything to say, I
simply
refuse to discuss anything with either of them because they refuse to
listen. I encourage others to follow suit.

Jeremy J