Psych aggression to kids almost 100% Am families Straus sez

.....Hmmmmm......like trying to legislate when rain falls...........


Psychological Aggression Toward Children Almost Universal in American Families
Libraries
Life News (Social and Behavioral Sciences) Keywords
FAMILIES CHILDREN PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION RESEARCH AMERICAN
Contact Information

Available for logged-in reporters only
Description

Psychological aggression toward children of all ages is so prevalent in
American family life that it was found in almost all the families studied in
new research.


Psychological aggression toward children of all ages is so prevalent in
American family life that it was found in almost all the families studied in
new research by Murray Straus, Professor of Sociology and co-Director of the
Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire; and Carolyn
Field, sociology researcher at Elizabethtown College.

For their article, “Psychological Aggression by American Parents: National
Data on Prevalence, Chronicity, and Severity,� in the November issue of
Journal of Marriage and Family, researchers Straus and Field studied 991
American parents. Almost all of the parents reported yelling, screaming, or
shouting as a method of correction or to control the behavior of the child.
“This means,� states Straus, “that nearly all parents, regardless of
other demographic characteristics, used at least some psychological aggression
as a disciplinary tactic.�

In their article, Straus and Field note that parents and authorities are
reluctant to label this type of aggression as abuse. One reason for the
reluctance may be the widespread belief that such a label would require
criminal justice or child-welfare intervention. “Not true,� states Straus.
“Many less extreme steps to end psychological aggression are possible,
starting with public service television spots to sensitize parents to the
problem.� The researchers also disagree with another widespread belief that
the resilient child is not harmed by the occasional instance of psychological
aggression. “There is no empirical evidence,� Straus stated, “to indicate
occasional psychological abuse, such as the frustrated parent ‘blowing off
steam,’ is harmless.�

Two other common arguments are given for the lack of recognition of
psychological aggression as abuse. The first argument is that even the most
loving parents will occasionally “lose it.� Straus and Field comment that
this is an explanation for some types of psychological aggression, rather than
a justification for this behavior. And, second, there’s the difficult issue
of when to draw the line between psychological aggression and abuse. “Is it
the 10th time or the 25th time?� ask the authors. Straus’s own opinion is
that, “Any psychological aggression is abuse the moment it is done.�

“Throughout his career,� states Greer Litton Fox, Professor of Child and
Family Studies at the University of Tennessee, “Murray Straus has opened our
collective eyes to the negative side of family life and forced the American
public to come to grips with issues that we might prefer to ignore. Taken all
together these data suggest that nearly every child in this country with some
regularity has experienced many withering outbursts from parents who were angry
or upset, or in response to a child’s misbehavior.�

When asked where should this research go next, Fox replies, “Two directions
would seem especially useful. First would be the relationships between parental
verbal behaviors and the circumstances that elicit them. If we knew how they
were related, perhaps we could help to reduce the amount of verbal aggression
parents direct toward children. Second is the effect of parental verbal
behaviors on child outcomes. We need to know in what ways, if any, the kinds of
behaviors identified in this article as parental psychological aggression
affect children. If we know the effects, we are in a better position to
counteract them.�

Straus and Field agree with Fox’s assessment of future directions. But
although Straus concludes that researchers need to define levels of aggression
and the extent they are tied to unfavorable outcomes for the child, he
stresses, “I am confident we will find that, because of its negative
consequences, psychological aggression is unacceptable at any level.�



The Journal of Marriage and Family is a quarterly publication of the National
Council on Family Relations, 3989 Central Avenue NE, Suite 550, Minneapolis, MN
55421.

Go to http://www.ncfr.org/about_us/j_press_releases.asp for the full article.

Way a minute! Is this the "alternatives" that anti-spanking zealotS like
Haueser recommended???

Doan


On 15 Nov 2003, Fern5827 wrote:

....Hmmmmm......like trying to legislate when rain falls...........


Psychological Aggression Toward Children Almost Universal in American Fam=
ilies
Libraries
Life News (Social and Behavioral Sciences) Keywords
FAMILIES CHILDREN PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION RESEARCH AMERICAN
Contact Information

Available for logged-in reporters only
Description

Psychological aggression toward children of all ages is so prevalent in
American family life that it was found in almost all the families studied=
in
new research.


Psychological aggression toward children of all ages is so prevalent in
American family life that it was found in almost all the families studied=
in
new research by Murray Straus, Professor of Sociology and co-Director of =
the
Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire; and Caroly=
n
Field, sociology researcher at Elizabethtown College.

For their article, =E2=80=9CPsychological Aggression by American Parents:=
National
Data on Prevalence, Chronicity, and Severity,=E2=80=9D in the November is=
sue of
Journal of Marriage and Family, researchers Straus and Field studied 991
American parents. Almost all of the parents reported yelling, screaming, =
or
shouting as a method of correction or to control the behavior of the chil=
d.
=E2=80=9CThis means,=E2=80=9D states Straus, =E2=80=9Cthat nearly all par=
ents, regardless of
other demographic characteristics, used at least some psychological aggre=
ssion
as a disciplinary tactic.=E2=80=9D

In their article, Straus and Field note that parents and authorities are
reluctant to label this type of aggression as abuse. One reason for the
reluctance may be the widespread belief that such a label would require
criminal justice or child-welfare intervention. =E2=80=9CNot true,=E2=80=
=9D states Straus.
=E2=80=9CMany less extreme steps to end psychological aggression are poss=
ible,
starting with public service television spots to sensitize parents to the
problem.=E2=80=9D The researchers also disagree with another widespread b=
elief that
the resilient child is not harmed by the occasional instance of psycholog=
ical
aggression. =E2=80=9CThere is no empirical evidence,=E2=80=9D Straus stat=
ed, =E2=80=9Cto indicate
occasional psychological abuse, such as the frustrated parent =E2=80=98bl=
owing off
steam,=E2=80=99 is harmless.=E2=80=9D

Two other common arguments are given for the lack of recognition of
psychological aggression as abuse. The first argument is that even the mo=
st
loving parents will occasionally =E2=80=9Close it.=E2=80=9D Straus and Fi=
eld comment that
this is an explanation for some types of psychological aggression, rather=
than
a justification for this behavior. And, second, there=E2=80=99s the diffi=
cult issue
of when to draw the line between psychological aggression and abuse. =E2=
=80=9CIs it
the 10th time or the 25th time?=E2=80=9D ask the authors. Straus=E2=80=99=
s own opinion is
that, =E2=80=9CAny psychological aggression is abuse the moment it is don=
e.=E2=80=9D

=E2=80=9CThroughout his career,=E2=80=9D states Greer Litton Fox, Profess=
or of Child and
Family Studies at the University of Tennessee, =E2=80=9CMurray Straus has=
opened our
collective eyes to the negative side of family life and forced the Americ=
an
public to come to grips with issues that we might prefer to ignore. Taken=
all
together these data suggest that nearly every child in this country with =
some
regularity has experienced many withering outbursts from parents who were=
angry
or upset, or in response to a child=E2=80=99s misbehavior.=E2=80=9D

When asked where should this research go next, Fox replies, =E2=80=9CTwo =
directions
would seem especially useful. First would be the relationships between pa=
rental
verbal behaviors and the circumstances that elicit them. If we knew how t=
hey
were related, perhaps we could help to reduce the amount of verbal aggres=
sion
parents direct toward children. Second is the effect of parental verbal
behaviors on child outcomes. We need to know in what ways, if any, the ki=
nds of
behaviors identified in this article as parental psychological aggression
affect children. If we know the effects, we are in a better position to
counteract them.=E2=80=9D

Straus and Field agree with Fox=E2=80=99s assessment of future directions=
=2E But
although Straus concludes that researchers need to define levels of aggre=
ssion
and the extent they are tied to unfavorable outcomes for the child, he
stresses, =E2=80=9CI am confident we will find that, because of its negat=
ive
consequences, psychological aggression is unacceptable at any level.=E2=
=80=9D



The Journal of Marriage and Family is a quarterly publication of the Nati=
onal
Council on Family Relations, 3989 Central Avenue NE, Suite 550, Minneapol=
is, MN
55421.

Go to http://www.ncfr.org/about_us/j_press_releases.asp for the full arti=
cle.

I'm NOT impressed with the Scientific method employed by
Fox, Field and Strauss.

They seem to be good at making big statements without proof
and when their study is proven wrong, they quietly shrink
from admitting so.

To start out with statements like:

"I am confident we will find that, because of its negative
consequences, psychological aggression is unacceptable at any level."

certainly seems to indicate that they are starting
with a premise rather than a question.

I would worry also that they are getting into a territory
here where they can fudge the numbers based on how
the information is labeled and coded.

It seems that they failed to show that spanking actually
causes harm, and now they are out to show that even non-spankers
are doing it all wrong.

Every parent who ever utters a complaint about a child's
behavior or performance is according to these clowns
guilty of ""psychological aggression"" ??

This has reached a level where even a large number
of non-spankers or anti-spankers might indeed get FED UP.

Is the goal to make a situation where kids can't
be given any criticisms, COMMANDS or ORDERS
from their parents?
Because those would be taken as "unkind words"?

"because of its negative consequences, psychological
aggression is unacceptable at any level"

To say this about something that they already
report is in 100% of all homes, is bizarre.

Even the flakiest of Berkely style parents failed this test.

Are we headed for a new level of "social crime"?
Where nobody is ever supposed to say something that
somebody else might not want to hear?

Are there any non-spankers and anti-spankers that
see just what in INSANE direction this research
is going?

Ignore this "unacceptable at any level" stuff
at the peril of your own family.

Child Protection can now remove ANYBODY's kids!

You thought verbal and talking it out was
the way to go, but now it looks like while
you don't spank, you do MORE of this kind of
"psychological aggression".

How long will it be before it is an offense to
make kids get up in the morning or make them do
something they don't want to do? Child Removal.

Greg correctly writes:

Every parent who ever utters a complaint about a child's
behavior or performance is according to these clowns
guilty of ""psychological aggression"" ??

Yup.

Is the goal to make a situation where kids can't
be given any criticisms, COMMANDS or ORDERS
from their parents?
Because those would be taken as "unkind words"?

And if you notice, the law enforcement community will have no compunction in
LOCKING KIDS UP --should they refuse to obey them.

To say this about something that they already
report is in 100% of all homes, is bizarre.

I guess we're all WOUNDED.

Are we headed for a new level of "social crime"?
Where nobody is ever supposed to say something that
somebody else might not want to hear?

No, because CPS casewreckers can say and write down any hearsay, unsupported
information, lies and speculations.

And get AWAY WITH IT IN COURT.

Ignore this "unacceptable at any level" stuff
at the peril of your own family.

Child Protection can now remove ANYBODY's kids!

Yes, however, head them off at the pass. Do NOT permit CPS cw's to ENTER YOUR
HOME.

http://www.profane-justice.org See FAQ's

You thought verbal and talking it out was
the way to go, but now it looks like while
you don't spank, you do MORE of this kind of
"psychological aggression".

Just what Doane talks about. And some have theorized that this *verbal abuse*
is far worse than any physicial abuse a child might encounter.

Ask K-9--he apparently is Master of such denigration. And yet he proudly
calls himself an anti-spanker.

Posters all over the 'net comment to me about his hate-crime level language.

How long will it be before it is an offense to
make kids get up in the morning or make them do
something they don't want to do? Child Removal.

Yep.

NG alt support child protective services.

(Fern5827) wrote in message ...
....Hmmmmm......like trying to legislate when rain falls...........


Psychological Aggression Toward Children Almost Universal in American Families
Libraries
Life News (Social and Behavioral Sciences) Keywords
FAMILIES CHILDREN PSYCHOLOGICAL AGGRESSION RESEARCH AMERICAN
Contact Information

Available for logged-in reporters only
Description

Psychological aggression toward children of all ages is so prevalent in
American family life that it was found in almost all the families studied in
new research.


Psychological aggression toward children of all ages is so prevalent in
American family life that it was found in almost all the families studied in
new research by Murray Straus, Professor of Sociology and co-Director of the
Family Research Laboratory at the University of New Hampshire; and Carolyn
Field, sociology researcher at Elizabethtown College.

For their article, “Psychological Aggression by American Parents: National
Data on Prevalence, Chronicity, and Severity,� in the November issue of
Journal of Marriage and Family, researchers Straus and Field studied 991
American parents. Almost all of the parents reported yelling, screaming, or
shouting as a method of correction or to control the behavior of the child.
“This means,� states Straus, “that nearly all parents, regardless of
other demographic characteristics, used at least some psychological aggression
as a disciplinary tactic.�

Okay, I'm following this so far.....

In their article, Straus and Field note that parents and authorities are
reluctant to label this type of aggression as abuse. One reason for the
reluctance may be the widespread belief that such a label would require
criminal justice or child-welfare intervention. “Not true,� states Straus.
“Many less extreme steps to end psychological aggression are possible,
starting with public service television spots to sensitize parents to the
problem.�

But isn't there a distiction between "psychological aggression" which
I assume means Haranguing a child for no apparent reason inorder to
demoralise/lower self-esteem (you know, like Sws do

The researchers also disagree with another widespread belief that
the resilient child is not harmed by the occasional instance of psychological
aggression. “There is no empirical evidence,� Straus stated, “to indicate
occasional psychological abuse, such as the frustrated parent ‘blowing off
steam,’ is harmless.�

But a parent blowing off steam is quite often a parent who has :

a)asked child nicely to do or not do X/Y/Z in order to protect said
child or instil some sense of order into said childs life at least ten
times
b)been ignored, back chatted, or screamed at by said child.
c)has tried reasoning, bribery,and all other methods espoused by
parenting manuals and is terrified that if they do not make sure said
child complies it will be detrimental to the child or even to the
parent if its something that an outside authority might be concerned
about, and
d)would rather shout than beat?

Two other common arguments are given for the lack of recognition of
psychological aggression as abuse. The first argument is that even the most
loving parents will occasionally “lose it.� Straus and Field comment that
this is an explanation for some types of psychological aggression, rather than
a justification for this behavior. And, second, there’s the difficult issue
of when to draw the line between psychological aggression and abuse. “Is it
the 10th time or the 25th time?� ask the authors. Straus’s own opinion is
that, “Any psychological aggression is abuse the moment it is done.�

So 99.9 % of adults in todays society have survived an abusive
childhood.

“Throughout his career,� states Greer Litton Fox, Professor of Child and
Family Studies at the University of Tennessee, “Murray Straus has opened our
collective eyes to the negative side of family life and forced the American
public to come to grips with issues that we might prefer to ignore. Taken all
together these data suggest that nearly every child in this country with some
regularity has experienced many withering outbursts from parents who were angry
or upset, or in response to a child’s misbehavior.�

Yep, because sometimes gentle nuturing doesn't work. Sometimes the
only way to stop little Johnny getting run over is to shout at him.
And then when the ensuing lecture gets emotional and loud it is a
reflection of the fear and love of the parent for the safety of the
child. Children learn that different actions elicit different
responses from their parents. If everything is repsponded to by calm
and reasoned argument surely this will make a child feel they cannot
evoke true emotional responses from a parent ? And also how many
psychs and psychologists practise a theory believing that always being
calm and rational is dangerous suppression of emotion leading to
problems later in life when it all comes out...??

When asked where should this research go next, Fox replies, “Two directions
would seem especially useful. First would be the relationships between parental
verbal behaviors and the circumstances that elicit them. If we knew how they
were related, perhaps we could help to reduce the amount of verbal aggression
parents direct toward children. Second is the effect of parental verbal
behaviors on child outcomes. We need to know in what ways, if any, the kinds of
behaviors identified in this article as parental psychological aggression
affect children. If we know the effects, we are in a better position to
counteract them.�

So this research tells us that most parents shout at their children to
different degrees for undefined reasons. Surely the reasons why and
the effects would determine the idea that it is psychological
aggression, not just the mere fact it happens.

Straus and Field agree with Fox’s assessment of future directions. But
although Straus concludes that researchers need to define levels of aggression
and the extent they are tied to unfavorable outcomes for the child, he
stresses, “I am confident we will find that, because of its negative
consequences, psychological aggression is unacceptable at any level.�

I agree shouting is not nice, but if every negative response to
misbehaviour is ruled out, and we are left with the idea that only
positive reinforcemant of good behaviour is allowed, I believe we'll
see a huge rise in childhood accidents where children don't realise
they've been gently told not to play on the railway tracks in case
they get hurt, rather than bawled out for doing so and being scared of
the consequences of doing it again. I repeat, there is a strong
argument for an extreme reaction in a parent showing a child that its
welfare is important enough to elicit that reaction when they are in
danger.If the relationship of child and parent is good, then I don't
think parents should be given yet another thing to worry about
regarding the diminishing arsenal of parenting tools.



The Journal of Marriage and Family is a quarterly publication of the National
Council on Family Relations, 3989 Central Avenue NE, Suite 550, Minneapolis, MN
55421.

Go to http://www.ncfr.org/about_us/j_press_releases.asp for the full article.

On 15 Nov 2003 23:43:31 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

I'm NOT impressed with the Scientific method employed by
Fox, Field and Strauss.

They seem to be good at making big statements without proof
and when their study is proven wrong, they quietly shrink
from admitting so.

To start out with statements like:

"I am confident we will find that, because of its negative
consequences, psychological aggression is unacceptable at any level."

certainly seems to indicate that they are starting
with a premise rather than a question.

You started with the premise that wetting herself was punishable by
cold showers, did you not?

I would worry also that they are getting into a territory
here where they can fudge the numbers based on how
the information is labeled and coded.

Like that's a huge revelation on your part. If that weren't a problem
anyone could do valid research.

Cheess..you are stupid.

It seems that they failed to show that spanking actually
causes harm, and now they are out to show that even non-spankers
are doing it all wrong.

Finally on the right track. Not correct yet, but on the right track.

Deliberate harm to a child by their most trusted caregiver is the most
risky harm their is.

Did you know that children that are sexually abused by the most
careful seductive and gentle molester is far more harmful than a
violent rape by a stranger?

Ask any therapist working with sexually abused children. It takes much
more work and longer to help a child heal from the seductive abuse.

It's very like being harmed deliberately by your trusted caregiver.
Domestic abuse is far more psychologically debilitating than an attack
by a stranger.

Every parent who ever utters a complaint about a child's
behavior or performance is according to these clowns
guilty of ""psychological aggression"" ??

Really? Where does it say that?

I used very gentle parenting methods for my own children and in my
treatment methods with mentally ill children and I was very clear with
them on what did AND DIDN'T bother me. I just know how to complain
with a minimal chance of the person hearing my complaint feeling hurt
by it.

I know how to ask them for their help with my complaint. You know how
to give them a cold shower.

This has reached a level where even a large number
of non-spankers or anti-spankers might indeed get FED UP.

Fed up with what?

If a person is learning how to raise their children with non-spanking
and gets stuck they don't usually go back to spanking..they escalate
to even LESS painful methods.

And early or late the successful ones get over the hump of the idea
that pain has to be a deliberately used tool in parenting. That
quickly opens up them to the concept of being a developmental
assistant, coach, teachers, to their child.

It's almost like magic when a person first experiences it. Later we
nonpunitive parents just take it for granted.

Is the goal to make a situation where kids can't
be given any criticisms, COMMANDS or ORDERS
from their parents?
Because those would be taken as "unkind words"?

No, that's not the goal at all. But your ignorance is apparent.

"because of its negative consequences, psychological
aggression is unacceptable at any level"

To say this about something that they already
report is in 100% of all homes, is bizarre.

Then you are terribly logic impairied, but we who know you know that.
Well, at least those that aren't in the same boat you are in.

Did you notice that word in there, "aggression?" It means something
very specific.


Even the flakiest of Berkely style parents failed this test.


It's Berkeley. And so what? Humans have been overcoming all kinds of
ignorance for millenium. Nicely I'd say.

Are we headed for a new level of "social crime"?
Where nobody is ever supposed to say something that
somebody else might not want to hear?

Naw. Where do you get these weird ideas? I guess you aren't just
ignorant, but abysmally stupid as well. Hope it's terminal in your
case. And it well might be if that girl grows up to understand what
you did to her and her mother.

Are there any non-spankers and anti-spankers that
see just what in INSANE direction this research
is going?

They surely can't miss the "INSANE" direction YOU are going. The only
people that think it is going in any such direction are already like
you though.

Ignore this "unacceptable at any level" stuff
at the peril of your own family.

In other words you want the right to be preserved for you to be
psychologically aggressive toward a child. Nice.

Child Protection can now remove ANYBODY's kids!

They can on being informed of possible abuse or neglect while
investigating.

You thought verbal and talking it out was
the way to go,

Who thought that? That would be about the level of YOUR capacity (if
you had the intelligence, which you don't, to speak with logic and
fact).

Non-punitive parents tend to be either highly dedicated or that and
intelligent as well. You don't pass muster, sorry.

but now it looks like while
you don't spank, you do MORE of this kind of
"psychological aggression".

There is a perfect example of your ignorance AND stupidity. What makes
you think spanking itself isn't psychologically aggressive? That's the
biggie. It isn't just physical. Hence it is even more harmful than
psychological aggression alone.

How long will it be before it is an offense to
make kids get up in the morning or make them do
something they don't want to do?

Never.

As long as they are getting adequate sleep over time and what you are
asking them to do isn't criminal. No big thing, eh?

But then you can't figure that out for yourself and we are always glad
to help the mentally disabled.

Child Removal.

Yes?

Now consider how you got your fiance's child removed. If you had not
been a punative parenter though by now you'd be down the road looking
for another needy female that would fall for putting you and your crap
up in her home and feeding and housing you for little or nothing from
you in return. Hopefully the next one won't have a child for you to
displace.

Kane

Vixen: Keep in mind that while LaVonne and Kane seem to agree
with kids having chores as expectations, that both of them
are against parents assigning chores like KP duty, chores
as punishment. These are the people who place a priority on
NO spanking, now trying to claim that several alternatives
are bad as well. I am still wondering if any of the
anti-spankers are going to reject this new level of the game
that the zealots are playing.

I suspect that among non-spankers and anti-spankers
there are many who will NOT go along with this new
"social crime" concept. Kane and LaVonne seem to be
evolving their rhetoric into new intrusions in what
resembles "mission creep".

Even non-spankers now need to beware the likes of
Kane, LaVonne, Fox, Field and Strauss.

Now even non-spankers can be called Child Abusers.

While some will absorb every newly evolved theory
no matter how crackpot, I suspect that a good size
portion of non-spankers and anti-spankers might
actually put a halt to this rabid socialist crap.

(Greg Hanson) wrote in message . com...
Vixen: Keep in mind that while LaVonne and Kane seem to agree
with kids having chores as expectations, that both of them
are against parents assigning chores like KP duty, chores
as punishment.

Yes, as it tends to cast work in a negative light. In fact we have a
population that is deeply unhappy with their work. It isn't much of a
stretch to see that there might be a connection with how they viewed
work as a child and how they later view work as an adult.

By the way, you gone out looking for a job yet, or are you, after 2.5
years or more, still sitting on your ass in the home of your "fiance"
living off her and the missing daughter, while you enjoy your
"sabbatical?"

These are the people who place a priority on
NO spanking, now trying to claim that several alternatives
are bad as well.

No, we actually place a priority on using other methods, non-punitive
ones, to discipline children. Teaching a child doesn't require pain.

But you are correct. Psychological abuse is a not a fit tactic for
replacement of CP. And it is psychological abuse to train a child to
see work as onerous punishment. My own children are eager workers that
enjoy their professions.

I made work for them as children something they strived to do out of
pleasure, not a punishment. That wanted to work...and thought of it as
enjoyable as play.

I am still wondering if any of the
anti-spankers are going to reject this new level of the game
that the zealots are playing.

We are not more monolithic in our thinking as you nasty little child
haters are. But in your case you do all agree that pain is a valid
teaching tool, while we have little trouble agreeing that pain is not
such a good thing for children.

I suspect that among non-spankers and anti-spankers
there are many who will NOT go along with this new
"social crime" concept.

I am pleased to debate reasonable people that can at least agree that
CP isn't an acceptable method of discipline. YOU are not among that
group, obviously.

Kane and LaVonne seem to be
evolving their rhetoric into new intrusions in what
resembles "mission creep".

Actually LaVonne and do not agree on the punishment issue. She is, if
I recall correctly, willing to use parent directed aversion to
discipline. She certainly doesn't, however, push it as a be all end
all solution for unwanted behaviors.

She'll correct me if I misunderstand her postings.

I have found repeatedly in my work with children that the further I
stayed from parent or caregiver administered punishments the more
skilled I became at a complete shift to more successful cooperation
from the child.

Children that see the parent or caregiver as a helper and supporter
tend to be more compliant because they are too busy learning to get
into resistence.

Even non-spankers now need to beware the likes of
Kane, LaVonne, Fox, Field and Strauss.

Nice try. No cigar. We have no problem with this issue. Even were we
disagree, and it isn't often, we know we are working toward a similar
goal. That goal is to bury you savages and your child abuse you
relable to avoid the embarrassment.

I notice for instance that after all these years not a single person
has taken up Chris' challenge to provide a better tape than the one he
provides. No one is brave enough, because deep down they know the
truth of their savagery and mental abberation in spanking children, to
put up that tape.

Now even non-spankers can be called Child Abusers.

Yes, of course they can, if they are using other methods that are in
fact abusive.

While some will absorb every newly evolved theory
no matter how crackpot, I suspect that a good size
portion of non-spankers and anti-spankers might
actually put a halt to this rabid socialist crap.

Don't you wish.

Non-spankers tend to be open to find more and more nonabusive methods
of parenting. The read, they discuss with each other, they experiment
with their children to see what works and doesn't. Most tend to find
what I found...the less aversive an intervention is the more powerful
it is in gaining compliance and the more desireable behavior from the
child.

Now if you want your child to grow up to be yet another cold blooded
child torturer you will continue the methods of the punishers.

This crap you offer is so transparent as to be laughable. There is no
non-spanking camp to attempt to split. We are mindless twits
dedicated, as you spankers are, to one method of parenting.

It's the spankers that don't support each other.

You just wallow together in your sickness and stupidity shoring up the
flimsy protection against admitting you are sick as a result of the
beatings and emotional pain of YOUR childhoods.

So, put up that tape. In fact put up a video of a spanking of a child
by one of you and show us and yourselves the sick reality of
"spanking" for discipline.

Not a one of you has the guts.

And you know the most probable outcome...MORE spankers will, in shock
at what it looks like from outside, distance themselves from the sick
practice and seek information and training on how to parent without
pain and humiliation of the child.

What does that tell you, Greegor the Whore?

Kane

Daniel: Twisted but funny.

Kane wrote
In fact we have a population that is deeply unhappy
with their work. It isn't much of a stretch to see
that there might be a connection with how they viewed
work as a child and how they later view work as an adult.

Yeah, that's the ticket!
Erosion of pay, erosion of job security,
erosion of benefits, pensions that evaporated,
Enron, Anderson Accounting, etc..

Those are just affectations of people who got
a bad work view in their youth. Right!

Of course, this all deflects away from any idea
that you might be deeply unhappy with your own work.

By the way, you gone out looking for a job yet, or are you, after 2.5
years or more, still sitting on your ass in the home of your "fiance"
living off her and the missing daughter, while you enjoy your
"sabbatical?"

I'm independent!

These are the people who place a priority on
NO spanking, now trying to claim that several alternatives
are bad as well.

No, we actually place a priority on using other methods,
non-punitive ones, to discipline children.
Teaching a child doesn't require pain.

But do extra chores cause pain?
If so, wouldn't that also apply to the chores
that are obligations every kid should have?

Did you "mission creep" into saying that kids
should not have obligatory chores at home?
Besides cleaning up their own room, and their
own messes elsewhere in the house, I mean.

But you are correct. Psychological abuse is a not a fit tactic for
replacement of CP. And it is psychological abuse to train a child to
see work as onerous punishment. My own children are eager workers that
enjoy their professions.

That's why the military gives people cookies and milk
to keep them from going AWOL.

I made work for them as children something they strived to do out of
pleasure, not a punishment. That wanted to work...and thought of it as
enjoyable as play.

And now they find flipping burgers like you enjoyable?

I am still wondering if any of the
anti-spankers are going to reject this new level of the game
that the zealots are playing.

We are not more monolithic in our thinking as you nasty little child
haters are. But in your case you do all agree that pain is a valid
teaching tool, while we have little trouble agreeing that pain is not
such a good thing for children.

I suspect that among non-spankers and anti-spankers
there are many who will NOT go along with this new
"social crime" concept.

I am pleased to debate

Is that what this is?
It's all about you debating and pontificating your wonderfulness.
Seems like you've got some unresolved "issues" that are
not exactly topics for your mental masturbation debating.

reasonable people that can at least agree that
CP isn't an acceptable method of discipline. YOU are not among that
group, obviously.

Obviously.

Kane and LaVonne seem to be
evolving their rhetoric into new intrusions in what
resembles "mission creep".

I notice you avoided the point about "mission creep".

Children that see the parent or caregiver as a helper and supporter
tend to be more compliant because they are too busy learning to get
into resistence.

Golly, Kane, us CAT TRAINERS never thought of that!

That goal is to bury you savages and your child abuse you
relable to avoid the embarrassment.

Has this goal been ratified by the rank and file?
NOW had to kick out the radicals a few years ago
before the rank and file mambers got their messages out.

I notice for instance that after all these years not a single person
has taken up Chris' challenge to provide a better tape than the one he
provides. No one is brave enough, because deep down they know the
truth of their savagery and mental abberation in spanking children, to
put up that tape.

Yeah, mental abberation. sure.

Now even non-spankers can be called Child Abusers.

Yes, of course they can, if they are using other methods that are in
fact abusive.

Nobody is not, according to Strauss's latest.
But does having some flakey radical CALL every
parent a Child Abuser really make it so?
Especially after Strauss having to eat his words
about prior biased screwups on his research?

Non-spankers tend to be open to find more and more nonabusive methods
of parenting. The read, they discuss with each other, they experiment
with their children to see what works and doesn't. Most tend to find
what I found...the less aversive an intervention is the more powerful
it is in gaining compliance and the more desireable behavior from the
child.

Is that why Child Protection is TEN YEARS BEHIND
on compliance? Somebody wanted a less aversive
way to make them comply with their contract?

Now if you want your child to grow up to be
yet another cold blooded child torturer you
will continue the methods of the punishers.

Cycle of Abuse garbage again eh? GAO disproved.

This crap you offer is so transparent as to be laughable. There is no
non-spanking camp to attempt to split. We are mindless twits
dedicated, as you spankers are, to one method of parenting.

Ah. OK.

It's the spankers that don't support each other.

Most are busy doing rather than talking about it, KANE.

You just wallow together in your sickness and stupidity shoring up the
flimsy protection against admitting you are sick as a result of the
beatings and emotional pain of YOUR childhoods.

Bring on the violins! I believe in the use of violins!

So, put up that tape. In fact put up a video of a spanking of a child
by one of you and show us and yourselves the sick reality of
"spanking" for discipline.

Um, Kane, wouldn't exhibition or even possession of same
be considered child pornography?

Not a one of you has the guts.

You chatter like a chimp, high in your tree.
Throw some scat little monkey!
Sweet innocent little scat throwing monkey.

And you know the most probable outcome...MORE
spankers will, in shock at what it looks like
from outside, distance themselves from the sick
practice and seek information and training
on how to parent without pain and humiliation
of the child.

What does that tell you, Greegor the Whore?

By that reasoning, people should stop having babies also.
It can be an icky, messy process.
As the girls say "ewwie!".

On 19 Nov 2003 02:27:29 -0800, (Greg Hanson)
wrote:

Daniel: Twisted but funny.

Kane wrote
In fact we have a population that is deeply unhappy
with their work. It isn't much of a stretch to see
that there might be a connection with how they viewed
work as a child and how they later view work as an adult.

Yeah, that's the ticket!

Yes, it is. Nice of you to notice.

Erosion of pay, erosion of job security,
erosion of benefits, pensions that evaporated,
Enron, Anderson Accounting, etc..

That isn't the issue. In fact it's the psychologically healthy
individual who is most free to cut themselves loose from such public
calamities and will find work they like again.

Now let me see...haven't I seen it claimed in this very ng that about
90% or more of Americans are spanked and punished, no doubt a few with
punitive chores? Yes I think I have seen that.

Could it be possible the very progenitors of the economic chaos were
among such victims of childhood abusive parenting? Naw, we just know
that all those Enron and other company execs where among the
unspanked....R R R R

Those are just affectations of people who got
a bad work view in their youth. Right!

The executives that pulled off the immoral financial manipulations?
Why yes. The victims that were in their employ? Possibly.

But the latter didn't create the problem out of their childhood
experience. I'd bet those that were raised with healthy parenting
methods that included respect for work by NOT using it for punishment
had less trouble getting over the losses though.

They seem to be such healthy folks.

Of course, this all deflects away from any idea
that you might be deeply unhappy with your own work.

Yah gotta be kiddin' Can you think of anyone you read in these related
ngs that is more exhuberent and full of joy and fun than me? I LOVE to
pound you assholes. It's how I relax after a hard day of plotting
against CPS.

No, pal. I have a ball at what I do. Rarely in my life have I
tolerated bad working conditions. I always move up. Always.

By the way, you gone out looking for a job yet, or are you, after
2.5
years or more, still sitting on your ass in the home of your
"fiance"
living off her and the missing daughter, while you enjoy your
"sabbatical?"

I'm independent!

We know. It shows.

How you do that independence is the moral question, now isn't it.

These are the people who place a priority on
NO spanking, now trying to claim that several alternatives
are bad as well.

No, we actually place a priority on using other methods,
non-punitive ones, to discipline children.
Teaching a child doesn't require pain.

But do extra chores cause pain?

Yes, if they are punitive. The point was, as a parent (which you
thankfully are not) does one wish the child to grow up thinking of
work as onerous or attractive and a desirable activity.

If so, wouldn't that also apply to the chores
that are obligations every kid should have?

No, not if they are not coupled with others that are punitive. I
described not long ago in these ngs how I introduced "work" to my
children. They were practically running me down to get to be allowed
to do the laundry, scrub the kitchen floor, pull weeds with me in the
garden.

Yah see, Prick, folks like you that come from a punishment model can't
for a moment allow themselves to think of work as joy. My kids and
plenty of others I've known do so.

In watching them "work" it is hard to believe they are "working"
because of the intensity they give to the activity. They are obviously
enjoying it.

Did you "mission creep" into saying that kids
should not have obligatory chores at home?

Where did you see me say that? In fact I very carefully described how
I went about introducing them to work as desireable and to be sought
out for the satisfaction.

Besides cleaning up their own room, and their
own messes elsewhere in the house, I mean.

Ah, the liar stretches. Working really hard to try and create
something are we?

You think like a punitive parent. I thought like a trainer and coach.
I motived through gentle means. Sometimes a little tricky, but hey,
that's what working with other humans requires some of the time.

Mostly my kids just grew up working alongside me and they saw the joy
I took in my work and their world view was the same by absorbtion and
example.

Now in YOUR case, what would a child see of the work world?

But you are correct. Psychological abuse is a not a fit tactic for
replacement of CP. And it is psychological abuse to train a child
to
see work as onerous punishment. My own children are eager workers
that
enjoy their professions.

That's why the military gives people cookies and milk
to keep them from going AWOL.

I made work for them as children something they strived to do out
of
pleasure, not a punishment. That wanted to work...and thought of it
as
enjoyable as play.

And now they find flipping burgers like you enjoyable?

My daugher's first off the ranch job at 17 was working at KFC. Stunned
me, because she had more than enough mind to do less what to me was
grim work. She thrived. Ever been in the back of a KFC? You can feel
the grease in the air...ugh. I have one tough daughter, the same one
that at three was such an adventurer who I didn't squash, but
encouraged.

In a month she was assistant manager. Six, a manager. She just loved,
as she still does, the hardest work she can find. Drives a big pickup
and maintains it herself. Her age ten birthday present was a good auto
mechanics tool set from me. And a solid gross of imported silk
scarves. A very well rounded women.

She'd not be a victim like you pray on. Hell, she'd teach you
livestock castration with you as model if you tried on her what you
did to your "fiance."

So yes, if that were what she chose to set her mind to, she's be
perfectly happy flipping burgers and probably would set records for
speed and quality...as she does now in bookkeeping and accounting, her
field.

I am still wondering if any of the
anti-spankers are going to reject this new level of the game
that the zealots are playing.

We are not more monolithic in our thinking as you nasty little
child
haters are. But in your case you do all agree that pain is a valid
teaching tool, while we have little trouble agreeing that pain is
not
such a good thing for children.

I suspect that among non-spankers and anti-spankers
there are many who will NOT go along with this new
"social crime" concept.

I am pleased to debate

Is that what this is?

Well, yes, except for when you are lying.

It's all about you debating and pontificating your wonderfulness.

I've lived and continue to live a very rich and full life. I'm sorry
if it hurts that you have only your ass sitting gigolo life to look at
and your new business of bottle and can recycling...and you even lie
about that.

Just got a call from my doctor yesterday (I live waaaay out in the
country) about my annual exam and lab results. Seems I'm healthy as a
horse. Sorry. I know that diappoints you. I'll probably outlive
you...but then I haven't displaced any little girls by giving them
cold naked showers while I stood by.

Except for creeps like you I have no enemies.

Seems like you've got some unresolved "issues" that are
not exactly topics for your mental masturbation debating.

What would my unresolved issues be then, Herr Doctor?

reasonable people that can at least agree that
CP isn't an acceptable method of discipline. YOU are not among that
group, obviously.

Obviously.

Obviously.

Kane and LaVonne seem to be
evolving their rhetoric into new intrusions in what
resembles "mission creep".

I notice you avoided the point about "mission creep".

What would you like me to respond with? That you lie as usual? Because
you do. There's on "mission creep." LaVonne and I have been fully
disclosing our position on spanking for some years now. The only
possible misunderstanding on your part that you might think is
"mission creep" is when we run across new data and information that
expands the position of non-punitive parenting.

The idea that punitive parents are coming closer and closer to being
controlled by the state isn't OUR idea. It's the public's. And it's
coming not because WE want it (in fact I've stated in aps that I do
not want it) is going to be a gift from creatins such as you that
don't get the point, and wallow in your power and sick control of
little children.

Children that see the parent or caregiver as a helper and supporter
tend to be more compliant because they are too busy learning to get
into resistence.

Golly, Kane, us CAT TRAINERS never thought of that!

So tell us, Whore, can your cat bark, and can you punish a child into
not wetting themselves?

That goal is to bury you savages and your child abuse you
relable to avoid the embarrassment.

Has this goal been ratified by the rank and file?

More all the time. From nearly 100% of the schools using CP to less
than half currently would be, I'd say, some intrusion into the file of
the ranks, now wouldn't you?

Criminals aren't very comfortable with what stops their predations,
and child abusers less so. Their voice isn't the one the public will
listen to.

NOW had to kick out the radicals a few years ago
before the rank and file mambers got their messages out.

Yes, I tend to think of the radicals as the "spankers", don't you? And
the moderates as more reasonable and thoughtful in promoting human
rights over one sex or the other. I think of them as non-punitive.

Thanks for the good example of my point.

You just keep doing that. When are you ever going to learn....r r r r

I notice for instance that after all these years not a single
person
has taken up Chris' challenge to provide a better tape than the one
he
provides. No one is brave enough, because deep down they know the
truth of their savagery and mental abberation in spanking children,
to
put up that tape.

Yeah, mental abberation. sure.

So you have sent in your own child spanking tape then, I presume. You
will lead the way then.

Yes, mental abberations. Very sure indeed.

Now even non-spankers can be called Child Abusers.

Yes, of course they can, if they are using other methods that are
in
fact abusive.

Nobody is not, according to Strauss's latest.
But does having some flakey radical CALL every
parent a Child Abuser really make it so?
Especially after Strauss having to eat his words
about prior biased screwups on his research?

I find that the media tends to report the extreme view and their own
sell the advertising bias. If Strauss claims to have found emotional
abuse in one hundred percent of families my guess is that the media
failed to report the various levels, from seldom and mild, to frequent
and severe.

They are, like you, prone to lie for their own reasons.

Tis a shame really, but intelligent folks have learned to account for
it and that is seen in our growing immunity to advertising.

Why haven't YOU figured that out yet?

Non-spankers tend to be open to find more and more nonabusive
methods
of parenting. The read, they discuss with each other, they
experiment
with their children to see what works and doesn't. Most tend to
find
what I found...the less aversive an intervention is the more
powerful
it is in gaining compliance and the more desireable behavior from
the
child.

Is that why Child Protection is TEN YEARS BEHIND
on compliance? Somebody wanted a less aversive
way to make them comply with their contract?

I know you have this need to spew in your rabid fashion every hundred
lines or so of posting, but we were talking about CP and children,
were we not?

Your question is senseless in that context. But then you render
yourself senseless by sitting on your brain so long it goes to sleep.

Now if you want your child to grow up to be
yet another cold blooded child torturer you
will continue the methods of the punishers.

Cycle of Abuse garbage again eh? GAO disproved.

I've wondered about how they could be so far off. How about a citation
and source access. I'd like to look at how they came to that
conclusion when field work shows different.

Intergenerational child abuse isn't a fantasy. And anyone with half a
brain could figure out, given that it's well established, that about
80% of all learning is by example.

Even airline pilots and surgeons learn most of what they need to do by
watching and following the example of more experienced collegues.

This crap you offer is so transparent as to be laughable. There is
no
non-spanking camp to attempt to split. We are mindless twits
dedicated, as you spankers are, to one method of parenting.

Ah. OK.

Even the mentally disabled would spot a typo when they see one. But
then that's about all you've got going for you and our argument.

It should have been, "We are NOT mindless twits dedicated, as you
spankers are, to one method of parenting."

But then you have to have at least one break every now and then.
Enjoy.

It's the spankers that don't support each other.

Most are busy doing rather than talking about it, KANE.

YOU? R R R R Hardly.

You just wallow together in your sickness and stupidity shoring up
the
flimsy protection against admitting you are sick as a result of the
beatings and emotional pain of YOUR childhoods.

Bring on the violins! I believe in the use of violins!

Your scummy attitude toward children is already well known by all
here, Prick. Of course you don't consider it sick to beat and cause
emotional pain. You don't have to advertise.

So, put up that tape. In fact put up a video of a spanking of a
child
by one of you and show us and yourselves the sick reality of
"spanking" for discipline.

Um, Kane, wouldn't exhibition or even possession of same
be considered child pornography?

Oh? You couldn't be admitting to what I've just been claiming, now can
you?

Let's assume the child is clothed, and the spanker as well. And that
it's all very calculated and delivered in a controlled manner, just as
the tape Chris has posted.

Chris' has been posted for years and years and no charges of
pornography have been brought against him.

On the other hand, I'm inclinded to a personal belief that such
behavior is subconsciously sexual on the part of the spanker now
matter what their rationale for hitting a child might be.

Not a one of you has the guts.

You chatter like a chimp, high in your tree.

Not one of you has the guts.

Throw some scat little monkey!

Not one of you has the guts.

Sweet innocent little scat throwing monkey.

Not one of you has the guts.

And it's spankers that are the **** throwers. It's an insult to nature
to do that to a child.

And you know the most probable outcome...MORE
spankers will, in shock at what it looks like
from outside, distance themselves from the sick
practice and seek information and training
on how to parent without pain and humiliation
of the child.

What does that tell you, Greegor the Whore?

By that reasoning, people should stop having babies also.

Spankers observing other spankers spanking is akin to having babies
how again?

It can be an icky, messy process.

I would say that spanking is all of that and more.

As the girls say "ewwie!".

Girls viewing or listening to spanking videos or tapes would say
"ewwie!"?

I think women would be more likely to want to wring the spanker's
necks. And you'd hear some rather strong language...not "ewwie!"

So, Whore. Workin' on getting Chris that tape?

Brave little Greegor.

Kane