"Parenting Without Punishing"

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Tori M. wrote:

Two year olds should not be allowed unlimited access to each other.
THAT IS CALLED SUPERVISION.

You remind me of the mommies I've seen that plop their little darlings
down in a pile of toys together and then ask the children to "share"
and expect it.

Two year olds are NOT socialized to share, or to the concept. They
cannot be, not even at three. At four they will begin NO MATTER WHAT
YOU DID BEFORE. It's built into humans.
My daughter and my neighbors daughter both 2 play together just fine
without
us looking over their sholders all the time. The have always played
well
together in fact since Bonnie was old enough to follow Alice around..
Alice
is 6 months older. The only time there is fighting between the 2 girls
is if
the older children 4 +5 are near them because then the older kids want
to
control the younger 2. While I admit this is unusual for those 2 we can
safely leave them alone with a pile of toys and they will be perfectly
happy
to spread them all over the house.

Tori
-----------
That's because 2 y/o's think everything is a toy, even each other.
Steve

Both you and Kane have this problem. I really want to get something out of
what you are saying but then you get into all this swearing stuff. and name
calling. If you took out half to most of the swears and anger your posts
might be better to read and maybe people would listen to you. It is obvious
your mom did not believe in washing your mouth out with soap either.

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Anna or Xavier due 10/17/04
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"Kane" wrote:

The children that are only occasionally punished are in a quandry.
They are in a state of constantly wondering about that other shoe
falling.

That depends. If punishment comes out of the blue without any clear
warning, you're right. But if children are punished only when they are
deliberately doing something they know is wrong, such as violating a
rule or
ignoring a warning, the children can feel perfectly safe as long as they
are
not doing something they know is wrong.
----------------
They don't REALLY "know" those things are wrong, and they DON'T AGREE
with you that the things they want are wrong. They just have learned
to LIE to you! They hate lying, they hate not being able to be
themselves around you without being ASAAULTED, and they hate your
****ing guts for that!!

You see: They always feel that they don't dare be authentic, they
are terrified that they might slip and not care about the outcome
for a moment because living like that isn't WORTH IT, and that they
might reveal who they really WANT to be and that THEN you'll ASSAULT
them for it!! THAT'S what you do to children by your form
of antihumane sicko MIND-CONTROL! It's the same thing as a dictator
keeping a population under his heel by terror, it's not different
in ANY WAY!


Just to be crystal clear, what I am suggesting is NOT that it's okay for
a
parent just to whack a child out of the blue because the child is
bothering
him or her. I view that kind of behavior by parents as inherently
abusive
because it practically makes just being a child a punishable offense.
-----------------------
ANY hitting or coercing of a child is IMMORAL AND WRONG because it
damages their real good human nature, and converts it to hate and
the desire to give up on their own life for the chance to do evil
to you and anyone like you, to live a life empty to themselves
other than the embittered chance for revenge upon you, because
they know they won't be allowed to live THEIR OWN life!! Children
who give up on their life are the kids who do drive-by shootings!


Rather, what I am saying is that I consider it reasonable for parents to
sometimes make rules and give instructions and warnings and expect them
to
be obeyed
----------------
Expecting to be obeyed is ritualistic abuse. That's all it is!!


But I don't think parents' ability to do things they want to do
should be entirely at the mercy of their children's willingness to
cooperate, especially once children are old enough to understand that
the
universe does not revolve around them.
------------------
The Universe revolves around each one of us, each in our own universe.
You stay in YOUR ****ing universe, and leave them the **** alone in
theirs!!!

What you get to do depends totally on your obligations you voluntarily
incurred, those obligations are NOT YOUR CHILDREN'S FAULT, even though
your obligation is TO THEM!!


And I do NOT believe that parents who take such an approach, making time
for
their children's genuine needs and for many of their children's desires
but
not placing their freedom entirely at the mercy of their children's
willingness to cooperate, are being so selfish that "child bearing is
pointlessly selfish" for them.
-------------------
Overstepping your boundaries by insisting on control of anyone else
but yourself is sick abuse, it is an emotional illness!! Their rights
do NOT inconvenience you, unless what you WANT is actually merely to
sickly and abusively CONTROL THEM, instead of living YOUR OWN ****ing
life and keeping your ****ing hands to yourself!!


Nor, I suspect, would you have much luck
persuading their children that the exercise was "pointlessly selfish" on
the
part of their parents.
-----------------------------
Since your fixation on the obediance of others puts you in the
position of relying on others artificially for your gratification,
your desires are disjointed and pointless, and they rob you of
your own life, your own hobbies and interests, and your own
self-containment of your life.


In connection with the issue of children's knowing when they are at risk
of
being punished and when they are not, I might also mention the
importance of
consistency.
-------------
Consistently sick and evil.


If the official rules bear only a superficial resemblance to
what is actually permitted (or at least tolerated) in practice most of
the
time, the existence of the official rules is almost meaningless. The
children get used to breaking the rules and expecting not to be punished
for
doing so, and are thus taken almost as much by surprise on the
relatively
rare occasions when they do get punished for breaking the rules as if
the
rules didn't exist at all. The same is also true if parents only rarely
punish when warnings or threats regarding the children's behavior are
ignored.
------------------------
Nonsense, consistently evil acts merely make them SURE they hate your
guts EVEN SOONER AND SURER!!
Steve

Opps that was suposed to have a responce in it.. anyway that is why we do
not mind leaving them alone... though there was the time Alice cut some of
Bonnies hair with scissors.. there was no punishments because Alice was too
young to realise that just because it was a good thing that she had her hair
cut earlier that day Bonnie did not need a haircut Besides Both Deb and I
agreed that Bonnies hair would grow back and it almost has.

Tori

--
Bonnie 3/20/02
Anna or Xavier due 10/17/04
"Tori M." wrote in message
...
"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Tori M. wrote:

Two year olds should not be allowed unlimited access to each other.
THAT IS CALLED SUPERVISION.

You remind me of the mommies I've seen that plop their little
darlings
down in a pile of toys together and then ask the children to "share"
and expect it.

Two year olds are NOT socialized to share, or to the concept. They
cannot be, not even at three. At four they will begin NO MATTER WHAT
YOU DID BEFORE. It's built into humans.
My daughter and my neighbors daughter both 2 play together just fine
without
us looking over their sholders all the time. The have always played
well
together in fact since Bonnie was old enough to follow Alice around..
Alice
is 6 months older. The only time there is fighting between the 2 girls
is if
the older children 4 +5 are near them because then the older kids want
to
control the younger 2. While I admit this is unusual for those 2 we
can
safely leave them alone with a pile of toys and they will be perfectly
happy
to spread them all over the house.

Tori
-----------
That's because 2 y/o's think everything is a toy, even each other.
Steve

On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 13:00:40 -0500, "Tori M."
wrote:

Two year olds should not be allowed unlimited access to each other.
THAT IS CALLED SUPERVISION.

You remind me of the mommies I've seen that plop their little
darlings
down in a pile of toys together and then ask the children to
"share"
and expect it.

Two year olds are NOT socialized to share, or to the concept. They
cannot be, not even at three. At four they will begin NO MATTER
WHAT
YOU DID BEFORE. It's built into humans.
My daughter and my neighbors daughter both 2 play together just fine
without
us looking over their sholders all the time. The have always
played well
together in fact since Bonnie was old enough to follow Alice around..
Alice
is 6 months older. The only time there is fighting between the 2
girls is if
the older children 4 +5 are near them because then the older kids
want to
control the younger 2. While I admit this is unusual for those 2 we
can
safely leave them alone with a pile of toys and they will be
perfectly happy
to spread them all over the house.

Actually that is not unusual at all. Children that are having their
developmental needs met, that is sufficient stimulation of all their
senses and their interactions with their parents are rich with
emotional connection behave in just such a fashion.

They are comfortable in the world.

4 and five year olds are highly engaged in social learning, hence
there is actually more potential for conflict in that age group. They
too benefit by having a parent resource not too far away, but the need
for close proximity is diminishing rapidly as they approach six.

They are exerimenters in etiquette just as they were earlier
experimental physicists. If only parents would get it that that IS
what is going on with them, the punishment, and inappropropriate
interventions might ease up, and parenting would be the fun thing it's
meant to be.

Were it now, humans would NOT exist. We would have killed our kids at
the 'terrible twos" stage, when they were exploring. If you watch
primitives, that is people living closer to nature, you will see that
the ones that live full peaceful lives spend an inordinate (to us)
amount of time delightedly observing their children, with a word here
and there, and a bit of comforting when the inevitable pain by
exploration events take place.

We are constantly trying to subvert this or pay someone else to do it
for us....and we are never satisfied with the result.

Sad, eh?

Enjoy. Sounds like you are having fun. If it ain't fun, it ain't
parenting.


Tori

By the by, you are confused about Steve and his belief that life is or
should be fair. He recently stated it quite clearly that it is the
inevitable, perpetual and infinite SEEKING of fairness that makes us
human. A very different thing than and expection OF fairness
automatically. (I take license to reframe his statement).

We are driven....remember you at 8 years old....to seek fairness. If
we didn't have that particular characteristic this would be more of a
madhouse than it is now. It is likely the first real solid cause and
effect reasoning event or issue for us at 6 or so when our brains are
finally able to contemplate the abstract.

A couple of years of practice and observation makes us little liberals
at 8, and social reformers, if our parents haven't beaten it out of
us.

By 11 of course, we become nasty little brutes...R R R R....trying out
the next set of tricks our developming brains are capable
of.....duplicity. Some never develop beyond that, hence we have a
nation entraced with it....soap operas, business shenanigans, divorce,
and that old standby, whaling on our kids in the name of making them
more responsible, humane and caring people.....R R R R R

Kane

Kane, I will readily admit that I'm not perfect. But take a look at how
much of the material in your message is aimed at attacking and insulting me.
Can you find any example where I've focused so much energy on attacking
someone at the expense of trying to present my case?

Let me ask the question regarding women's rights another way: what arguments
were used by those OPPOSED to granting equal rights to women? Was, or was
not, the concept that women are significantly less capable than men,
including the analogy with the parent/child relationship, a central argument
in support of men's having authority to punish their wives? If you don't
think it was, then obviously one of us is off base regarding the historical
aspect of the situation.

Nathan

[This is the end of my reply; the material quoted below is included for
reference purposes only.]

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:53:36 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

....yet another steaming pile of duplicitous double talk and attempted
mind rape to cover up the exposure of his morally corrupt and
ethically crippled biases against children, and now women as well.
Tsk, Nathan, Tsk.

I've already spent more time than I really should be spending on
these
newsgroups, and I've about decided that you aren't much more worth
trying to
have an intelligent discussion with than Steve is.

But of course you'd never consider descending to the level of ad hom.

It's so generous of you to lavish us with your time and opinions.
We'll be eternally grateful for your gallant efforts to education the
savages.

You have some points
worth listening to, but you're so focused on repeating your core
material
over and over ad nauseam that it's a lot harder to have an
intelligent
discussion with you than it ought to be.

More misleading double talk. You, Walz, and other's posting here ALL
focus on our "core" material...our beliefs and knowledge. There is
very little repetition going on except in reframing and offering our
position yet again in response to YOUR REPETITION OF YOUR CORE
BELIEFS.

You are playing with words and f***king up your OWN mind by such
pretenses that are attempts at reframing the truth you know in that
locked part of your memory, and are being told again here, into
something evil.

If I thought you were honestly
interested in listening to me, I might feel differently, but it looks
to me
like the only reason you bother to ask anything at all is to try to
set up
your next attack.

Nathan, you are a master at it. Not an artist, but obviously well
practiced...and unconsciously. You are sick with your own childhood
trauma unresolved and your attempts to ease, as well as hide from,
that miserable pain you had to reframe into something okay so as not
to risk the loss of your parent's "love." quotes for emphasis.

There is, however, one issue in this message that I'll go ahead and
expand
on a bit more.

I just knew you would. {:-

"Kane" wrote in message
. com...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:07:26 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

The argument for why husbands should have
authority over their wives was, "Women aren't as smart and capable
as men, so wives need for their husbands to look after them and
take
care of them and exercise authority over them the same way that
children need for their parents to do so." The women's rights
argument was, "Women are just as intelligent and capable as men,
so they don't need a man to take care of them and tell them what
to do." The women's rights argument won because objective
reality does show that women can take care of themselves.
There was a clear practical issue at stake, not just a purely
abstract moral one.

Please define "abstract moral" vs "moral." Thank you.

If you were paying attention, you should have caught the distinction.

I didn't ask for an attack on my capacity to observe and attend. I
asked a question...and you haven't answered it here.

"There was a clear practical issue at stake, not just a purely
abstract
moral one." Think about it. I'm contrasting "practical" with
"purely
abstract."

That does NOT answer the question I asked. In fact it is a classic
setup to go on with what YOU wish to present....in fact it is an
attack, just as you accused me of by the same means.

You are setting me up by ignoring what I asked and through pretense,
answering a "question" I did not have, did not ask, but YOU wish to
pontificate on.

You are a fraud, plain and simple.

You are dodging the truth of your own childhood experience.

You are trying to claim that husbands' power to spank their wives was
eliminated based on a purely abstract principle of equality or
something
along those lines.

That does NOT define "abstract moral" as you used it. It's a Droan.
Pure and simple.

I make NO such claim. I simply pointed out that it was driven by
social mores, just as will take down the practice of spanking children
by laws motivated by the growing disgust moral people against the
practice.

You are all over the map trying to avoid this simple truth.

Social mores are themselves a somewhat more complex paradigm so you
can wander at will, picking this point and that pretending that what I
said isn't true because some small point was about something
else...but overall, the issue was and always will be, as it is today,
a moral one. .

I am pointing out that the central argument was a
practical one: Are wives like children that need someone to act in
the role
of a parent for them, or are they adults who are perfectly capable of
looking after their own interests without having to have someone act
as a
parent to them?

You have such a way with words. You use "practical" as a descriptor,
then DEFINE A MORAL PRINCIPLE.

Anything but admit I was right, right?

THAT QUESTION IS A MORAL QUESTION. THE PRACTICAL ASPECTS ARE
MINISCULE. Such practicabilities involved are subordinate, very.

Read your moral statement above outloud to someone, without your
preamble ("I am pointing out that the central argument was a practical
one") and ask them if this is a moral issue or a practical one. Keep
count of their answers.

Once society was convinced

As a practical matter or a moral one?

that women were fully capable of
looking after themselves as adults instead of needing a father or
husband or
some other male to play the role of a parent, the whole argument for
why
husbands should have legal authority over their wives evaporated
(except in
the eyes of people who took some of Paul's writings a bit farther
than Paul
did).

There's no mistaking the intent of Paul. I may be an atheist but I am
a learned one when it comes to scriptures. Make no mistake about it.
He was as much a misogynist as Solomon was a misanthropic bully,
brute, and mad man, besotted with his unlimited power. He WOULD have
had the child cleaved in two.

To quote Proverbs or Paul is NO support for any socially moral
position.

And you are wrong. The proof women were capable of self determination
and self support had been proven for a millennium. In times of war
they proved themselves again and again.

It took a MORAL attack to force the power mad twits to give it up and
give them the vote and stop beating them and give them the right to
inherit and to contract.

Law, came out of MORAL certitudes, not some cold calculated analysis
of the realities of the time. Men, misogynist men, had been fighting
the reality of women's capabilities for hundreds if not thousands of
years.

People who act on moral issues, from a moral base, on the facts, that
is reality, don't need LAWS to control them.

And it will prove true with children and pain parenting. It is
inevitable.

Even some women fought suffrage for their own sex. They had been
thoroughly conditioned, as you were as a child, and deeply feared both
the loss of love of their men and MORE beatings if they did not toe
the line.

But that argument hinges on the fact that wives ARE adults, that they
ARE
able to look after their own rights and interests on a symmetric
legal basis
with their husbands. That argument does NOT apply with children.

Poppycock and babbling twittery. Both sentences. I could as well claim
the argument for women's suffrage was based on hair length. That the
COULD care for themselves was a matter of fact for long before
suffrage. It was a moral issue that forced the exploiters to face the
law. Not "reality."

The only difference between children, and women, is that children are
underdeveloped. Nothing more. And that does NOT give license to use
pain and humiliation on them. Their incapacity, in a moral society,
demands they be protected from that kind of brute force care and
parenting.

So what you're arguing, in effect, is that since we stopped allowing
their
husbands to spank their wives because we realized that women are not
children, we should eliminate the power for parents to spank their
children
as well.

Where did I say we "should" do anything of the sort. I am arguing with
considerable more content than a simple "should."

You duplicitously put YOUR argument in my mouth. Shame on you.

My argument is that for the very same reason, reasons of morals and
ethics, we will stop spanking children as we stopped spanking women.
Moral issues.

That there ARE practical aspects is undeniable. Most moral issues have
very practical issues as a part of them.

That position is nonsensical. In order to make it stick, you have
to engage in some serious revision of history and try to portray the
issue
of women's rights as different from what it really was.

Liar. You have no idea of women's rights historically except from PBS
or whatever bits and pieces you have picked up and failed to sort out
intelligently.

http://www.rochester.edu/SBA/history.html

for a warmup, then:

http://www.rochester.edu/SBA/convention.html

"Individual women publicly expressed their desire for equality, but it
was not until 1848 that a handful of reformers in Seneca Falls, New
York, called "A Convention to discuss the social, civil, and religious
condition and rights of Woman." "

Does that look like they are trying to sell the electorate on the
practical matters of their real capacities, or are they about to
embark, as this pulled quote context states, they are about to bombard
America with a moral message?

And look at what they called their proclamation:
"The Declaration of Sentiments "

You are a pompous bellowing fool, pretentious and confused, but
convinced that children have to be hit.

You don't debate, you babble your creed of camouflaged child abuse.

That is a sickness. Get it fixed

I recommend you read Tom Gordon to discover the simple uncomplicated
language of love and caring for children. Three simple skills even a
pompous ass such as yourself could learn. IF you can give up your
belief in the infallibility of your parents, and the need to
perpetuate the pain on other small children.

Kane

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 01:53:36 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

Please define "abstract moral" vs "moral." Thank you.

If you were paying attention, you should have caught the
distinction.

I didn't ask for an attack on my capacity to observe and attend. I
asked a question...and you haven't answered it here.

The reason why I reacted the way I did was that it looked like one of two
things happened. Either you understood the distinction I was trying to make
and decided to make a fuss about my choice of wording to distract from my
actual point, or you decided to pick on my choice of wording without even
making a serious effort to understand my meaning. If I was right, I feel
like my tone of response was reasonable, either as a use of irony to point
out how pointless a word game is when you already understood me or as a
criticism of your refusing to try to understand. If I was wrong, I
apologize.

Nathan

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

I've already spent more time than I really should be spending on these
newsgroups, and I've about decided that you aren't much more worth trying to
have an intelligent discussion with than Steve is.
-----------------
Because you always lose an intelligent discussion.


If I thought you were honestly
interested in listening to me,
---------------
Is THAT what you really think we're here for???


I might feel differently, but it looks to me
like the only reason you bother to ask anything at all is to try to set up
your next attack.
--------------------
We know this stuff, we've spent our lives learning it, and you
haven't. It's bound to feel like we're ready for you, because we
ARE!!


There is, however, one issue in this message that I'll go ahead and expand
on a bit more.

"Kane" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 04:07:26 -0500, "Nathan A. Barclay"
wrote:

The argument for why husbands should have
authority over their wives was, "Women aren't as smart and capable
as men, so wives need for their husbands to look after them and take
care of them and exercise authority over them the same way that
children need for their parents to do so." The women's rights
argument was, "Women are just as intelligent and capable as men,
so they don't need a man to take care of them and tell them what
to do." The women's rights argument won because objective
reality does show that women can take care of themselves.
There was a clear practical issue at stake, not just a purely
abstract moral one.

Please define "abstract moral" vs "moral." Thank you.

If you were paying attention, you should have caught the distinction.
"There was a clear practical issue at stake, not just a purely abstract
moral one." Think about it. I'm contrasting "practical" with "purely
abstract."
----------------------------
Here is the REAL Practical Issue!: Bullying people dehumanizes them
and is unjustifiable EVEN IF they haven't the same skill as you!


You are trying to claim that husbands' power to spank their wives was
eliminated based on a purely abstract principle of equality or something
along those lines.
----------------
No, good versus evil!! It is evil and wrong to hurt and bully ANYONE!
Say it again: A*N*Y*O*N*E !!! Children are not equal to adults, but
neither are the mentally deficient half of the population, or elders
or cripples! And yet it IS WRONG to deprive these folks of their own
right to everything good they are capable of receiving!


I am pointing out that the central argument was a
practical one: Are wives like children that need someone to act in the role
of a parent for them,
------------------
This is YOUR imaginary notion of what CHILDREN are for, you're trying
to say "I believe A and B, B because of A, and A because of B." You
pretend it's some given that children are suitable to abuse, and then
pretend women are NOT ONLY because they aren't chldren! Got news for
ya, asshole, CHILDREN AREN'T EITHER!!


or are they adults who are perfectly capable of
looking after their own interests without having to have someone act as a
parent to them?
-----------------
NO one has to be PERFECTLY capable in order to deserve their right to
self-determination!


Once society was convinced that women were fully capable of
looking after themselves as adults instead of needing a father or husband or
some other male to play the role of a parent, the whole argument for why
husbands should have legal authority over their wives evaporated
--------------
No one needs to be "fully" anything to deserve their rights! A woman,
or anyone, may not be able to fell a tree in the wilderness, but they
still deserve their rights to what they CAN or CHOOSE to do. No one
specific inability justifies anyone's oppression by another! This
does away with ANY rationale for bullying children, and even any
overpowering of a child's full adult rights for any non-criminal
reason.


(except in
the eyes of people who took some of Paul's writings a bit farther than Paul
did).
-----------
Paul was a misogynistic piece of ****. He was an antisexual and a
homophobic closet-job.


But that argument hinges on the fact that wives ARE adults, that they ARE
able to look after their own rights and interests on a symmetric legal basis
with their husbands. That argument does NOT apply with children.
-----------------------
No relationship of autonomy needs to be "symmetric". No practical
relationship is symmetric, nor can it be, everyone is actually UNEQUAL,
but our equality in law resides in the denial of any right to bully
or coerce those who are smaller or weaker or less capable!!


So what you're arguing, in effect, is that since we stopped allowing their
husbands to spank their wives because we realized that women are not
children, we should eliminate the power for parents to spank their children
as well.
--------------------
Yes, women are STILL physically inferior, and they may actually
be intellectually so as well, because rights are NOT ABOUT ACTUAL
equality, but ONLY about equality BEFORE THE LAW, and the WRONGNESS
of bullying or coercing ANYONE who happens to be smaller, weaker,
or less capable!!

Your argument here would in principle invalidate the rights of
ANYONE who was weaker or less capable than another, AND merely
BECAUSE they were weaker!! This returns us to "might makes right"
and serfdom and servitude!! Thus your argument is defective!

We deserve rights NOT because we're equal, but PRECISELY because
WE ARE NOT EQUAL and NEED these rights to PROTECT us from those
who are STRONGER!!! Like HUSBANDS **AND** *PARENTS* of the bad
old days!


That position is nonsensical.
-----------------
You asserting that merely by statment is irrelevant.


In order to make it stick, you have
to engage in some serious revision of history and try to portray the issue
of women's rights as different from what it really was.
-------------------
Nope, WRONG, and I just told you why. Read it and LEARN!
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

I think you're missing the point. The argument for why husbands should
have authority over their wives was, "Women aren't as smart and capable
as men, so wives need for their husbands to look after them and take
care
of them and exercise authority over them the same way that children need
for their parents to do so." The women's rights argument was, "Women
are just as intelligent and capable as men, so they don't need a man to
take care of them and tell them what to do." The women's rights
argument won because objective reality does show that women can
take care of themselves. There was a clear practical issue at stake,
not just a purely abstract moral one.
----------------------
Nonsense, women as a class aren't as intellectually accomplished
as men, nor as talented, nor as perceptive. Now that may all be
environment, or it may actually be genetic/physical/chemical, we
did evolve somewhat at different purposes, even though being of
the same species.

Whatever factors are involved, the difference between the average man and
the average woman are dwarfed by the differences within each group. There
are a lot of women who are more capable than a lot of men, and that makes it
hard to support the view that the wife should always be under the husband's
authority.
----------------------------
That wasn't why, and it isn't why in the case of kids.


(By the way, in case anyone's interested, I'll point out a twist to Paul's
writings regarding marriage in Ephesians 5 that a lot of people miss. Paul
wrote for wives to be in submission to their husbands, but he also wrote for
husbands to love their wives just as Christ loved the Church and gave
himself for it.
---------------------
Paul was a vicious evil misogynist and a homophobic closet-job.
Jesus would have hated everything he said.


Trying to enforce the former with laws but not the latter
is a pretty effective recipe for unfair treatment, as history has shown.
And when a husband expects his wife to obey him essentially perfectly when
he does not love his wife equally close to perfectly - and treat her
accordingly - that's a pretty clear case of hypocrisy.)
------------------------
You're full of ridicious insane Paulist Xtain malarkey!
Steve

Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Nathan A. Barclay wrote:

When expression becomes a form of coercion, it is no longer an
alternative
to coercion. Forcing people to listen against their will is coercive
behavior.
---------------------
People who don't expect to do battle, who live together, must
accept communication from each other.

Within limits, yes. But those limits are crossed into the realm of coercion
when the goal is to get someone to give in so you'll stop talking.
-------------------------
Not if they are trying to avoid killing you for your abuse of their
rigghts.
Steve

Lesa wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Lesa wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
Lesa wrote:

"R. Steve Walz" wrote in message
...
abacus wrote:

"Lesa" wrote:

The relationship between the child and the parent is far
more
important than the bus leaving.

This is the crux of it all.

I don't think so. Few parents place the bus leaving as being
more
important than their relationship, but it's usually a bit more
urgent.
Further, those few crowded minutes before leaving the house for
the
day are not usually the best time and place for a lengthy
discussion.
-----------------------
The point being, that in a stable relationship of equals, this has
already been discussed and understood between them. The parent and
child have discussed this all at length and the needs of the
family
for income, and the effect that firings or financial hardship can
have on all of them. The child has already either agreed to the
circumstances, or they have not and this is known and something
else is done, it is not carried on ad hoc each morning
willy-nilly.


The whole concept of punishment vs.
consequences is based on the outlook of whether the
relationship
is
more
important, or having a submissive child who does whatever the
parent
wants
is important.

Again, I disagree. First of all, I think that what most parents
are
trying to get is an obedient and trustworthy child, which is not
the
same as a submissive one.
--------------
Yes it is. Parents who love their child do NOT want an "obedient"
child, in fact merely that whole notion of childraising OFFENDS
them
DEEPLY! They want a child who is happy and is getting what they
need
and want. As for trustworthy, they want a child who trusts THEM,
and
NOT one who can be "trusted" to merely parrot or "obey". I can see
that you have an emotional illness, and cannot fathom this.

Two very good points, especially the concept of the child not being
"obedient". There are certain things that DH& I feel "should" be
done,
and
when our kids were younger we discussed these with them, and asked
that
these things be done (as well as doing them ourselves) -- the kids
did
them
without question because they understood the importance to DH and
myself.

As they have gotten older, however, they have questioned some of
these
things. For example, I go to my mothers twice weekly, and bring the
kids
along twice monthly. My mom is 85 years old and is losing control
of
her
faculties, both physical and mental. Recently DD, then 12,
approached
me
concerning one of these trips to Grandma's. A friend of hers had an
extra
ticket to a concert (friend's father could not go); DD explained
that
she
knew that is was important to see Grandma and assist her in the ways
we
did
on these visits, but that this concert was a rare opportunity and
she
would
really like to tell her friend yes and not go along to Grandma's
this
time.
I told her this was fine, primarily because she had 1) thought it
through,
and 2) discussed it with me without having a tantrum.
--------------------
That's vicious mind control, your making your attention to your
child's needs contingent on whether they get angry, when the anger
arises PRECISELY AND ONLY from YOU NOT giving them needed attention
IN THE FIRST PLACE!
In MY book that's the same as hitting a child and then punishing
them for crying!
Steve

Wasn't contingent on whether or not she got angry. It was contingent on
discussing it rather than stamping her feet, yelling, slamming her door,
and
refusing to do anything but attend this concert--as teen grills are
known to
do. It was contingent on working cooperatively with other human beings.
She could be as angry as she wanted, but she still needed to be
cooperative.
------------------------
Nope. Everyone has the right to their opinion, and expression of it.
Steve

One can have any opinoin one wants, and can express it any way one want's in
privacy. Around others, certain things need to be kept in consideration.
Violence against others is not an option for expressing a view or opinoini.
------------------
Sure it is. The question is not whether it is violent, but whether
it is right! If you do violence in defense of your rights or another's,
then you're right, if against, then you're WRONG!
Steve