Smack the parents

Smack the parents who smack their children and see how they like it. Not
much I bet !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Abuse breads abuse.

I'm not one to advocate violence as a teaching method or as a punishment for
anyone. However, I've often wondered how adults would respond if suddenly
spanking (corporal punishment) was once again legal for them. If we
suddenly made it once again legal for husbands to hit their wives for
disobedience...how many mothers would continue to advocate for spanking.

Abuse does breed abuse, Libby. Research shows it, and common sense knows
it. What do we have to do in this country to start protecting our children?

LaVonne

Libby wrote:

Smack the parents who smack their children and see how they like it. Not
much I bet !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Abuse breads abuse.

Lavonne did her usual rhetorical question gig, while civil liberties of
families are being flushed:

What do we have to do in this country to start protecting our children?

1. Enact tax breaks for parents.

2. Fully fund Preschools--as for example, France does.

3.Give parents time off from work to meet with teachers.

4. Enact bills like Family Leave Act.

5. Help families with college tuition.

6. And many more.

Stop repeating your SAME OLD, SAME OLD, Lavonne, let's raise the level of the
conversation here.



Lavonne pulls out the same boiler-plate question she always employs:


Subject: Smack the parents
From: LaVonne Carlson
Date: 10/21/2003 10:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

I'm not one to advocate violence as a teaching method or as a punishment for
anyone. However, I've often wondered how adults would respond if suddenly
spanking (corporal punishment) was once again legal for them. If we
suddenly made it once again legal for husbands to hit their wives for
disobedience...how many mothers would continue to advocate for spanking.

Abuse does breed abuse, Libby. Research shows it, and common sense knows
it. What do we have to do in this country to start protecting our children?

LaVonne

Libby wrote:

Smack the parents who smack their children and see how they like it. Not
much I bet !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Abuse breads abuse.

The problem is, LaVonne, you don't have common-sense! Spanking is not
abuse! ;-)

Doan

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

I'm not one to advocate violence as a teaching method or as a punishment for
anyone. However, I've often wondered how adults would respond if suddenly
spanking (corporal punishment) was once again legal for them. If we
suddenly made it once again legal for husbands to hit their wives for
disobedience...how many mothers would continue to advocate for spanking.

Abuse does breed abuse, Libby. Research shows it, and common sense knows
it. What do we have to do in this country to start protecting our children?

LaVonne

Libby wrote:

Smack the parents who smack their children and see how they like it. Not
much I bet !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Abuse breads abuse.

On Tue, 21 Oct 2003, Libby wrote:

Smack the parents who smack their children and see how they like it. Not
much I bet !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Abuse breads abuse.

Why don't you try smacking the police with a baton and see how they like
it? If abuse breads abuse then bakers should be happy! ;-)

Doan

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...
I'm not one to advocate violence as a teaching method or as a punishment
for
anyone. However, I've often wondered how adults would respond if
suddenly
spanking (corporal punishment) was once again legal for them.
Well things would probably not be much differant. Corprol punishment is
legal in all 50 states. If you mean allow abuse such as sever beatings then
yes some parents would go overboard. Most people are going to do what they
feel is right regardless of what the law says. The differance is they would
not have to fear going to jail and losing their kids. Thus making parenting
much easier. The way it is now parents have to cater to their childrens
feelings on everything. There is nothing to stop them from carrying on until
they get their way. The child grows up expecting the world to revolve around
their feelings. Spanked children are forced to do things. They learn that
they have no choice in some things, thus they learn not to sweat every
issue.

If we
suddenly made it once again legal for husbands to hit their wives for
disobedience...how many mothers would continue to advocate for spanking.

Right now women have more rights that men. Women dominate many homes,
because they know that with children even if the marriage doesn't work out
they will still get child support for 18 years for each child. So all a
woman has to do is find a man, have a few kids by him and divorce him. After
that turn the kids against the father and he is out of the picture while the
mother still gets money from him for the next 18 years. If it became legal
for men to spank their wives other laws would have to change as well.
Meaning few woman would put up with it. If we did change other laws
we would be going back 200 years to all of the issues that caused this
practice to become illegal in the first place. We have to look at other
issues such as what causes a man to hit his wife in the first place. Most
men who hit or would hit their wives do it because she drives him to do it.
Unlike the Lifetime moves that shows the woman getting beat up because she
didn't cook a good enough dinner. In the real world woman get hit because
they push the man over board. Except for those men that are just
self-centered and think that woman should be their slave.

If a woman supported spanking her kids chances are she was spanked as a
child. From my experiences with women who were never spanked or spanked out
of anger by self centered parents were the ones I felt like hitting myself,
but never did or ever will. The ones that were spanked were easier to reason
with for reasons I stated above. Even if a husband did hit his wife that
grew up being spanked she would likely feel that she deserved where one that
was never spanked would just retaliate.
So to answer you question I do not think it would have much different

Fern,

We have to do all the things you mention below to begin protecting children. We
also have to provide them with the same protection you and I enjoy -- protection
from physical assault.

Since the poster I was responding to was discussing spanking, I responded in
kind. Protecting children from physical assault in no way eliminates what you
have outlined below. A society can provide your five points below, and under
point 6, include protection from physical assault in the name of discipline.
It's not an either/or situation, Fern.

LaVonne

Fern5827 wrote:

Lavonne did her usual rhetorical question gig, while civil liberties of
families are being flushed:

What do we have to do in this country to start protecting our children?

1. Enact tax breaks for parents.

2. Fully fund Preschools--as for example, France does.

3.Give parents time off from work to meet with teachers.

4. Enact bills like Family Leave Act.

5. Help families with college tuition.

6. And many more.

Stop repeating your SAME OLD, SAME OLD, Lavonne, let's raise the level of the
conversation here.

Lavonne pulls out the same boiler-plate question she always employs:

Subject: Smack the parents
From: LaVonne Carlson
Date: 10/21/2003 10:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

I'm not one to advocate violence as a teaching method or as a punishment for
anyone. However, I've often wondered how adults would respond if suddenly
spanking (corporal punishment) was once again legal for them. If we
suddenly made it once again legal for husbands to hit their wives for
disobedience...how many mothers would continue to advocate for spanking.

Abuse does breed abuse, Libby. Research shows it, and common sense knows
it. What do we have to do in this country to start protecting our children?

LaVonne

Libby wrote:

Smack the parents who smack their children and see how they like it. Not
much I bet !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Abuse breads abuse.

billy f wrote:

"LaVonne Carlson" wrote in message
...
I'm not one to advocate violence as a teaching method or as a punishment
for
anyone. However, I've often wondered how adults would respond if
suddenly
spanking (corporal punishment) was once again legal for them.
Well things would probably not be much differant. Corprol punishment is
legal in all 50 states. If you mean allow abuse such as sever beatings then
yes some parents would go overboard.

What is overboard? In some states, children can be bruised and hit with
implements. In other states, leaving a mark on a child is considered
overboard.

Most people are going to do what they
feel is right regardless of what the law says.

Actually, this isn't true. Countries that have legally banned spanking have
found that over the years, public support for the practice has decreased as a
result of the law.

The differance is they would
not have to fear going to jail and losing their kids. Thus making parenting
much easier.

I have never suggested sending a parent who spanks to jail. I've also never
advocated allowing practices that make parenting easier. Parenting is a hard
job, it's probably the hardest job most people ever have, especially if it is
done correctly. Parenting is about raising and teaching children to become
productive adult citizens. Parenting is not about how much parents can get
away with to make the job easier.

The way it is now parents have to cater to their childrens
feelings on everything. There is nothing to stop them from carrying on until
they get their way. The child grows up expecting the world to revolve around
their feelings.

If you truly believe this, you severely lack parenting skills. Try taking a
parenting course and learning something about how children best learn, grow,
and develop.

Spanked children are forced to do things. They learn that
they have no choice in some things, thus they learn not to sweat every
issue.

Well, goodness gracious. I certainly didn't want my children to learn this. I
wanted my children to develop self-control and learn to make good decisions. I
never wanted them to comply because they were forced through being hit. I
guess you and I have different goals for our children. You want your children
to learn nothing but compliance out of fear and force. My children are 20 and
24, and I'm so glad I never spanked them.

The rest of your garbage isn't worth a response.

LaVonne



If we
suddenly made it once again legal for husbands to hit their wives for
disobedience...how many mothers would continue to advocate for spanking.

Right now women have more rights that men. Women dominate many homes,
because they know that with children even if the marriage doesn't work out
they will still get child support for 18 years for each child. So all a
woman has to do is find a man, have a few kids by him and divorce him. After
that turn the kids against the father and he is out of the picture while the
mother still gets money from him for the next 18 years. If it became legal
for men to spank their wives other laws would have to change as well.
Meaning few woman would put up with it. If we did change other laws
we would be going back 200 years to all of the issues that caused this
practice to become illegal in the first place. We have to look at other
issues such as what causes a man to hit his wife in the first place. Most
men who hit or would hit their wives do it because she drives him to do it.
Unlike the Lifetime moves that shows the woman getting beat up because she
didn't cook a good enough dinner. In the real world woman get hit because
they push the man over board. Except for those men that are just
self-centered and think that woman should be their slave.

If a woman supported spanking her kids chances are she was spanked as a
child. From my experiences with women who were never spanked or spanked out
of anger by self centered parents were the ones I felt like hitting myself,
but never did or ever will. The ones that were spanked were easier to reason
with for reasons I stated above. Even if a husband did hit his wife that
grew up being spanked she would likely feel that she deserved where one that
was never spanked would just retaliate.
So to answer you question I do not think it would have much different

Cycle of Abuse - The US GAO General Accounting
Office, which researches for the US Congress found
that the much touted "cycle of abuse" was unproven.

But it's in ALL the Socialist Worker textbooks.
It SOUNDS good, but despite the solid belief, it's bogus.
The only reason this belief goes on is because
there are believers. It's a myth.

Most people are going to do what they
feel is right regardless of what the law says.

You don't know how relevant that is to SWEDEN!

LaVonne wrote
Actually, this isn't true. Countries that have
legally banned spanking have found that over the
years, public support for the practice has decreased
as a result of the law.

What place are you referring to, LaVonne?

Did you actually dare to try the old saw about SWEDEN?
That was a scam you anti-spanker zealots used for years!
Until we found a sarcastic article from Denmark and
then Kane revealed some truth about the no spank law there.
A law with absulutely NO TEETH, which is IGNORED.

So all of the claims about how and why things got better
in Sweden are a giant belly laugh.

It's turns out the pill that caused all of the changes
was actually a PLACEBO! Practically NOBODY changed
their practices regarding spanking.

billy f
We have to look at other issues such as what causes
a man to hit his wife in the first place. Most men
who hit or would hit their wives do it because she
drives him to do it.

I both agree and disagree billy.
According to some feminist womens groups, the BIGGEST
cause of men hitting women is women hitting men.
They feminists pointed out that in over half of all
domestic violence convictions of men, women actually
STARTED THE PHYSICAL VIOLENCE. They warned that if
the system doesn't get more realistic, anger and
resentment would go up and credibility would go down.

I myself have discovered that at least in this area
there is an amazingly large number of women who KNOW
that a huge portion of domestic abuse charges are bogus.
I drove taxi for awhile and witnessed several other
situations where women ABUSED domestic violence laws.
One nut case claimed 3 domestic abuse incidents by
two different guys in two months. Another woman
was turning tricks for the landlord in exchange
for the rent. Then she scammed me out of $10 worth
of cab fare and "hid out" at the battered women shelter.
I called them up and of course they would not
put her on the phone or admit she was there, so
I acknowledged their security precautions, but
proceeded to ask them if they intended that their
shelter was to be a haven for women scamming
cab drivers for taxi fare. I found out months
later that she was scamming co workers at her
job, and even scamming other people at the shelter.
Both the shelter and her job gave her the boot
for scamming people.

I'd assert that money issues, spending and bills
are more representative of root causes for domestic
violence than the cliche' Billy Bob demanding
supper in the table.

Even the hard working OTR truck driver or Airline
Pilot returning and finding another man in bed with
his wife probably happens more than the Billy Bob
cliche'.

You are right though billy f, in feeling that
women's own contribution to the domestic violence
puzzle is severely minimized. The Billy Bob
cliche' exists but to pretend it is common is
false and used to cover up much more common and
tangeable issues like money, infidelity, drunkenness,
insane shopping or drug habits.

Did you know that Domestic Violence victims programs
actually encourage women to embezzle family funds to
create a little "escape fund"?

For families on a tight budget, this could in
itself cause the fur to fly.

billy f wrote
Unlike the Lifetime [movies]

What I found amusing in Batterers Education Program
(Whereas women went to Womens Education Program)
was that much of the media materials used were really
no better than some of the dramatic crap from Lifetime.

In one example the video depicted a woman being
devious and blatantly lying to her husband.
It was of course blamed on the man.
The woman was lying to avoid the verbal
anger of her husband. Nobody had ever
considered that the LIES and deception
she exhibited might be the reason that he
was verbally angry.

We also had a fanatical male instructor
named Matt who sorta "flipped" in the class.
Using fanatics as instructors can sometimes go badly.
Even more rediculous since he is a psychologist.
I wonder what the APA would think if they heard
about him "flipping out" like that teaching a class?

Along these gender lines, I'd also like to point out
that while non-related males have been getting
blamed for a huge portion of child abuse, one
report I saw recently stated that 68% of all
child abuse is perpetrated by women.
I don't know how to reconcile those two ideas.

In looking at some conviction numbers it occurred
to me that the BELIEF that men are the perpetrators
might have more to do with their higher conviction
rate than the actuality of the abuse.

What if this VIEW that men are the perps is
a sort of "self-fulfilling prophecy"?

Is it possible that even though 68% of all child
abuse is really done by women, that the perception
that MEN are the perps causes them to have
the majority of the convictions?

I presented it here because it does have some
similarity to the problem with Domestic violence
convictions as reported by the womens group.

For all our talk about racial and gender equality
I think a lot of the public perception is BS.
This thing where men quietly "take their lumps"
combined with the "boogie man effect" are giving
men a bad rap that they don't deserve.

On Thu, 23 Oct 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

Fern,

We have to do all the things you mention below to begin protecting children. We
also have to provide them with the same protection you and I enjoy -- protection
from physical assault.

They are already PROTECTED from physical assault.

Since the poster I was responding to was discussing spanking, I responded in
kind. Protecting children from physical assault in no way eliminates what you
have outlined below. A society can provide your five points below, and under
point 6, include protection from physical assault in the name of discipline.
It's not an either/or situation, Fern.

No one with common sense would think that spanking is "physical assault".
Logic and the anti-spanking zealotS, are they mutually exclusive? :-)

Doan

LaVonne

Fern5827 wrote:

Lavonne did her usual rhetorical question gig, while civil liberties of
families are being flushed:

What do we have to do in this country to start protecting our children?

1. Enact tax breaks for parents.

2. Fully fund Preschools--as for example, France does.

3.Give parents time off from work to meet with teachers.

4. Enact bills like Family Leave Act.

5. Help families with college tuition.

6. And many more.

Stop repeating your SAME OLD, SAME OLD, Lavonne, let's raise the level of the
conversation here.

Lavonne pulls out the same boiler-plate question she always employs:

Subject: Smack the parents
From: LaVonne Carlson
Date: 10/21/2003 10:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:

I'm not one to advocate violence as a teaching method or as a punishment for
anyone. However, I've often wondered how adults would respond if suddenly
spanking (corporal punishment) was once again legal for them. If we
suddenly made it once again legal for husbands to hit their wives for
disobedience...how many mothers would continue to advocate for spanking.

Abuse does breed abuse, Libby. Research shows it, and common sense knows
it. What do we have to do in this country to start protecting our children?

LaVonne

Libby wrote:

Smack the parents who smack their children and see how they like it. Not
much I bet !!!!!!!!!!!!!! Abuse breads abuse.