It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Spanking Ban Proposed ~ Massachusetts

page: 2
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 30 2007 @ 02:30 PM
link   
Doesn't really surprise me that this legislation is coming from a state that allows homosexuals to be married.

I'm fortunate that I've never had to spank my children. I've used psychological tactics instead of the switch, for instance; in their younger years when they were in elementary and middle school, I'd always emphasized that they didn't have to study and do well in school. That society needs uneducated people to do uneducated jobs such as flipping hamburgers, cleaning toilets, picking up trash, sweeping the streets, digging ditches, etc.

And when they whined about wanting something I thought they didn't need, I'd tell them to whine all they wanted to that in the end, my decision would not change. Tell them that their whining wasn't going to get them no where with me and no where with anyone else. They were fast learners and were always respectful of others.

Today, the oldest is in college and the younger has never missed an Honor Roll and is accepted to go to Govenors School.

I never played with their minds to see my ends. I just plain out told them how it's going to be.

[edit on 30/11/07 by Intelearthling]




posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 12:21 AM
link   
reply to post by Intelearthling
 



Now thats the way to do it, well done



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bluess
Besides hitting your children is only needed for people who havent got the brainpower to teach their children right from wrong.


I'd have to agree with your assessment. But the issue may be deeper.

Looking at this psychologically. Do you remember a time, not so long ago, when half the nation was willing to go to war to retain slaveowning rights? The militancy in this thread reminds me of the human need to exercise power over lessers, which is above all concerns including how the other human may be affected, thus justification is pitifully subjective.

People tend not to relinquish power without a great deal of resistance and defiance themselves. When it is defiance itself, that they preach to be the need for such power. Rather ironic isn't it? Perhaps in turn the authorities should spank the parents who refuse to stop spanking? That would be a continuation of their logic, although I'm sure they would not be pleased with that.

Which brings me to another issue. Adults have full protection under law not to be physically harmed or humiliated by others. Such is an offense, except in the case of police self-defense and state sanctioned acts such as capital punishment. The method of punishment is incarceration or service. Why would it be, that children, the most emotionally and developmentally vunerable of all human beings, are subject to a tradition that is in complete violation of the rights we give to adults? No doubt there will be some, or rather most, that will supply reasoning and apparent justification, but none of it, especially when tainted with emotion, is valid. It is just a personal opinion. That is where we find one huge discrepancy in society between the rights and perception of adults and children, the latter of which cannot speak for themselves in any equal way and so are subject to nothing but the mercy of a person's parenting skills.

We are left with the truth that there is a large portion of children raised by parents without the brainpower, as you put it, to engage in a physically respectful treatment of their child. And another portion of children, raised by parents WITH the required brainpower to successfully raise a child without giving in to their inadequacies and frustrations to physically assault him/her. That is why we need a standard law that covers all children, and keeps them from the misfortune of an inept parent, thus we have a ban proposed to fill that gap. It's a logical move.

There was a pertinent example of this raised earlier. A parent on the thread told of how the daughter to be physically punished threatened to call a child protection agency. In response she was told that if she did such a thing, she'd be thrown out of her home. I think this illustrates perfectly the inability for children to even engage in their basic rights. Surely the daughter had the right to make the call? It also shows fear and desperation on her part, an emotional response we should not be putting our children through especially when they are dependent and in our care.

It all comes down to power. Those of you who have grown into the habit of exercising your power and militantly defending it, refute the proposition to allow the state to decide whether you should have that power. Thus again as in the 1800s, certain individuals are denied basic human rights and the master over those rights is not the common law, but the individual who beleives he or she has ownership over the lesser individual.

A sad state of affairs, and an entirely unnecessary one considering the emotional impacts, and the effectiveness of intelligent parents who refrain from this behavior.

Love your kids, respect them in all ways, and make an effort to learn how to parent and teach within the parameters of the respect you give.

And a more poignant point? You have the ability also, to end violence in this society, by refusing to teach it.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 11:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR

Originally posted by Bluess
Besides hitting your children is only needed for people who havent got the brainpower to teach their children right from wrong.


I'd have to agree with your assessment. But the issue may be deeper.

Looking at this psychologically. Do you remember a time, not so long ago, when half the nation was willing to go to war to retain slaveowning rights? The militancy in this thread reminds me of the human need to exercise power over lessers, which is above all concerns including how the other human may be affected, thus justification is pitifully subjective.


I cannot beLIEVE you are equating spanking with slavery. That you are equating parenting with slavery. Although I have said on many occassions that I find it ... unfortunate ... that it is easier to become a parent than it is to get a driver's license, I will not support such a ban and wonder rather strongly about the motivations of the persons who DO support it.

If you have EVER truly studied child psychology one of the first things you learn is that children, especially children under the age of about six or seven do not really understand "causality." In other words, they cannot and DO not make the mental connection between "If I do this, then I will have this result." They operate on a more instinctive level. This is where spanking (and by this I mean one or two swats with an open palm on their well-padded behinds -- NOT beating them with a fist or other object such as a belt or switch) can actually have a BENEFICIAL effect. The child DOES equate an activity with pain (actually, most psychologists agree that it is more the "startle" response than actual pain when spanked). This "linkage" -- which is NOT intellectual and does NOT use the same parts of the brain that deal with causality -- is on a more instinctive level and DOES serve to deter the child from repeating the activity in question.

Now, since those who decry physical punishment generally automatically leap to the "monkey see-monkey do" argument that, since I support spanking I must have been spanked as a child, I should mention that -- although according to my mother I was spanked once or twice as a VERY small (< 4 years of age) child. But I don't remember ever being spanked. I *do* remember my mother lecturing me ad nauseum about how something I had done or not done was wrong and why. I also remember once, as a smart-a$$ed teenager, rolling my eyes when she had just gotten started and muttering something along the lines of how "I wish [she] would just hit me and get it over with" and how the punishment I suffered (generally a loss of some priviledge) was about three TIMES what I would've gotten had I just kept my mouth shut. (Proving that even teenagers can forget all about causality sometimes.)

But the point is when a three-year-old is about to stick their hand in a pot of hot oil, saying "Now Johnny, you KNOW you shouldn't do that" is a better response than grabbing their hand, giving it a light smack and saying in a strong, confident tone "NO!"

I do not advocate nor tolerate parents who physically ABUSE their children. But SPANKING does not equate to ABUSE. And I think those people who DO make this equation are both self-deluding and are actually more a threat to their children than parents like mine were who cared enough to ensure that I *did* know what was, and -- more to the point -- what was NOT "acceptable behavior" and enforced those rules in a consistant, calm and confident manner. Raising a child, especially one under the age of six to seven years, is -- in many ways -- similar to the techniques one uses to raise and train dogs. Sorry, but it's true. A good trainer is consistent, calm, confident, and knows when and when NOT to use physical coercion.

So is a good parent.



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 04:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by SteveR
We are left with the truth that there is a large portion of children raised by parents without the brainpower, as you put it, to engage in a physically respectful treatment of their child.

WOW!
It's not about RESPECT !!! It's about DISCIPLINE
and following the rules !!! I think you are trying
to substitute respect for parental love.

Now I am being reduced to a brain-less parent. LOL
While I have to disagree with your expert hypothesis
on the matter. Might I remind you that most parents
have the brain power needed, but don't have time
to play childish games. You know parents do hold
jobs, perform civic functions and mingle in society
as well. Most just don't find the time it would require
to play this mind game with the child, that is unless
of course you are suggesting that we quit everything
that we are doing just to raise children. Which is not
logical when a quick swift backhand to the hiney works
just as well as a 3 hour long mind game. If they both
work, then why should I take the long way to get there
when the short cut provides the same conclusion without
wasting time. Else I could quit my job and my social functions
and my entire life and just stay at home and we could all
starve to death.

I'm gonna continue to spank my children when they
need it as long as I got life in my body until they get old enough
to live on their own outside my household. My daddy told me
a long time ago after he spanked my hiney that it hurt him more
than it hurt me and I said yea right. But when I got older
I realized he was telling the truth as I hate to spank my
kids. And if they never did anything wrong then they would
never need such. But they do, so I do too.

I am a parent and I approve of this message



posted on Dec, 1 2007 @ 05:07 PM
link   
Spanking is a double-edged sword. It is something that can be abuse or not, depending on the child, parents, and circumstances. I'm more concerned about abuse of government power, in them dictating to parents how to raise their children. And sad to say, genuine child abuse is hidden, so that gov't authorities usually end up cracking down on unpopular, eccentric non-mainstream families (i.e. "cults") rather then genuine abusers.

Another horribly non-PC point: smart kids respond better to logical verbal arguments; dumb kids respond better to physical punishment.



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by IAmTetsuo
Spanking is a double-edged sword. It is something that can be abuse or not, depending on the child, parents, and circumstances. I'm more concerned about abuse of government power, in them dictating to parents how to raise their children. And sad to say, genuine child abuse is hidden, so that gov't authorities usually end up cracking down on unpopular, eccentric non-mainstream families (i.e. "cults") rather then genuine abusers.

Another horribly non-PC point: smart kids respond better to logical verbal arguments; dumb kids respond better to physical punishment.


Virtually everthing in life falls into the "Two-Edged Sword" paradigm. I could make a valid argument that the kind of verbal brow-beating proposed by the anti-spanking zealots can cause the same (or worse) mental abuse that has every bit as long-term effects as physical abuse. Just as if you tell a child "You're stupid, you'll never amount to anything" long enough and enough times, eventually they will begin to believe it themselves. I know from personal experience that my own mental image of my body (I'm overweight and I know it) was exacerbated because my mother and sister (neither of them had any weight issues when I was a child) kept telling me over and over how ugly I was because I was fat. They didn't do it "to punish" me, but it had the same long-term effects it would have if they HAD.

Intent is the issue, not the mechanics of the punishment.

And, as anyone can discern just by reading the headlines in newspapers these days, PHYSICAL abuse *IS* being detected more and more these days. Especially since most elementary school teachers are being taught specifically how to look for behaviors that are consistent with physical abuse *AND* to report any suspected cases. Of course, this begs the question of the whole "Big Brother" issue but I'm not going to go there. However, I would also argue that many of these "abuse" cases are blown out of proportion but the mere inkling of suspicion is enough to ruin a family.

Lastly, there is another corrolary to your "dumb kids respond better to physical punishment" statement. In one of the studies I saw, they grouped people into five categories ranging from "Violent Inmates at San Quentin" to "Highly-Educated Professionals" and then had five levels of punishment (from "Never" to "Extreme"). In this "truth table" the "Violent Inmates" reported (self-reported?) that they had experienced 100% of "Extreme" physical punishment whereas the majority of the "Educated Professional" reported nothing worse than "Moderate". The implication from the study was "more someone is successful in life... the less likely they were to have been physically punished as a child or the less severe the physical punishment". Added to this was the corrolary "the more physical punishment, the more likely the person later became a criminal, high-school dropout etc."

I would argue, especially with the new research coming out about the physical differences in brain chemisty and structure between violent offenders and non-violent individuals that these violent tendencies exacerbated the attempts of the parents NOT to impose "Extreme Physical Punishment" and -- rather than the PUNISHMENT being causal of the life-outcome, that the tendency to violence was, in effect, built-in and could
not be exterpated by ANY punishment mechanism, be it ever so benign.

Here's the URL for the latter illustration if anyone's interested. Anti-Spanking Study

Here's a good refutation for anyone interested: Critiques of Anti-Spanking Studies



posted on Dec, 2 2007 @ 03:20 PM
link   
After this long threat... I really hope that some of you, who is so locked in your thinking, swearing "always to hit your children" until the reach a certain age, will be smacked good by your own children one day...

afterall you teach them that if they cross a certain line, you dicipline them by spanking them, so i hope one day you cross their line and they disipline you back...and i hope you will accept this...afterall that is the best way to learn right?

no wonder some people grow up to be violent, when they think "spanking" is the best way to correct someones behavior.

I state again... if you cant talk/shout/explaine your children into learning how to behaive...your kid is already smarter than you



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 10:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by tenryuu
Virtually everthing in life falls into the "Two-Edged Sword" paradigm. I could make a valid argument that the kind of verbal brow-beating proposed by the anti-spanking zealots can cause the same (or worse) mental abuse that has every bit as long-term effects as physical abuse.


Good point. I have been a victim of both physical and verbal/emotional abuse and I can say the latter was worse. And many of the anti-spanking zealots are just single issue zealots who refuse to look at the big picture; many of them have a true agenda of being anti-parent, anti-family, and pro-institution as well. IOW, they don't really give a damn about the children.



Just as if you tell a child "You're stupid, you'll never amount to anything" long enough and enough times, eventually they will begin to believe it themselves.


Similarly, telling a child "your're bad" without telling that child why he was bad, and the nature of his offense, does nothing to shape his moral character. Guilt is another form of emotional abuse.

"You're bad" can mean "I'm a power-mongering hypocrite"
"You're crazy" : "I'm too prejudiced to accept different neurologies"
"You're fat" : "I'm have no love for my own body"



I know from personal experience that my own mental image of my body (I'm overweight and I know it) was exacerbated because my mother and sister (neither of them had any weight issues when I was a child) kept telling me over and over how ugly I was because I was fat. They didn't do it "to punish" me, but it had the same long-term effects it would have if they HAD.


They were probably insecure about their own Hollywood-brainwashed body image, and worried about the reputation of having an "imperfect" sister to ruin their image.



Of course, this begs the question of the whole "Big Brother" issue but I'm not going to go there. However, I would also argue that many of these "abuse" cases are blown out of proportion but the mere inkling of suspicion is enough to ruin a family.


And in many cases, as I mentioned before, accusations of child abuse can be a way to persecute unpopular or nonconformist families, as with the "Satanic Panic" cases in Britain in the early 1990s.



posted on Dec, 3 2007 @ 10:57 AM
link   

Originally posted by tenryuu
Lastly, there is another corrolary to your "dumb kids respond better to physical punishment" statement.


To prevent misunderstanding, I was not saying that "kids should be punished for being dumb". Far from it. Kids need parenting and schooling to reflect their individual needs and brain configurations. They learn differently. And for political reasons, most schools instead punish smart kids for being smart, and have done so for decades.


In one of the studies I saw, they grouped people into five categories ranging from "Violent Inmates at San Quentin" to "Highly-Educated Professionals" and then had five levels of punishment (from "Never" to "Extreme"). In this "truth table" the "Violent Inmates" reported (self-reported?) that they had experienced 100% of "Extreme" physical punishment


Being in prison, and away from their families, they would have little incentive to explain away their abuse as being necessary for their own good. If these same persons were not in prison, or worse ere "upsatnding members" of some community, then they would not likely been so honest in reporting "extreme physical punishment".



whereas the majority of the "Educated Professional" reported nothing worse than "Moderate". The implication from the study was "more someone is successful in life... the less likely they were to have been physically punished as a child or the less severe the physical punishment". Added to this was the corrolary "the more physical punishment, the more likely the person later became a criminal, high-school dropout etc."


Also consider that many of these violent inmates were unwanted as children, unloved, seen only as baggage, etc. And some might have been "wanted" but their parents were unprepared for the awesome challenge of raising a child.



I would argue, especially with the new research coming out about the physical differences in brain chemisty and structure between violent offenders and non-violent individuals that these violent tendencies exacerbated the attempts of the parents NOT to impose "Extreme Physical Punishment" and -- rather than the PUNISHMENT being causal of the life-outcome, that the tendency to violence was, in effect, built-in and could
not be exterpated by ANY punishment mechanism, be it ever so benign.


It might have been genetic, too. These violent children had violent parents who rationalized their violence as proper discipline in the service of society, family, community, God, King, country, etc.



new topics

top topics



 
1
<< 1   >>

log in

join