If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW comments on Murray Straus
From http://www.neverhitachild.org/noframes.html
Hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any circumstances, except literal physical self-defense, should be hit. Murray A. Straus Hitting is wrong . Hitting is a violent thing to do. Violence is a thing one person does to make another person hurt. We want to treat children in ways that do not hurt or harm them. We can. We want to be kind and gentle, not harsh. We want to be tender, merciful and compassionate. There is no situation that changes hitting from a wrong thing into a right thing. There is no excuse that magically makes hurting children kind or merciful. This is confusing, though, isn't it? A law can say that it is all right to do a wrong thing to stop a wrong thing. Hitting, however, is nearly never a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. Defense from physical attack, for example, might be less wrong than the physical attack itself. The law sets a limit, though, for this rare situation. The law limits a defense to interrupting or ending the attack upon the physical safety of a person. The laws that also allow the physical punishment of children do not make it a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. They only allow it. Hitting children is not tender or compassionate treatment. Hitting children is not better than treating them in ways that do not hurt. We will be kinder, gentler and less violent when we all stop hitting children. We do not say to our children (most of us, anyway), "hitting is right" or "hitting is a good thing to do." We do not really believe that it is a good thing to hit people. Most of us are not 'in favor' of hitting children. However, many of us (most of us, actually) behave as if it is a good thing to do. We are in favor of spanking and physical punishment. The law attempts to make a physical attack on a child's body a thing that is all right to do. The way a spanking looks and feels must be confusing for children. How can they tell what it means? Parents are their example of what is right and good. Parents' behavior is their example of what love looks and feels like. Hitting a child seems to say that it is all right to hit people... even loved ones. When a person wants to control others, it must be okay to hit them, spanking seems to say. For children whose parents tell them that hitting is wrong, hitting might also seem to say that it is all right to do something that is wrong. It certainly does not show or say to the child what behavior is wanted. There is no obligation or duty to hit children. No one of us can show that anything bad happens if we do not hit children. No one can show that children become less well behaved if we do not hit them. When people think of not hitting children, however, they often feel afraid and uncertain. What do they fear? Are they just uncomfortable with the unknown or the untried? Do they just doubt what they have not yet experienced? They do not really know that anything bad will happen. It is enough for them, it seems, that they believe that something bad will happen. Since people usually do not really think about many of their beliefs, it is hard to use reason to help them to be unafraid. But there is no evidence that a child whose parents model appropriate behavior, clearly and unambiguously love and nurture that child, diligently encourage and positively reinforce desired behavior, using reason and persuasion while consistently communicating and enforcing limits, and demonstrating a rational process for problem solving, will not "turn out" as well, if not better, than any child held up as the supposed example of the benefit of spanking her or him. So we have no duty, contract or promise to hit. There is no other social, legal or moral rule that makes us spank our children. We can count upon our friends and family to say that there is a need for a 'good spanking'. They will tell us that spanking people during their childhood is the cure for society's ills. They carry tradition and myth, as humans always have, but that does not mean that they know the truth. Social, legal and moral ties bind us to feed, clothe and shelter our dependent children. We should teach them to behave well in public and to contribute according to their capacity. We should help them to find happiness doing these things. If we do our job well, they become willing and able to give their best to society. There is no need to hit children in order to do our social, legal and moral duty. For example, accepting the responsibilities for a dependent adult might become our social and moral duty. But, we would have no legal right to hit that adult in order to do this duty. Nothing good forces us to act aggressively toward our minor children. Yet, there seems to be some mistaken, unfounded 'sense of duty' to do it. I believe that this 'sense' may be the result of our feeling that other parents in our family or social group know what we should do. As children, we saw our parents and other adults do things that we remember as right and good.  Spanking children is one of those things that we memorized. We copy that behavior with our own children. We think, therefore, that we are surely being a good and proper parent. We are following tradition. However, tradition and morality are separate standards. Hitting children does not make it easier for us to do our social, legal or moral duty as parents. Hitting them might seem to offer us a sort of shortcut. Hitting them may make it easier, instead, for our children to realize dreadful outcomes; the literal opposites of our goals. The result of spanking is our children's fear and resentment of us. Satisfaction with spanking could be related to some other need, independent of the child. Murray Straus is author of Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families. He wrote, "The most basic step in eliminating corporal punishment is for parent educators, psychologists, and pediatricians to make a simple and unambiguous statement..." That is the statement I have quoted at the top of this page. I agree with it. I like the statement. Most people think that it is too strong. Some have felt that the phrase "except literal physical self-defense" seems to give permission to spanking parents. Professor Straus also suggests that we say, without qualification, "A child should never be hit."  I believe that afterwards, though, one must prepare to respond to the certain question, "Well, what about the circumstance: self-defense?" But, self-defense is not at all common among the routine responses to our children's behavior. Defense of self indeed! Professor Straus explained to me that he too could recognize that there is a certain danger in "except for self-defense." He thought that it was, in part, his training in criminology that led to his writing it the way he did. He explained that many people misunderstand the legal concept of self defense and think that retaliation is self defense. Of course, self defense becomes a legal justification for assault only if the person is in danger of serious injury or death and cannot get away. He said, "If a child hits a parent, they can and should restrain the child if it continues, but they should never hit back." In his own opinion, the parents should make a big deal out of any instance of a child hitting. It should be treated as a moral outrage and something to never be done again. He said, "Hitting back is not self defense." Legally, an adult who is attacked and hits back may also be guilty of assault. It concerns me that the quotation risks deafening listeners so that they hear nothing that follows it. I live and write, and 'mingle' among the people of Arkansas, USA. It is a spank-happy place where it is "open season" on children--in their homes as well as in their schools. Our children stand a one-in-seven chance of being hit by an adult at school, so Arkansas ranks "worst" among the ten worst school-paddling states. Still, "never hit" is the phrase to which most of the provoked readers respond. Realistically, the people I engage all want to know "What if you're attacked or assaulted by a juvenile delinquent?" I believe that there has to be an exception. There almost always is. Perhaps 'except' is permissive. This exception, of course, is always some extreme, bizarre and unlikely occurrence. In such a crisis, however, people do what they are going to do for no certain reason. Anticipation rarely has anything to do with the outcome. Besides, most parents really are not parenting armed juveniles. How realistic is it to expect to have to hit your child to save your life or protect your self from serious physical threat -- literal physical self-defense? LITERAL, PHYSICAL, SELF-DEFENSE ... The exception only barely warrants noting. So, my inconsistency is that I also agree with the "too soft" critics. I have been around a lot of violence, threats of serious harm to my family, our property and myself. I do not hit any children. I worked in child welfare (child protective services, foster care, adoptions, interstate transfers) in Phoenix. I worked the pediatric outpatient clinic at the indigent care hospital in Phoenix and conducted interviews with child abusers (some suicidal and homicidal). I worked nearly ten years in the pediatric department and the ER of a large hospital here in Little Rock. I am not through with living so it would be disingenuous to make a statement so absolute that I could not realistically expect to live by it. But I can state, unambiguously, that hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any circumstances should be hit. NeverHitAChild.ORG Reference: Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families, Lexington Books, 1994, Murray A. Straus with Denise A. Donnelly, ISBN 0-02-931730-4 |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW comments on Murray Straus
Though my approach to discipline has changed a great deal over the years
since my children were small, and I prefer other methods to physical punishment, I have a hard time believing that properly administered physical discipline is as deterimental to a child as some would believe. I'll never forget my mother talking about her father...her siblings as well...a large man standing over 6 foot eight. She said that 'daddy would come out on the porch and whistle and we call came running to see what he wanted. Didn't matter where we were or what we were doing.' They say he 'whipped us with one hand and loved us with the other'. He's been gone over 16 years and his children STILL mourn him something awful. (I must explain that where I come from a 'spanking' is normally called a 'whipping' no matter how non severe it is') All my grandfather's children were/are successful in life and in whatever they chose. They were obedient, and so respectful that upon being asked by a minister at my mothers wake how we could sum up my grandparents in just a few words, the only WORD anyone could think of was 'saint'. I note that is not always so, of course. My son thinks that I abused he when he was a child. Though I spanked him...yes, I sure did...and only when he did something wrong...the boy, even as a self proclaimed devoted Christian, will stand up and tell me I am a '****ing bitch' at the drop of a hat. So, my question would be, I guess, when does physical discipline work, and when does it not? What elements decide who actually would benefit from physical punishment, and who wouldn't? It's obvious that some do and some don't. Or possible with those that have been physically disciplined it had no impact, rather than a negative one or a positive one and made no difference at all? wrote in message oups.com... From http://www.neverhitachild.org/noframes.html Hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any circumstances, except literal physical self-defense, should be hit. Murray A. Straus Hitting is wrong . Hitting is a violent thing to do. Violence is a thing one person does to make another person hurt. We want to treat children in ways that do not hurt or harm them. We can. We want to be kind and gentle, not harsh. We want to be tender, merciful and compassionate. There is no situation that changes hitting from a wrong thing into a right thing. There is no excuse that magically makes hurting children kind or merciful. This is confusing, though, isn't it? A law can say that it is all right to do a wrong thing to stop a wrong thing. Hitting, however, is nearly never a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. Defense from physical attack, for example, might be less wrong than the physical attack itself. The law sets a limit, though, for this rare situation. The law limits a defense to interrupting or ending the attack upon the physical safety of a person. The laws that also allow the physical punishment of children do not make it a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. They only allow it. Hitting children is not tender or compassionate treatment. Hitting children is not better than treating them in ways that do not hurt. We will be kinder, gentler and less violent when we all stop hitting children. We do not say to our children (most of us, anyway), "hitting is right" or "hitting is a good thing to do." We do not really believe that it is a good thing to hit people. Most of us are not 'in favor' of hitting children. However, many of us (most of us, actually) behave as if it is a good thing to do. We are in favor of spanking and physical punishment. The law attempts to make a physical attack on a child's body a thing that is all right to do. The way a spanking looks and feels must be confusing for children. How can they tell what it means? Parents are their example of what is right and good. Parents' behavior is their example of what love looks and feels like. Hitting a child seems to say that it is all right to hit people... even loved ones. When a person wants to control others, it must be okay to hit them, spanking seems to say. For children whose parents tell them that hitting is wrong, hitting might also seem to say that it is all right to do something that is wrong. It certainly does not show or say to the child what behavior is wanted. There is no obligation or duty to hit children. No one of us can show that anything bad happens if we do not hit children. No one can show that children become less well behaved if we do not hit them. When people think of not hitting children, however, they often feel afraid and uncertain. What do they fear? Are they just uncomfortable with the unknown or the untried? Do they just doubt what they have not yet experienced? They do not really know that anything bad will happen. It is enough for them, it seems, that they believe that something bad will happen. Since people usually do not really think about many of their beliefs, it is hard to use reason to help them to be unafraid. But there is no evidence that a child whose parents model appropriate behavior, clearly and unambiguously love and nurture that child, diligently encourage and positively reinforce desired behavior, using reason and persuasion while consistently communicating and enforcing limits, and demonstrating a rational process for problem solving, will not "turn out" as well, if not better, than any child held up as the supposed example of the benefit of spanking her or him. So we have no duty, contract or promise to hit. There is no other social, legal or moral rule that makes us spank our children. We can count upon our friends and family to say that there is a need for a 'good spanking'. They will tell us that spanking people during their childhood is the cure for society's ills. They carry tradition and myth, as humans always have, but that does not mean that they know the truth. Social, legal and moral ties bind us to feed, clothe and shelter our dependent children. We should teach them to behave well in public and to contribute according to their capacity. We should help them to find happiness doing these things. If we do our job well, they become willing and able to give their best to society. There is no need to hit children in order to do our social, legal and moral duty. For example, accepting the responsibilities for a dependent adult might become our social and moral duty. But, we would have no legal right to hit that adult in order to do this duty. Nothing good forces us to act aggressively toward our minor children. Yet, there seems to be some mistaken, unfounded 'sense of duty' to do it. I believe that this 'sense' may be the result of our feeling that other parents in our family or social group know what we should do. As children, we saw our parents and other adults do things that we remember as right and good.  Spanking children is one of those things that we memorized. We copy that behavior with our own children. We think, therefore, that we are surely being a good and proper parent. We are following tradition. However, tradition and morality are separate standards. Hitting children does not make it easier for us to do our social, legal or moral duty as parents. Hitting them might seem to offer us a sort of shortcut. Hitting them may make it easier, instead, for our children to realize dreadful outcomes; the literal opposites of our goals. The result of spanking is our children's fear and resentment of us. Satisfaction with spanking could be related to some other need, independent of the child. Murray Straus is author of Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families. He wrote, "The most basic step in eliminating corporal punishment is for parent educators, psychologists, and pediatricians to make a simple and unambiguous statement..." That is the statement I have quoted at the top of this page. I agree with it. I like the statement. Most people think that it is too strong. Some have felt that the phrase "except literal physical self-defense" seems to give permission to spanking parents. Professor Straus also suggests that we say, without qualification, "A child should never be hit."  I believe that afterwards, though, one must prepare to respond to the certain question, "Well, what about the circumstance: self-defense?" But, self-defense is not at all common among the routine responses to our children's behavior. Defense of self indeed! Professor Straus explained to me that he too could recognize that there is a certain danger in "except for self-defense." He thought that it was, in part, his training in criminology that led to his writing it the way he did. He explained that many people misunderstand the legal concept of self defense and think that retaliation is self defense. Of course, self defense becomes a legal justification for assault only if the person is in danger of serious injury or death and cannot get away. He said, "If a child hits a parent, they can and should restrain the child if it continues, but they should never hit back." In his own opinion, the parents should make a big deal out of any instance of a child hitting. It should be treated as a moral outrage and something to never be done again. He said, "Hitting back is not self defense." Legally, an adult who is attacked and hits back may also be guilty of assault. It concerns me that the quotation risks deafening listeners so that they hear nothing that follows it. I live and write, and 'mingle' among the people of Arkansas, USA. It is a spank-happy place where it is "open season" on children--in their homes as well as in their schools. Our children stand a one-in-seven chance of being hit by an adult at school, so Arkansas ranks "worst" among the ten worst school-paddling states. Still, "never hit" is the phrase to which most of the provoked readers respond. Realistically, the people I engage all want to know "What if you're attacked or assaulted by a juvenile delinquent?" I believe that there has to be an exception. There almost always is. Perhaps 'except' is permissive. This exception, of course, is always some extreme, bizarre and unlikely occurrence. In such a crisis, however, people do what they are going to do for no certain reason. Anticipation rarely has anything to do with the outcome. Besides, most parents really are not parenting armed juveniles. How realistic is it to expect to have to hit your child to save your life or protect your self from serious physical threat -- literal physical self-defense? LITERAL, PHYSICAL, SELF-DEFENSE ... The exception only barely warrants noting. So, my inconsistency is that I also agree with the "too soft" critics. I have been around a lot of violence, threats of serious harm to my family, our property and myself. I do not hit any children. I worked in child welfare (child protective services, foster care, adoptions, interstate transfers) in Phoenix. I worked the pediatric outpatient clinic at the indigent care hospital in Phoenix and conducted interviews with child abusers (some suicidal and homicidal). I worked nearly ten years in the pediatric department and the ER of a large hospital here in Little Rock. I am not through with living so it would be disingenuous to make a statement so absolute that I could not realistically expect to live by it. But I can state, unambiguously, that hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any circumstances should be hit. NeverHitAChild.ORG Reference: Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in American Families, Lexington Books, 1994, Murray A. Straus with Denise A. Donnelly, ISBN 0-02-931730-4 |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW comments on Murray Straus
Dragon's Girl wrote: Though my approach to discipline has changed a great deal over the years since my children were small, and I prefer other methods to physical punishment, I have a hard time believing that properly administered physical discipline is as deterimental to a child as some would believe. I'll never forget my mother talking about her father...her siblings as well...a large man standing over 6 foot eight. She said that 'daddy would come out on the porch and whistle and we call came running to see what he wanted. Didn't matter where we were or what we were doing.' They say he 'whipped us with one hand and loved us with the other'. He's been gone over 16 years and his children STILL mourn him something awful. (I must explain that where I come from a 'spanking' is normally called a 'whipping' no matter how non severe it is') All my grandfather's children were/are successful in life and in whatever they chose. They were obedient, and so respectful that upon being asked by a minister at my mothers wake how we could sum up my grandparents in just a few words, the only WORD anyone could think of was 'saint'. I note that is not always so, of course. My son thinks that I abused he when he was a child. Though I spanked him...yes, I sure did...and only when he did something wrong...the boy, even as a self proclaimed devoted Christian, will stand up and tell me I am a '****ing bitch' at the drop of a hat. So, my question would be, I guess, when does physical discipline work, and when does it not? What elements decide who actually would benefit from physical punishment, and who wouldn't? It's obvious that some do and some don't. Or possible with those that have been physically disciplined it had no impact, rather than a negative one or a positive one and made no difference at all? You have a number of interesting questions. I have to offer in response, could the good things you relate have happened if the parents had not spanked? And, why take the chance? Most every instance I've been able to find where someone has claimed a child turned out badly because he was not "disciplined" when he needed it, turns out to have been a child that most assuredly WAS "disciplined" rather a lot. More whippin' wouldn't have changed a thing, and in fact might have made things worse. Many of the school shootings have happened in states where paddling is common and allowed in those schools. In one horrible instance the child is said to have been disciplined just a day or two before...no, I remember two in fact. Pearl Mississippi and Florida. In Pearl children died. And the child was well known to have been paddled in school, and a child who was "disciplined" by his grandparents. The teacher in Florida a student killed had paddled that student. Violence teaches violence. That SOME children do not turn to it does not equate with it being good any more than the fact that not all smokers die of cancer supports the use of tobacco as good. I kind of wish you had not used your boy as an example. We don't know if your spanking him had the reverse effect you wanted, but I wouldn't want to bet against it. You yourself have said you do not plan to use such methods on your grandson, and I hope you don't when he starts being difficult as all kids tend to eventually. Pain and humiliation is not always responded to in the same way by all people, children or adults, but again, I have to ask, why take the chance when there are alternatives that work as well? Kane |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW comments on Murray Straus
Snipped
You have a number of interesting questions. I have to offer in response, could the good things you relate have happened if the parents had not spanked? Surely. I assume so, my reason for asking. And, why take the chance? Don't know that there is a reason for taking a chance. I guess it has just always been so in my family. Someone asked my cousin the other day 'what would you do if your mother took out the razor strap if she knew you were doing that?' My cousin replied 'Let her whip me.' She's 19. That's just the way things have always been done with my kin I guess. Most every instance I've been able to find where someone has claimed a child turned out badly because he was not "disciplined" when he needed it, turns out to have been a child that most assuredly WAS "disciplined" rather a lot. Unfortunate, as I learned in parenting class...'quantity of discipline does not equal quality of same'. Parents who wonder (as I have in the past) where they went wrong with their kids usually just have to ask themselves one question to get the answer...'was i consistent?' I've learned this with my own children, and even more so after my parenting classes in watching my ex husband with my kids. More whippin' wouldn't have changed a thing, and in fact might have made things worse. Very possible. Many of the school shootings have happened in states where paddling is common and allowed in those schools. In one horrible instance the child is said to have been disciplined just a day or two before...no, I remember two in fact. Ok, honestly, i don't believe in spanking in school. I went to a school in ky where spanking was legal. For what reason then I did not know, but do now, I bounced my leg up and down all the time in class. I received a total of over 100 paddlings on the last day of my 8th grade year for bouncing my leg. Oh, he had been keeping count all year long. I was extremely embarrassed. I don't think it did a thing for me except make me more defiant. Pearl Mississippi and Florida. In Pearl children died. And the child was well known to have been paddled in school, and a child who was "disciplined" by his grandparents. The teacher in Florida a student killed had paddled that student. Violence teaches violence. That SOME children do not turn to it does not equate with it being good any more than the fact that not all smokers die of cancer supports the use of tobacco as good. I kind of wish you had not used your boy as an example. We don't know if your spanking him had the reverse effect you wanted, but I wouldn't want to bet against it. I'm not real certain myself. I do believe the boy has some mental issues. He had chicken pox when he was about seven or eight, maybe nine. he got an expecially nasty pock mark on his face right in front of his ear. Very deep because he kept picking at it for some reason. He likes to tell everyone that it's a scar from me burning him with a cigarette. he knows that isn't true, but he insists on telling people that anyway. And, my daughter is pretty much the same. they come up with these wild out there stories to elicit sympathy from people and if it just so happens that it's convenient to use me that way, they do. Still. Now. With them adults. You yourself have said you do not plan to use such methods on your grandson, and I hope you don't when he starts being difficult as all kids tend to eventually. I have a drawer in the credenza that has papers in it. I take him out of that drawer at least 30 times a day. I never hit him for it. I firmly tell him no, and close the drawer saying 'mine'. He's already difficult sometimes. And no...I don't plan to use physical discipline with him. it already appears that consistency is working good for him....I took him to the bed tonight and said 'you go nite nite' he was out in about three minutes. Awesome! Pain and humiliation is not always responded to in the same way by all people, children or adults, but again, I have to ask, why take the chance when there are alternatives that work as well? Well, I wasn't thinking of taking the chance. i was wondering why some grow and become productive in spite of it, and some don't. Kane |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
TROLL PLAYING GAMES HERE Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW comments on Murray Straus
wrote in message oups.com... : From http://www.neverhitachild.org/noframes.html : : : Hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any : circumstances, except literal physical self-defense, should be hit. : : Murray A. Straus : : : Hitting is wrong . Hitting is a violent thing to do. Violence is a : thing one person does to make another person hurt. We want to treat : children in ways that do not hurt or harm them. We can. We want to be : kind and gentle, not harsh. We want to be tender, merciful and : compassionate. There is no situation that changes hitting from a wrong : thing into a right thing. There is no excuse that magically makes : hurting children kind or merciful. This is confusing, though, isn't : it? A law can say that it is all right to do a wrong thing to stop a : wrong thing. Hitting, however, is nearly never a better 'wrong' thing : to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. Defense from physical attack, : for example, might be less wrong than the physical attack itself. The : law sets a limit, though, for this rare situation. The law limits a : defense to interrupting or ending the attack upon the physical safety : of a person. The laws that also allow the physical punishment of : children do not make it a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of : two bad things'. They only allow it. Hitting children is not tender : or compassionate treatment. Hitting children is not better than : treating them in ways that do not hurt. We will be kinder, gentler and : less violent when we all stop hitting children. : : We do not say to our children (most of us, anyway), "hitting is right" : or "hitting is a good thing to do." We do not really believe that it : is a good thing to hit people. Most of us are not 'in favor' of : hitting children. However, many of us (most of us, actually) behave as : if it is a good thing to do. We are in favor of spanking and physical : punishment. The law attempts to make a physical attack on a child's : body a thing that is all right to do. : : The way a spanking looks and feels must be confusing for children. How : can they tell what it means? Parents are their example of what is : right and good. Parents' behavior is their example of what love looks : and feels like. Hitting a child seems to say that it is all right to : hit people... even loved ones. When a person wants to control others, : it must be okay to hit them, spanking seems to say. For children whose : parents tell them that hitting is wrong, hitting might also seem to say : that it is all right to do something that is wrong. It certainly does : not show or say to the child what behavior is wanted. : : There is no obligation or duty to hit children. No one of us can show : that anything bad happens if we do not hit children. No one can show : that children become less well behaved if we do not hit them. When : people think of not hitting children, however, they often feel afraid : and uncertain. What do they fear? Are they just uncomfortable with : the unknown or the untried? Do they just doubt what they have not yet : experienced? They do not really know that anything bad will happen. : It is enough for them, it seems, that they believe that something bad : will happen. Since people usually do not really think about many of : their beliefs, it is hard to use reason to help them to be unafraid. : But there is no evidence that a child whose parents model appropriate : behavior, clearly and unambiguously love and nurture that child, : diligently encourage and positively reinforce desired behavior, using : reason and persuasion while consistently communicating and enforcing : limits, and demonstrating a rational process for problem solving, will : not "turn out" as well, if not better, than any child held up as the : supposed example of the benefit of spanking her or him. : : So we have no duty, contract or promise to hit. There is no other : social, legal or moral rule that makes us spank our children. We can : count upon our friends and family to say that there is a need for a : 'good spanking'. They will tell us that spanking people during their : childhood is the cure for society's ills. They carry tradition and : myth, as humans always have, but that does not mean that they know the : truth. : : Social, legal and moral ties bind us to feed, clothe and shelter our : dependent children. We should teach them to behave well in public and : to contribute according to their capacity. We should help them to find : happiness doing these things. If we do our job well, they become : willing and able to give their best to society. There is no need to : hit children in order to do our social, legal and moral duty. For : example, accepting the responsibilities for a dependent adult might : become our social and moral duty. But, we would have no legal right to : hit that adult in order to do this duty. : : Nothing good forces us to act aggressively toward our minor children. : Yet, there seems to be some mistaken, unfounded 'sense of duty' to do : it. I believe that this 'sense' may be the result of our feeling that : other parents in our family or social group know what we should do. As : children, we saw our parents and other adults do things that we : remember as right and good.  Spanking children is one of those : things that we memorized. We copy that behavior with our own children. : We think, therefore, that we are surely being a good and proper : parent. We are following tradition. However, tradition and morality : are separate standards. : : Hitting children does not make it easier for us to do our social, legal : or moral duty as parents. Hitting them might seem to offer us a sort : of shortcut. Hitting them may make it easier, instead, for our : children to realize dreadful outcomes; the literal opposites of our : goals. The result of spanking is our children's fear and resentment of : us. Satisfaction with spanking could be related to some other need, : independent of the child. : : Murray Straus is author of Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal : Punishment in American Families. He wrote, "The most basic step in : eliminating corporal punishment is for parent educators, psychologists, : and pediatricians to make a simple and unambiguous statement..." That : is the statement I have quoted at the top of this page. I agree with : it. I like the statement. Most people think that it is too strong. : Some have felt that the phrase "except literal physical self-defense" : seems to give permission to spanking parents. Professor Straus also : suggests that we say, without qualification, "A child should never be : hit."  I believe that afterwards, though, one must prepare to : respond to the certain question, "Well, what about the circumstance: : self-defense?" But, self-defense is not at all common among the : routine responses to our children's behavior. Defense of self indeed! : : Professor Straus explained to me that he too could recognize that there : is a certain danger in "except for self-defense." He thought that it : was, in part, his training in criminology that led to his writing it : the way he did. He explained that many people misunderstand the legal : concept of self defense and think that retaliation is self defense. Of : course, self defense becomes a legal justification for assault only if : the person is in danger of serious injury or death and cannot get away. : He said, "If a child hits a parent, they can and should restrain the : child if it continues, but they should never hit back." In his own : opinion, the parents should make a big deal out of any instance of a : child hitting. It should be treated as a moral outrage and something : to never be done again. He said, "Hitting back is not self defense." : Legally, an adult who is attacked and hits back may also be guilty of : assault. : : It concerns me that the quotation risks deafening listeners so that : they hear nothing that follows it. I live and write, and 'mingle' : among the people of Arkansas, USA. It is a spank-happy place where it : is "open season" on children--in their homes as well as in their : schools. Our children stand a one-in-seven chance of being hit by an : adult at school, so Arkansas ranks "worst" among the ten worst : school-paddling states. : : Still, "never hit" is the phrase to which most of the provoked readers : respond. Realistically, the people I engage all want to know "What if : you're attacked or assaulted by a juvenile delinquent?" I believe : that there has to be an exception. There almost always is. Perhaps : 'except' is permissive. This exception, of course, is always some : extreme, bizarre and unlikely occurrence. In such a crisis, however, : people do what they are going to do for no certain reason. : Anticipation rarely has anything to do with the outcome. Besides, most : parents really are not parenting armed juveniles. How realistic is it : to expect to have to hit your child to save your life or protect your : self from serious physical threat -- literal physical self-defense? : : LITERAL, PHYSICAL, SELF-DEFENSE ... The exception only barely warrants : noting. So, my inconsistency is that I also agree with the "too soft" : critics. I have been around a lot of violence, threats of serious harm : to my family, our property and myself. I do not hit any children. I : worked in child welfare (child protective services, foster care, : adoptions, interstate transfers) in Phoenix. I worked the pediatric : outpatient clinic at the indigent care hospital in Phoenix and : conducted interviews with child abusers (some suicidal and homicidal). : I worked nearly ten years in the pediatric department and the ER of a : large hospital here in Little Rock. : : I am not through with living so it would be disingenuous to make a : statement so absolute that I could not realistically expect to live by : it. But I can state, unambiguously, that hitting a child is wrong and : a child never, ever, under any circumstances should be hit. : : : NeverHitAChild.ORG : : Reference: Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in : American Families, Lexington Books, 1994, Murray A. Straus with Denise : A. Donnelly, ISBN 0-02-931730-4 : |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
TROLL FEEDER HERE Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW comments on Murray Straus
"Dragon's Girl" wrote in message et... : Though my approach to discipline has changed a great deal over the years : since my children were small, and I prefer other methods to physical : punishment, I have a hard time believing that properly administered physical : discipline is as deterimental to a child as some would believe. : : I'll never forget my mother talking about her father...her siblings as : well...a large man standing over 6 foot eight. : She said that 'daddy would come out on the porch and whistle and we call : came running to see what he wanted. Didn't matter where we were or what we : were doing.' : : They say he 'whipped us with one hand and loved us with the other'. : : He's been gone over 16 years and his children STILL mourn him something : awful. : : (I must explain that where I come from a 'spanking' is normally called a : 'whipping' no matter how non severe it is') : : All my grandfather's children were/are successful in life and in whatever : they chose. : : They were obedient, and so respectful that upon being asked by a minister at : my mothers wake how we could sum up my grandparents in just a few words, the : only WORD anyone could think of was 'saint'. : : I note that is not always so, of course. My son thinks that I abused he : when he was a child. Though I spanked him...yes, I sure did...and only when : he did something wrong...the boy, even as a self proclaimed devoted : Christian, will stand up and tell me I am a '****ing bitch' at the drop of a : hat. : : So, my question would be, I guess, when does physical discipline work, and : when does it not? : : What elements decide who actually would benefit from physical punishment, : and who wouldn't? : : It's obvious that some do and some don't. : : Or possible with those that have been physically disciplined it had no : impact, rather than a negative one or a positive one and made no difference : at all? : : : : : wrote in message : oups.com... : From http://www.neverhitachild.org/noframes.html : : : Hitting a child is wrong and a child never, ever, under any : circumstances, except literal physical self-defense, should be hit. : : Murray A. Straus : : : Hitting is wrong . Hitting is a violent thing to do. Violence is a : thing one person does to make another person hurt. We want to treat : children in ways that do not hurt or harm them. We can. We want to be : kind and gentle, not harsh. We want to be tender, merciful and : compassionate. There is no situation that changes hitting from a wrong : thing into a right thing. There is no excuse that magically makes : hurting children kind or merciful. This is confusing, though, isn't : it? A law can say that it is all right to do a wrong thing to stop a : wrong thing. Hitting, however, is nearly never a better 'wrong' thing : to do or the 'lesser of two bad things'. Defense from physical attack, : for example, might be less wrong than the physical attack itself. The : law sets a limit, though, for this rare situation. The law limits a : defense to interrupting or ending the attack upon the physical safety : of a person. The laws that also allow the physical punishment of : children do not make it a better 'wrong' thing to do or the 'lesser of : two bad things'. They only allow it. Hitting children is not tender : or compassionate treatment. Hitting children is not better than : treating them in ways that do not hurt. We will be kinder, gentler and : less violent when we all stop hitting children. : : We do not say to our children (most of us, anyway), "hitting is right" : or "hitting is a good thing to do." We do not really believe that it : is a good thing to hit people. Most of us are not 'in favor' of : hitting children. However, many of us (most of us, actually) behave as : if it is a good thing to do. We are in favor of spanking and physical : punishment. The law attempts to make a physical attack on a child's : body a thing that is all right to do. : : The way a spanking looks and feels must be confusing for children. How : can they tell what it means? Parents are their example of what is : right and good. Parents' behavior is their example of what love looks : and feels like. Hitting a child seems to say that it is all right to : hit people... even loved ones. When a person wants to control others, : it must be okay to hit them, spanking seems to say. For children whose : parents tell them that hitting is wrong, hitting might also seem to say : that it is all right to do something that is wrong. It certainly does : not show or say to the child what behavior is wanted. : : There is no obligation or duty to hit children. No one of us can show : that anything bad happens if we do not hit children. No one can show : that children become less well behaved if we do not hit them. When : people think of not hitting children, however, they often feel afraid : and uncertain. What do they fear? Are they just uncomfortable with : the unknown or the untried? Do they just doubt what they have not yet : experienced? They do not really know that anything bad will happen. : It is enough for them, it seems, that they believe that something bad : will happen. Since people usually do not really think about many of : their beliefs, it is hard to use reason to help them to be unafraid. : But there is no evidence that a child whose parents model appropriate : behavior, clearly and unambiguously love and nurture that child, : diligently encourage and positively reinforce desired behavior, using : reason and persuasion while consistently communicating and enforcing : limits, and demonstrating a rational process for problem solving, will : not "turn out" as well, if not better, than any child held up as the : supposed example of the benefit of spanking her or him. : : So we have no duty, contract or promise to hit. There is no other : social, legal or moral rule that makes us spank our children. We can : count upon our friends and family to say that there is a need for a : 'good spanking'. They will tell us that spanking people during their : childhood is the cure for society's ills. They carry tradition and : myth, as humans always have, but that does not mean that they know the : truth. : : Social, legal and moral ties bind us to feed, clothe and shelter our : dependent children. We should teach them to behave well in public and : to contribute according to their capacity. We should help them to find : happiness doing these things. If we do our job well, they become : willing and able to give their best to society. There is no need to : hit children in order to do our social, legal and moral duty. For : example, accepting the responsibilities for a dependent adult might : become our social and moral duty. But, we would have no legal right to : hit that adult in order to do this duty. : : Nothing good forces us to act aggressively toward our minor children. : Yet, there seems to be some mistaken, unfounded 'sense of duty' to do : it. I believe that this 'sense' may be the result of our feeling that : other parents in our family or social group know what we should do. As : children, we saw our parents and other adults do things that we : remember as right and good.  Spanking children is one of those : things that we memorized. We copy that behavior with our own children. : We think, therefore, that we are surely being a good and proper : parent. We are following tradition. However, tradition and morality : are separate standards. : : Hitting children does not make it easier for us to do our social, legal : or moral duty as parents. Hitting them might seem to offer us a sort : of shortcut. Hitting them may make it easier, instead, for our : children to realize dreadful outcomes; the literal opposites of our : goals. The result of spanking is our children's fear and resentment of : us. Satisfaction with spanking could be related to some other need, : independent of the child. : : Murray Straus is author of Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal : Punishment in American Families. He wrote, "The most basic step in : eliminating corporal punishment is for parent educators, psychologists, : and pediatricians to make a simple and unambiguous statement..." That : is the statement I have quoted at the top of this page. I agree with : it. I like the statement. Most people think that it is too strong. : Some have felt that the phrase "except literal physical self-defense" : seems to give permission to spanking parents. Professor Straus also : suggests that we say, without qualification, "A child should never be : hit."  I believe that afterwards, though, one must prepare to : respond to the certain question, "Well, what about the circumstance: : self-defense?" But, self-defense is not at all common among the : routine responses to our children's behavior. Defense of self indeed! : : Professor Straus explained to me that he too could recognize that there : is a certain danger in "except for self-defense." He thought that it : was, in part, his training in criminology that led to his writing it : the way he did. He explained that many people misunderstand the legal : concept of self defense and think that retaliation is self defense. Of : course, self defense becomes a legal justification for assault only if : the person is in danger of serious injury or death and cannot get away. : He said, "If a child hits a parent, they can and should restrain the : child if it continues, but they should never hit back." In his own : opinion, the parents should make a big deal out of any instance of a : child hitting. It should be treated as a moral outrage and something : to never be done again. He said, "Hitting back is not self defense." : Legally, an adult who is attacked and hits back may also be guilty of : assault. : : It concerns me that the quotation risks deafening listeners so that : they hear nothing that follows it. I live and write, and 'mingle' : among the people of Arkansas, USA. It is a spank-happy place where it : is "open season" on children--in their homes as well as in their : schools. Our children stand a one-in-seven chance of being hit by an : adult at school, so Arkansas ranks "worst" among the ten worst : school-paddling states. : : Still, "never hit" is the phrase to which most of the provoked readers : respond. Realistically, the people I engage all want to know "What if : you're attacked or assaulted by a juvenile delinquent?" I believe : that there has to be an exception. There almost always is. Perhaps : 'except' is permissive. This exception, of course, is always some : extreme, bizarre and unlikely occurrence. In such a crisis, however, : people do what they are going to do for no certain reason. : Anticipation rarely has anything to do with the outcome. Besides, most : parents really are not parenting armed juveniles. How realistic is it : to expect to have to hit your child to save your life or protect your : self from serious physical threat -- literal physical self-defense? : : LITERAL, PHYSICAL, SELF-DEFENSE ... The exception only barely warrants : noting. So, my inconsistency is that I also agree with the "too soft" : critics. I have been around a lot of violence, threats of serious harm : to my family, our property and myself. I do not hit any children. I : worked in child welfare (child protective services, foster care, : adoptions, interstate transfers) in Phoenix. I worked the pediatric : outpatient clinic at the indigent care hospital in Phoenix and : conducted interviews with child abusers (some suicidal and homicidal). : I worked nearly ten years in the pediatric department and the ER of a : large hospital here in Little Rock. : : I am not through with living so it would be disingenuous to make a : statement so absolute that I could not realistically expect to live by : it. But I can state, unambiguously, that hitting a child is wrong and : a child never, ever, under any circumstances should be hit. : : : NeverHitAChild.ORG : : Reference: Beating the Devil Out of Them: Corporal Punishment in : American Families, Lexington Books, 1994, Murray A. Straus with Denise : A. Donnelly, ISBN 0-02-931730-4 : : : |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
AND THE KANER COMES CRAWLING OUT OF THE WOODWORK Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW comments on Murray Straus
TOO STUPID TO BE HUMAN wrote in message ups.com... : : Dragon's Girl wrote: : Though my approach to discipline has changed a great deal over the years : since my children were small, and I prefer other methods to physical : punishment, I have a hard time believing that properly administered physical : discipline is as deterimental to a child as some would believe. : : I'll never forget my mother talking about her father...her siblings as : well...a large man standing over 6 foot eight. : She said that 'daddy would come out on the porch and whistle and we call : came running to see what he wanted. Didn't matter where we were or what we : were doing.' : : They say he 'whipped us with one hand and loved us with the other'. : : He's been gone over 16 years and his children STILL mourn him something : awful. : : (I must explain that where I come from a 'spanking' is normally called a : 'whipping' no matter how non severe it is') : : All my grandfather's children were/are successful in life and in whatever : they chose. : : They were obedient, and so respectful that upon being asked by a minister at : my mothers wake how we could sum up my grandparents in just a few words, the : only WORD anyone could think of was 'saint'. : : I note that is not always so, of course. My son thinks that I abused he : when he was a child. Though I spanked him...yes, I sure did...and only when : he did something wrong...the boy, even as a self proclaimed devoted : Christian, will stand up and tell me I am a '****ing bitch' at the drop of a : hat. : : So, my question would be, I guess, when does physical discipline work, and : when does it not? : : What elements decide who actually would benefit from physical punishment, : and who wouldn't? : : It's obvious that some do and some don't. : : Or possible with those that have been physically disciplined it had no : impact, rather than a negative one or a positive one and made no difference : at all? : : You have a number of interesting questions. : : I have to offer in response, could the good things you relate have : happened if the parents had not spanked? : : And, why take the chance? : : Most every instance I've been able to find where someone has claimed a : child turned out badly because he was not "disciplined" when he needed : it, turns out to have been a child that most assuredly WAS : "disciplined" rather a lot. : : More whippin' wouldn't have changed a thing, and in fact might have : made things worse. : : Many of the school shootings have happened in states where paddling is : common and allowed in those schools. In one horrible instance the child : is said to have been disciplined just a day or two before...no, I : remember two in fact. : : Pearl Mississippi and Florida. In Pearl children died. And the child : was well known to have been paddled in school, and a child who was : "disciplined" by his grandparents. : : The teacher in Florida a student killed had paddled that student. : Violence teaches violence. That SOME children do not turn to it does : not equate with it being good any more than the fact that not all : smokers die of cancer supports the use of tobacco as good. : : I kind of wish you had not used your boy as an example. We don't know : if your spanking him had the reverse effect you wanted, but I wouldn't : want to bet against it. : : You yourself have said you do not plan to use such methods on your : grandson, and I hope you don't when he starts being difficult as all : kids tend to eventually. : : Pain and humiliation is not always responded to in the same way by all : people, children or adults, but again, I have to ask, why take the : chance when there are alternatives that work as well? : : Kane : |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW comments on Murray Straus
"Dragon's Girl SPREAD ITS LEGS AND FROM" wrote in message t... : Snipped : : : You have a number of interesting questions. : : I have to offer in response, could the good things you relate have : happened if the parents had not spanked? : : Surely. I assume so, my reason for asking. : : : And, why take the chance? : : Don't know that there is a reason for taking a chance. I guess it has just : always been so in my family. Someone asked my cousin the other day 'what : would you do if your mother took out the razor strap if she knew you were : doing that?' My cousin replied 'Let her whip me.' : : She's 19. : : That's just the way things have always been done with my kin I guess. : : : : Most every instance I've been able to find where someone has claimed a : child turned out badly because he was not "disciplined" when he needed : it, turns out to have been a child that most assuredly WAS : "disciplined" rather a lot. : : Unfortunate, as I learned in parenting class...'quantity of discipline does : not equal quality of same'. : : Parents who wonder (as I have in the past) where they went wrong with their : kids usually just have to ask themselves one question to get the : answer...'was i consistent?' : : I've learned this with my own children, and even more so after my parenting : classes in watching my ex husband with my kids. : : : : More whippin' wouldn't have changed a thing, and in fact might have : made things worse. : : Very possible. : : : Many of the school shootings have happened in states where paddling is : common and allowed in those schools. In one horrible instance the child : is said to have been disciplined just a day or two before...no, I : remember two in fact. : : Ok, honestly, i don't believe in spanking in school. I went to a school in : ky where spanking was legal. For what reason then I did not know, but do : now, I bounced my leg up and down all the time in class. I received a total : of over 100 paddlings on the last day of my 8th grade year for bouncing my : leg. Oh, he had been keeping count all year long. I was extremely : embarrassed. : : I don't think it did a thing for me except make me more defiant. : : : : Pearl Mississippi and Florida. In Pearl children died. And the child : was well known to have been paddled in school, and a child who was : "disciplined" by his grandparents. : : The teacher in Florida a student killed had paddled that student. : Violence teaches violence. That SOME children do not turn to it does : not equate with it being good any more than the fact that not all : smokers die of cancer supports the use of tobacco as good. : : I kind of wish you had not used your boy as an example. We don't know : if your spanking him had the reverse effect you wanted, but I wouldn't : want to bet against it. : : I'm not real certain myself. I do believe the boy has some mental issues. : He had chicken pox when he was about seven or eight, maybe nine. he got an : expecially nasty pock mark on his face right in front of his ear. Very deep : because he kept picking at it for some reason. He likes to tell everyone : that it's a scar from me burning him with a cigarette. he knows that isn't : true, but he insists on telling people that anyway. : : And, my daughter is pretty much the same. they come up with these wild out : there stories to elicit sympathy from people and if it just so happens that : it's convenient to use me that way, they do. Still. Now. With them : adults. : : : : You yourself have said you do not plan to use such methods on your : grandson, and I hope you don't when he starts being difficult as all : kids tend to eventually. : : I have a drawer in the credenza that has papers in it. I take him out of : that drawer at least 30 times a day. I never hit him for it. I firmly tell : him no, and close the drawer saying 'mine'. : : He's already difficult sometimes. : : And no...I don't plan to use physical discipline with him. : : it already appears that consistency is working good for him....I took him to : the bed tonight and said 'you go nite nite' he was out in about three : minutes. Awesome! : : : : Pain and humiliation is not always responded to in the same way by all : people, children or adults, but again, I have to ask, why take the : chance when there are alternatives that work as well? : : Well, I wasn't thinking of taking the chance. i was wondering why some grow : and become productive in spite of it, and some don't. : : Kane : : : |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW comments on Murray Straus
Dragon's Girl wrote: .......snip........ Pain and humiliation is not always responded to in the same way by all people, children or adults, but again, I have to ask, why take the chance when there are alternatives that work as well? Well, I wasn't thinking of taking the chance. i was wondering why some grow and become productive in spite of it, and some don't. Because we come in so many flavors and with so many sets of life experiences that are different from each other. Some of, I'd say many in these ngs, that spank or support it, point to it being successful when done thoughtfully and with other good parenting practices. Given a set of "good parenting practicies" along with not spanking I'd expect similar good outcomes (and I see parents doing this all the time) and no risk. Parents that are consistent, that recognize child development reality (as you apparently do with your night time bedtime ritual as an excellent example) are less likely, when a child does start misbehaving, to lose it and go to spanking as the next level of control. Those that simply don't have spanking in their accepted repertoire won't go there but will simply look to expand their already good parenting skills. Both camps err in this debate on this part of the issue and make the assumption that parents that spank don't do anything else but, and parents that do not spank don't do any otehr parenting. Kind of a silly argument. The only place I can take a position there is in knowing that both camps do in fact have parents that don't parent. My argument has always boiled down to, "why take the chance?" Given two sets of parents, one that spanks and one that doesn't, and both are equal in their other parenting skills, why spank? I know of far too many that spank...and some data bears me out on this...that do so and admit to losing control and doing precisely what spanking advocates claim most parents do not do. In fact in one of the pages I reviewed for this and similar citations recently it was a very large majority. And having seen CPS cases in the thousands both by my student days records reviews, and by helping relatives whose own relatives abused their children, I am quite sure that spankers lose it far more than they want to admit. Anyway, thanks for discussing this with me. Best thing to do with a kid when their behavior, formerly okay, or good, that's going bad? Hug'em. Just like adults, something is wrong and they need comfort or they wouldn't be messin' up. That's why we have g'mas. They seem to do that more often when a child messes up. And darned if the little guys don't start behaving better. 0:-) |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
IT JUST DOESN'T GET IT Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW comments on Murray Straus
THAT A KANER IS LESS LISTENED TO THAN A WHISPER IN THE MIDDLE OF
A FOREST DURING A RAGING THUNDER STORM. IF IT KNEW THE MEANING OF THE WORD SUPPORT AND EVER DID ANYTHING THAT LOOKED LIKE SUPPORT IT MIGHT BEGIN TO FALSELY APPEAR SAPIENT SO I GUESS WE'RE LUCKY IT CAN'T READ, CAN'T THINK, CAN'T DO ANYTHING BUT PLAY AROUND WITH ITS FETISHES. SNIPPED ALL BUT USEFUL INFORMATION BELOW |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
great problems are opportunities for service -- aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde) toxicity: Rawlings: Murray 2005.10.10 | Rich Murray | Kids Health | 1 | October 10th 05 11:43 AM |
UN FAO & WHO approve Steviol glycosides as sweetener June 2004, imports to UK no longer blocked: Martini: Murray 2004.10.17 rmforall | Rich Murray | Kids Health | 11 | November 3rd 04 07:26 PM |
ABC propaganda on aspartame | john | Kids Health | 17 | September 18th 04 08:17 PM |
Insomnia | Zaz | Pregnancy | 8 | July 3rd 04 07:00 PM |
aspartame (methanol, formaldehyde) toxicity: Murray 10.15.3 rmforall | Rich Murray | Pregnancy | 0 | October 17th 03 04:58 AM |