|
Post by snow on Aug 7, 2013 16:29:59 GMT -5
I wondered about that but I don't know. He absolutely adored his father and his birth mother died when he was 4 but he called his step mother a 'saint', so I really don't know. He was very devoted to the belief spare the rod and spoil the child. I think because I quit professing I was considered a disgrace and it somehow reflected on him. I don't know. He loved me I think, just didn't know how to show it. I look back and realize he had some serious misconceptions about women too. Sorry Snow, I didn't make myself clear. I was thinking of yourself, having gone through all the abuse from your Father, you ended up in an abusive (first) marriage? Oh yes, I see. Definitely. Just glad I had the strength to stop the cycle! I didn't want my children to grow up in that kind of atmosphere. I had a son I didn't want to have that kind of role model as an abuser and I didn't want my daughter to think it was okay to be abused. They gave me the strength to get out.
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 7, 2013 20:09:42 GMT -5
Bob misreprented me and I returned the favor. I hardly think so, with your "erudite" understanding, you should have been able to understand that "violence" against anyone, means the same.
Spouses, men or women, who abuse their spouses with a couple of swats, which you think is perfectly acceptable to use on a child, would use your same argument as being acceptable to hit their spouse!
Wasn't misunderstand at all!
Violence, even just a couple of swats, on any person is violence!
Nope. Two swats to the butt is a perfectly, acceptable corrective course-of-action on the part of a loving, sensible parent. If we're not talking about one, all bets are off.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 7, 2013 22:01:33 GMT -5
I hardly think so, with your "erudite" understanding, you should have been able to understand that "violence" against anyone, means the same.
Spouses, men or women, who abuse their spouses with a couple of swats, which you think is perfectly acceptable to use on a child, would use your same argument as being acceptable to hit their spouse!
Wasn't misunderstand at all!
Violence, even just a couple of swats, on any person is violence!
Nope. Two swats to the butt is a perfectly, acceptable corrective course-of-action on the part of a loving, sensible parent. If we're not talking about one, all bets are off. If we are not talking about what?- a loving, sensible parent?
A truly loving, sensible parent can find a better way of caring for, keeping their children safe & teaching them; than giving them a couple swats on the butt.
I know, been there, done that.
I wasn't too proud to learn from people that knew a better way & as a result I have three children that I'm very proud of for the caring adults that they have become.
So, go ahead swat you children,- if that is the only way that you know how to teach them.
You will be the one to live with the consequences when they are adults.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 7, 2013 23:12:12 GMT -5
I hardly think so, with your "erudite" understanding, you should have been able to understand that "violence" against anyone, means the same.
Spouses, men or women, who abuse their spouses with a couple of swats, which you think is perfectly acceptable to use on a child, would use your same argument as being acceptable to hit their spouse!
Wasn't misunderstand at all!
Violence, even just a couple of swats, on any person is violence!
Nope. Two swats to the butt is a perfectly, acceptable corrective course-of-action on the part of a loving, sensible parent. If we're not talking about one, all bets are off. You and ram need to denounce all violence, as there is nothing loving in any kind of violence, including "soft" violence such as threats and put-downs. Loving parents do none of those things. Discipline and violence have no connection whatsoever, and only succeed in teaching a child that violence is the proper way to modify someone else's behaviour.....and that might equals right and that bullies always win. Just imagine your 5 year old child as being 6'2" tall and 220 lbs. of muscle. Would swatting him in the butt be perfectly acceptable then? Of course not, your own butt might get whupped......
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 8, 2013 0:45:29 GMT -5
Nope. Two swats to the butt is a perfectly, acceptable corrective course-of-action on the part of a loving, sensible parent. If we're not talking about one, all bets are off. You and ram need to denounce all violence, as there is nothing loving in any kind of violence, including "soft" violence such as threats and put-downs. Loving parents do none of those things. Discipline and violence have no connection whatsoever, and only succeed in teaching a child that violence is the proper way to modify someone else's behaviour.....and that might equals right and that bullies always win. Just imagine your 5 year old child as being 6'2" tall and 220 lbs. of muscle. Would swatting him in the butt be perfectly acceptable then? Of course not, your own butt might get whupped...... I agree!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 2:21:10 GMT -5
Nope. Two swats to the butt is a perfectly, acceptable corrective course-of-action on the part of a loving, sensible parent. If we're not talking about one, all bets are off. You and ram need to denounce all violence, as there is nothing loving in any kind of violence, including "soft" violence such as threats and put-downs. Loving parents do none of those things. Discipline and violence have no connection whatsoever, and only succeed in teaching a child that violence is the proper way to modify someone else's behaviour.....and that might equals right and that bullies always win. Just imagine your 5 year old child as being 6'2" tall and 220 lbs. of muscle. Would swatting him in the butt be perfectly acceptable then? Of course not, your own butt might get whupped...... And the misrepresentation continues. I have said that I believe the best way forward with the issue of child physical chastisement is through the socially unacceptable route, not through criminalisation. I'm getting blue in the face saying it, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. I would also like someone to step forward who can assure me that on every occasion, with every child, in every family and with every parent, that proper discipline and correction can be achieved without the application of child physical chastisement within the constraints of what the law allows. Anyone who is bold enough to step forward should state the extent of their front line experience in these matters beyond the limited scope of their own families. Will their judgmentalism of families who find it needful to use child physical chastisement in order to discipline and correct their children allow them to take on board these families' children and try to do a better job? I have seem "many" loving parents physically chastise their children. I have also seem many occasions where children needed to be firmly dealt with and would only respond to light smacking. It is stupid to say that loving parents don't do this. Many have done and still do. Goodness me, were there no loving parents 50 years ago, 100 years ago, a thousand years ago? Of course many children do respond without a parent having to finally resort to physical chastisement, but as we know, everyone is different, both parents and children. Also, some loving parents can behave in some very extreme "unloving" ways (see Theolegranni's OP on this thread). Putting non-harmful measures of discipline and correction in the same category of violence does not help the issue. Furthermore, reducing "real" child physical abuse to something well below the level of CSA and likening it to "smacking" does a great disservice to those who have suffered it, and elevating correctly measured child physical chastisement to criminal levels only confuses the whole issue. Let common sense reign. Let the socially unacceptable route run its course. It is having great effect. FWIW I do not like the idea of physically chastising children. However, I am very guarded against outlawing the practice as in my view it will create far more problems than it would solve. I have seen too many cases where the "last resort" had to be applied. Here is a link which gives a Biblical interpretation. www.gotquestions.org/disciplining-children.htmlAnd it seems the Bible is getting support from the Telegraph newspaper (report on a study of smacking). www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6926823/Smacked-children-more-successful-later-in-life-study-finds.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 7:05:03 GMT -5
I realize you and Lee mean well, but as I say, I think you should stand up against all physical violence of children instead of justifying it to some specified degree. You will do more for the cause against CPA by taking a position of promoting zero-tolerance to all adult-child violence rather than trying to promote that a small level of violence is ok. Just because parents love their children doesn't make it right that they can inflict this on them. Just because you interpret the bible to be in favour of this doesn't make it right. Just because a newspaper is in favour of it doesn't make it right. If there was any evidence that physical punishment caused people to "respond" properly, we would be doing it to bad adults.....but we don't. Yet we think it is a good thing for children. Ten Reasons Not to Hit Your Kids by Jan HuntIn 29 countries1 around the world, it is illegal for a parent, teacher, or anyone else to spank a child, and 113 countries prohibit corporal punishment in schools. Yet in all of North America, physical punishment by a parent, as long as it is not severe, is still seen by many as necessary discipline, and condoned, or sadly, even encouraged. For the past several years, many psychiatrists, sociological researchers, and parents have recommended that we seriously consider banning the physical punishment of children. The most important reason, according to Dr. Peter Newell, coordinator of the organization End Punishment of Children (EPOCH)2, is that "all people have the right to protection of their physical integrity, and children are people too."3 1. Hitting children teaches them to become hitters themselves. Extensive research data is now available to support a direct correlation between corporal punishment in childhood and aggressive or violent behavior in the teenage and adult years. Virtually all of the most dangerous criminals were regularly threatened and punished in childhood. It is nature's plan that children learn attitudes and behaviors through observation and imitation of their parents' actions, for good or ill. Thus it is the responsibility of parents to set an example of empathy and wisdom. 2. In many cases of so-called "bad behavior", the child is simply responding in the only way he can, given his age and experience, to neglect of basic needs. Among these needs are: proper sleep and nutrition, treatment of hidden allergy, fresh air, exercise, and sufficient freedom to explore the world around him. But his greatest need is for his parents' undivided attention. In these busy times, few children receive sufficient time and attention from their parents, who are often too distracted by their own problems and worries to treat their children with patience and empathy. It is surely wrong and unfair to punish a child for responding in a natural way to having important needs neglected. For this reason, punishment is not only ineffective in the long run, it is also clearly unjust. 3. Punishment distracts the child from learning how to resolve conflict in an effective and humane way. As the educator John Holt wrote, "When we make a child afraid, we stop learning dead in its tracks." A punished child becomes preoccupied with feelings of anger and fantasies of revenge, and is thus deprived of the opportunity to learn more effective methods of solving the problem at hand. Thus, a punished child learns little about how to handle or prevent similar situations in the future. 4. The phrase "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is not from the Bible but from Samuel Butler's "Hudibras", a 17th Century satirical poem. The poem, like his novel, The Way of All Flesh, was written to expose and denounce violence against children. Ironically, this phrase is now used to justify corporal punishment and other punitive actions against children. 5. Punishment interferes with the bond between parent and child, as it is not human nature to feel loving toward someone who hurts us. The true spirit of cooperation which every parent desires can arise only through a strong bond based on mutual feelings of love and respect. Punishment, even when it appears to work, can produce only superficially good behavior based on fear, which can only take place until the child is old enough to resist. In contrast, cooperation based on respect will last permanently, bringing many years of mutual happiness as the child and parent grow older. 6. Many parents never learned in their own childhood that there are positive ways of relating to children. When punishment does not accomplish the desired goals, and if the parent is unaware of alternative methods, punishment can escalate to more frequent and dangerous actions against the child. 7. Anger and frustration which cannot be safely expressed by a child become stored inside; angry teenagers do not fall from the sky. Anger that has been accumulating for many years can come as a shock to parents whose child now feels strong enough to express this rage. Punishment may appear to produce "good behavior" in the early years, but always at a high price, paid by parents and by society as a whole, as the child enters adolescence and early adulthood. 8. Spanking on the buttocks, an erogenous zone in childhood, can create in the child's mind an association between pain and sexual pleasure, and lead to difficulties in adulthood. "Spanking wanted" ads in alternative newspapers attest to the sad consequences of this confusion of pain and pleasure. If a child receives little parental attention except when being punished, this will further merge the concepts of pain and pleasure in the child's mind. A child in this situation will have little self-esteem, believing he deserves nothing better. For more on this topic, see "The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children" (also in French). Even relatively moderate spanking can be physically dangerous. Blows to the lower end of the spinal column send shock waves along the length of the spine, and may injure the child. The prevalence of lower back pain among adults in our society may well have its origins in childhood punishment. Some children have become paralyzed through nerve damage from spanking, and some have died after mild paddlings, due to undiagnosed medical complications. 9. Physical punishment gives the dangerous and unfair message that "might makes right", that it is permissible to hurt someone else, provided they are smaller and less powerful than you are. The child then concludes that it is permissible to mistreat younger or smaller children. When he becomes an adult, he can feel little compassion for those less fortunate than he is, and fears those who are more powerful. This will hinder the establishment of meaningful relationships so essential to an emotionally fulfilling life. 10. Because children learn through parental modeling, physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express feelings and to solve problems. If a child does not observe a parent solving problems in a creative and humane way, it can be difficult for him to learn to do this himself. For this reason, unskilled parenting often continues into the next generation. Gentle instruction, supported by a strong foundation of love and respect, is the only truly effective way to bring about commendable behavior based on strong inner values, instead of superficially "good" behavior based only on fear. www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/tenreasons.html You and ram need to denounce all violence, as there is nothing loving in any kind of violence, including "soft" violence such as threats and put-downs. Loving parents do none of those things. Discipline and violence have no connection whatsoever, and only succeed in teaching a child that violence is the proper way to modify someone else's behaviour.....and that might equals right and that bullies always win. Just imagine your 5 year old child as being 6'2" tall and 220 lbs. of muscle. Would swatting him in the butt be perfectly acceptable then? Of course not, your own butt might get whupped...... And the misrepresentation continues. I have said that I believe the best way forward with the issue of child physical chastisement is through the socially unacceptable route, not through criminalisation. I'm getting blue in the face saying it, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. I would also like someone to step forward who can assure me that on every occasion, with every child, in every family and with every parent, that proper discipline and correction can be achieved without the application of child physical chastisement within the constraints of what the law allows. Anyone who is bold enough to step forward should state the extent of their front line experience in these matters beyond the limited scope of their own families. Will their judgmentalism of families who find it needful to use child physical chastisement in order to discipline and correct their children allow them to take on board these families' children and try to do a better job? I have seem "many" loving parents physically chastise their children. I have also seem many occasions where children needed to be firmly dealt with and would only respond to light smacking. It is stupid to say that loving parents don't do this. Many have done and still do. Goodness me, were there no loving parents 50 years ago, 100 years ago, a thousand years ago? Of course many children do respond without a parent having to finally resort to physical chastisement, but as we know, everyone is different, both parents and children. Also, some loving parents can behave in some very extreme "unloving" ways (see Theolegranni's OP on this thread). Putting non-harmful measures of discipline and correction in the same category of violence does not help the issue. Furthermore, reducing "real" child physical abuse to something well below the level of CSA and likening it to "smacking" does a great disservice to those who have suffered it, and elevating correctly measured child physical chastisement to criminal levels only confuses the whole issue. Let common sense reign. Let the socially unacceptable route run its course. It is having great effect. FWIW I do not like the idea of physically chastising children. However, I am very guarded against outlawing the practice as in my view it will create far more problems than it would solve. I have seen too many cases where the "last resort" had to be applied. Here is a link which gives a Biblical interpretation. www.gotquestions.org/disciplining-children.htmlAnd it seems the Bible is getting support from the Telegraph newspaper (report on a study of smacking). www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6926823/Smacked-children-more-successful-later-in-life-study-finds.html
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 8:25:53 GMT -5
I realize you and Lee mean well, but as I say, I think you should stand up against all physical violence of children instead of justifying it to some specified degree. You will do more for the cause against CPA by taking a position of promoting zero-tolerance to all adult-child violence rather than trying to promote that a small level of violence is ok. Just because parents love their children doesn't make it right that they can inflict this on them. Just because you interpret the bible to be in favour of this doesn't make it right. Just because a newspaper is in favour of it doesn't make it right. If there was any evidence that physical punishment caused people to "respond" properly, we would be doing it to bad adults.....but we don't. Yet we think it is a good thing for children. Ten Reasons Not to Hit Your Kids by Jan HuntIn 29 countries1 around the world, it is illegal for a parent, teacher, or anyone else to spank a child, and 113 countries prohibit corporal punishment in schools. Yet in all of North America, physical punishment by a parent, as long as it is not severe, is still seen by many as necessary discipline, and condoned, or sadly, even encouraged. For the past several years, many psychiatrists, sociological researchers, and parents have recommended that we seriously consider banning the physical punishment of children. The most important reason, according to Dr. Peter Newell, coordinator of the organization End Punishment of Children (EPOCH)2, is that "all people have the right to protection of their physical integrity, and children are people too."3 1. Hitting children teaches them to become hitters themselves. Extensive research data is now available to support a direct correlation between corporal punishment in childhood and aggressive or violent behavior in the teenage and adult years. Virtually all of the most dangerous criminals were regularly threatened and punished in childhood. It is nature's plan that children learn attitudes and behaviors through observation and imitation of their parents' actions, for good or ill. Thus it is the responsibility of parents to set an example of empathy and wisdom. 2. In many cases of so-called "bad behavior", the child is simply responding in the only way he can, given his age and experience, to neglect of basic needs. Among these needs are: proper sleep and nutrition, treatment of hidden allergy, fresh air, exercise, and sufficient freedom to explore the world around him. But his greatest need is for his parents' undivided attention. In these busy times, few children receive sufficient time and attention from their parents, who are often too distracted by their own problems and worries to treat their children with patience and empathy. It is surely wrong and unfair to punish a child for responding in a natural way to having important needs neglected. For this reason, punishment is not only ineffective in the long run, it is also clearly unjust. 3. Punishment distracts the child from learning how to resolve conflict in an effective and humane way. As the educator John Holt wrote, "When we make a child afraid, we stop learning dead in its tracks." A punished child becomes preoccupied with feelings of anger and fantasies of revenge, and is thus deprived of the opportunity to learn more effective methods of solving the problem at hand. Thus, a punished child learns little about how to handle or prevent similar situations in the future. 4. The phrase "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is not from the Bible but from Samuel Butler's "Hudibras", a 17th Century satirical poem. The poem, like his novel, The Way of All Flesh, was written to expose and denounce violence against children. Ironically, this phrase is now used to justify corporal punishment and other punitive actions against children. 5. Punishment interferes with the bond between parent and child, as it is not human nature to feel loving toward someone who hurts us. The true spirit of cooperation which every parent desires can arise only through a strong bond based on mutual feelings of love and respect. Punishment, even when it appears to work, can produce only superficially good behavior based on fear, which can only take place until the child is old enough to resist. In contrast, cooperation based on respect will last permanently, bringing many years of mutual happiness as the child and parent grow older. 6. Many parents never learned in their own childhood that there are positive ways of relating to children. When punishment does not accomplish the desired goals, and if the parent is unaware of alternative methods, punishment can escalate to more frequent and dangerous actions against the child. 7. Anger and frustration which cannot be safely expressed by a child become stored inside; angry teenagers do not fall from the sky. Anger that has been accumulating for many years can come as a shock to parents whose child now feels strong enough to express this rage. Punishment may appear to produce "good behavior" in the early years, but always at a high price, paid by parents and by society as a whole, as the child enters adolescence and early adulthood. 8. Spanking on the buttocks, an erogenous zone in childhood, can create in the child's mind an association between pain and sexual pleasure, and lead to difficulties in adulthood. "Spanking wanted" ads in alternative newspapers attest to the sad consequences of this confusion of pain and pleasure. If a child receives little parental attention except when being punished, this will further merge the concepts of pain and pleasure in the child's mind. A child in this situation will have little self-esteem, believing he deserves nothing better. For more on this topic, see "The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children" (also in French). Even relatively moderate spanking can be physically dangerous. Blows to the lower end of the spinal column send shock waves along the length of the spine, and may injure the child. The prevalence of lower back pain among adults in our society may well have its origins in childhood punishment. Some children have become paralyzed through nerve damage from spanking, and some have died after mild paddlings, due to undiagnosed medical complications. 9. Physical punishment gives the dangerous and unfair message that "might makes right", that it is permissible to hurt someone else, provided they are smaller and less powerful than you are. The child then concludes that it is permissible to mistreat younger or smaller children. When he becomes an adult, he can feel little compassion for those less fortunate than he is, and fears those who are more powerful. This will hinder the establishment of meaningful relationships so essential to an emotionally fulfilling life. 10. Because children learn through parental modeling, physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express feelings and to solve problems. If a child does not observe a parent solving problems in a creative and humane way, it can be difficult for him to learn to do this himself. For this reason, unskilled parenting often continues into the next generation. Gentle instruction, supported by a strong foundation of love and respect, is the only truly effective way to bring about commendable behavior based on strong inner values, instead of superficially "good" behavior based only on fear. www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/tenreasons.html And the misrepresentation continues. I have said that I believe the best way forward with the issue of child physical chastisement is through the socially unacceptable route, not through criminalisation. I'm getting blue in the face saying it, but it doesn't seem to make any difference. I would also like someone to step forward who can assure me that on every occasion, with every child, in every family and with every parent, that proper discipline and correction can be achieved without the application of child physical chastisement within the constraints of what the law allows. Anyone who is bold enough to step forward should state the extent of their front line experience in these matters beyond the limited scope of their own families. Will their judgmentalism of families who find it needful to use child physical chastisement in order to discipline and correct their children allow them to take on board these families' children and try to do a better job? I have seem "many" loving parents physically chastise their children. I have also seem many occasions where children needed to be firmly dealt with and would only respond to light smacking. It is stupid to say that loving parents don't do this. Many have done and still do. Goodness me, were there no loving parents 50 years ago, 100 years ago, a thousand years ago? Of course many children do respond without a parent having to finally resort to physical chastisement, but as we know, everyone is different, both parents and children. Also, some loving parents can behave in some very extreme "unloving" ways (see Theolegranni's OP on this thread). Putting non-harmful measures of discipline and correction in the same category of violence does not help the issue. Furthermore, reducing "real" child physical abuse to something well below the level of CSA and likening it to "smacking" does a great disservice to those who have suffered it, and elevating correctly measured child physical chastisement to criminal levels only confuses the whole issue. Let common sense reign. Let the socially unacceptable route run its course. It is having great effect. FWIW I do not like the idea of physically chastising children. However, I am very guarded against outlawing the practice as in my view it will create far more problems than it would solve. I have seen too many cases where the "last resort" had to be applied. Here is a link which gives a Biblical interpretation. www.gotquestions.org/disciplining-children.htmlAnd it seems the Bible is getting support from the Telegraph newspaper (report on a study of smacking). www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/6926823/Smacked-children-more-successful-later-in-life-study-finds.htmlSomehow I do not think that you really understand my position. At the outset and without bias to either report, I posted links to careful studies, one of which was in favour of child physical chastisement and the other against it. I could have produced ten or more for either case, including something very similar to what you have posted. I do not like the idea of child physical chastisement (tenth time stated?). However, I am in no position to say that in every case, every child will respond to alternative measures, no matter how good people try to make this avenue out to be. I have seen too much in my time at the front line to think otherwise. Now are YOU able to tell me that every child in every situation will respond to measures other than child physical chastisement and that it is totally unnecessary? There is too much for and against in this debate to criminalise the issue. I simply cannot understand how you can dilute real child physical abuse to a level whereby you find a section of the population need no education in the matter, despite having little or none, yet somehow legally defined chastisement is exaggerated to some heinous level and is something that should be castigated? If we are going to do something about child physical punishment and child physical abuse, let's do things sensibly and see them properly for what they are.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 8:54:51 GMT -5
Ram, I understand your position well enough to say that I would like to see you take a zero tolerance position to all adult-child physically violent punishment/correction no matter how low level it is. You are not doing that yet. I think you have moderated your position on this in the right direction and I commend you on that. I would just like to see you to go all the way. You can do it, you have it in you!
I really don't see how an anti-CPA advocate can justifiably take any position other than a zero tolerance position. Look at it this way, if I am wrong about a zero tolerance position, at least I am erring on the gentle side. How bad can gentle be?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 9:22:34 GMT -5
Ram, I understand your position well enough to say that I would like to see you take a zero tolerance position to all adult-child physically violent punishment/correction no matter how low level it is. You are not doing that yet. I think you have moderated your position on this in the right direction and I commend you on that. I would just like to see you to go all the way. You can do it, you have it in you! I really don't see how an anti-CPA advocate can justifiably take any position other than a zero tolerance position. Look at it this way, if I am wrong about a zero tolerance position, at least I am erring on the gentle side. How bad can gentle be? Okay, here is my zero tolerance. I am against every form of abuse. I am also against any unnecessary child physical chastisement. Now you have to answer me (which you have avoided at least twice). Do you believe that on every occasion that a child requires discipline or correction by its parent(s) that this can always be achieved without resorting to physical measures where this is allowed by the law? I haven't moderated my position. I strongly oppose all forms of abuse, child abuse, domestic abuse, worker to worker abuse, spiritual abuse, etc. However, I do not recognise child physical chastisement as allowed by the law as a form of abuse, but as a "necessary" form of discipline and correction for a child where other measures have failed. The reason that I, as an anti-CPA advocate can take this stance, is simply down to common sense. It is not difficult. As mentioned previously, in our attempts to control excessive speeding on our roads, do we also ban careful and safe drivers? After all, reckless driving and speeding begins with driving within legally prescribed safe limits. I do not really fall for the current politically motivated "zero tolerance" rhetoric with the various issues. I go with common sense every time. There is a considerable argument for retaining child physical chastisement within the constraints of the law. To view it in the same vein as CPA is very fanciful. I am not going to be persuaded to be in favour of a change when there is a realistic prospect of doing the wrong thing. By the way, it wasn't the Telegraph newspaper that conducted the study in the article that I provided. They only reported on it. I don't know what the Telegraph's position is on the issue, if any. Now, once more: "Do you believe that chastising a child by physical means within the limits allowed by the law, is absolutely unnecessary on every occasion, with every child and by every parent?" No sidesteps! This is what the whole argument hinges on. Here is a link to an interesting debate about physical chastisement of children by parents. 46% are "for" and 54% are against, which shows just close and how controversial this issue is. However, there is one very important element in the "against" vote. Almost ALL, use their reasoning on perceptions or experiences with actual Child Physical Abuse, which is unlawful anyway, not lawfully defined child physical chastisement. They virtually all have an excessive vision of what is being discussed. Lawful Child physical chastisement is way below the perceptions or understandings of most of those in the "against" camp. www.debate.org/opinions/is-physical-force-a-justifiable-method-of-punishing-children
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 10:08:07 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Aug 8, 2013 10:51:40 GMT -5
Thanks Snow. It is really amazing how people do not want to see the reality of a situation and deny what their eyes and ears are telling them. I suppose your Father was just trying to "break your will?" It was very fortunate that he didn't break your neck in his attempts! Yes, he did try. Thankfully he never succeeded. However, when I got married, my (ex) husband said he took him aside and told him that he would need to keep a tight rein on me because I was a strong willed woman and needed a firm hand. When I divorced my first husband for physical abuse, my father basically asked me what I had done to deserve it. To my mother's credit, this time she stood by me and supported my divorce. Geez, snow. Sounds like you had two men in your life that needed a lifetime jail sentence.
|
|
|
Post by quizzer on Aug 8, 2013 10:54:16 GMT -5
Hi quizzer,,,,, SO kind of you to remember my living situation... I am so happy to say that that part of my life has made a full 360 degree turn around. Kindly allow me to explain,,, At the time I posted about all of that I was in the middle of some horrific issues. My 2x2, meeting elder,younger sibling owns the house in which I had lived since 2003,,, My life had spun out of control, and in the winter of 2009 I had to have major surgery, pints of blood, etc etc.. I also was started on some serious antidepressants. ALSO at that same time, I had discovered the William Irvine historical aspect of the 2x2's. I had used up all my retirement money, and soon ran out of it... I was unable to pay rent to that brother for over 2 years. He was really really ANGRY at me, and then to top it off, I stopped going to meetings. Needless to say, I was the recipient of total shunning, not only from the folks in meeting, but almost all family. I lived in isolation, fear, and just waiting until my brothers horrible spouse would insist that he kick me to the curb... Fortunately that did not happen, Once I started getting my Social Security and was able to pay rent, his attitude was better, not great but better. HERE IS THE THING that occured that has changed his attitude about me... I fell in love with wonderfully kind, loving and caring man, and after awhile together he moved into the house with me, to help pay bills... HE had a homeless friend that after about 6 months started staying with us. In the course of 2 summers, my partner and his friend, helped my brother totally remodel the outside of this small house... NEW roof line, new roof, totally remodeled bathroom, all new plumbing, all new electrical systems, new insulation, new siding, new porch... Essentially they built a new house. Over that time, my brother became aware that there are loving, caring, and committed folks out there in the BIG BAD world, and those persons, had no restrictions about HELPING him with his huge project. Brother has learned that not ALL persons in the world are out to get him, in some way. I now enjoy a comfortably restored relationship with brother. It was not like it was before, but it is calm, nonthreatening, safe, and loving. With out animosities, or unresolved anger issues. I am safe, comfortable, in a loving, caring home.. My partner, and his friend, and myself, truly enjoy our lives, we volunteer, we help deliver meals, we have a garden, we take turns cooking and cleaning. AND I am so excited to say that I have been mightily BLESSED with an authentic life... No more guilt, for having a glass of wine now and then, no more quilt about my hair cut and perm, no more quilt about jeans, and no more guilt about wearing some rings. I pray daily for my brother and wife, that they may some day come to know the REALLY TRUE LOVE of God. That they would be able to relax, believe in the gift of Jesus, and His resurrection, and hopefully some day be able to enjoy the remainder of their lives. Sorry that this is so long.... I do tend to get wordy.... Thanks again to you for your concern for me.. ALL MY LOVE theolegranni flatlander, I am so happy for you!!! I'm glad that you've been able to recover, claim a good life, and develop some wonderful friendships! Congratulations, and keep up the good work!!!
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 11:01:19 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 11:36:51 GMT -5
That is not zero tolerance. You are continuing to advocate child physical violence. That is purely your "political" interpretation. I will not rise to the bait. I am happy with the legal definitions that I have provided to you and the explanations of the difference between chastisement and the physical abuse of children. You continue to ignore all studies opinions contrary to your own opinion. This is not bait. You are ok with physical violence on children for discipline/punishment. There is no need to evade that. I do realize that you advocate a minimal form of pain infliction so I am glad of that even if I am against it.Striking a child for discipline purposes is always wrong. Always. No exceptions. Everywhere. Anytime. That is your opinion. But then it all depends on what you mean by "striking a child?" As we have seen, nearly 56% of the people in a survey only envision chastisement at illegal levels of abuse. I don't know what is unclear about "striking a child". I could say "hitting a child", "smacking a child", "swatting a child". There is nothing ambiguous about it. It is all wrong no matter what 56% of the people say. And yes, there are better ways. Many better ways. Always. And.......what if they fail? Which they often will? Parents fail. They always fail. However, they can choose to fail without hitting a child. Discipline is achieved in many non-violent ways. There is always a successful way to do it without hitting a child.I am sorry to hear that I am wrong on this. I would like to see you moderate your position and come out against all forms of child violence for disciplinary purposes. I AM against all forms of "violence." Again we have a term used for political purposes. Is there something wrong with legally defined abuse? No you are not against all forms of violence (I suppose the quotation marks mean some sort of exception). You have stated that over and over. You are in favour of violence which is not defined as abuse by the legal code of your country (but illegal in many other countries). That is exactly where you are wrong. Completely wrong. Physical violence as discipline is never necessary. It is always an affirmation of parental failure. Always. If you have to hit kid, you have failed as a parent to properly train and discipline your child. Then every parent (almost) failed in the past, over many centuries. Again we have terms used for emotional hype such as "Physical violence" to describe non-abusive scenarios. I am only wrong simply because you do not agree with me. I respect your opinion, but likewise I think you are wrong and definitely in need of some real front line experience if you think that in every situation, every child can be disciplined and corrected without it being necessary to use non-abusive, child physical chastisement. Most parents have failed over the centuries. I have failed. It was only when I realized that I was failing my first child that I was able to turn from all forms of physical violence with my children and find a better way.....a much better way.That is far from common sense. Physical violence on children for disciplinary measures is always wrong, whether it is a lot of pain or a little pain. All pain inflicted on children is wrong and damaging. It is always abusive. That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. You are one of the 56% of the population who would make similar statements based upon wrong perceptions of what the level and administration of child physical chastisement actually is. There is no acceptable level of physical violence on children. Zero. Only when parents begin to accept that will we start to see an amazing new society that is not wracked with the violence of the past.Common sense is when parents take the time to work with their children in a non-violent manner. Violence on children is never common sense. It is stupidity epitomized. And in every situation, every parent always has the time to patiently work through issues with their children without making recourse to child physical chastisement? Without trying too hard I could probably think of 1,000 situations which would seriously put this type of thinking to the test. In fact I saw one about a month ago at a railway platform where a young woman was laden with three young kids. One kept wandering near to the edge of the platform and wouldn't take a telling. A sharp slap on the leg corrected the waywardness. Perhaps if she had taken the time, whilst laden with two other young children, to "work through" the situation with the wayward child, she might only have had two children to worry about? If you don't have the time to be a good parent, don't have kids. But you are right, good parenting takes time, a lot of time and good parents will take the time, not try to short circuit proper disciplining by hitting a child.I guess you want it repeated and I am happy to do so: Striking a child for discipline purposes is always wrong. Always. No exceptions. Everywhere. Anytime. And yes, there are better ways. Many better ways. Always. Striking a child is always a parental failure, not the child's failure. Always. No exceptions. If the above is not clear, let me know and we'll try again. Thanks for your opinion. As explained earlier, I have listened to the "experts" on both sides. I produced detailed studies supporting both sides of the debate, which largely explains where I am with this matter. I am far from convinced by your argument although my sentiments do not lie with physical chastisement (lawful) except when necessary. I believe I gave one real example which I am happy to support. I'm glad we are having this conversation. I think it is an important discussion.Controversy is irrelevant. If 99% are in favour of it, it doesn't make it right. If the law allows it, it doesn't make it right. If loving parents do it, it doesn't make it right. It is wrong and it is always wrong. Real parenting that produces great adults never comes from an environment of violence. Eschewing all violence does not mean eschewing discipline.....far from it. I get it. Your opinion makes it right. Right? Not because it comes from me, no that doesn't make it right. It is right because the arguments and the results are completely compelling.I don't see any necessity in equating violence with chastisement meted out at the correct level. Discipline sometimes requires physical chastisement. Perhaps if you recognised that at times physical chastisement is necessary, you might have your eyes opened to real problems and what they entail, such as child physical abuse within the lay fellowship of the F&W's sect and the realisation that this is horrendous an issue as CSA and needs to be properly addressed? And that is the problem. All physical pain administered on children is counterproductive, it is damaging to them on many levels. It is never good and it is never necessary. Only when all of society can accept that there is no acceptable level of violence on children can we ever hope to address the big "horrendous" 2x2 problems that you tell us exist.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 13:59:14 GMT -5
That is not zero tolerance. You are continuing to advocate child physical violence.
That is purely your "political" interpretation. I will not rise to the bait. I am happy with the legal definitions that I have provided to you and the explanations of the difference between chastisement and the physical abuse of children. You continue to ignore all studies opinions contrary to your own opinion.
This is not bait. You are ok with physical violence on children for discipline/punishment. There is no need to evade that. I do realize that you advocate a minimal form of pain infliction so I am glad of that even if I am against it.
This is quite a turnaround using strong language such as “violence” to define legally acceptable, low levels of physical chastisement. Formerly you were downplaying serious instances of real child physical abuse, likening it to smacking, in order to dismiss it from consideration. Use language more commensurate with the reality of matters.
Striking a child for discipline purposes is always wrong. Always. No exceptions. Everywhere. Anytime.
That is your opinion. But then it all depends on what you mean by "striking a child?" As we have seen, nearly 56% of the people in a survey only envision chastisement at illegal levels of abuse.
I don't know what is unclear about "striking a child". I could say "hitting a child", "smacking a child", "swatting a child". There is nothing ambiguous about it. It is all wrong no matter what 56% of the people say.
Again it is the message it conveys. “Striking” conveys a message of some force! I agree that in your opinion physical chastisement within legal limits is wrong, but that is only one opinion out of many. You still do not have an answer for the situations which many parents find themselves in and feel it necessary to apply child physical chastisement. We are not living in an ideal world.
And yes, there are better ways. Many better ways. Always.
And.......what if they fail? Which they often will?
Parents fail. They always fail. However, they can choose to fail without hitting a child. Discipline is achieved in many non-violent ways. There is always a successful way to do it without hitting a child.
This is your opinion. No small percentage of people disagree with you. This is far from being a clear cut issue. Again some front line experience required here!
I am sorry to hear that I am wrong on this. I would like to see you moderate your position and come out against all forms of child violence for disciplinary purposes.
I AM against all forms of "violence." Again we have a term used for political purposes. Is there something wrong with legally defined abuse?
No you are not against all forms of violence (I suppose the quotation marks mean some sort of exception). You have stated that over and over. You are in favour of violence which is not defined as abuse by the legal code of your country (but illegal in many other countries).
As stated previously, I do not accept terms which are used to emotionally hype a matter above its appropriate level.
That is exactly where you are wrong. Completely wrong. Physical violence as discipline is never necessary. It is always an affirmation of parental failure. Always. If you have to hit kid, you have failed as a parent to properly train and discipline your child.
Then every parent (almost) failed in the past, over many centuries. Again we have terms used for emotional hype such as "Physical violence" to describe non-abusive scenarios. I am only wrong simply because you do not agree with me. I respect your opinion, but likewise I think you are wrong and definitely in need of some real front line experience if you think that in every situation, every child can be disciplined and corrected without it being necessary to use non-abusive, child physical chastisement.
Most parents have failed over the centuries. I have failed. It was only when I realized that I was failing my first child that I was able to turn from all forms of physical violence with my children and find a better way.....a much better way.
That is fine that it worked for you. It also worked for me, but I have seen many occasions when physical chastisement was necessary. I don’t like it, but if it is necessary on occasions then I am not going to be judgmental of other parents, far less criminalise them.
That is far from common sense. Physical violence on children for disciplinary measures is always wrong, whether it is a lot of pain or a little pain. All pain inflicted on children is wrong and damaging. It is always abusive.
That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. You are one of the 56% of the population who would make similar statements based upon wrong perceptions of what the level and administration of child physical chastisement actually is.
There is no acceptable level of physical violence on children. Zero. Only when parents begin to accept that will we start to see an amazing new society that is not wracked with the violence of the past.
I agree there is no acceptable level of violence on children. Here is the definition of “violence” from my dictionary. “intensely forcible: impetuous and unrestrained in action; overmasteringly vehement”
The terms you are using are inappropriate for what is currently being discussed. Of course they will be too strong for use in describing real child physical abuse within the sect I imagine?
Common sense is when parents take the time to work with their children in a non-violent manner. Violence on children is never common sense. It is stupidity epitomized.
And in every situation, every parent always has the time to patiently work through issues with their children without making recourse to child physical chastisement? Without trying too hard I could probably think of 1,000 situations which would seriously put this type of thinking to the test. In fact I saw one about a month ago at a railway platform where a young woman was laden with three young kids. One kept wandering near to the edge of the platform and wouldn't take a telling. A sharp slap on the leg corrected the waywardness. Perhaps if she had taken the time, whilst laden with two other young children, to "work through" the situation with the wayward child, she might only have had two children to worry about?
If you don't have the time to be a good parent, don't have kids. But you are right, good parenting takes time, a lot of time and good parents will take the time, not try to short circuit proper disciplining by hitting a child.
This answer really shows the futility and naivety of your position. Idealistic, but very poorly thought out. Often parents don’t choose to become parents. And time is something most parents are short off, at least some of the time. You accept that good parenting takes time, a lot of time, but you are wrong about good parents will take the time. In the real world parents often have no option but to take short cuts in rearing their families.
I guess you want it repeated and I am happy to do so:
Striking a child for discipline purposes is always wrong. Always. No exceptions. Everywhere. Anytime.
And yes, there are better ways. Many better ways. Always.
Striking a child is always a parental failure, not the child's failure. Always. No exceptions.
If the above is not clear, let me know and we'll try again.
Thanks for your opinion. As explained earlier, I have listened to the "experts" on both sides. I produced detailed studies supporting both sides of the debate, which largely explains where I am with this matter. I am far from convinced by your argument although my sentiments do not lie with physical chastisement (lawful) except when necessary. I believe I gave one real example which I am happy to support.
I'm glad we are having this conversation. I think it is an important discussion.
Although it is worthwhile, I personally believe it is an unfortunate digression from the more serious issue of child physical abuse. That one could be so dismissive about real CPA within the fellowship and find a more convenient topic really surprises me.
Controversy is irrelevant. If 99% are in favour of it, it doesn't make it right. If the law allows it, it doesn't make it right. If loving parents do it, it doesn't make it right. It is wrong and it is always wrong. Real parenting that produces great adults never comes from an environment of violence. Eschewing all violence does not mean eschewing discipline.....far from it.
I get it. Your opinion makes it right. Right?
Not because it comes from me, no that doesn't make it right. It is right because the arguments and the results are completely compelling.
The arguments are completely compelling for YOU. They are not completely compelling for a great percentage of the population. Some of the counter-arguments are likewise compelling. I provided compelling arguments from both sides of the debate. I give due consideration to both. You give only consideration to those that suit your opinion.
I don't see any necessity in equating violence with chastisement meted out at the correct level. Discipline sometimes requires physical chastisement. Perhaps if you recognised that at times physical chastisement is necessary, you might have your eyes opened to real problems and what they entail, such as child physical abuse within the lay fellowship of the F&W's sect and the realisation that this is horrendous an issue as CSA and needs to be properly addressed?
And that is the problem. All physical pain administered on children is counterproductive, it is damaging to them on many levels. It is never good and it is never necessary. Only when all of society can accept that there is no acceptable level of violence on children can we ever hope to address the big "horrendous" 2x2 problems that you tell us exist.
And this has also been thrown out by counter arguments (when physical chastisement is contained within legal limits).
See my remarks above regarding the use of the term “violence.” Keep it up, it is good for political effect, but not for real practicality.
Perhaps you would stop putting words in my mouth and actually state things that I have said. I have NEVER suggested that “big horrendous 2x2 problems” exist, with regards to CPA. Many times (I have lost count) I stated plain and simply that I did not know at what level CPA existed within the fellowship, even accepting it may be lower than in general society. However, I do accept your need to exaggerate and misrepresent in order to gain political advantage!
Here is a copy of my OP in creating this thread specifically to deal with CPA within the fellowship. I don’t see any mention of “big, horrendous problems?”
There have been many threads on this board in recent years dealing with Child Sexual Abuse and related matters occurring within the F&W's sect. I have created this thread for others to post instances within their knowledge which indicate Child Physical Abuse (non-sexual) has occurred within the sect, particularly within the lay fellowship (friends). This may relate to personal experiences within your own upbringing or matters connected with members of the sect that you are aware of. Instances of neglect or emotional abuse may also be included, but my main concern at this juncture is CPA.
I am not looking for in depth accounts, but merely a few brief details of the type of physical abuse, injuries and effects that you or others within your knowledge suffered. A time period, i.e, duration of abuse and decade(s) during which it occurred would be helpful. Many thanks in advance.
I know there have been a number of references on websites and in the books relating to the F&W's, but I am attempting to short-circuit a large amount of research. Any reference to any of these would be very welcome.
"Excessive" corporal punishment or chastisement fall within my remit as many instances of CPA, even very serious cases, likely fall within this category.
[/i]
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 8, 2013 15:21:34 GMT -5
There are a number of workers and friends who've been convicted of CSA and have served, or are serving, prison sentences. wingsfortruth.info/breaking-the-silence-2/convicted-csa-offenders/While we're wrangling over how much physical abuse of children is acceptable, sexual abusers of children are still at large in the fellowship. I'm still waiting for examples of workers and friends who have been convicted of CPA and are serving prison time for it.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 8, 2013 15:40:27 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for examples of workers and friends who have been convicted of CPA and are serving prison time for it. You could have asked the same question in the past about CSA. Your stance is that because there have been no convictions there is no abuse. Although Snow probably has a different feeling about it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 8, 2013 15:55:14 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for examples of workers and friends who have been convicted of CPA and are serving prison time for it. You could have asked the same question in the past about CSA. Your stance is that because there have been no convictions there is no abuse. Although Snow probably has a different feeling about it. Are you sure that was abuse? Or was it child physical chastisement? Snow's father might think so, and maybe a lot more might agree! One would think that if CPA is a big problem among 2x2's, there would be a lot of convictions and a lot more complaints. However, that's what this thread is about: to encourage greater knowledge on this subject. The really good thing about this thread is that it raises awareness of at least the possibility that it can happen because it does.
|
|
|
Post by fixit on Aug 8, 2013 16:58:44 GMT -5
I'm still waiting for examples of workers and friends who have been convicted of CPA and are serving prison time for it. You could have asked the same question in the past about CSA. Your stance is that because there have been no convictions there is no abuse. Although Snow probably has a different feeling about it. So why do you think dealing with CSA is so far ahead of dealing with CPA? Its much harder for CSA victims to report than it is for CPA victims, yet there's not one F&W in prison for CPA?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Aug 8, 2013 18:17:16 GMT -5
You could have asked the same question in the past about CSA. Your stance is that because there have been no convictions there is no abuse. Although Snow probably has a different feeling about it. So why do you think dealing with CSA is so far ahead of dealing with CPA? Its much harder for CSA victims to report than it is for CPA victims, yet there's not one F&W in prison for CPA? I agree it is easier for CSA victims to report. However, here are my thoughts on why CPA aren't reported often or at all too. When I was going through the things my parents did, I didn't know it was a crime. I also thought I deserved it. I had been told since I could remember that I was a difficult child and that the punishment was for my own good. I had an image of myself that was not very healthy. I truly thought I was the spoiled rotten bad little girl I was told I was. If a child is told that from a young age, they do believe it. When I had my father discipline me harshly and then had a first husband that hit me, I wondered what was wrong with me that I made men so angry with me that they had to hit me. It was my fault in my mind. There was something really wrong with me because I seemed to bring out the worst in men who said they loved me. It would never have crossed my mind to charge my father. I thought that was what happened to kids that didn't believe the same as their parents and I felt guilty for wanting a life that was very different from the one they wanted for me. After all they adopted me and raised me and made sure I had things I needed to survive. I felt like an ungrateful child. In a way I felt like I deserved what I got. It wasn't until it started again with my husband that I really looked at it closely and made a stand. My children gave me the strength to stand up for myself and change things. I didn't want them to grow up thinking that was how marriages worked. I didn't use physical discipline with them because I remembered how I felt so that wasn't a problem, but seeing their mother hit by their father would be damaging and I wasn't going to let it happen. Children love their parents and even though they may get disciplined harshly, they likely have enough emotional abuse that they will believe it is their fault. So while it isn't as 'hard' to report physically abusive parents, it is still just as unlikely for the reasons I stated. I'm sure there are more, but that's my point of view on it for what it's worth.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 8, 2013 19:16:41 GMT -5
I realize you and Lee mean well, but as I say, I think you should stand up against all physical violence of children instead of justifying it to some specified degree. You will do more for the cause against CPA by taking a position of promoting zero-tolerance to all adult-child violence rather than trying to promote that a small level of violence is ok. Just because parents love their children doesn't make it right that they can inflict this on them. Just because you interpret the bible to be in favor of this doesn't make it right. Just because a newspaper is in favor of it doesn't make it right. If there was any evidence that physical punishment caused people to "respond" properly, we would be doing it to bad adults.....but we don't. Yet we think it is a good thing for children. Ten Reasons Not to Hit Your Kids by Jan HuntIn 29 countries1 around the world, it is illegal for a parent, teacher, or anyone else to spank a child, and 113 countries prohibit corporal punishment in schools. Yet in all of North America, physical punishment by a parent, as long as it is not severe, is still seen by many as necessary discipline, and condoned, or sadly, even encouraged. For the past several years, many psychiatrists, sociological researchers, and parents have recommended that we seriously consider banning the physical punishment of children. The most important reason, according to Dr. Peter Newell, coordinator of the organization End Punishment of Children (EPOCH)2, is that "all people have the right to protection of their physical integrity, and children are people too."3 1. Hitting children teaches them to become hitters themselves. Extensive research data is now available to support a direct correlation between corporal punishment in childhood and aggressive or violent behavior in the teenage and adult years. Virtually all of the most dangerous criminals were regularly threatened and punished in childhood. It is nature's plan that children learn attitudes and behaviors through observation and imitation of their parents' actions, for good or ill. Thus it is the responsibility of parents to set an example of empathy and wisdom. 2. In many cases of so-called "bad behavior", the child is simply responding in the only way he can, given his age and experience, to neglect of basic needs. Among these needs are: proper sleep and nutrition, treatment of hidden allergy, fresh air, exercise, and sufficient freedom to explore the world around him. But his greatest need is for his parents' undivided attention. In these busy times, few children receive sufficient time and attention from their parents, who are often too distracted by their own problems and worries to treat their children with patience and empathy. It is surely wrong and unfair to punish a child for responding in a natural way to having important needs neglected. For this reason, punishment is not only ineffective in the long run, it is also clearly unjust. 3. Punishment distracts the child from learning how to resolve conflict in an effective and humane way. As the educator John Holt wrote, "When we make a child afraid, we stop learning dead in its tracks." A punished child becomes preoccupied with feelings of anger and fantasies of revenge, and is thus deprived of the opportunity to learn more effective methods of solving the problem at hand. Thus, a punished child learns little about how to handle or prevent similar situations in the future. 4. The phrase "Spare the rod and spoil the child" is not from the Bible but from Samuel Butler's "Hudibras", a 17th Century satirical poem. The poem, like his novel, The Way of All Flesh, was written to expose and denounce violence against children. Ironically, this phrase is now used to justify corporal punishment and other punitive actions against children. 5. Punishment interferes with the bond between parent and child, as it is not human nature to feel loving toward someone who hurts us. The true spirit of cooperation which every parent desires can arise only through a strong bond based on mutual feelings of love and respect. Punishment, even when it appears to work, can produce only superficially good behavior based on fear, which can only take place until the child is old enough to resist. In contrast, cooperation based on respect will last permanently, bringing many years of mutual happiness as the child and parent grow older. 6. Many parents never learned in their own childhood that there are positive ways of relating to children. When punishment does not accomplish the desired goals, and if the parent is unaware of alternative methods, punishment can escalate to more frequent and dangerous actions against the child. 7. Anger and frustration which cannot be safely expressed by a child become stored inside; angry teenagers do not fall from the sky. Anger that has been accumulating for many years can come as a shock to parents whose child now feels strong enough to express this rage. Punishment may appear to produce "good behavior" in the early years, but always at a high price, paid by parents and by society as a whole, as the child enters adolescence and early adulthood. 8. Spanking on the buttocks, an erogenous zone in childhood, can create in the child's mind an association between pain and sexual pleasure, and lead to difficulties in adulthood. "Spanking wanted" ads in alternative newspapers attest to the sad consequences of this confusion of pain and pleasure. If a child receives little parental attention except when being punished, this will further merge the concepts of pain and pleasure in the child's mind. A child in this situation will have little self-esteem, believing he deserves nothing better. For more on this topic, see "The Sexual Dangers of Spanking Children" (also in French). Even relatively moderate spanking can be physically dangerous. Blows to the lower end of the spinal column send shock waves along the length of the spine, and may injure the child. The prevalence of lower back pain among adults in our society may well have its origins in childhood punishment. Some children have become paralyzed through nerve damage from spanking, and some have died after mild paddlings, due to undiagnosed medical complications. 9. Physical punishment gives the dangerous and unfair message that "might makes right", that it is permissible to hurt someone else, provided they are smaller and less powerful than you are. The child then concludes that it is permissible to mistreat younger or smaller children. When he becomes an adult, he can feel little compassion for those less fortunate than he is, and fears those who are more powerful. This will hinder the establishment of meaningful relationships so essential to an emotionally fulfilling life. 10. Because children learn through parental modeling, physical punishment gives the message that hitting is an appropriate way to express feelings and to solve problems. If a child does not observe a parent solving problems in a creative and humane way, it can be difficult for him to learn to do this himself. For this reason, unskilled parenting often continues into the next generation. Gentle instruction, supported by a strong foundation of love and respect, is the only truly effective way to bring about commendable behavior based on strong inner values, instead of superficially "good" behavior based only on fear. www.naturalchild.org/jan_hunt/tenreasons.html. Thank you, clearday for that list.
From my own experience with my one particular child, this is my story:
One of my boys was determined, assertive child who seemed to have the school calling me so often that I dreaded hearing the phone ring.
I would spank him on the butt & not changing his behavior one iota.
This was not the way I wanted to treat my children.
I recognized spanking him was a failure on my part, not his. There had to be a better way. Luckily, right at that time there was a class offered on behavior management by our local superintendent.
I don't believe that I ever took any class that was as important in my own behavior, than that class was!
Think about it for a minute. What kind of an adult are you trying to raise? Isn't it a determined, assertive adult that can stand on their own feet as well as a kind & caring adult?
If you tell the child that they aren't to be one way by hitting them, (yes, spanking in is hitting because you are bigger & the boss & they are smaller so they have to obey to you) just what are you teaching them? That if they are the boss or bigger than someone else they can hit them?
When I learned to change my attitude & my behavior, my son's changed.
I have a very caring, considerate son who wouldn't hurt a mouse but also effectively assertive enough that others don't take advantage of him.
He is an artist that has exhibited in prestigious areas such as the U of Chicago.
He is a caring son who will shingle my roof this fall.
I can't go into all his attributes- too many!
(PS: When I said he wouldn't harm a mouse, I wasn't exaggerating. once when were in his kitchen a small mouse started darting out from under the cupboards, grabbing crumbs & scurrying back.
When he told his girl friend about the mouse she said,
"What did you do? Fed it I suppose?"
She knew him well!)
-- Ok, Ok, - so feeding a mouse is going a bit far! I would rather he were that way than beating up on someone!
|
|
|
Post by Lee on Aug 8, 2013 19:38:09 GMT -5
Nope. Two swats to the butt is a perfectly, acceptable corrective course-of-action on the part of a loving, sensible parent. If we're not talking about one, all bets are off. You and ram need to denounce all violence, as there is nothing loving in any kind of violence, including "soft" violence such as threats and put-downs. Intelligent spankings are neither violence, threats, or put-downs but interruptions to self-destructive behavior. Loving parents do none of those things. Not true. Not every parent is so lucky to have a child that is never in need of a threat (what is the difference between a threat and warning to a consequence) or a put-down (what parent is so blessed they would never have a child in need of an attitude-adjustment.) Discipline and violence have no connection whatsoever, and only succeed in teaching a child that violence is the proper way to modify someone else's behaviour.....and that might equals right and that bullies always win. Two swats to the butt isn't violence. Just imagine your 5 year old child as being 6'2" tall and 220 lbs. of muscle. Would swatting him in the butt be perfectly acceptable then? Of course not, your own butt might get whupped...... Many fathers have had to discourage the physical intimitation of their grown sons .... physically. Will you categorically condemn them?
|
|
theolegranni
New Member
THANK YOU for allowing me to resume my old name... It is DEAR to me... Thanks again. theolegranni
Posts: 47
|
Post by theolegranni on Aug 8, 2013 19:43:27 GMT -5
Being a victim of CPA, I wanted to add a couple of things to this thread.....In the F&W group, there is SO much secrecy. This secrecy and the implication that that secrecy MUST be maintained in all aspects is SO rampant. This secrecy crosses ALL aspects of the 2x2's, it crosses what the workers are doing, or not. It insists on secrecy in followers families. It mandates that 2x2' are NOT to associate with the outside world, so that the very existence of them, must be secret. Secrecy is also mandatory related to the financial aspect of this group.
THIS insistence on secrecy extends back to the beginning. Irvine did not want the publicity that he did get, he wanted to pursue his twisted logic in PRIVATE. AND he did not want intervention of any kind. As I stated in an earlier post,,,, the very early Christian, and Jew, were TAUGHT by their leaders, their teachers, and their preachers that the devil existed in everything, and that beating any "thing" was the way to get rid of the devil.. This philosophy crossed over in every aspect of their worlds. Secrecy BEGAN then...
And that secrecy was just the way they did things. My parents DID NOT WANT ANYONE to know that I was being abused. They did not want ANY interaction with law enforcement, or with school authorities, or with any entity that just MIGHT catch them doing this.... BUT kindly remember that in the 40's,50's 60's and probably most of the 70's any type of abuse was left unreported. Law enforcement at that time, pretty much figured that anything that went on inside a family, was the families business. Education about the psyche of a child,was a thing unknown in those uninformed, uneducated years.
EVEN folks that were educated, did NOT have that much information about what ABUSE might or might NOT do to the fragile life of a child...AND as has already been stated, a cycle of abuse usually existed, from one generation to the next. ANY report of any kind about abuse, to a worker, an elder, a relative, would have been ignored, the thinking would have been to let the family take care of its own business. THAT is pretty much what my own multiple aunts and uncles thought about any type of physical abuse. They might NOT have liked it, but would not risk the anger from my Dad directed to them... Love and care for any child would have been looked down upon as a parental weakness. IN other words, " LET that set of parents do what ever they want to do, to KEEP THAT CHILD IN LINE" and the other piece to that is, "IF that set of parents CAN NOT CONTROL their own kid, then they will eventually reap their rewards" The mind set of "Spare the rod, spoil the child" and mandatory secrecy,as well as the use of physical force were the standards for that day..
It is only with in these last 15-20 years that education and information about the massive amounts of damage done to children has been in the global consciousness. The 2x2's are yet EVEN FURTHER behind in education and information.. MAINLY because the force of the workers continue to demand secrecy.
The only way that any of this will change, will be the improvement of education, information, and individual introspection. Abuse of most kinds is still being covered up on some level on the outside, and of course we all know about the lack of transparency on the inside of the 2x2's. Personally I FLAT OUT REFUSED to perpetrate any type of abuse on my only daughter, and until many others can see the need to change their own behaviors, there will continue to be abuse. ALL MY LOVE theolegranni
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Aug 8, 2013 19:49:03 GMT -5
You and ram need to denounce all violence, as there is nothing loving in any kind of violence, including "soft" violence such as threats and put-downs. Intelligent spankings are neither violence, threats, or put-downs but interruptions to self-destructive behavior. Loving parents do none of those things. Not true. Not every parent is so lucky to have a child that is never in need of a threat (what is the difference between a threat and warning to a consequence) or a put-down (what parent is so blessed they would never have a child in need of an attitude-adjustment.) Discipline and violence have no connection whatsoever, and only succeed in teaching a child that violence is the proper way to modify someone else's behaviour.....and that might equals right and that bullies always win. Two swats to the butt isn't violence. Just imagine your 5 year old child as being 6'2" tall and 220 lbs. of muscle. Would swatting him in the butt be perfectly acceptable then? Of course not, your own butt might get whupped...... Many fathers have had to discourage the physical intimitation of their grown sons .... physically. Will you categorically condemn them? Well, as I posted before, lee, -go ahead & swat your kids now,- if you so choose.
Don't expect them to be the caring adults you might like them to be when they are grown. After all, they will just have your example to go by.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 8, 2013 20:53:01 GMT -5
Why would anyone want to hurt a child as a method of teaching?
If it is OK to hurt a child with a smack on the butt is OK to hurt the child in other ways? Soap in the mouth? Perhaps a little prick with a needle. Twisting the child's arm? Pinching? How about putting the child in a closet?
Of course, I guess if you believe the child is possessed by a demon - carte blanche for an exorcism to get that demon out!
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 8, 2013 21:01:47 GMT -5
So why do you think dealing with CSA is so far ahead of dealing with CPA? Partly because people like you are waiting for people to be convicted before they believe there is a problem. In the meantime people like Snow are others are telling people about the abuse they suffered growing up but because there was no arrest you choose to ignore it. Children are being abused and neglected every day. In the US, on average, 4 children die from abuse every day. Who says it is more difficult to report CSA? The physical side of abuse, whether it is physical or sexual, is not the more damaging part. It is the betrayal and the loss of trust. It is the lack of support from other trusted adults who do not support the victim. The victim is left alone with no one to turn to. In cases like Jean, the adult that was offering the love and attention she craved was not offering that 'love' and attention without a price.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Aug 8, 2013 21:23:19 GMT -5
Intelligent spankings are neither violence, threats, or put-downs but interruptions to self-destructive behavior. "Intelligent spankings" is sort of like "loving pain". Spankings, almost by definition, are put-downs. It shows domination of the stronger over the weaker. "If I don't like your behavior I can hit you and there is nothing you can do." If the child was a dog it would lay on its back and expose its genitals. Children learn their behaviors from the adults that raise them. If their behavior is such that you feel they need to be threatened with physical punishment perhaps you should be talking to the adult in the mirror. That may well be the individual that needs the attitude-adjustment. Think about it - who taught your child to behave as s/he does? Using pain to correct behavior is not justified. Imagine being trained for a new job by someone using pain as a method. Nothing severe - just a mild electric shock to the ear lobe. Many fathers who raised their children with physical punishment as the teaching methodology? If you start using violence as a training methodology when the child is one year old, guess what the child learns and then uses as an adult? Might makes right. "So Dad - now that I have the might I will make the rules."
|
|