Conference quark::human_relations

	Well, on the other side of the coin.....

	I have 6 sisters and 4 brothers, yes 11 total children.  We were all
	spanked when we did something wrong.  Noone in my family has any pain
	or mental problems or anything from those spankings.  I do believe that
	it is the "type" of spanking that can contribute to these feelings
	that arise later on in life.  

	I have 2 children and I believe in spanking (not often) on their 
	bottoms.  Noone deserves to be beaten for any misbehavior but a
	spanking is from the American Heritage Dictionary...


	... to slap on the buttocks with the open hand.

    I was spanked when I was growing up... and I THANK my parents for each
    one! it made me a responsible woman with clear views of what is right
    and wrong and with complete responsibility on my part to follow either
    path I choose...
    
    I have three children who I love dearly, they were also spanked when
    needed and they don't regret it either! one of my kids is expecting and
    already said... thank you MOM for showing me what manners are... I know
    what my kids can do and CANNOT do... (I see kids that are no blessings,
    but a GOOD PUNISHMENT to those poor parents that have to put up with
    them...) we laughed, but I know that she's right... she will know how
    to have kids with manners and kids that will be a joy to be near them,
    not a torment...
    
    By spanking I mean "one little slap" is more than enough, the important
    thing to rely is to be firm and clear in the message on what is
    allowed and what is NOT allowed, and stick to it! most of the times a
    slap is not even necessary, but when it is... it comes! is that simple.
    
    (we were 4 children, and I grew-up with several nephews and nieces, so
    we were a bunch of jounsters always around...)

Re: .2

I'm sure you wouldn't be traumatized by "one little slap" when you were
being naughty.  Unfortunately, some children aren't so lucky.

				-- Bob

    I was spanked (rarely, since I was such an angel - quoting my mom here)
    and it made me feel sad because I had let my folks down.  In my birth
    family spanking was a considered discipline, not spur-of-the-moment,
    and only administered after other forms of discipline failed to induce
    the desired result.  I appreciate the self-discipline my folks helped
    me develop.
    
    Rearing my own children, I spanked rarely (I think my youngest daughter
    received one swat on the rear one time).  She feels traumatized by the
    whole thing, she says, though she also says she can't remember when it
    happened or what for; she is 17 and it's an intense age.  I'll
    have to ask her again when she's older.  My other children (grown now,
    and parents) seem to feel they did all right in the great parental
    lottery.  Looking back, I wish I had spanked even less, and *never* 
    lost my temper (ya, right ;).
    
    For me, the spanking fit within a wide range of security, love,
    teaching, discipline.  I tried to hand that on to my youngsters as
    well.
    
    aq
    
    

    me again, I suppose we should define "spank"  In my family, it's a swat
    or two across the bottom or the thigh.  My mom used a switch across the
    legs a couple of times.  The ultimate was to be spanked with Dad's
    belt.  You know, I don't recall that it ever happened...  I know I used
    to snap a leather belt to make my point when laying down the rules.
    
    There is, I believe, a vast difference between an open-handed smack
    across a clothed rear and the abuse some children endure (or die from).

Re. 0 

>    A new book is coming out about the long-term effects of parents' 
>    spanking and hitting children. 
    
>    Children who were spanked and hit as a form of "discipline" often 
>    suffer the effects of such treatment later in life. 
    
>    This makes so much sense to me; I don't see why it takes an official 
>    study to show the connection. 

I in no way mean to diminish your feelings on this, but there is a huge 
industry dependant on adults searching for reasons why they aren't happy.
I know many who are looking for reasons outside their own span of control 
so they can blame somebody/something else for their current lot. They will 
spend alot of money on books, magazines, seminars, etc. which support 
their contention.

>    My father was hit while he was growing up. The violence just gets
>    passed down the line. 

I found the opposite to be true. My father was never struck as a child.

I was raised in a time (1950s) when hitting a child was socially acceptable.
I was hit, alot, by parents, teachers (cleric/lay), neighbors, and any 
other adult (read authority figure) as they deemed necessary. I  
fantasized on revenge - obessessed on it sometimes. That was when I was 
5-10 yrs old. After that, I dropped the revenge wish, when I began to 
consider their motives and decided they were not malicious in their 
intent (parent's at least). Now I am a parent of two. I do not believe in 
beating a child. I think a well timed / placed smack can be a good attention 
getter, but I think anything stronger is criminal assault, and should 
be dealt with as such. My wife was also accustomed to physical reprimands.
She too feels all but a single light smack on the butt with an open hand 
is abusive.

Re. .1-.5

Spanking for some means 1 slap once; for others of us it is a frequent
trip behind the woodshed with a leather strap until fatigue ended the session. 

/Bob

    I agree that there's a big difference between giving a child one swat
    on the rear when they're misbehaving, and actually beating on them or
    using a leather belt or something.  Basically, I would consider
    anything more than an open-handed swat across the rear to be abuse.
    
    I was fortunate enough to be raised (in the 50's & 60's) by parents
    who did not believe in spanking or hitting.  My father never spanked or
    hit me, and my mother only spanked me twice when I was around 3 to 4
    yrs. old.  I can remember both times.  It made a big impression on me
    because it was so rare.  One of my girlfriends, in grade school, had
    parents that hit the kids with a leather strap, and another neighbor
    used to beat her son with a wooden spoon when he was small.  I can
    remember my parents talking about this between themselves and was
    impressed by how disgusted they were by it.  I am thankful that my
    parents believed in non-violence.
    
    When my daughter was small I only spanked her a couple of times.  Once
    when she knocked over the parakeet's cage, and I was afraid it was
    hurt, and once when she was about 7 or 8 yrs. old and she was going
    through a phase where she didn't want to take a shower or wash or hair. 
    In exasperation I slapped her across the face because she was
    absolutely filthy, and wouldn't take a shower!!  Well, when I slapped
    her she punched me in the stomach so hard I doubled over, and then
    said, "Don't you *ever* hit me again!"  Well, I'm not very big and I am
    very softhearted and not very violent, and I never did hit her again!! 
    Fortunately, she shortly afterwards began taking showers again!
    
    Basically, I think parents to try to raise their kids without hitting
    them or spanking them, but I realize that sometimes kids act so bad it
    can be tough to live up to that standard completely.  
    
    Lorna
    

    RE: .6
    
    Gotta disagree. Very often, adults are indeed unhappy because of
    unresolved childhood disappointments and treatment. No matter how 
    they try, if they have not resolved the anger and hurt of some incident
    or incidents of childhood, it just continues to haunt them. I didn't
    used to believe it; now I do.  
    
    I personally know of one man whose father abandoned him before he
    was born. He never grew up right and has had problems with alcohol and
    drugs since becoming a teen. 
    
    Another person I know was the victim of sexual abuse as a child 
    and she has trouble forming relationships with men. 
    
    When you're a child, your parents are the ones you look to for answers. 
    You're powerless in an adult world. Your parents are your first big
    bond, and as such I feel they form the basis for how you relate 
    to others. 
    
    They're the ones you look to for nurturing, support, and guidance. If
    they show you that force is a way to achieve something, it seems likely
    to me that you're going to pick up on that.  
                                            

    I got it a few times when I was a kid, nothing serious just a slap on
    the butt. 
    
    I do beleive a spank on the butt (or hand) to a little kid helps
    discipline but beating and other forms of punishment is a different
    story. 
    
    

    
    	I've been trying on the idea of "It's *never* okay to hit someone
    - no matter what they do". I've been trying to pass it on at home, too...
    
    	One problem with the idea is that you can say this and that
    about it, and none of it is "necessarily so". There might be a
    statistical correlation, an "on average", but there'll always be
    exceptions. Usually a spanking is a very shaming ordeal; perhaps
    there's a way to take the shame out of that someone has figured
    out and hence, an exception to the usual statistically based idea
    that it causes problems later in life.
    
    	My father was whipped with a belt in his youth, even had to
    go get the instrument himself and, I guess present it to his father
    prior to the walk out to the woodshed. The man never hit me one
    time in my youth. I take it that he was pretty soured around the
    whole idea and did not take it across into the next generation,
    "me". 
    
    	However, that's not to say that his experience or some attendant
    psychosis around it didnt get passed on to me subconsciously. That's
    not to say that irreperable damage wasnt being done to a generation
    unknown to the man wielding the belt. For all anyone knows, he could
    have been beating out the probability of his genetic material being
    propagated, on a whack by whack basis. Or whatever - I'm sure the
    experience was traumatic for my father to have had to go through.
    
    	Joe

Re .10    
    
>    	However, that's not to say that his experience or some attendant
>    psychosis around it didnt get passed on to me subconsciously. That's
>    not to say that irreperable damage was being done to a generation
>    unknown to the man wielding the belt. For all anyone knows, he could
>    have been beating out the probability of his genetic material being
>    propagated. Or whatever -
    
>    	Joe

	Joe, I don't know if I understand; are you saying that even if
	a child is not spanked by their parent, they can still have 
        problems anyway, due to their parent's being spanked? If so, at 
	what point is the 'passing down' stopped? 

	I believe that we each make our own choices. We may be
	influenced by what we've seen, and what we've heard, but when
	it comes right down to it, we are each responsible for what we 
	choose to do. Hopefully, we retain good traits like respect,
	kindness, or honesty, etc., and drop poor traits like lazyness,
	stealing, or violence.

	/Bob

    
    
    My grandmother Lucia (I'm Italian) sometimes remembers when in
    the early 1900's (1920-30) there was a neighbour of hers that
    used  a particular way to punish her 2 children.
    
    She didn't do anything during the week, even scold them, BUT 
    if they were naughty on Saturday, then she spanked them for all
    the things they had done during that week!
    
    A strange way to raise children...!!!
    
    Giusi
    

    re:.1
    I'm with you.
    
    re:.0
    90% of all children raised in the 1950s were spanked.  Lo and behold,
    90% of all criminals were spanked as children!  Wow ... a connection!
    
    That may fool armchair statisticians, but that's about it.
    
    I was spanked as a child when I did something very bad, and, most
    likely, the same will hold for my children, should I ever have any.
    
    Spanking need not be a sadistic or bloody ritual.
    
    Children grow to admire strong parents, after they outgrow the typical
    teenage rebellious stage.  You simply can't respect a parent who's
    afraid to lay down the law and discipline you.  Too many parents want
    to be their children's friends, first, and the authority figure later.

    Also, if was especially good for a while, my parents would buy me
    a small present as a reward.
    
    One time, after an extended period of being well-behaved, I got a
    shortwave radio that someone had brought to the local TV shop for
    repairs, but never picked up.
    
    There's a second half to the punish/reward school, some parents forget 
    the reward part.

    One more thing ...
    
    I went shopping tonight and all through the market I could hear this
    one child wailing (and I mean WAILING) about something her mother
    wouldn't buy her, she was crying so dramatically I couldn't even make
    out all the words.
    
    Quite a show, and ear-piercing to boot.
    
    Well, lo and behold, they got right in behind me in the checkout.  The
    child, about 5 years old, kept pulling candy off the shelf, she wanted
    this and she wanted that and every time the mother took it away from
    her, the screams started.
    
    What a little brat.  I bit my tongue, rolled my eyes and shook my
    head, and then bagged my own groceries to get put of earshot as fast as
    possible.
    
    I have no doubt at all that she has never once experienced a good slap
    on the behind.  I bet she'll be a real treat when she grows up.

    
    	re .11 -
    
    	I mean to say that your parents experiences can be "passed on"
    via a subconscious mechanism. This fortunately falls under the "'taint
    necessarily so" catagory, but it can happen. Givent hat, it's hard
    to say "at what point" does it stop? Stopps when the last person
    in the relay of it decides for themselves that they're not going
    to pass it on.
    
    	My wife and I dont do physical dicipline with the children living
    with us. We do dicipline by depravation; TV, other privs like Bedtime
    is usually plenty to get them thinking about what is was they did
    and why they're being punished. 
    
    	A child feeling the physical pain of a slap - or the emotional
    pain of being shamed (perhaps in public) - is hardly in a position
    to be considering his or her choice of action relative to the
    consequences. In other words, a corporal type punishment is not
    a conscious raising experience. It doesnt "raise" consciousness
    into a level of reasoning; if anything, it depresses consciousness
    into a very primitive level, you know, down there with "fight or
    flight" and like responses.
    
    	On a Digital outing at Canobie lake one time, I saw a father
    whack his daughter on the behind so hard that it lifted the little
    girl right up off both feet! I came fairly close to suggesting to
    him that his action will not in any way facilitate her moral 
    developement. For at the moment when he feet were off the ground
    her mind was probably consumed with shock and fear. Hardly a state
    where one would be weighing their own behavior against their daddy's
    wishes, in consideration of perhaps delaying their own gratification
    for the love of their father. Anyway, I just kept my mouth shut
    and shot him a glare.
    
    	Spanking in my opinion is just a very primitive choice of action
    for dealing with a current problem. It's in the league of any other
    physical assault - though for some reason while prohibited between
    adults, society allows it between parents and children. It's just
    one step away from physical abuse, should the parent ever lose control
    over their own dicipline in administering that type of "dicipline".
    As a primitive parential action, I'd opinion it into the same league
    as infanticide, which was common up the the 4th century or so.
    
    	Many times, we tell our children that we feel like hitting them,
    for their behavior, but choose instead to roll back their bedtime an 
    hour or whatever.
    
    	Joe
    
    	

    Its been a while since my children were little but I have always felt
    that when an child's repeated behavior endangers themselves or others,
    a spanking is in order.  I do not believe small children are capable
    of appreciating some forms of danger, such as playing in the street
    or throwing rocks at one another.  If a stern 'NO' and an explanation
    doesn't stop the behavior after once or twice then its time to spank.
    
    I also think different children respond to different tactics.  For my
    son, when he was quite small (a toddler), a spanking was the only thing 
    that would change his behavior.  However, once he got to be about 5 
    spankings would only make him more stubborn.  At that point we switched
    to withholding privileges, which he was then old enough to understand
    and appreciate.  My daughter, on the other hand, received only one
    spanking in her entire life.  Talking to her sternly was all that
    was needed.  
    
    I believe each child and situation is different and has to be handled
    with the most effective method.
    
    Jane

    I fully agree with -1. As a matter of fact I believe that one of the
    reasons why parenting is such a challenging job is that there are no
    plain rules you just apply like that. There are so many factors that
    make a certain behaviour right or totally wrong in a given  moment!
    The only safe way out is trying to keep as well tuned as possible and
    'invent' your own way each time. And of course while doing that you
    still have to make sure you keep a coherent approach to your children
    up bringing (easier said than done, I'm afraid.).

    Moreover I also think that there are times when the kid(s) are kind of
    'testing' where the limit is. I guess that the example of the shopping
    mall a few replies back happened to every body of us with little
    children. In those cases reasoning doens't help that much I guess. I
    get the feeling that the kid in question is kind of asking you to show
    her/him how far s/he can go. And a firm reaction will be quickly
    understood, much quicker than anything else, I'd say. 

    Kid is fuzzy at the supermarket making shopping hell on earth for
    Parent. Parent says something like 'ok if you don't stop you're not
    gonna get <TV, playground, goodies, ...whatever> LATER ON'. So what?
    Kid feels like being fuzzy HERE and NOW, who cares about what will
    happen LATER ON? A slap on the butt will reset the situation in most
    cases reminding Kid that something unpleasant can happen IMMEDIATELY
    and keeping her/him busy for a while thinking on philosofical matters. 

    Of course if Parent immediately after feels like a child molester than
    situation changes a bit in my opinion because the little angel will
    immediately feel that there might be some space to trigger Parent's
    guilty trips and switch situation in her/his favour again.

    I guess that what I'm trying to say is that to me spanking is not a
    "form of discipline" but instead a sort of red flag reading "you went
    too far: this is the no trepassing zone". In this sense it's just more
    than evident that it will be a matter of a light smash on the butt,
    definetely nothing more than this!  
    
    On a side track I sometime feel very sick of all this talkings about
    the 'extreme' danger we are going to cause to our kids by doing almost
    everything we do. I was reading some Bettelheim's book recently and,
    while I still think that those books can be a good food for thought,
    still I've been quite tempted to just throw it out of the window. 

    I love my kids very much and I'm constantly squeezing my brain trying
    to do what's best for them. But I'm still HUMAN afterall and I can be
    wrong. I believe that the best thing I can do for them is being open to
    see my mistakes, to admit them and to correct them. With the kids
    cooperation, at times.

    ciao
    graziella

Re .18

>    Parent says something like 'ok if you don't stop you're not
>    gonna get <TV, playground, goodies, ...whatever> LATER ON'. So what?
>    Kid feels like being fuzzy HERE and NOW, who cares about what will
>    happen LATER ON?                         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
     ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^       
I agree. Threatening to deprive can also aggrevate the situation by adding 
to the child's frustration level. "Wait 'till your father gets home", on 
the other hand, can provide alot of incentive to immediately stop the 
undesireable behavior. (provided of course, that the father followed 
through on the threat - at least once.)


Re .16

>    	A child feeling the physical pain of a slap - or the emotional
>    pain of being shamed (perhaps in public) - is hardly in a position
>    to be considering his or her choice of action relative to the
>    consequences. 

A child engaging in a tantrum, yelling, kicking, screaming, etc.
is in no mental state to consider anything beyond their present agenda.
In this case, the pain/shame resulting from a smack on the butt, provides 
immediate return to the reality of the situation.

As parents, we chose not to put our kids through the torture of shopping
except when absolutely necessary. At those times we let them "shop" too.
It was fun for them, not cruel and inhuman like it is for me! :^)

/Bob    

    I think it's a myth that children, after being spanked or sent to 
    their rooms, are thinking about what they did wrong, or being at all
    philosophical.  I know it wasn't true in my case.  Usually I was
    focused on something else entirely by then, like reading, playing
    with my toys, or ignoring my parents until they could learn to behave
    themselves better. :-)
    
    	Sharon
    

    
    	Re .17 -
    
    	You've got a valid point in what you've presented. Sometimes,
    when dealing with my stepchildren "Sam" and "Dave" (Not their real
    names, to protect their anonymity) I do wonder if they could use
    "some sense knocked into them", i.e. whatever it is I've been doing
    isnt working and maybe another approach would be "more effective".
    
    	Lately, I find myself dealing with their problems around
    mindfulness. To relate a recent experience, consider the use of
    the bathroom. There are a few rules here that I as parent expect
    to be followed;
    
    			- Flush the toilet after use
    			- Boys lift the seat
    			- We extend ourselves to put the seat
    			  down after use, as a courtesy to your Mom.
    
    	The third one we havent quite gotten to yet...The first is doing
    okay; marginal "performance" around the second rule.
    
    	It's morning and the boys are getting ready for school. One
    has the upstairs bathroom occupied, the younger has to go, so he
    asks his brother. "No" is the answer; so off he goes downstairs
    to use the facility down there. I'm sitting at the dining room table,
    wondering...kid come back up and in a minute or two, I go down to
    "check". I find the seat down, and all wet.
    
    	So, how do I handle it? I can think of two scenarios; one that's
    commonplace (1) and perfectly acceptable in our society - and one that's
    the way I chose to handle it (2). I'll describe the "typical" one and
    its elements; variations of which I believe are what's typical -
    
    	Scenario 1 - I come upstairs. "You little moron - GET OVER HERE!!
    WHOCK! WHOCK! WHOCK! How many TIMES have I told you to NOT go on
    the goddamn seat!?! Huh!? You're ten years old and you're acting
    like you're TWO! Now WHOCK! (on the back of the head) get down there
    and clean it up, before I have to BEAT some sense into that thick
    little head of yours!!!"
    
    	Scenario 2 - I come upstairs. I go and get some paper towels,
    and a spray cleaner. I take away the bowl of cereal he's eating
    and say "Sammy, you forgot to put the seat up, and now you're going
    to have to stop what you're doing and clean it up". I go with him
    to make sure that he does what I asked and then I take the time
    toi try and talk with him about it. "Sam, it seems you're having
    problems being mindful about what you're doing lately. Is there
    something the matter you can tell me about?" He puts his eyebrows
    down hard. "No nothings the matter..." Me: "I can tell that you
    dont really like to talk about this stuff, because of how your eye
    brows are, is that how you feel?" "No..." Me: "You know, I'm going
    to have to correct you when I find that you havent been paying
    attention to what you're doing - I just dont know of another way
    I can get you to be more mindful about things up front. Is there
    something you can think of that I could do, that might help you
    out with this?" He: (at this point, probably willing to say anything
    to not have to talk about it anymore) "No". Me: "Well, if you think
    of something, let me know, and until then I'm just going to have
    to keep on reminding you of broken glass you never cleaned up, the
    fork you threw out with your TV dinner and stuff like that - okay?"

    	Two things are immediately apparent between the two scenarios;
    one involves more time and effort spent with the child. I think
    it's all too easy to just smash 'em one and send 'em on his way
    and that in fact respesents carelessness on the parents part.
    
    	The first scenario involved the following elements -
    
	    	- Shaming of the ego
   		- Corporal punishment
    		- Negatively contexted motivation
		- Suprise/Shock	
    		- Motivation by fear of / threat of further abuse

     	Some of these may be left out in a "typical" parental response
    that involves spanking - the scenario I portrayed was understandably
    harsh, because I wanted to include the above elements. This is not
    to say that's what *necessarily* happens when a parent spanks their 
    children; what I'm saying is that all of it can easily happen and
    does happen all the time - it's going on all over the place, in
    my opinion.
    
    	Which scenario would *you* rather be subjected to, as a child?
    
    	As to the effectiveness of the choice I made, that remains to
    be seen. I admit, the "corporal" method might be more effective
    in this case. I'm not sure if I'd like to pursue that, regardless.
    
    	Joe

    
    	Re - .19
    
    >In this case, the pain/shame resulting from a smack on the butt, provides 
    >immediate return to the reality of the situation.
    
    	Like I said in my -.1, I'm not sure that the "providing
    immediate return" method would not have been effective in the situation
    I described. I could have chosen to "knock him back into reality",
    "knock some sense into his head" et al, - probably *effective* courses
    of action (more like *coarse* action, IMHO) - but I didnt. I'm
    experimenting with it to the benefit of the child in my belief, and 
    we'll see what happens. Maybe I'll find the same thing tomorrow
    - who knows?
    
    	I feel I'm seeing some "if it works, dont change it" attitude,
    despite the knowledge we now have about "it" - that it's just a real
    primitive way, something out of the dark ages, "for your own good"
    and all that crap. This is my opinion, just as it's anothers opinion
    about how people "blaming stuff on their childhood" has become just
    another "big business" or whatever. Differences.
    
    	Joe

    re .19, I've always felt that the "wait til your father gets home"
    threat wasn't fair to the father.  Why make the father always appear to
    be the monster?  Personally, I think the mother should learn to deal
    with discipline without threatening the child with the other parent. 
    My ex-husband said his mother used to say this all the time, and he
    grew to think of his father as a monster.  (Actually, his father was
    kind've a monster, but that's beside the point!)
    
    I think I was really lucky when my daughter was small.  I never
    realized how lucky until later on when I heard horror stories.  She
    enjoyed shopping almost from birth (maybe it can be inherited?)!!  :-) 
    
    Lorna
    

>    I think it's a myth that children, after being spanked or sent to 
>    their rooms, are thinking about what they did wrong, or being at all
>    philosophical.  I know it wasn't true in my case.  Usually I was
>    focused on something else entirely by then, like reading, playing
>    with my toys, or ignoring my parents until they could learn to behave
>    themselves better. :-)
    

    	I'd have to disagree, I can definitely remember many times that I
    would actually think about what had happened.  It's hard to say what
    most kids do, but I think it's safe to say that it's not a myth.  It's
    an individual thing.  Just as the effects of spankings -- whether
    applied "properly" or not -- are individualistic as well.


    	I've been thinking about this string for some time now.  I honestly
    can't make up my mind.  When I was a kid, I of course hated getting a
    spanking.  Later, I liked the fact that my folks enforced discipline so
    I didn't end up like some of the other wilder kids.  Now, I can't say
    what's "right"; can spankings be applied in such a way as to not do
    psychological harm?  I don't know.  I do know that before I have kids
    will take some courses on the subject of child rearing in general to
    try to get some more ideas.  There are just so many issues to this
    subject, and I don't think we as a race know enough yet to be
    definitive one way or the other.


    Brian

    re .22
    
    I think you have things all out of proportion - what you described in
    the answer 1 bears no relation to the "single smack on the butt' that
    most people have described here.
    
    Also, I think most pople would agree that in this situation even a
    single smack would be counter productive... in a situation like this
    the 'punishment' you described in solution two is of course more
    effective and without wanting to dampen you feelings I don't think you
    are at all unique in the way you dealt with it.
    
    Most occurences when a smack (singular and without all the name calling
    etc) is relevant are when the child is tantrumming etc.
    
    They would tend to be given unpremeditated... the situation you
    descibed was tantamount to child abuse.
    
    You seem to have a very black and white view... the secret of good
    parenting (she says, without any children herself) us surely some shade
    of grey.
    
    My parents very occasionally gave me a sharp slap if I was playing up. 
    More often than not when my mother disciplined us she gave in (Eg. bed
    early for you tonight.... 3 hrs later she let us stay up to watch a
    favourite program).  This inconsistency has probably caused me more
    harm than any quick spank...   I still have problems taking peoples
    threats seriously, and expect my own way far to often....
    
    
    
    Xtine
         

    
    	re .25 -
    
    Perhaps, though calling a spanking a "single smack on the butt"
    seems to me to be an effort at minimizing the corporal form of
    punishment that it is. As in it's "just" a smack on the butt...
    
    I guess I am pretty black and white about it. I try to adhere to
    the belief that it's never useful to hit a child, or even a more
    generic "someone else", no matter what they do. Alternatives abound.

    It takes a little more than a willingness to explore them. It takes
    having your own behavior under control. It might take a constant
    vigilance with one's own awareness to assess what might be appropriate
    in a given situation.
    
    I just feel that the physical knocks are simply the quick and dirty
    solution, used when someone doesnt want to bother to give the time
    or emotional energy that something more sophisticated would require. 
    
    It know it aint easy.
    
    I too have been the "irratated adult" in the checkout line, appalled 
    at "that child's behavior". Yet from another perspective, I could also 
    say "kiss off" to all the "irratated adults". Heck, they've *had* their 
    childhood and if they got beat on in a similar situation, well, that's 
    too bad - best I can "hope for" is that they're recovering successfully 
    from the experience now. Best one can *do* is to not let it happen to
    this kid, this time, in his or her's.
    
    I wonder if my father not carrying his beatings forward to me has
    anything to do with my attitude?
    
    	Joe

This is an interesting note.  I have three sons, so I especially relate to the 
note about the toilet seat. :-)

Anyway, here's my $.02:

1.  The "wait until Dad comes home" scenario is wrong, IMHO.  Punishing a child
    *hours* after the trangression doesn't teach him anything.  You need to 
    punish him right away, so he can equate the wrongdoing with the 
    punishment.

2,  My boys have all been smacked on the butt a few times in their lifetimes--
    open handed, single swat.  This has been a last-ditch effort type of thing,
    usually where iminent danger is involved.  For example, a toddler near a hot
    stove who's not listening to "NO!".  Sometimes kids need a jolt back to
    reality.  No, I don't mean a smack to the moon.  One time I went to pick
    the boys up after work, and my toddler went running towards the street.  We
    all ran after him, screaming, "NO!  STOP!!!", but he kept running.  My 
    middle son (fastest runner) reached him first, grabbed his jacket. and 
    the toddler sat down, hard.  Yes, I smacked his butt and told him NEVER
    to do that again-- that he could have easily been hit by a car.  Does that
    make me a child abuser?  I don't think so. 

3.  My mother used to hit us with the wooden paddle of the game with the paddle
    and the ball on the elastic string (remember those)?.  She said spanking
    us "hurt her hand".  Well, in my opinion she was just hitting us too damn
    hard, then.  

4.  As for the toilet seat scenario, I think the second way is too drawn out.
    I just explain it's nasty to drip on the seat and not clean it up.  If
    someone forgets (usually son #2), he gets summoned to the bathroom to 
    clean up after himself.  I taught him the little poem "If you sprinkle when
    you tinkle, please be neat and wipe the seat!"  Believe it or not, it's
    helped him remember.



I totally agree with a previous note that says you need to adjust your punishing
methods to the child.  Getting smacked never phased my middle son, but having
a timeout really got through to him.  You're just got to go with the flow.

    Kids remember what they were spanked for.
    
    Heck, 25 years later, I still remember the two times dad got the belt
    out and what I did.

    re .28, well, actually, now that you mention it, I do remember what I
    was spanked for, and it was about 40 yrs. ago!  But, I was only spanked
    twice in my life, and I think that's why it made such a big impression
    on me.  
    
    I doubt it's as memorable for kids that are getting spanked all
    the time.  After awhile it probably becomes a miserable and meaningless
    routine. 
    
    Lorna
    

    In my youth, I was raised in part by a grandmother with the dreaded
    wooden spoon.  My brother and I would get it for being too loud,
    forgetful, fighting with each other, etc.  This was clearly wrong.
    
    However, when my wife and I were planning children in 1970, we decided
    on one thing regarding physical dicipline, and followed through on it. 
    We agreed that the only time one of our children would get spanked was 
    if they deliberately physically hurt someone else.  This would be from 
    an age when they knew better (4-5) to roughly 13.
    
    We had two sons.  Our firstborn had to be diciplined twice.  Once when
    he hit a playmate on the forehead with a metal truck resulting in
    stitches, and once when he fired at a school bus with his BB gun
    resulting in students getting hit with glass fragments.  He (at age 23
    now) and I have had discussions about this.  He has no ill feelings
    toward me for what I did, but does not know if he will adopt the same
    philosophy when the time comes.  Our secondborn (now 19) did not do
    anything to require this form of dicipline.
    
    Do I have any regrets?  No.  Both my wife and I still feel that this
    was a good approach.
    
    Lou Snider
    
    

    There were four of us children, and thinking back we all make
    jokes about having to stand in line by age to get spanked (I
    mean, they weren't painful spanks, just little slap types).  
    
    Like ::SCANLON mentioned, it's the TYPE of spank.  I get really
    mad when I see a mother carrying her crying child by one arm out
    of a store.  I can only imagine what she says and does to the child
    at home!
    
    

    Spanking was pretty rare in our house, and while I do remember the few
    instances of it, I don't recall what they were for - in general I think
    it was for repeated offenses of any kind (i.e., exceeding Mom's or
    Dad's patience). I remember them as isolated incidents in an otherwise
    happy, loving, and secure family; I don't recall them with any
    particular trauma, nor were they very severe as spankings go, though
    some of them did exceed the "smack on the rear with an open hand".
    
    My feeling about it is that, if the family relationships are generally
    loving and respectful, members will be able to tolerate a few excesses
    without suffering emotional damage; it's when violence or demeaning
    remarks or lack of respect for the individual become chronic that (it
    seems to me) the worst effects occur. I would much rather come from a
    loving family that occasionally resorted to physical punishment than
    from a family that never used physical punishment but also did not show
    any interest in the kids as individuals, didn't listen to them, etc.
    
    However, I do feel that this loving, respectful family I speak of might
    very well have been able to discipline the kids without ever resorting
    to switches or belts at all if they'd given it some thought. While a
    spanking or two might not have caused any lasting harm, it also (as far
    as I recall) didn't do any lasting good either, and could have been
    dispensed with.
    
    -b

 Anecdotally I've found that people who abused their kids and people who never,
ever spanked their kids seemed to have the most behavioral problems with their
kids. People who were between the two extremes seemed more likely to have
reasonably well behaved kids.

 My children sometimes get spanked. It doesn't cause them undue emotional
anguish, but it does get their attention. By spanking only on occasion,
the impact of the spanking is not diluted. A more typical punishment
is a timeout or loss of privileges.

 If you don't believe in spanking at all, ever, that's your choice. As long
as you do not attempt to force me to conform to your beliefs in raising
my children there will be no problems. Some people get mighty fanatical
about the whole issue, and I find that to be quite annoying, particularly when
they attempt to involve authorities because they believe any physical
punishment is child abuse.

	Very well written message!  I agree totally.

	ps

    
    	re .34 - figures you would. I however, do not.
    
 .33>If you don't believe in spanking at all, ever, that's your
    >choice. As long as you do not attempt to force me to conform to your 
    >beliefs in raising my children there will be no problems. Some people 
    >get mighty fanatical about the whole issue, and I find that to be
    >quite annoying, particularly when they attempt to involve authorities 
    >because they believe any physical punishment is child abuse.
    
    	So, "It's your kid - do as you see fit" eh?  Sorry to read that
    you're "annoyed" by those who go so far out of their way to promote
    a belief which protects children from...a kind of ignorance in the
    old "your kid / as you see fit" addage. Again - just a step away
    from regarding children as possessed-property with full rights of
    diposition; in a "however" sense.
    
    	There's bunches of things which "force" a conformity in raising
    children in this society. It's just IMHO that practicing corporal
    punishment be "on the list".
    
    	Joe

    I also agree with Levesque's note.
    
    Does that figure too?

    
    
    	Well, I am not really in this for the discussion..because
    	I don't feel I have much to discuss on it. I only have
    	a belief..my belief. And that is that no one has the right
    	to hit me, and I have a right to hit no one. Regardless of size. 
    	Because, I don't believe that human beings were made 
    	to be hit. 
    
    	That keeps it all pretty simple for me...
    	dotty

 re: Jasniewski

 Practice your fanaticism on your own children. Leave mine out of it. In 20
years the proof will be, as they say, in the pudding.

 .35 >	So, "It's your kid - do as you see fit" eh?  Sorry to read that
     >  you're "annoyed" by those who go so far out of their way to promote
     > a belief which protects children from...a kind of ignorance in the
     > old "your kid / as you see fit" addage. Again - just a step away
     > from regarding children as possessed-property with full rights of
     > diposition; in a "however" sense.



	Your too funny !! Hahahaha! 

        Re - Levesque.
        
        	Proof in the pudding? Ha - "my" children know *already*
        that there's an alternative to corporal punishment. That there's
        an alternative to resolving a conflict besides "hitting" someone.
        They are graced by the opportunity to visit their biological father 
	on a regular basis, whose household permits corporal forms of
        punishment and encourages the hitting of one another as a means of
        resolving a conflict! We're pressed to correct their behavior when
        they return home after a time down at their Dad's, to keep their 
        hands off one another. We're not about to do so by putting *our*
        hands on them. It's quite clear to them that by the model we give,
        "hitting" of any sort is totally unacceptable. That's in stark
        contrast to what they're given at their father's home.

		I've recently become a dog owner. *Every* book I've read,
	every piece of advice I've heard says you do not hit the dog as
	a means of punishment. This is a *dog* we're talking about. A human
	child should not recieve the same level of consideration? Or I spose 
	that a human child has some inate level of depravity not found in a 
	dog or other creature. I'll raise him successfully as an obiedient 
	animal without having to hit him once. (I have to be successful; he's
	a Doberman and he'll be a big one too.) His motivation to listen
	to me? Love. You have to have some to give, for a dog or anyone to
	be attentive to it. Any dysfunctional idiot can motivate or behavior 
	modify through inflicting physical pain or fear.
        
	Re - Discussion.

                In an effort to educate myself further on this subject,
        I have gotten the book "For Your Own Good; Hidden cruelty in child
        -rearing and the roots of violence" by Alice Miller [Noonday Press,
        $10.00]. Allow me to quote from the introduction, which I consider
        state of the art thinking in this subject. Bear in mind that this
        was written 10 years ago, so, it's actually old already;
        
                "The diverse reactions to my book range from unmistakable
        "aha" experiences to angry rejection. In the latter cases...the
        following comment keep recurring like a refrain: 'I am living proof
        that beating (or spanking) children is not necessarily harmful, for
        in spite of it I have became a decent person'.  Although people tend
        to make a distinction between "spanking" and "beating" a child, [as
        was done in this string - JJ] considering the former a less severe
        measure then the latter, the line between the two is a tenuous one.
        ...even when spanking is a gentler form of physical violence, the
        psychic pain and humiliation and need to repress feelings are the 
        same as in the case of more severe punishment. It is important to 
        point this out so that [those] who recieve or give what they call 
        "spankings" will not think they or their children are exempt from 
        the consequences of child beating discussed in this book".
        
                She goes onto say:
                
                "Although the general public is beginning to understand
        that this suffering is transmitted to one's children in the form
        of an upbringing supposedly "for their own good", many people with
        whom I have spoken...still believe that permissive methods of child
        -rearing allow children "too much" freedom and that it is this 
B        permissiveness...that is responsible for the marked increase in crime
        and drug addiction. Even cartoons and jokes make fun of parents who
        have a tolerant and supportive attitude toward their children, 
        emphasizing the dangers if parents allow themselves to be tyrannized
        by their children. King Solomon's mistaken belief (if you spare the 
        rod you will spoil the child) is still accepted today in all 
        seriousness as great wisdom and is still being passed onto the next
        generation. These attitudes...are not far removed from those quoted
 B       in the following pages to illustrate the detremental effects of child
        -rearing methods."
        
                Now, let's cut to the chase. Let's wind back 100 years or
        so, to the "state of the art" as it was then; I will quote her from
	her "following pages":
        
                "Two passages from Dr Schreber's advice to parents, written
  B      in 1858, will illustrate the method of raising children prevalent at 
        the time:
                   The little ones' display of temper as indicated by screaming 
                   or crying without cause should be regarded as the first
                   test of your spiritual and pedagogical principles....Once
                   you have established that nothing is really wrong....then
                   you can rest assured that the screaming [as in a disruptive
                   child in a checkout line perhaps? -JJ] is nothing more than 
                   an outburst of temper, a whim, the first appearance of Will
                   -fulness. Now you should....proceed in a....positive way:
                   by quickly diverting its attention, by stern words, 
   B                threatening gestures, rapping on the bed....or if none of 
                   this helps, by appropriately mild corporal admonitions
                   repeated persistantly at brief intervals until the child
                   quiets down...
                   
                   This procedure will be necessary once or at most twice,
                   and then you will be *master* of the child *forever*.
                   From now on, a glance, a word, a single threatening gesture
                   will be sufficient to control the child. Remember that this
                   will be of greatest benefit to your child since it will
                   spare him many hours of agitation inimicable to his 
                   successful growth, freeing him from all those inner 
                   torments that can, moreover, very easily lead to a 
                   proliferation of pernacious character traits that will
                   become increasingly difficult to conquer.
        
        Dr Schreber doesn't realise that what he is in fact attempting to
        curb in children are his own impulses, and there is no doubt in his 
        mind that he's recommending the exercise of power purely for the 
        child's own good:
        
                   If parents are consistant in this, they will soon be rewarded
                   by the emergence of that desirable situation in which the
                   child will be controlled almost entirely by a parental
                   glance alone."
                   
                The question I ask is, upon reading this, who in this particular
        discussion does not in even some distant part of themselves, in all 
	honesty, identify with and agree with the idea that it would be a good 
	thing to have "that desirable situation" as outlined above? To have 
	your children just "snap to" or whatever should you merely raise an 
	eyebrow? Or raise your hand...
        
                To me, just discovering that part of myself is an occasion
        for sorrow. To know that I'm entirely capable of being on that level
        of utter selfishness; where I'd desire to control my children with
        a mere gesture, because it's easy for *me* - regardless of the
        impact or consequence to the child. To be able to just blow that
        off to some flimsy rationalization like "it's the way I was brought 
        up; it didnt hurt me" or "it's for the best".
        
                Here is where I differ from most of those who replied here; 
        because I'm open minded enough to even get to that realization,
        rather than go into a defensive posture about it. Yeah, I could very 
        easily be as bad with the children who are exposed to me on a daily 
        basis. BUT - I'm willing to open up to that part of me and I have what 
	it tBakes to investigate it - *I* bought the book - and find out just 
	what it is about *me* that finds the appeal in this ancient and
	pervasive tradition.
        
        Re - Scanlon; 

                I dug up a little something that perhaps you'll find as 
        humorous as my last entry! It's from the book "The Prophet" by
        Kahlil Gibran - maybe you've heard of it. In "The Road Less 
        Travelled", M. Scott Peck calls the following "perhaps the finest
        words ever written about child-raising". Maybe you've heard of that
        book too, I dunno... 
        
                In our wedding ceremony, we included the children;
        while my wife and I each got our rings and a pledge of comittment, 
        the children got 'medallions' and a pledge of comittment from *us*. 
        AWe had this read in the ceremony in support of our comittment to them
        and to express our beliefs about them:
        
                "Your children are not your children.
                 They are the sons and daughters of Life's longing for
                   itself.
                 They come through you but not from you,
                 And though they are with you they belong not to you.
                 
                 You may give them your love but not your throughts,
                 For they have their own thoughts.
                 You may house their bodies but not their souls,
                 For their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you
                 cannot visit, not even in your dreams.
                 
                 You may strive to be like them, but seek not to make them 
                 like you.
                 For life goes not backward nor tarries with yesterday.
                 You are the bow from which your children as living arrows
                 are sent forth.
                 The archer sees the mark upon the path of the infinite,
                  and He bends you with His might that His arrow may go
                  swift and far.
                 Let your bending in the archer's hand be for gladness;
                 For even as He loves the arrow that flies, so He loves
                 the bow that is stable."
                 
                 The implication of this is, of course, that your children 
	are not your possessions to do with as you will. There are definite 
	boundaries around what you're morally allowed to do and what is "off 
	limits". While this might all be written off as a bunch of flowery 
	celestial bullsh*t; if so, I'd question ones openmindedness and why 
	anyone would prefer to remain in "endarkenment"; 100 years out of 
	date, when with a little willingness on their part and maybe a little 
	discomfort they could transcend a generations old, outdated methodology 
	and become enlightened to something much better - with all children,
	even future children not yet known - "not even in your dreams" - 
	being the ultimate beneficiaries.
                
                        Joe
                
                

Re .40 ELESYS::JASNIEWSKI "Why not ask why?"

Although neither of us like the violent world we find ourselves
in, it is here, and we, and our kids, are in it. I do not
equate a smack to 'violence'. I do not hit my dog either.
I have smacked my kids when I deemed it an expedient mode of
communication; I have hugged them when I was ripchit at them too. 
Sometimes, a stern look is sufficient.Depends on the situation. 
I don't know in advance what methodology I'll employ. I'm not 
correct all the time either. My wife and I just do the best we can. 

The violence out there on the streets will not go away if we just
huggy-poo with junior and say no 'Discovery Channel' tonight
when he spraypaints half your car with Rustoleum, or take a
'time out' when he calls mom a bitch 'cause she won't let him ride 
his bike on Rte 3.

I have been to awards dinners for them both and applauded the loudest
when their names were called. I brag to gramma and grampy with well
deserved praises too. Even when they weren't *the* best, I was com-
pletely consumed with happiness at the effort. They get rewarded as
well as punished - depends on their actions - just like in life.

Good luck to both of us, and to our children.

/Bob

	Re - Jasniewski;

	I have the book "The Prophet" by Kahlil Gibran, and have read it 
	several times.  

	The way you try to express that spanking is violent is utterly amusing.
	I have my opions and you have yours and I will raise my children my
	way and you raise your children your way.  But, to say that we are 
	being abusive to our children (in so many words) is totally out of line!
	
	Please reread my .1 message and tell me where you get that a slap on 
	the bottom with an open hand, even comes close to beating my children.
	

	patty
	

	Re - Jasniewski;

	One more thing,  that pledge of comittment to your children
	was beautiful.


	ps

.40> I've recently become a dog owner. *Every* book I've read,
.40> every piece of advice I've heard says you do not hit the dog as
.40> a means of punishment. This is a *dog* we're talking about.

    It's been known for a while that many animals respond better to hunger
    than pain.  Still, some books explicitly suggest a rolled up newspaper
    because it gets attention but does not injure.  The same can be said
    of a spank.

    By the way, re: hunger, it could also be beneficial for some children
    to be sent to bed without dinner, for example, a child who throws his
    or her dinner onto the floor.

    Now ... this is NOT suggesting that children be starved, any more than
    advocating spanking is a suggestion that children be beaten.

    You seem to be trying to blur that rather important distinction.

>Although people tend
>        to make a distinction between "spanking" and "beating" a child, [as
>        was done in this string - JJ] considering the former a less severe
>        measure then the latter, the line between the two is a tenuous one.
>        ...even when spanking is a gentler form of physical violence, the
>        psychic pain and humiliation and need to repress feelings are the 
>        same as in the case of more severe punishment. It is important to 
>        point this out so that [those] who recieve or give what they call 
>        "spankings" will not think they or their children are exempt from 
>        the consequences of child beating discussed in this book".

 Immensely self serving. "We are categorically and absolutely correct, and
anyone who does not adopt our beliefs wholesale is wrong." This is utter
fanaticism, approaching the fervor associated with religion. Which is fine-
there's room for fanatics in this world. Except when it is intimated that
failure to adopt their beliefs is tantamount to child abuse. That's when
it crosses the line.

 I have no desire to discuss things with fanatics. I prefer opbjective 
discussion, TYVM.

 The Doctah

	Re - last few.

	I apologize for not continuing this discussion for a couple of weeks;
I've been very busy and have had problems with time lately. It's not that my 
interested in this topic has waned -

	Re .41 -

>I have smacked my kids when I deemed it an expedient mode of
>communication; I have hugged them when I was ripchit at them too. 
>Sometimes, a stern look is sufficient.Depends on the situation. 
>I don't know in advance what methodology I'll employ. I'm not 
>correct all the time either. My wife and I just do the best we can. 

	I understand that any parent "does the best they can with what they 
have". What I'm trying to promote is the "what you have" part; that is, 
the most up to date knowledge and wisdom around the subject. That is may cause
you discomfort when it happens to challenge the notion of "smacking" a child
for the sake of "expediency" is also understandable, considering that as "the 
best you could have done" in some situation. I however believe that such a 
minor discomfort should not stand in the way of improving upon "what one has".

>The violence out there on the streets will not go away if we just
>huggy-poo with junior and say no 'Discovery Channel' tonight
>when he spraypaints half your car with Rustoleum, or take a
>'time out' when he calls mom a bitch 'cause she won't let him ride 
>his bike on Rte 3.

	Children who are "huggy-poo"'d by their parents do not spray pain 
half the family car with Rustoleum; they *ask permission* to use the paint. 
Children whom time is taken out for do not call their mother "a bitch" in
response to *any* refusal of permission. Those responses are due to something
else entirely, if anything, they're due to some prior treatment that was
in fact abusive and/or neglectful. You've got your wires crossed on that one.


	Re - ::SCANLON:

	>The way you try to express that spanking is violent is utterly amusing.

	The previous entry of mine was not entirely my expression. I quoted
from a current and up to date, renowned, published referance on the subject; I 
didnt see anyone else doing that.

	>I have my opions and you have yours and I will raise my children my
	>way and you raise your children your way.  But, to say that we are 
	>being abusive to our children (in so many words) is totally out of 
	>line!

	I think that argument is just too simplistic and I question why you
are so quick to write it all off to the old addage "it's your kid - do as you
wish". That was mentioned specifically in my replies as an ancient and
pervasive tradition - it's right back there with "male superiority" and the
ownership of women and children. I dont think *I* said people who spank are
being abusive; the referance I quoted did (10 years before *I* ever got to it) 
- I just happen to agree now and put that here to back up my belief. 
	
	>Please reread my .1 message and tell me where you get that a slap on 
	>the bottom with an open hand, even comes close to beating my children.
	
	I dont need to re-read it to get that - it's explained clearly in the
book I have and referanced in my previous reply.

	>One more thing, that pledge of comittment to your children
	>was beautiful.

	Thank-you.


	Re .44 -

    >Still, some books explicitly suggest a rolled up newspaper
    >because it gets attention but does not injure.  The same can be said
    >of a spank.

	"Injure" is a matter of context; yeah, I agree that a rolled up 
newspaper will not cause physical injury: welts, bruises, lascerations, etc.
I'll concede for the sake of argument that a properly applied "spanking"
does not do that either.

	However...	

	Considering injury in the context of the emotions, rather than the 
physical flesh, one comes up with something different. What is, analogous
to a "welt" or a "bruise" on that part of someone which feels? That part
of someone where it's been said that what it does is neither right nor wrong, 
it simply is?

    >By the way, re: hunger, it could also be beneficial for some children
    >to be sent to bed without dinner, for example, a child who throws his
    >or her dinner onto the floor.

	It could also be detrimental, again in considering damage done in the
context of emotions; to a child's feelings, to be sent to bed without dinner.
Hunger being such a powerful generator of a "response" and all...

    >You seem to be trying to blur that rather important distinction.

	I think I'm making a very clear distinction, one which apparently no 
one else cares to grasp.


	Re .45 -

 >Immensely self serving. "We are categorically and absolutely correct, and
>anyone who does not adopt our beliefs wholesale is wrong." This is utter
>fanaticism...

	My wife told me there is a word for a style of argument that's based
on simply labeling another viewpoint as "something" - and then dismissing it
entirely. 
	
	I forget what that word was, but the way it works is "Oh, (s)he's
just a Bigot, or a Bleeding-Heart, or a Feminist, or a Zealot (or a whatever) 
- Pffft!"

	That's just too *simplistic* a retort. I just dont buy it as "well I 
guess he showed me! *I* must be a fanatic; I better watch that in myself". 
Same as I just dont buy the "you do what you want, I'll do what I want - and 
everything will be Okie-Dokie". If there's anything that's "utter" it is the
carelessness with which people can dismiss something as profoundly important
as is the topic of this discussion and *think* that everything is/will be just 
fine.

	Joe

Re .46

�>correct all the time either. My wife and I just do the best we can. 

>	I understand that any parent "does the best they can with what they 
>have".                   ^^^

	There are alot of parents who DON'T do the best they can.
	They are locked into behavior and beliefs they can't let go of.
	Some spout off and pontificate to others what they themselves
	can't deliver. If they say it enough, they will believe it too.
        Some aren't even aware of their kid's behavior.
    
>What I'm trying to promote is the "what you have" part; that is, 
>   the most up to date knowledge and wisdom around the subject. 
    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^	
	Like your 10 year old book of somebody else's conclusions
	based on their subjective observations? There's a ton more
	where that one came from! Its just like all the diet books 
	for those who aren't happy 'cause they're fat...and after 
	all, its not their fault, is it...(?)

	Like I said back about -40 or so, there is a big-business out
	there catering to those who need to find reasons outside their
	own control for why they feel so unhappy with their lot. 

>The violence out there on the streets will not go away if we just
>huggy-poo with junior and say no 'Discovery Channel' tonight
>when he spraypaints half your car with Rustoleum, or take a
>'time out' when he calls mom a bitch 'cause she won't let him ride 
>his bike on Rte 3.

>	Children who are "huggy-poo"'d by their parents do not spray pain 
>half the family car with Rustoleum; they *ask permission* to use the paint. 

	How do you know this? You go hug all the kids you can and see
	if the violence in our schools, and on our streets stops.  
	And if a kid wants to spray paint YOUR car, I hope he asks for
	permission first.... Right!

>Children whom time is taken out for do not call their mother "a bitch" in
>response to *any* refusal of permission. Those responses are due to something
>else entirely, if anything, they're due to some prior treatment that was
>in fact abusive and/or neglectful. You've got your wires crossed on that one.

	How do you know this? Every kid who has called a parent a
	name when they don't get their way has been abused/neglected? 

	You assume too much. You're wires aren't grounded in reality.

/Bob

.46> Children who are "huggy-poo"'d by their parents do not spray paint half
.46> the family car with Rustoleum; they *ask permission* to use the paint. 
    
    Read a child's psychology book ... what's the #1 reason why kids do
    destructive things?  For attention.  Not for revenge, not because
    they've been spanked, not because they're mad... for *attention*.

Re .47

	>Some spout off and pontificate to others what they themselves
	>can't deliver. If they say it enough, they will believe it too.

	Oh, I'm far from the ideal parent; much of what I say I myself most
need to learn and integrate into my own parenting style! That's why I repeat 
it so often; not to believe it - I've got that part - but to get toward
'walking' it ;')

	>Like I said back about -40 or so, there is a big-business out
	>there catering to those who need to find reasons outside their
	>own control for why they feel so unhappy with their lot. 

	Ah, so you're one of those people who subscribe to the notion of
'control'! I will grant that some, _some_ of one's "lot" is due to their own
conscious choice. Much however, is not. Much, for some people, is more than 
'just' a matter of 'not dwelling on it' or 'just' taking 'control of their 
lives'. For some, it's *the work of a lifetime* to get past issues they have
which are a direct result of what happened in their upbringing.

	>How do you know this? You go hug all the kids you can and see
	>if the violence in our schools, and on our streets stops.  
	>How do you know this? Every kid who has called a parent a
	>name when they don't get their way has been abused/neglected? 

	A lot of what I say is not based on personal experience such as that;
moreso based on what I choose to read and hear. I like to put ideas together,
increase my own understanding, change how I feel about things, get past issues
*I* have...etc. The certainty in the statements I made to which you ask "how do
I know" has its basis in a logical extension I agree with. 

	I've heard John Bradshaw (the guy who does the PBS series...) talk 
about an idea which I've also heard in M. Scott Peck's "Road Less Traveled".
They both quote Carl Jung's (the psychologist) apparently famous statement that
'all neuroses is a substitute for legitimate suffering'. So, what's 'neuroses'?
Referring to a text on Abnormal Psychology (which I'll cite as a referance if
you'd like) neuroses includes: Anxiety, Phobias, Obsessive Compulsions (which
Bradshaw sees as 're-inactments') Hysteria, Hypochondria, and Depression. 
These are all clinical terms.

	Now, from the same text, in the chapter on deliquent and anti-social
behavior, they cite (circa 1975...) that 3-5% of deliquency is 'directly 
connected' to some neuroses. That is, you have some person doing a deliquent
act or perhaps behaving in an anti-social manner; there might well be a thread
going back to a past suffering on their part which was *legitimate*. Bradshaw
sums it up in a statement: 'You beat your children; they're going to beat 
somebody'. Or deface someone's car. Or verbally abuse someone. *I* can 
understand that; how it works.

	What people like Bradshaw and Alice Miller are trying to champion is
an extension of Jung's idea. When Miller writes "feelings of anger,
helplessness, despair, longing, anxiety, and pain _will_ find expression in
destructive acts against others (criminal behavior...) or against themselves
(...addiction, alcoholism...) she's extending the idea beyond a '3-5%' 
textbook quote statistic to include much more.

	>You assume too much. You're wires aren't grounded in reality.

	Do I? The author of "For Your Own Good" apparently thinks *most
people's* 'wires arent grounded in reality', when she makes a statement like:
'Child abuse is still sanctioned - indeed, held in high regard - in our society
as long as it is defined as child-rearing'.

	Re .48 -

    >Read a child's psychology book ... what's the #1 reason why kids do
    >destructive things?  For attention.  Not for revenge, not because
    >they've been spanked, not because they're mad... for *attention*.

	My dog does destructive things to get attention...I think that's just
too simplistic a conclusion. Again, granted _some_ of a child's behavior is
due to simply that. It is unfortunate however to realize that *attention* is
the main ingredient of true love - if you go by M.Scott Peck's definition of
'true love'. 

	I can easily imagine a situation where this is happening and instead
of being loved, the child is physically reprimanded in some 'kind' way - 
perhaps with a rolled up newspaper. The wounding is not done to the flesh per
se; the 'old standby' single whack on the butt leaves no bruise or welt. But
switching contexts for a moment, what 'wound' happens to the childs feelings
when, in pursuit of love, they get instead let's say a 'pretty definite
negative affirmation'? That is, there's no mistaking it as negative.

	Oh, it *is* suffering. It's usually forbidden to be expressed, either
explicitly in a (Oh, stop your whining!) vein, or implicitly when there's just
no one - sister, brother, Grandma - who'll take the time to listen and affirm
how bad - 'legitimize' - this person's feelings. Sister might tease, cause no
one was there for her; brother might say "get lost" because he's not going to
extend himself for the sake of a "little whiny wimp"; Grandma might give the
biggest chance, but she, unfortunately, lives out in the country.

	In the unbearability to experience the pain all alone, the child is
compelled to suppress the feeling, repress the memory and then later...when
it's long disassociated from the original cause...He's out spray-painting cars
and also calls his mother a 'bitch' when she wont let him ride his bike on Rt
3. If you ask him why he does these things, he only hangs his head in
a feeling of shame and says 'I dont know'.

	Joe

The responses are amusing.

I agree with Mike Z's point of view, that the folks that go to the extreme on
both ends have the brats or screwed up kids.

>    I personally know of one man whose father abandoned him before he
>    was born. He never grew up right and has had problems with alcohol and
>    drugs since becoming a teen. 

Lots of people grow up knowing a parent abandoned them and they don't turn out
bad or messed up. I know a man who eats Rasin Bran cereal and he drinks
excessively.  Therefore, Raisn Bran must be bad, no?  Most people that have
commited a crime have also attended school.  We can blame the education system,
no?

JASNIEWSKI, you say the dog books don't advocate hitting or physical methods. 
The dog books I have read do... from hitting with the daily news to throwing
large phone books.  Also, almost ALL dog trainers use the famous CHOKE CHAIN. 
It's a great attention getter!  I bet if you misbehaved and I jerked you with a
choker that you'd soon figure out ... "If I walk ahead of my owner instead of
beside him he'll jerk that choker and cut my air off!"

It's also funny that the people that advocate a 'little spanking' talk about
only ONE slap on the butt.  Right.  You folks are afraid the PC crowd will rip
you up, right?  So you're trying to fake'em out, no?  

I was switched a lot by my mom was I was young.  My dad just laid into me once
when I called him a liar.  I never called him that again.  Lesson learned.  My
son is almost 14. I haven't spanked him since he was 4 or 5... and on the
bottom.  But not just ONE slap.  I'll be honest and say it was more like 3 to 6
slaps on the butt.  Usually, it hurt my hand more than it did him!

I don't believe in hitting in the face.  I get pissed at parents who slap their
children across the face.  If I had a teen that I couldn't control with "words
of wisdom", I don't know what I'd do.  Hopefully, I taught him well as a puppy
and now the choker won't be needed.  But he best not test me... :)

Think about the military.  They are abusive in many ways, according to PC
standards.  They swear, call ya names, make fun of you, and have been known to
use physical abuse.  But they have in place a system that WORKS for them.  Some
people WARRANT special handling, others don't.  Many a F***ed up individual has
joined the military and experienced a BIG behavior change for the best, where a
HUG and a self-help book would have never reached them.  Believe it.

>                -< military training solves problems for many >-

>Think about the military.  They are abusive in many ways, according to PC
>standards.  They swear, call ya names, make fun of you, and have been known to
>use physical abuse.  But they have in place a system that WORKS for them.  Some
>people WARRANT special handling, others don't.  Many a F***ed up individual has
>joined the military and experienced a BIG behavior change for the best, where a
>HUG and a self-help book would have never reached them.  Believe it.


    	This was simply rife with too much material for me to completely
    pass up; for the most part I've only been skimming what's been going on
    in this note, as much of it seems to be repetitious.  This, however,
    takes it to a whole new league.


    	To say that the military has a system which "WORKS for them" is so
    humorous as to be comical.  It's also, in my opinion, a rather
    superficial look at what is a complex system.  If it involves people,
    almost by definition it must be complex -- even the military.


    	To say a system "works" implies that the system is healthy as a
    whole and towards its constituent parts.  Having followed the Tailhook
    fiasco for awhile I think it's safe to say that the military does not
    engender healthy (certainly not non-sexist!) thinking.


    	A couple years ago someone pointed out something which I'd never
    even considered:  you can have two people very happy in a relationship
    but the relationship can be very unhealthy for both of them.  This can
    happen (and does happen) if person A has problem/needs met by person B,
    and in return person B has problems/needs met by person A.  They get
    what they need out of the relationship, but what they *should* be doing
    is eliminating the underlying problems/needs.  Obviously, this scenario
    can be healthy too if persons A and B have *healthy* needs met by the
    other.  The point I'm trying to make at any rate is that just because a
    system "works" doesn't necessarily mean it's healthy.  You have to look
    carefully at the underlying interactions before you can begin to make a
    call like that; you also need to understand the constituent parts.


    	I think the best you can possibly say about the military is that it
    functions.  And I certainly would NOT recommend it to anyone who had
    problems and wanted to solve them.  I don't think the military solves
    very much of anything (except perhaps a minor disrespect for
    discipline); it merely subjugates the underlying problem in favor of
    the discipline and rigid routine.  The problem remains, it's simply not
    noticeable.  For the moment, that is; sooner or later it *will*
    reappear in some form or another.  Feelings and problems don't go away
    until they're dealt with, and I haven't noticed that the military is a
    place that deals with their problems very well.


    	I come from a long line of military people, and when I graduated
    high school my uncle who was then still in the Navy told me not to even
    think about going to Annapolis because of the stuff he saw happening in
    the Navy.  I have heard from other folks the other branches aren't any
    better.


    	How do you know that the "BIG behavior change" experienced by the
    people you know was truly "for the best"?  Personally, I have enough
    trouble deciding what's best for *me* let alone trying to make that
    judgement call for others.


    	No, methinks you are drawing hasty conclusions from scanty
    analysis.



    Brian

    re .52, the military way of training/treating/breaking people certainly
    doesn't work with all recruits.  Nobody will *ever* get me to do
    anything for them by treating me like sh*t.  I was in the WAACS for two
    days when I knew I wanted out.  I eventually got out after 3 months,
    with an extreme resentment for authority, and the military, in general. 
    This was in 1968.  
    
    I think people with problems are just as likely to leave the military
    with more problems, than less.
    
    Lorna
    

    I agree, Lorna. And to whoever wrote the note about the military
    working, remember Tailhook? Would you call that evidence of an
    organization that works?
    
    Eileen

    Tailhook was an example of a situation with no discipline or control,
    hardly representive of a typical military situation.

    That won't stop people from trying to fault the military "system" for
    Tailhook.

>    Tailhook was an example of a situation with no discipline or control,
>    hardly representive of a typical military situation.
    
    Then there was the case of Alan Schindler, brutally murdered because
    his shipmate couldn't wait to get the gay guy off the ship.  Or another
    similar incident which happened when a few soldiers ventured into a
    North Carolina bar looking for someone to beat.
    
    I fear that your argument above may not be true.  These examples may
    be perfect demonstrations of the *problem* with the military mindset,
    which forces people to bend to the will of authority almost all of the
    time and routinely subject themselves to harsh physical treatment.
    
    When they are out from under the thumb of authority figures for even
    brief periods, a good number of military people act out crudely or even
    violently.  Not to paint all of them with a broad brush (I come from
    two generations of military people) but the whole idea of subjecting
    people to harsh physical and psychological treatment does not seem to
    me a good way of turning out model citizens.
    
    -rich 
    Mass Storage Engineering  SHR3-1/W7     DTN:  237-2124
    [email protected]                   508-841-2124

    The US Navy does not and did not advocate murdering shipmates.
    
    I know it's real tempting to somehow fault them for everything that a
    serviceman does, but I must ask, once again, if a DEC employee does
    something wrong, is DEC automatically at fault?
    
    If I go out tonight and run down 20 people in a shopping mall, and I'm
    a DEC employee, do you blame DEC?
    
    If I go out tonight and gun down 10 people in a post office, and I'm
    a postal worker, do you blame the post office?
    
    If I go out tonight and beat a gay shipmate to death, and I'm in the
    do do you blame the Navy?
    
    
    Stop and THINK ...

Re: .57

Yes, I could, if I believed that the employer promoted an atmosphere of
intolerance and/or failed to take action when it knew or should have known
that a dangerous situation was developing.

					Steve

    I believe people have been known to raise children into decent, hard
    working adults both when they have and have not spanked their children.
    My belief is that what is more important than to spank or not to spank
    (and I also believe there is a difference between spanking and abusing)
    is the general atmosphere that a child is raised in.  Treating a child 
    with respect and common courtesy while also setting and requiring
    adherence to defined guidelines is more important than whether a child
    is disciplined through spanking or other means.  A child who is spanked
    but knows the spanking is for inappropriate behavior is less damaged
    than one that is not spanked but is told they are stupid, hopeless or
    other terms that attack the child as a person.  As I have said in an
    earlier reply, I personally feel there are situations that call for
    spanking - but its the behavior I spank for.  Others may be able
    to meaningfully discipline a child in times of danger or when they are
    too young to understand reason but I haven't found it.
    
    In response to the entries about the military and other institutions, I
    agree with those who feel that an adult's actions are the responsibility
    of the adult.  The organizations do not cause the behavior.  The
    Tailhook incident also makes me think of the group of high school men
    in California who are trying to gain points through their sexual
    conquests (can't think of the name of their group).  I can certainly
    see that these high school men could easily slip into the Tailhook type
    of behavior, with or without the Navy.
    
    
    My opinion only, or course.
    Jane

    re:.58, Steve
    
    Probably best to agree to disagree, then.

    
    	Re .50
    
    	I dont consider a "choke chain" and a spanking in the same league
    as measures of control.  There's psychological factors in spanking
    a child that simply are not present in the use of a choke chain
    on a dog.  I keep bringing that aspect up, people participating
    in this discussion keep ignoring that *particular* aspect. Why?
    
    	re .51
    
    	There's scores of F****** people who have gone into the military
    system and who have *not* come out any better as a result too. What
    works, does not mean it is what's best. My continuing theme has been
    that perhaps what we do is not what's best. I find it astounding
    to see people tenaciously hanging onto "what works" and refusing
    to even investigate the alternatives.
    
    I believe the military style of diciplining is simply an outgrowth of
    the ancient and pervasive traditions of child-rearing. They talk about
    "obedience without content" and "punishment without justification" and
    what that does to people in the book I've presented here. As in just
    "obey" - you dont have to know any reason why other than I'm the all
    power authority and you're not. 
    
    	You get someone into that space, someone whom that stuff "works"
    with - and you've got someone *completely* immoral, probably someone
    who would kill upon command; because the cult leader from Waco ordered
    it.

    	re .59
    
    	I'd like to know what "situations that call for spanking - but its 
    the behavior I spank for" means? Specific situations and behaviors.
    Anyone - like, we had one where the child was running into the street.
    Another was (suggested) a child crying in a checkout line. How about
    some more examples?
    
    	Joe
    
    PS - I was on vacation over the last week -

I believe that spanking is OK in dangerous situations, and I have more
examples per Joe's request.  Last night, my 2-year-old daughter decided
that biting the electrical cord that was plugged in would be a fun thing
to do.  Now, I'd consider this behaviour to be rather dangerous, so I 
didn't think the standard time-out was sufficient.  She got a small slap
on the hand, firmly told that she could not chew on electrical cords, and
then got time-out. And she's the kid that usually behaves when you just
threaten time-outs, but for behavior that is dangerous, I think a little
more than standard punishment works better. And she didn't go near the
electrical cord again all night.

My 2-year-old son has gotten slapped on the hand for similar behaviour
like trying to turn on the stove, opening the oven door, trying to touch
the hot stove elements, grabbing a knife off the dinner table and other
things that I consider dangerous behaviour.  And I define dangerous
behaviour as anything they do intentionally that could cause harm to 
themselves or someone else.  For instance, they wouldn't get a slap on
the hand for something that was accidental even if they may have gotten
hurt.