| 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

"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

"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

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

"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

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.

"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

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
)

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.

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.