A Parenting & kids forum. ParentingBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » ParentingBanter.com forum » alt.parenting » Spanking
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Randy Cox, ACSW, LCSW comments on Murray Straus



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 9th 05, 03:30 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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. &nbspSpanking 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." &nbspI 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  
Old November 9th 05, 04:28 AM
Dragon's Girl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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. &nbspSpanking 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." &nbspI 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  
Old November 9th 05, 04:42 AM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 9th 05, 07:33 AM
Dragon's Girl
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 9th 05, 02:46 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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. &nbspSpanking 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." &nbspI 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  
Old November 9th 05, 02:46 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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. &nbspSpanking 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." &nbspI 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  
Old November 9th 05, 02:47 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 9th 05, 02:50 PM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 9th 05, 07:02 PM
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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  
Old November 10th 05, 01:58 AM
Pop
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:15 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 ParentingBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.