If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Kane" wrote in message om... On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:37:24 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote: [] Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and bullying style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral authority. If you aren't smart enough to see through my style then I doubt you are smart enough to figure out ways to parent without pain and humiliation. But I could be wrong. [further abuse snipped] You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule. Aren't you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to believe that preventing these things is really very important to you. I have told you about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me an alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent. You have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing spanking. Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high priority for you at all. Jayne |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message ... [] "Making Children Mind... Without Losing Yours," by Dr. Kevin Leman. An excellent book. Just what you need. [] Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look for it. Jayne |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Dan Sullivan" wrote in message t...
[ ] Spanking IS a last resort. Two or three swats with an open hand on the child's behind NOT while you're angry. Best, Dan Perhaps we disagree about the meaning of 'last resort.' In the families I know where spanking is a 'last resort,' I see elastic boundaries, boundaries that change depending on circumstances outside the child's control or cognizance. The point of last resort may be reached with startling speed before Mom has her coffee, if Dad is having a bad day, if the parents are stressed by some situation totally unrelated to the child's behavior. The same behavior that caused a spanking yesterday morning may be repeated for hours on another day if the parents are not stressed by external factors. If what I want to teach my child is to obey me for his own protection and safety, leaving a spanking until some nebulous 'last resort' doesn't seem the best method to help children learn what the boundaries are. In fact, I think this 'last resort' thinking teaches the children that the goal is not to respect the boundaries that are set up for their protection and well-being, but that the goal is to figure out how not to make the parent angry- and since this alters from day to day through circumstances outside the child's control or understanding, leaving spanking as a last resort seems the worst way to teach a child anything, except perhaps to gamble on the chance that they may or not get a spanking for the exact same act of disobedience. The last resort method truly is random. I also have seen cases in 'last resort' families where the same behavior merits a spanking if that behavior ends up in accidental breakage, but if no such breakage occurs, no spanking results. This seems to teach the children that what they have no control in whether or not they receive a spanking, as they are really getting spanked for the accident, which they could not control, not the disobedience, which they can. For us, when we say spanking is not a last resort, that also means that spanking is the consistent result of certain behaviors. People like to say that we should never spank a child when we are angry. I disagree wtih that. I think rather, that we should never spank _because_ we are angry. For example, if it is a rule in your house that children do not jump on the bed, then a young child who jumps on the bed should be spanked, not as a last result, but as a predictable consequence of that disobedience. If spanking is to be effective, this means that a child receives a spanking _every_ time he jumps on the bed- whether he is doing something cute and funny while jumping on the bed and has made you laugh, or whether in jumping on the bed he accidentally knocks over a lamp and breaks it, making you angry. Your anger can have nothing to do with whether or not you spank. It should certainly never be the reason you spank, but neither should it be a reason _not_ to spank (more on this below). The spanking is determined only by the actual behavior of disobedience in violating a well-known rule. I think it's a good idea to determine well before you ever spank that you will _never_ spank beyond a set limitation. Whether or not you are angry, how angry you are, the side effects of a child's behavior- none of these things should be permitted to influence how many swats on the backside a child receives. The only question is 'did the child disobey?' If so, then the child must receive the predetermined consequence within the predetermined limits. That limit was determined long ago, in a moment of calm, thoughtful reason, and you simply don't permit yourself to go beyond those limitations. So I would say, two or three swats with the open hand on the child's backside *regardless* of whether or not you are angry- only because a child has disobeyed a safety rule, and always when he disobeys a safety rule. Your level of anger, which is subjective, should have nothing to do with it. Kanga |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
LaVonne Carlson wrote:
There was a time in US history when the arguments you use against legally banning spanking was used to support slavery, to support spousal abuse, and to support the position that women could not own property or vote. These positions were challenged in court, and wars were fought over these positions. Guess what, Greg? Slavery is now illegal, spousal abuse is now llegal (including spousal rape) and women can vote. There will come a time in the US that children are also protected. You'll have to kill me first. -- + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + Chris Barnes AOL IM: CNBarnes Yahoo IM: chrisnbarnes |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message ... "Dan Sullivan" wrote in message ... [] "Making Children Mind... Without Losing Yours," by Dr. Kevin Leman. An excellent book. Just what you need. [] Thanks for the recommendation. I'll look for it. Jayne Be prepared to learn and to laugh out loud (it's pretty funny). This book helped me tremendously with my kids. We never went thru the terrible two's with any of them. And my 14 YO daughter still hold my hand when we walk together. Best, Dan |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Jayne wrote
You have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing spanking. Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high priority for you at all. Kane, you ARE your own worst enemy. |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
"Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote in message ...
"Kane" wrote in message om... On Mon, 20 Oct 2003 23:37:24 -0400, "Jayne Kulikauskas" wrote: [] Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and bullying style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral authority. If you aren't smart enough to see through my style then I doubt you are smart enough to figure out ways to parent without pain and humiliation. But I could be wrong. [further abuse snipped] You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule. Then you have made a judgement by limiting yourself to as little knowledge about me as possible. I do hope that wasn't so that you could preserve your mindset. Just open in google and hit that old name and see what comes up. You'll find I can post many ways. Aren't you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? Oh, you have been paying attention then. Doesn't a parent try to cause pain and humiliation when they spank-hit a child? I find it hard to believe that preventing these things is really very important to you. That isn't about me. That's about your attachment to the idea of spanking. I have told you about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me an alternative to spanking There are so many alternatives I cannot believe, unless you are already a spanking that you have't explored any. What have you been doing all this time your child was misbehaving? Gritting you teeth? you have called me a liar and a bad parent. I don't recall calling you a bad parent. Ignorant possibly. No crime in that...unless you continue to hold on to it and grab the first quick fix that comes along. You have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing spanking. Thank you. I knew eventually I would get through to you. Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high priority for you at all. You are about as accurate about that as you are about how to raise a child without having to resort to hitting. Jayne So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you pain and humiliate you? Get my drift here? And you and I are adults...presumably. We can communicate with a considerable level of understanding and nuance totally beyond the capacity of a small child. You even thought I was telling you you were a bad parent...that takes some abstraction (even if wrong) to come to some conclusion. Chilren do not have the capacity. Plain and simple. And those that would claim they do are victims of the fantastic memory capacity and desire to please that child DO have. But that does not equate with understanding. The day you presume the Innocence of the child and start to work from there your troubles with your son will be over. All you have to do is figure out what they need and give it to them, repeatedly. It's the repetition that lodges the desired message in the child's brain for later use when they can apply their understanding, over six years of age. Most successful parenting methods you'll run across, even if they miss this fact, work because of it. They de-escalate the punishment routines and increase the support routines. Even the sloppy ones work to some degree because they are more reactive the the reality of the child. There is a drive in every child to learn. And nature gives not a whit whether YOU know it or not, or act on it. The child WILL do it, either with your help, or lacking that some other way...the other ways tend to lead toward criminality or mental illness. I don't just want to stop spanking. Frankly if you did everything else right I doubt you could do much harm using no more spanking than the suggested three swats on the bottom with the open hand. What is missing, and why spanking and other forms of punishment go astray is that they do not give the child a chance to learn WHAT to do, only what not to do. Were you or any child you know spanked for not learning how to ride their bikes? No, of course not. Even the ignorant of parent knows better than that. What amazes me is that they cannot extrapolate that simple fact of learning to other areas of life. A common example. Street entry into traffic. I've been hearing about this seriously from folks since 1976. My answer then is the same as now...two answers actually: If the child is too young to learn, without being pounded on, not to run in traffic then you are not supervising adequately and that includes not letting them play near the street. The second answer is in the Embry study. Children told what to do have an out from the behavior you want stopped. "Don't jump on the bed" pretty well insures that they will. "The trampoline is for jumping so that is where you can jump." Don't have a trampoline? Well.........get.........one. Most abuse of children begins with high minded ideas about punishment them into compliance. Nature isn't the least interested in compliance. It WILL make that child explore their environment. If you really want a hardcore book on child rearing one of the best I've run across in a long time is Tom Gordon's Parent Effectiveness Training. But for do it right now without having to learn any special skills (Tom's book is a skills acquisition book..sadly) try Smart Love by Pieper and Pieper. Have a nice day. In fact, have a nice life. I've done all I can do here. The fools have exposed themselves. The ones that have any capacity for empathy have also revealed that. Tell Mike thanks. Kane |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canadashould ban spanking
Tuesday, the 21st of October, 2003 [various snips] Kane wrote: So tell me, Jayne. How does it feel to have someone try to cause you pain and humiliate you? I don't know how she takes it. I've been a fan of Jayne for years now, so I suspect/wish/hope she probably is unaffected by your attempts to do that. I know your attempts to do the same in my direction have been laughable. Kane: Get my drift here? Yeah, but you've never gotten mine, which is: We have the human power to choose our reaction to speech/text, and therefore the attempt by a speaker or writer "to cause us pain or humiliation" is *always* laughable unless we choose pain or humiliation for ourselves. Kane: And you and I are adults...presumably. As I saw it, Jayne merely pointed out you tried to cause her pain and humiliation. Which is true. As I saw it also, however, Jayne didn't say you caused her pain and humiliation. [] Kane: Were you or any child you know spanked for not learning how to ride their bikes? No, of course not. Even the ignorant of parent knows better than that. What amazes me is that they cannot extrapolate that simple fact of learning to other areas of life. What is amazes me is that you can claim the validity of extrapolation here, but deny it in the other direction. Kane: A common example. Street entry into traffic. I've been hearing about this seriously from folks since 1976. My answer then is the same as now...two answers actually: If the child is too young to learn, without being pounded on, not to run in traffic then you are not supervising adequately and that includes not letting them play near the street. This is simple nonsense. We aren't talking "letting the child play near the street", we are talking the 1000 times a week the child of a necessity in modern life ends up in a situation where he can run out into traffic---unless you can hire a babysitter for every drive to the grocery store, you are going have to demand the child takes your hand and marches obediently with you in all kinds of situations in public where it will be in the way, disruptive, and inconsiderate of other people for the child to do what the child wants to do. Kane: The second answer is in the Embry study. The Embry study is so much bull****. My children were trained by spanking not to run out in the street. My children habitually reached (and reach in the younger instance) for my, or an adult's hand, when in a parking lot. They stop at the edge of the street when walking along a sidewalk, and wait for the adult hand to hold in crossing. That permits them freedom from the adul hand hold while walking along the sidewalk, etc.. The discipline they have learned has become self-discipline, and opens the door for them to greater freedoms than they would have if supervise them in the way you are suggesting. Kane: Children told what to do have an out from the behavior you want stopped. "Don't jump on the bed" pretty well insures that they will. "The trampoline is for jumping so that is where you can jump." Don't have a trampoline? Well.........get.........one. This is the most appalling child-rearing advice I have ever seen. A trampoline is just as dangerous as a bed to a child who is small and is jumping on a bed. My daughter Helen injured herself quite early jumping on the bed. She flipped off by misstep and went down face first on the corner of a hardwood dresser, jamming her top front teeth all the way up into her jaw. She was screaming and her face was a bloody mess. Luckily, they were baby teeth, and the doctor at the emergency room and the dentist later said they'd grow back out, and they did. You can break a neck on a trampoline. And I think permitting children to jump on one before those children have demonstrated they have the self-discipline to keep things in control and follow the safety rules is taking a big risk. Life is not risk-free, but the idea is to bring them to the point where they know the risks, act so as to minimize them within reason (that is, take them intelligently), and choose the risks for themselves. And that is the problem with jumping on the bed---the child is certainly not choosing the risks, the child isn't cognizant of the risks. Mike Morris ) |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Kane wrote
If you aren't smart enough to see through my style then I doubt you are smart enough to figure out ways to parent without pain and humiliation. But I could be wrong. This is a guy who clearly has no impulse control telling other people to resist impulses. He preaches against humiliation but practices the opposite. Next he'll probably have sex to preach virginity. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
Ray attempts Biblical justification: was U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking
Jayne Kulikauskas writes:
Your content is lost in your style. You write in an abusive and bullying style about how spanking is abusive bullying. You lose all moral authority. Hi, Jayne! Professionals using a family-systems approach may have an explanation for Kane's choice of the moral low road. Kane has shared with us that he perceived himself a victim of bullying during his childhood. He said that he was a small kid and other children picked on him. Kane set upon a mission to physically assault the children. He says that, today, he cannot count the number of children's noses he broke. Later, Kane said he grew taller and children were afraid of him. In another post, Kane tells us the age at which he decided not to hit children. But prior to that time it appears he experienced a rather violent, abusive childhood. Family-system theorists may hold that he bullies today because he continues to perceive himself as a victim. You appear unable to converse with me without insults and ridicule. Aren't you trying to cause me pain and humiliation? I find it hard to believe that preventing these things is really very important to you. I have told you about my difficulties with my youngest child and rather than giving me an alternative to spanking you have called me a liar and a bad parent. You have proven to me just how dedicated you really are to preventing spanking. Whatever your words claim, your actions show that this is not a high priority for you at all. The abusive language he chooses -- especially to describe pseudo-events involving children -- is troublesome. Family-systems folks would lay the blame on his parents or foster caregiver. Others would say he is a self-made man. But few readers, if any, internalize his bullying as reflective of them. He speaks volumes about himself. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
"Parenting Without Punishing" | Chris | General | 328 | July 1st 04 05:59 AM |
Debate on spanking | Doan | General | 0 | June 12th 04 08:30 PM |
| | Kids should work... | Kane | General | 13 | December 10th 03 02:30 AM |
Kids should work. | LaVonne Carlson | General | 22 | December 7th 03 04:27 AM |
|| U.N. rules Canada should ban spanking | Kane | Spanking | 0 | October 9th 03 08:35 PM |