Again replying to my own post to address beccafromlalaland's accusation
that I only asked questions, and avoided her questions and didn't answer
'any' of them. As in:

"I noticed that you only responded to those items that you could ask more
questions...and did not answer any of my questions.

Dodging?


-- beccafromlalaland "



0:- wrote:

beccafromlalaland wrote:
Why for instance in America are parenting classes only available to
parents after the fact.

There is no such limit. Anyone wishing to take a parenting class can
find them easily. Health departments, parks and recreation, mental
health departments, some schools, private instructors are all available.

[[ While you forgot the question mark and I could have passed over this
I presumed a question from the grammar and answered. Is this one of the
'any' I'm supposed to not have answered? I elaborated in fact. ]]

In fact, you can even find on-line classes.

http://tinyurl.com/dastb

After they have been investigated for child
abuse, after their children have been placed in foster care when the
parents are either desperate to get their kids, or so angry that they
refuse to attend parenting workshops.

How would you get them to go to parenting classes until they were
compelled to?

[[ Again your comment, and my response, that is in fact an answer within
a question. You are asking me to get them to classes they don't wan tot
go to by posing the obvious. YOu compell them by law. People assigned to
traffic school can be as angry as they want, but they stand to pay a
hefty fine and even lose their driving priveleges if they do not attend. ]]


The classes are everywhere. They are even free in some places.

http://tinyurl.com/7fzqp

I know in my state parenting
classes are available but certainly not encouraged for at risk parents
(young parents,families on assistance, single parents, parents who grew
up in abusive households)

[[ I find it odd that you chopped the above comment by you from later
posts .. then shortly thereafter asked me if I was "dodging." ]]

How are they not encouraged? You mean actively discouraged, or not
publicized enough?

[[ When you quoted by attribution later, these clarifying questions of
mine were left lonely and dangling without your previous comment for the
obvious understanding that I wanted to know something relevant to your
statement. ]]

I think before we can even consider a non-spanking law we need to
address the issues of these at risk parents, get them into parenting
classes, give them mentors, teach them appropriate discipline
strategies. Give them a support network so when they feel overwhelmed
with the responsibilities of parenthood they can get help BEFORE there
is a problem.

Two problems, I think.

[[ Again, how am I dodging if you pose a solution and I discuss the
issues and difficulties from the real world, as I do below? ]]

One is that you cannot compel them to attend unless they have CPS
intervention going on. It would be civil rights violation. I've argued
with state legislators over this when one governor or another proposed
"early intervention" with new mothers in geographical areas considered
high risk, or with behaviors considered high risk. They understood
rather easily when I pointed out the BOR to them from the Constitution.

One cannot compel another's actions without due cause. And that has to
be addressed with some action. The only legal action would be child
protection statutes.

Thus we come around again to the law.

Two, money.

Who will provide this support network?

Churches, local interest groups, even the local health department
schedules a variety of things to get young parents involved, especially
new mothers, even providing child care during the meetings.

The problem is that the families that are targetted for this help can
refuse to respond, or simply not be interested, and that is certainly
their right. I do not support compelled services unless the level of
problem has reached a proportion that has involved child protection
services by the state.

And while at one time such programs could access hospital records for
new births, and visit the new mothers directly, they are now proscribed
from doing so by HIPAA. Any PR or marketing of the programs have to be
addressed into to already crowded media advertising world.

This is precisely why I support a law addressing the actual behavior.

There is nothing; poverty, large families, single parenting that MAKES a
parent spank a child.

A law will address the issue directly. It will mean nothing to those
that already do these things for their children. They won't be effected.
They already actively seek alternatives to CP. Collect and study
information about child development. Provide themselves with strees
reducing activities and strategies for when parenting overwhelms them.

In the law, I'll insist on having these issues addressed.

There must be public funding support for programs mandated to help those
charged and convicted of spanking. If not, there's little point in the
law, though these things in the past have tended to sort themselves out.

I imagine when women's sufferage was finally a fact there was some
support for teaching women the political processes they were about to
engage in.

There was supposed to be help for freed slaves, but that didn't go as well.

The law banning spanking would work for all concerned. The parent
convicted of spanking could then DEMAND state support for them to
rehabilitate. At least some reimbursement, some child care, some
training monies.

I'd be happy with that.

These problems you have mentioned are ones that have been addressed
before at great length by society. They have done pretty much all they
can do, sans constitutional violations, at this point. Now it's time to
move forward with a law.

[[ You accused me of dodging. Where? This elaborate and informational
commentary of mine was 'dodging?' Please explain. ]]

--
beccafromlalaland

Kane
PS, Embry and Malfetti found that there was a change from baseline
counted street entries from 9.7 per hour by children, to, after the
program, 0.7 entries per hour.

What was also remarkable was that the rate of "safe play" praise by
parents also shot up after they had been trained. In fact, 33 times more
such incidents after the program than before at measuring for the baseline.

Even children having a very low baseline street entry rate, dropped
considerably after the training was in place. 1.8 entries per hour, as
opposed to 0.2 per hour with the program in place. Only 10% of the
baseline rate.

Pretty remarkable when one considers that parents who spanked before had
children that attemped entries at the highest rate of all per hour. K~

[[ In fact, becca, I gave some information above that you pointedly
ignored. As you said you would. I could accuse you of dodging, but I
have not, only offerred the information and encouraged your commenting
or discussion. Who's dodging here? ]]

Kane



--
Isn't it interesting that the more honest an author appears to be,
the more like ourselves we think him. And the less so, how very
alien he doth appear? Kane 2006