# Abuse and Consequence (Intent of thread restated in post #8)



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

I have read or been involved with a couple of threads which seem to imply that if parents do not practice GD (i.e., if they spank or are judged to belittle or humiliate their children), that they are guilty of abuse. When I read things like spanking=abuse (which in my mind it logically follows that spankers=abusers) the hair on the back of my neck goes up! In my book, accusing someone of abuse is tantamount to calling someone a criminal i.e., theif, murderer. I think using words like abuse and violence to discribe non-GD parenting choices does a huge disservice to the cause of GD, as IMO it makes GDers look like extremists. A part of me thinks that folks who use such words do so for shock value, a part of me thinks they have different definitions and 'hold the bar pretty low' (i.e., physical discomfort=abuse) and another part of me wonders if they see the definitions the same as me, and really see non-GD parenting as tantamount to criminal activity. Anyway, in my attempt to better understand, I have the following questions. (Note - If you prefer not to answer my questions, please still feel free to participate in the discussion.)

In the confines of discussing non-GD parenting, what would be your definition for violent or violence? (What would be your threshhold for feeling use of the word was approipriate?)

In the confines of discussing non-GD parenting, what would be your definition for child abuse? (What would be your threshhold for feeling use of the word abuse was approipriate?)?

In your opinion, what should be the consequence of commiting child abuse?

Do you think words like abuse and violence can be offensive?

Do you think using words like abuse and violence to describe non-GD parenting likely would be offensive to parents practicing non-GD parenting?

If you use words like abuse and violence in talking about non-GD parenting choices, do you care if others take offense? Would you change your vocabulary if you knew you were causing offense? Is it your intent to cause offense?

Do you think using words like abuse and violence to discribe non-GD parenting styles does a disservice to GD? What do you think the over-all effect is?

I'll go first, though I'm sure my answers will change as I read some of yours...(note - this was harder than I expected!)

*In the confines of discussing non-GD parenting, what would be your definition for violent or violence? (What would be your threshhold for feeling use of the word was approipriate?)*

Intentional inflection of physical or mental injury without regard for the injured. With injury meaning non-superficial harm.

*In the confines of discussing non-GD parenting, what would be your definition for child abuse? (What would be your threshhold for feeling use of the word abuse was approipriate?)*

Inflection of physical or mental/emotional injury, typically with intent, but could also be a result of extreme poor judgement or neglect. With injury meaning non-superficial harm, i.e., in the case of physical - bruising, bleeding, burning, extended or repeated physical isolation, most situations involving physical bondage (some exceptions for health and safety), etc., possibly failure to seek medical treatment and in the case of mental, humiliation with intent to harm, belittling with intent to harm, scapegoating, emotional torture such as inflicting the emotion of extreme fear, emotional isolation, depriving of education. Any sexual contact or use of a child for sexual purposes.

*In your opinion, what should be the consequence of commiting child abuse?*

Tough one as I have limited background on the topic. I think that at minimum the children should be removed or fully supervised by a person without bias towards the abuser until such a time as the abuser can recieve treatment and demonstrate control to abstain from abusive behavior, then probabation/follow-up. As approipriate (which I think is always) legal action.

Less sure of this part, but if a lack of concern/regard for the injured exists, permenant loss of contact?

*Do you think words like abuse and violence can be offensive?*

Absolutely!

*Do you think using words like abuse and violence to describe non-GD parenting likely would be offensive to parents practicing non-GD parenting?*

Absolutely!

*If you use words like abuse and violence in talking about non-GD parenting choices, do you care if others take offense? Would you change your vocabulary if you knew you were causing offense? Is it your intent to cause offense?*

N/A as I would not use them except to describe criminal behavior, at which time I would not care if the 'criminal' took offense. In the sake of truthfulness, I could not in clear conscience use words to deminish their offense.

*Do you think using words like abuse and violence to discribe non-GD parenting styles does a disservice to GD? What do you think the over-all effect is?*

I think it does a huge disservice. I think it closes the ears of persons accross the spectrum (even me, a GDer), and leads to labeling the messenger and the cause as extreme and activist.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Wow, that is a lot of questions!

I do think hitting a child is an act of violence. To me, there is no other word you can put in place that would make sense. It sounds very odd to me to hear things like:

"I hit my child out of love" or "I don't hit them when I am angry so it is okay" etc...

I would actually prefer someone hit their child in anger if they hit them at all --- because it seems more human to me to be very frustrated and upset in the moment and just lash out with a spank on the butt or whatever, then to methodically and carefully plan out your beatings in quiet moments of reflection ---- I DO NOT advocate spanking or hitting AT ALL, but the former would be more *human* (though not acceptable) to me than the latter which seems downright creepy and weird.

I don't think we should paint everyone with a broad brush. There are people who systematically abuse their children and their are people who aren't abusers by legal definition but still commit acts of violence on their children and shame and humiliate them on a daily basis. There are people who may spank their child once every 2 years when they have gotten to the end of their rope, and their are people who use spanking and shaming as regular, acceptable forms of "discipline" in their every day life.

It is dificult to answer the questions you asked without putting people into neat little boxes. I think it is detremental to do that....

I will say though, that hitting is an act of violence. The act of striking someone else, anyone, but especially someone who is completely dependent on you in every way -- even if it doesn't physically "leave a mark" is an act of violence. There is no way to sugarcoat it. The parents may not be violent people by nature, they may be very loving in other ways, they may be fine, stand-up people... but striking another human being is an act of violence. It is not an act of love.

People who strike children are guilty of abuse on my opinion. It may not be the kind of abuse that makes the news or gets children taken away but it is the abuse of someone's love, the abuse of a child's dependence on you, the abuse of trust, the abuse of your size advantage, the abuse of their innocence and of their fundementally right as a human being to be safe in their person and in their home. So yes, they may not be "abusers" in the legal definition.... but people who strike their children, especially ones who think it is an acceptable form of discipline...are guilty of abuse.

I have no problem sharing this opinion to people who strike their children. Of course, it is common knowledge that you start on the soft sell... I would first ask questions, tell them about certain books or what has helped our family etc....but if people take the "spanking never hurt anyone", "they need a good whack" approach or similar... I would have and have had, no problem telling them that they are committing acts of violence on their children.

Other people becoming offended doesn't bother me in the least. What is truly offensive is a 150 lb (or larger) parent striking a 30lb toddler and making excuses to justify it. It is horrible imo.

Anywhoo...


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Way too many questions, so I'll get to the heart of the issue. I think that striking a child in any way is abuse. If an adult strikes another adult they are jailed for it. They should be if they strike a child, too. Emotional abuse takes on so many forms it's not even possible to list and is much more subjective.

I would hope that as adults we've learned that there are other, more loving ways of dealing with our children (and controlling our tempers) than to hit. We don't let OUR children hit another child.............

Using pp's example, how can this possibly be logical in any way????:

30 lb. toddler hits 30 lb. toddler = NOT OKAY
150 lb. adult hits 150 lb. adult = NOT OKAY
150 lb. adult hits 30 lb. toddler = OKAY WTF??????


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *velochic*
Way too many questions, so I'll get to the heart of the issue. I think that striking a child in any way is abuse. If an adult strikes another adult they are jailed for it. They should be if they strike a child, too. Emotional abuse takes on so many forms it's not even possible to list and is much more subjective.

I would hope that as adults we've learned that there are other, more loving ways of dealing with our children (and controlling our tempers) than to hit. We don't let OUR children hit another child.............

Using pp's example, how can this possibly be logical in any way????:

30 lb. toddler hits 30 lb. toddler = NOT OKAY
150 lb. adult hits 150 lb. adult = NOT OKAY
150 lb. adult hits 30 lb. toddler = OKAY WTF??????

Okay, first I want to say that I think hitting another person including a child is ALWAYS wrong. Always.

BUT the argument you made is just not true and does no service to the GD philosophy.

Picture this. A man swats his wife on her backside in anger. No mark left or anything. Do you honestly, in any true way, beleive that if that woman calls the police and describes what happened the man will be jailed? The answer is no.

So saying EVERY hitting of an adult by another will result in criminal charges or jail is just silly. It overstates your case and turns off people who think swatting their child is OK.

Its not OK. Its not OK for the man to swat his wife either but let's not make stuff up to make our case.


----------



## allgirls (Apr 16, 2004)

I have to agree with Maya..it's not that black and white~there is the burden of proof and all. But with regard to public hitting I think there is truth in what you say. The hitter might not be jailed but they could be charged if the adult wants to..they have that recourse.

If we were talking about the hitting happening in front of witnesses..the same crime Man against woman and man against child the law would be different for the first than the second. That's a fact though, in most places.

If I were walking down the street with my DH and suddenly he grabbed me by the arm, twisted it and started swatting me in anger for something I did someone would probably call the police or if I did he would be charged.

If same thing happened to a child the person wouldn't be charged because child was misbehaving and needs the discipline.

In this case identical crime but different punishment only because it's ok to hit little children under the law.


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*

Picture this. A man swats his wife on her backside in anger. No mark left or anything. Do you honestly, in any true way, beleive that if that woman calls the police and describes what happened the man will be jailed? The answer is no.

No, but a woman can leave that man, get a restraining order against him and leave the burden of proof to a civil court decision. Children can't do that. They take their licks and then have to cower the next time they want to express an opinon.


----------



## maya44 (Aug 3, 2004)

I agree with what you are saying in the pp's. My only point was that we must not overstate are arguments.

No one, and I mean no one, will jail or even charge another adult becaue they lightly swatted their spouse on the butt.

So let's not pretend that THAT is the reason why hitting a child is wrong.

Even lightly swatting at a child is wrong because it tells our children that their should be a physical response to another's behavior. It tells them that the ends justifies the means. And it tells them that we have no respect for their physical person.

Let's not make bad arguments to support good philosophy!


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Thanks for the responses so far, but this is not accomplishing what I was hoping, so I'm going to try to redirect. I apologize for all the questions, I thought it prudent to start with definitions, since I think is where I usually get lost. People use terms that I suspect mean very different things to different people. If in my family we call apples oranges, than for me to post about oranges means very little to any of you. I think it goes without saying that we all feel physical punishment is wrong, why else would we strive to practice GD?

Anyway, in attempts to redirect, please focus on responding to whether or not you think it offensive to use terms such as abuse and violence in respect to non-GD parenting choices, whether you think it more often good or bad to use terms like abuse and violent when discussing non-GD parenting, _(recognizing that a given answer does not work 100%, use the threshhold of 51% in making your determination unless you feel it 50/50)_ i.e, does it typically wake people up or typically shut them down, and if you strive to present GD in a non-offensive and non-judgemental way, what do you think the effect of other GDers not doing so (in *your* opinion) has on the overall perception of GD and the receptability of the GD message?


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
No one, and I mean no one, will jail or even charge another adult becaue they lightly swatted their spouse on the butt.

Jailed? Maybe not. Charged? Most likely, if the offended spouse wants it.

About terms: I don't think legal definitions go far enough. I do believe, though, that using terms like "violence" and "abuse" to parents who hit, shame, and belittle their children may alienate them initially. Sugar-coating, however, helps nothing.

I disagree that using the word abuse to describe something lesser than legal abuse trivializes the experiences of children who have been abused in a way that fits the legal definition. The definitions of words are changed through common usage and the hitting, belittling, and otherwise treating children as second-class citizens that goes on in many homes, while it may not have the immediate effect that requires emergency action to protect the child's life, does have a slow-burn effect that grows a damaged adult. As long as we continue to treat that behavior with kid gloves through using terms that convey acceptance, no change will occur.


----------



## Ruthla (Jun 2, 2004)

I have a hard time referring to spanking as "violent" or "abusive."

I've experienced domestic abuse, and I've witnessed loving parents who judiciously use corporal punishment. I don't agree with corporal punishment in any way, shape, or form, but I would definitely NOT define it as "abusive." The dynamic is completely different.

Abuse is about one party (whether it's a spouse or a parent) not taking responsibility for his/her actions: "Look what you made me do" or "If you'd just kept your mouth shut I wouldn't have had to hit you."

Non-GD punishment is when the parent slaps/hits/spanks at a time when taking some kind of action IS appropriate- the child has intentionally thrown sand in another child's face, or broken something he/she was told not to touch in the first place, etc. A GD parent would also step in and "do something" about the child's behavior, but the "something" wouldn't involve hitting the child.


----------



## immortal ambition (Jul 17, 2005)

"No, but a woman can leave that man, get a restraining order against him and leave the burden of proof to a civil court decision. "

In this case she would not be able to get a restraining order (at least in Tennessee)because the man was not convicted of anything. She would not even be able to get an order of protection with nothing more than that happening. You are right she could just leave though.

I dislike people using the words abuse for everything they disagree with. I have seen people calling parents giving their children candy or soda abusive, I have seen people calling parents putting their children in daycare neglectful, I have seen people calling co-sleeping, extended nuring abusive. No matter what side you parent on (more traditional or more alternative) someone who disagrees with you will think you are abusive.

I have spent my life helping children who have been abused. I have spoken at schools to children about these things. I have talked with people who have suffered from real abuses. Honestly it sickens me when people dilute the word abuse. Abuse is a strong word (with a real defenition) and not a word that will change meaning with each persons opinions. It does a disservice to those who have truly been through abuse or neglet of some kind. It ties up the services designed to help those in the situations. It make the general public less sympathetic and willing help to those who have been abused.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *immortal*
No matter what side you parent on (more traditional or more alternative) someone who disagrees with you will think you are abusive.

I have spent my life helping children who have been abused. I have spoken at schools to children about these things. I have talked with people who have suffered from real abuses. Honestly it sickens me when people dilute the word abuse. Abuse is a strong word (with a real defenition) and not a word that will change meaning with each persons opinions. It does a disservice to those who have truly been through abuse or neglet of some kind. It ties up the services designed to help those in the situations. It make the general public less sympathetic and willing help to those who have been abused.

Well said.









While I can see instances where saying that such and such is an abuse of parental authority, I think the word "abuse" has sooooo many conotations, legal and otherwise that it should be reserved for times when truely no other word conveys the message.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
i.e, does it typically wake people up or typically shut them down, and if you strive to present GD in a non-offensive and non-judgemental way, what do you think the effect of other GDers not doing so (in *your* opinion) has on the overall perception of GD and the receptability of the GD message?

I think it shuts them down. It doesn't work; it backfires; the person stops hearing what you are saying once you have attacked them by calling it abuse.

If we are interested in really helping the parents learn better ways of interacting with their children, then, as many previous posters have talked about in other posts, a better approach would be more empathic and sympathetic, connecting with the parent regarding how hard it is to raise children, and being on their side in figuring out a better way together.

If we are interested in feeling righteous anger, then accuse them of abuse. I admit to occasionally enjoying feeling righteous. Maybe its a sign of my own insecurity at times. I think its important to accept that at times I like feeling angry and righteous, and I'm not interested in helping the other parent, I'm only interested in feeling angry and righteous! Once I get that out of my system then maybe I can think of better ways to help the parent.


----------



## charmarty (Jan 27, 2002)

I think there is a line. I do NOT advocate spanking at all and IMO is wrong on ALL levels. But, I am trying to ponder the thought of it being abusive in your POV. I think it def can be. For eg. spanking with a belt of wooden spoon. See the line is SO not set in stone here. imo. I am just having a hrad time explaining when it does become abuse or when it is not, so really in my mind all forms of it is. Inflicting pain on another individual is abuse.

It is like the smoking thing. Either you smoke or you don't. It doesn't matter if you inhale or not.

so, I guess it is safe for me to say I just do not agree with your argument.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Quote:

Inflicting pain on another individual is abuse.
I completely agree. What the other posters are talking about is severity of abuse.

Yes, there are differing degrees of abuse, but I don't think one can say something like "oh, they _just_ hit them on the butt, that is not abuse".

Of course, there are more severe cases of abuse, but it is all abuse.

Where do we draw the line? I mean, under some people's definitions it is not abuse to hit a child but it is abuse if they use a belt. No one would say the same statement if Uncle Johnny showed a young child his penis....no one would say "well, he only showed him/her his penis, he didn't touch him/her...so it is not _that_ bad"....

Yes, maybe rape or some such act would be more severe and would leave bigger scars emotionally and/or physically, but it doesn't make uncle Johnny exposing himself any less violating and it is still abuse in my book.

Somehow though, when it comes to "loving" parents striking their children, there are all these justifications and excuses.

It is wrong. Plain and simple. Intentionally inflicting pain on someone...whether physical or emotional, is abusive behavior....therefore considered abuse to me.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:

does it typically wake people up or typically shut them down,
I'd say it shuts them down. Heck, even calling it "hitting" puts people on the defensive. They argue against it, and their arguments end up making them feel that they are right about it. They go back and tell their friends that some nutso said they were being abusive by swatting their dc. And the friend tells them that's CRAZY.
I too kinda feel funny about all spanking being called abuse. Violence- I dunno. Seems like violence to me. But I definitely think that telling someone who hit their child- in any way, for any reason, that she's being abusive or violent, would make her think you're a fruit loop.

I should say that I'm quite anti spanking. I think though, that "name calling" and judgements aren't going to change many minds. (though I see nothing wrong with calling spanking, hitting)


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

How is it name calling if you are stating a fact?

Seriously, if I say to someone that I feel hitting is an act of violence, or an abusive act and challenge them to put another word in the place of *violence* or *abuse*, it sounds pretty darn silly.

i.e.

Hitting is an act of love. Hitting is a form of teaching. Hitting is a loving act. Hitting is a mature act. Hitting is an act of caring.

Who's the "nutso" then? I mean, if someone told me hitting was an act of love I would be the one leaving thinking they were "off".


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

I'm not saying you are wrong, and I'm definitely not saying that spanking isn't wrong! I'm just saying that a person who spanks their kids, won't see it like that, if you use those words. So, they hear that you consider them "abusive". THEY certainly don't see themselves that way. And such a strong word is bound to accomplish nothing but create defensiveness. I really doubt some lightbulb will go off, and they'll say "oh yeah. That IS abuse."
It is accepted by society as an ok form of discipline. And that needs to change, to be sure. But telling a spanking parent that they are abusive is NOT (imo) the way to change it. What it takes is statements that will make them THINK about how stupid it is to think that being hit will make kids better people (or learn about what's socially acceptable).
Using words like "abuse" and "violence" won't make them think- it will most likely shut them down.

Quote:

Who's the "nutso" then? I mean, if someone told me hitting was an act of love I would be the one leaving thinking they were "off".
true. Me too. But I doubt they'd see how absolutely ridiculous that statement is. (I'm basing this a lot on conversations with my mom, who spanked us a couple times, and a conversation a while back on another board, where I got attacked for saying "spanking is wrong"...and human nature in general)

I totally believe in the way I parent. But, I admit, some of it is, what is considered by others, extreme. And I find that people don't listen to ANY of what I say, simply because I'm extreme. Even though they could get a lot out of some particular advice, I've already been "labeled" as "crunchy" or whatever. So they don't listen at all. They have a preconceived notion. (Not that I'd change who I am, or the advice I give. lol)
And that's the same thing that would most likely happen if you told someone they were "abusive" or "violent"- they'd tune you out.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
It is accepted by society as an ok form of discipline. And that needs to change, to be sure. But telling a spanking parent that they are abusive is NOT (imo) the way to change it. What it takes is statements that will make them THINK about how stupid it is to think that being hit will make kids better people (or learn about what's socially acceptable).

What would those be? I'm trying to think of an example that would actually help change a rigid person's mind.

Sometimes people need to be shocked out of their comfort zone and sometimes that shock has to be something that initially angers them, repulses them. Thinking back, I can't recall one major societal shift in the rights of a group of people that began by coddling the dominant group.


----------



## UnschoolnMa (Jun 14, 2004)

I do not think that calling spanking abuse dilutes the term.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
What would those be? I'm trying to think of an example that would actually help change a rigid person's mind.

Maybe I'm giving people too much credit. Like, they are hitting kids, in the name of discipline, because they simply haven't thought about how ridiculous the entire idea is.

And I'm not talking about coddling, either. I don't think that saying to someone "spanking is hitting. And hitting doesn't solve anything" is coddling. Saying "oh, I can tell that you mean well when you spank your child. There are ways to discipline without spanking" yeah, maybe that's coddling.

I will stand by what I said- that telling someone that they are being abusive by spanking, will only "shut them down" to what you have to say- unless someone who HAS spanked their kids tells me that having that said to them would have made them reconsider spanking. Or knows someone who had that reaction.

I know this has been said before, but if someone told me I was abusing my child by bf'ing him this long, I'd roll my eyes, and continue with the bf'ing- because even if it's abuse to them, its definitely NOT to me. And I'd probably not listen to anything else they had to say- they obviously have very different ideas than I do about what's ok and what's not. I'm not going to stop. But, say, they said something like "kids who are bf'ed that long, don't learn independence." That doesn't turn me off from listening to them. It could be true (not a reason to stop bf'ing though). And it might make me think about other ways I could try to foster his natural inclination toward independence. (not MAKE him independent, but LET him be as independent as he wants to be)

gotta cut this short- ds is having quite the demanding day (and night last night- ugh that's rough!) lol


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
How is it name calling if you are stating a fact?

I think for something to be seen as factual, it needs to be something which can be proven without a doubt, or something which all involved parties can agree on. For example, my parents are Christians and believe somethings to be 'fact' that to me are opinion or faith. In the case of spanking, while true all (I think) GDers see spanking as ineffictive, I'm not sure much beyond that is recognized as "truth"...now bring in the non-GDers and all bets are off!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
Sometimes people need to be shocked out of their comfort zone and sometimes that shock has to be something that initially angers them, repulses them. Thinking back, I can't recall one major societal shift in the rights of a group of people that began by coddling the dominant group.

I'm glad this came up. I was thinking about this too and I hope this thought spurs more discussion. What does change the views of a society? How do major societal shifts take place? Does it "take all kinds"? Are those who so offend me with their 'offensive ways' doing my 'dirtywork'? While I strongly advocate for being non-offensive and for working in peaceable ways and for working within the legal system for change, I am willing to discuss that may not be enough. I worry sometimes that I am so 'politically correct' that if I lived 150 years ago that I would be one 'advocating' for the 'humane treatment of slaves' without seeing the irony of the stance.


----------



## immortal ambition (Jul 17, 2005)

" Plain and simple. Intentionally inflicting pain on someone...whether physical or emotional, is abusive behavior...."

I disagree with that. If that were the criteria for what was or was not abuse than just about everyone in the world would be considered an abuser. How many times have you seen someone say a little comment just to hurt someone else (I see it on the net alot)? How many times have you been frustrated and said something to a spouse or relative just to get to them or fire them up? How many times in an argument have you brought out everything from the past that you could think of to hurt the other person? Most people have done that at least once in their life. That would be intentionally hurting someone, that may be wrong, but it would not be abuse.

also what about people who don't think they are harming another person therefore not making it intentional harm. Is it not abuse then? What about a pedophile who believes that they are just having a consentual relationship with a child?(There are many who believe this) Someone who pierces their childs ears? Many people spank, but they don't believe it is harmful, they believe it is improving their children to make them better stronger people.(I don't believe this myself but I know some who do) So according to your criteria it would not be abuse because they are not intentionally harming. What about people who nurse their 4 year olds. Many people believe that is harmful emotionally bordering on sexual abuse. Do that mean it is abusive because the mother is intentionally nursing...or not because she herself does not believe it to be harmful? What about this situation. My son is allergic to milk, overall we don't eat dairy, but his favorite pizza at the health food store has dairy on it. I buy it for him when he wants it. He knows it will most likely give him a stomache ache, but he wants it anyway. I am buying it knowing it will cause him to suffer. Does that make me abusive?

I stand by my first post. Abuse is based on definition not opinion.


----------



## charmarty (Jan 27, 2002)

Quote:

How many times have you seen someone say a little comment just to hurt someone else (I see it on the net alot)? How many times have you been frustrated and said something to a spouse or relative just to get to them or fire them up? How many times in an argument have you brought out everything from the past that you could think of to hurt the other person? Most people have done that at least once in their life. That would be intentionally hurting someone, that may be wrong, but it would not be abuse.

Not according to this...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abuse

Quote:

I stand by my first post. Abuse is based on definition not opinion.
Something we DEF. agree on.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Okay, hitting a child is _not_ abuse...I'll bite if you can tell me exactly what hitting is?

Love? Respect? A learning opportunity?

I mean, what exactly is hitting or name calling or shaming....what nice, friendly, non-threatening term should we all be using then?

Loving parents who strike their child when they can't be controlled by threats or shame or punishment?

as in...

"I saw some loving, caring parents threaten and shame their child and then when the child wouldn't obey, they hit her/him"...

I know your post was meant for me to sit up and think "heyyyy, I have hurt people in my life...but I am not abusive!!" ...but unfortunately, the people I have hurt knowingly or intentionally (few I hope) have been abused by me. It is abusive behavior to hurt someone...

Um, and I think the whole scenario of the sexual abuser not knowing it is wrong is a moot point. If sexual abusers didn't know they were doing wrong, they would openly touch children or speak openly to other adults about their attraction towards children or whatever and wouldn't threaten or shame or scare or convince the children not to say anything. I think we can all agree those behaviors are ones of premeditation and are acts of someone who knows their behavior is not right or acceptable.

The pizza scenario... I am guessing you don't buy the pizza, NOT tell your child what is in it, then shove it down his throat then laugh when he feels a stomachache. I am guessing you probably say something like -- sweetie, you know dairy makes your tummy not feel right and this pizza has dairy in it... and I am guessing he actively chooses to take his chances and eat the pizza anyway... so that is not considered abuse to me...

I have never heard of a child bending over and choosing to get beat or hit by their parents.

Children who are hit and shamed and yelled at and threatened and basically scared into submission don't have choices. The act of taking away someone's right to live peacefully WITHOUT being hit by another human being is an abusive act. The fact that everyone deserves to live with some dignity and choice over who puts their hands on their body, and that parents left and right violate that choice with a violent act of hitting them may not be abusive by nature, but are committing abusive acts.

....and I stand by that. Abusive is defined by the person being abused, not by the person committing the abuse. If it FEELS like abuse to the person being hit, it IS abuse.... and I haven't met one child in my entire life, who has said that it "felt like love" when their parents were hitting them.


----------



## charmarty (Jan 27, 2002)

CC you hit it there girl!


----------



## immortal ambition (Jul 17, 2005)

Quote:

If sexual abusers didn't know they were doing wrong, they would openly touch children or speak openly to other adults about their attraction
Some do not believe it is wrong, they know it is illegal...but those are two different things. Knowing something is illegal and believing it is wrong do not always go hand in hand. Spanking is legal, but many feel it is wrong. Smoking pot is illegal but many feel it is ok. The coersion and manipulation they use to keep the child quite are from the fear of the laws not from the fear they are harming the child.( I am talking about pedophiles here not child molesters).

Have you ever heard of NAMBLA (North American man/boy love assosiation)?

They believe it is consentual for men and boys to have "relationships. They want the laws changed. They are some frightening people as I have delt with some through the court systems. They truly believe that they will eventually get the laws changed.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Okay hold the phone.

Consentual means that BOTH parties are consenting. I am seriously to believe that say, an 8 year old boy WANTS to have sex with grown men? Hmm... I don't buy it...when one party is consenting and the other party is being manipulated, lied to, shamed, and abused...it is not consentual.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
the hitting, belittling, and otherwise treating children as second-class citizens that goes on in many homes, while it may not have the immediate effect that requires emergency action to protect the child's life, does have a slow-burn effect that grows a damaged adult.

I haven't read all the responses yet, but I want to say that I hate this idea. I think it's very offensive to call someone "a damaged adult", especially considering a majority of Americans are raised in a hitting household. Parents who genuinely believe that they're going to raise their children without ever sending the wrong message, responding in the wrong way, or losing their temper are either insane or still pregnant with their first kid. But calling the result of being human "abusive" and the result of being raised by a human "damaged" is unfair and unrealistic.

So I guess I think it's offensive and unhelpful to attack corporal punishers as "abusers". It's easy to get on your high and mighty horse and say that those parents are just lazy, selfish bullies. I know, I've been on that horse before. But I think the truth is that they're just doing the best they can out of genuine love for their children. In fact, I'm thinking right now that it's true, people do sometimes spank out of love, in a way. They love their children and want them to "turn out" and when they see them misbehaving they fear that they won't unless they're punished, or they get angry that they're not "turning out".


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
How is it name calling if you are stating a fact?

Seriously, if I say to someone that I feel hitting is an act of violence, or an abusive act and challenge them to put another word in the place of *violence* or *abuse*, it sounds pretty darn silly.

i.e.

Hitting is an act of love. Hitting is a form of teaching. Hitting is a loving act. Hitting is a mature act. Hitting is an act of caring.

Who's the "nutso" then? I mean, if someone told me hitting was an act of love I would be the one leaving thinking they were "off".

Very well put.


----------



## Talula Fairie (Jan 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *maya44*
Picture this. A man swats his wife on her backside in anger. No mark left or anything. Do you honestly, in any true way, beleive that if that woman calls the police and describes what happened the man will be jailed? The answer is no.


Actually, in California where I live, almost all reports of domestic violence require the spouse to be arrested and taken to jail, usually only for a night. The state charges all reports of domesic violence, they are required to by law even if the spouse does not want charges filed. It's likely that in the case you speak of the man would be just given a slap on the wrists, so to speak, and given anger management courses or something. And the woman could get a restraining order if she decided to leave on the basis of having been hit; it's not as if there are no punishments for what you speak of. So legally, it's still considered abuse. At least, that's the way the law is here.

To the OP...I do think that hitting, all hitting, is abuse. My mother hit me my entire life, until I was old enough to defend myself and make her stop. She would hit me repeatedly, and even had thrown me to the ground, grabbed my hair then dragged me accross the floor, kicked me, ect. She never left a mark. You can't honestly believe that because I was not injured severely (not visibly bruised usually, not burned, ect) that I was not abused? What she did left serious emotional scars, and has made my own life difficult. I have serious issues with rage (for which I've sought therapy) and it's a struggle to control myself and not hit my child in anger. I don't want to continue the cycle of abuse.

So, in short, I feel that hitting IS abuse. ALL hitting IS abuse. And it's wrong. Would I tell someone who spanks I think they're abusive? Probably not, unless I suspected more severe abuse than just a swat on the butt and I knew them personally. I do see where you're coming from in feeling that if we get too "preachy" with GD that we will turn people away; but it doen't change the facts. Just like saying that formula is inferior to breastmilk is technically offensive to people who use formula; saying that spanking is abuse is offensive to people who spank. But that doesn't make it any less true.


----------



## AntoninBeGonin (Jun 24, 2005)

Interesting thread. I read all the posts.

All hitting is abusive. Sometimes what you say to someone else is also abusive. I agree w/a PP that abuse is defined by the person recieving the abuse, not the person dealing it.

As far as calling a parent who spanks "abusive" I also agree that would do more to hurt the situation by offending them to the point of not listening to you. I think it would be better to say something like "I really disagree with you hitting your child. I want to talk to you about this..." Of course, this approach would work best if you (the GD-er) is constantly ready to give a very thorough explanation of GD and maybe hand out some pamphlets.

Just an idea.

ETA: I'm someone who can sound very authorative. If I told someone I wanted to talk to them, they'd know I wasn't screwing around LOL.









~Nay


----------



## velochic (May 13, 2002)

Well in response to many previous posts, if I had a husband that hit me every night for spilling my milk, or getting into a t.v. show and not listening or not picking up my clothes, I would consider him abusive. Why is the definition different when it's a child?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Abuse is defined by the perspective of the abused. He who dissents to an action done against him is violated. The pov is determined by the "victim", not the intent of the force.

In a consensual act, there is no possiblity of the abuse/victim/violator matrix. It is the act of dissent which creates the act of violation. Abuse is the event of having no recourse but to consent or accept or experience the violation. An action that is imposed against another's will is a violation.

Just as I can't say what is or isn't abuse "according to GD", the parent can't say what is or isn't abuse "according to the parent". It is according to the individual, who dissents. (before they are indoctrinated to believe "it is for their own good" or because "the parent knows best").

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Damn it, I misspelled consensual ...I put a T in there...

What a dork...


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I only scanned, but I got the gist of this thread...

Well, if I'm following your logic, Polpot wasn't all that bad. I mean, he wasn't Hitler or anything. Calling those murdered by Polpot victims of "mass murder" sure lessens the term for those who were murdered under Hitler's regime...









If you're so eager to protect the feelings of those "really" abused by keeping the term "abuse" pure, why are you willing to belittle the experiences of those whose power, self esteem, and freedom are stolen from them on a regular basis by their parents?

Just because someone's experience of demeaning, demoralizing behavior inflicted on them by their parents doesn't hit _your_ radar, why would you categorically dismiss the experiences _that_ group of people?

I'm asking you these things as a person who was severely abused as a child. In no way do I feel that "lesser" abuse than what I have seen is "not" abuse. That's a bit silly IMO.

It's a very complicated thing, how children cope with abuse. To the therapist who works with abused children, you should know this.

Some children may have very high threshholds for abuse (as I somehow seem to have), and can be a mostly functional adult. My therapists have all been floored at the level of abuse I endured after they meet me.

Other people have very low threshhold for abuse inflicted on them. It doesn't take much violation for them to lose their grip on reality, and let their coping mechanisms take over permanently.

Why are _you or anyone else_ the judge of what that level of violation is that harms or damages any one person, other than yourself?

Better to call it what it is and work to stop it all.

To somewhat answer your original questions... I think that if someone is offended that we call their hitting of their children abuse, then that's between them and their conscience.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I haven't read all the responses yet, but I want to say that I hate this idea. I think it's very offensive to call someone "a damaged adult", especially considering a majority of Americans are raised in a hitting household.

I call it factual.







A person who thinks that it's appropriate to hit a small child who is totally dependent on them and has no means of defending him/herself is absolutely damaged. And I am damaged. It's been quite a chore for me to remove the impulse to hit from myself.

Quote:

Parents who genuinely believe that they're going to raise their children without ever sending the wrong message, responding in the wrong way, or losing their temper are either insane or still pregnant with their first kid. But calling the result of being human "abusive" and the result of being raised by a human "damaged" is unfair and unrealistic.
I don't know many people who believe that they're going to get their children through to adulthood without ever responding in the wrong way. I'm not sure how that fits into this thread as I've not seen anyone say it. We're talking about violence toward children (or, to use the PC term, spanking). And I don't think that being violent toward a child is a "human" quality. I think it's something that happens to people - it's a value that is perpetuated from generation to generation and becomes so entrenched that it overrides the instinct to protect.

Quote:

So I guess I think it's offensive and unhelpful to attack corporal punishers as "abusers". It's easy to get on your high and mighty horse and say that those parents are just lazy, selfish bullies. I know, I've been on that horse before. But I think the truth is that they're just doing the best they can out of genuine love for their children. In fact, I'm thinking right now that it's true, people do sometimes spank out of love, in a way. They love their children and want them to "turn out" and when they see them misbehaving they fear that they won't unless they're punished, or they get angry that they're not "turning out".

You're assuming a lot. I wouldn't call many parents who spank lazy, selfish, or bullies. I do think they're confused and either too frustrated or too proud to think outside the box. They're probably also lacking in self-awareness because they're not questioning their own behavior. They're just taking it as a given that they somehow inherently know how to do this very important, very complicated job. I'm sure they love their children, but spanking is never a loving act.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:

I haven't read all the responses yet, but I want to say that I hate this idea. I think it's very offensive to call someone "a damaged adult", especially considering a majority of Americans are raised in a hitting household.
So just because it happens all the time it's OK?

Really?!

Does that mean that it would be helpful to the cause if more people were _really_ traumatized? I mean, that way those who are suffering from a typical upbringing would comparatively not have been abusive. I guess all the effects I still deal with would just vanish if the average level of abuse went up???


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

Great Post Aira... I especially liked this comment:

Quote:

I think that if someone is offended that we call their hitting of their children abuse, then that's between them and their conscience.

Again, I ask, where do we draw the line? There was a time not long ago...and even to this day many people think this way... that if a woman invites a man into her apartment, kisses him, lets him fondle her etc... and yet does not want to have sex, that it isn't rape if he goes ahead and rapes her anyway ...because well, we all know that sometimes no means yes right? ....disgusting...

That is the same vibe I am getting from this discussion regarding hitting...the old, *well, if it doesn't leave a mark* and "you have to stop the behavior some way* or *it is a DIAPERED butt, it doesn't hurt" or "the parents DO hit in love, they don't know any better" etc and so on...or a husband grabbing a wife's arm in a moment of anger is not as bad as slapping her face etc...

It is wrong. Striking someone is wrong. It is an act of violence and an abusive act.

It is not up to me to make someone feel really good about hitting their child....if they feel offended perhaps they shouldn't be committing such an offensive act. Yes, instilling fear in another individual by physically striking them with hands meant for caressing and loving them, is offensive to me...


----------



## umami_mommy (May 2, 2004)

what was the point of this thread? i keep looking for it and i can't find it.

as a former therapist i can assure you that many adults severely abused as children will insist that they were not in fact abused and they deserved it since they were such difficult children. many victims of childhood abuse blame themselves.

in a legal sense (in NY state) abuse means that you have put your child's life in danger more than one time. if you have broken your child's arm once, but not twice, it is not abuse. it is neglect.

is that the socially agreed upon definition of abuse? of course not. why is the law like that? my good friend who works for the ABA in their center for children and the law told me that the reason is because so many families would fall into any lesser definiton of abuse, that the state would never have a place for a tenth of the kids who would have to be legally removed from their parents. kinda revolting eh?

but still, i'm scratching my head over what the meaning of this thread is other than trolling.


----------



## sunnysideup (Jan 9, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
To somewhat answer your original questions... I think that if someone is offended that we call their hitting of their children abuse, then that's between them and their conscience.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Too many questions, but I'll try to respond to the ones I think are the most important.

In the confines of discussing non-GD parenting, what would be your definition for child abuse? (What would be your threshhold for feeling use of the word abuse was approipriate?)?

Random or rage-driven verbal or physical actions directed at a child. Verbal or physicalaction that is the result of a parent's inability to control their reactions.

In your opinion, what should be the consequence of commiting child abuse?

I can't answer that question because there are too many variables in situations. As a former social worker in foster care and adoption, I can say that there isn't one set of criteria that works in all circumstances.

Do you think words like abuse and violence can be offensive?

Well yeah. Of course.

Do you think using words like abuse and violence to discribe non-GD parenting styles does a disservice to GD? What do you think the over-all effect is?

Yes. I think the effect is that people come across as holier-than-thou and tunnel-visioned.

I don't spank and I don't advocate spanking. However, I don't see a swat on the rear end as abusive. I think that abuse is about more than just an isolated action. Abuse is a climate. People can spank without being abusers. I think that they could find better parenting tools, but I don't think that every spank is an act of abuse. Once again, there are too many variables to say that something is ALWAYS one thing only.

Namaste!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:

To somewhat answer your original questions... I think that if someone is offended that we call their hitting of their children abuse, then that's between them and their conscience.
Well, that's a nice sound bite, but I have been accused of abusing my kids because we are vegetarians, because we are Buddhist, and because we used cloth diapers. If I were offended by these comments, would it be between me and my conscience?

People use the word abuse too lightly.

Not everything that isn't good is abusive.

Namaste!


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:

If I were offended by these comments, would it be between me and my conscience?
Yes.

I have also experienced this. I am not offended.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:

Does that mean that it would be helpful to the cause if more people were _really_ traumatized? I mean, that way those who are suffering from a typical upbringing would comparatively not have been abusive. I guess all the effects I still deal with would just vanish if the average level of abuse went up???
Okay, off to Target's Big Sale and get me some duct tape, wooden yardsticks, extension cords, wire hangers.....did I miss anything?
My kids are gonna be the most gentlest ppl on this earth when I am through with them.









Quote:

In your opinion, what should be the consequence of commiting child abuse?
I guess, from what I have gleaned from pp's, beat the living







: out of them and then they'll be non-abusive parents.

Quote:

It is not up to me to make someone feel really good about hitting their child....if they feel offended perhaps they shouldn't be committing such an offensive act.
ITA.


----------



## charmarty (Jan 27, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Well, that's a nice sound bite, but I have been accused of abusing my kids because we are vegetarians, because we are Buddhist, and because we used cloth diapers. If I were offended by these comments, would it be between me and my conscience?

People use the word abuse too lightly.

Not everything that isn't good is abusive.

Namaste!

I agree with that. Ppl do use the word too lightly. I do not think that it is used too lightly when it comes to causing ANY kind of harm to a child intentfully, however.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

So would _unintentionally_ but repeatedly dropping cigarette ashes on your child be abuse? I mean, if the parent just wasn't thinking about it?

What about those whose intentions are not to harm, but to "teach", or "discipline", to "show love" by hitting?

Are those who believe their actions are helpful to their children not abusers _because_ of their intention? Are their children any less burdened by the consequences of being hit?

What about the moms who kill their babies thinking that they are saving them from God's wrath or something? Did they abuse their kids when they killed them?


----------



## immortal ambition (Jul 17, 2005)

Quote:

Consentual means that BOTH parties are consenting. I am seriously to believe that say, an 8 year old boy WANTS to have sex with grown men?
I did not say that you needed to believe that. I said that some believe that, and strongly. According to the definition that many have given here they said abuse is "intentionally" inflicting pain on someone else. Therefore by that definition unintentional pain, or something you are doing intentionally but that doesn't cause pain wouldn't be abuse. By that definition a man that believes it is consentual is not abusing. Fortunately there is a law and it clear on this so that no matter what that person's belief is, it is illegal. Just to be clear I don not agree with the definition that abuse is intentionally harming someone else. I think that cuts off whole groups of the abused.

Quote:

"Polpot wasn't all that bad. I mean, he wasn't Hitler or anything. Calling those murdered by Polpot victims of "mass murder" sure lessens the term for those who were murdered under Hitler's regime"
Not sure what you mean on this. Murder is a pretty clear cut law. You have one person who killed another person. Yes there are degrees. There are degrees to everything even abuse under the law. I am not sure how it would lessen the word murder since they both qualify under the actual definition. One was not legally murdering people while the other was illegally doing it. They are both breaking laws.

Quote:

Just because someone's experience of demeaning, demoralizing behavior inflicted on them by their parents doesn't hit your radar, why would you categorically dismiss the experiences that group of people?
I could ask you the same thing. Just because someone's parenting goes against your personal belief why do you feel the need to label the whole group of people as abusive?

Quote:

Why are you or anyone else the judge of what that level of violation is that harms or damages any one person, other than yourself?
Exactly, you are labeling something abusive, how can you judge that. A single person can only have an opinion on it. I am not even debating that spanking is wrong. I am very agianst spanking. I am disagreeing that it is abuse under the definition/law .When the laws/definitions change to include spanking under the title of abuse I will back that.

Is anyone here actively trying to get those laws changed? Is anyone doing anything to stop spanking? I teach a class to parents at risk of abusing. Not everyone can learn better ways to parent on their own. It is a skill some need to be taught. It is a skill most want to learn that they just don't have the resources or knowledge to get it. The one thing they need is understanding. You are trying to teach someone to go against something that they feel is right. Most have not even had the thought that there is another way. How would it benefit these people to call them abusers and belittle them and send CPS/police to their house? Doesn't it make more sense to work with them and teach them a better way? Would it be better to have all children who have been spanked taken from there homes and sent to foster homes.

Quote:

You're assuming a lot. I wouldn't call many parents who spank lazy, selfish, or bullies.
But if you believe spanking is abusive how can you not think those parents are bullies or selfish. That doesn't make sense. I believe those who abuse are selfish and bullies. Why is it easier to call someone abusive than to call them selfish or bullies. That tells me more than anything that the term abusive is losing it's power and becoming just a new label for everything we personally believe is bad.

Quote:

It is not up to me to make someone feel really good about hitting their child....if they feel offended perhaps they shouldn't be committing such an offensive act.
I have seen this argument used many time against extended breastfeeding. So since some are offended. Some believe it is harmful to children. I guess this should also be considered an abusive act.

Quote:

as a former therapist i can assure you that many adults severely abused as children will insist that they were not in fact abused .
That is why I have a problem when people define abuse by saying it is abusive if the person feels they are abused. Some here have defined it that way. I disagree with that definition. Many, many people (children and adults) are being severely abused and do not feel that they are. They feel it is nornal, or they feel that is the way life is meant to be. Do you have any idea what it is like to listen to a 4 year old boy tell you about being raped almost daily and saying it just as a matter of fact not realizing that it is something strange at all.So if the definition of abuse is only if a person feels abused then that little boy would not be abused. I diagree with that.

This is my last post on this. I have no desire to change opinions as I believe everyone is intitled to theirs. Pretty much I think if I continue to post I will just be repeating myself and...well that makes for a pretty boring conversation.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
What about the moms who kill their babies thinking that they are saving them from God's wrath or something? Did they abuse their kids when they killed them?

Honestly, someone who did this would have my compassion, because I believe that person would be suffering from mental illness. Just like Andrea Yates. Until you have suffered from something like that (or PPD with auditory hallucinations, like I did), don't be so quick to cast stones at people. Calling someone like that an abuser might make YOU feel better, but it won't address the roots of the problem.

It does not offend me that some people think that we shouldn't be allowed to raise our kids Buddhist because we are condemning them to hell. It does offend me that they are so rude as to say something that inflammatory, no matter how strongly and deeply they hold that opinion. I feel the same way about labeling spankers as abusers.

Namaste!


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *honeybeedreams*
what was the point of this thread? i keep looking for it and i can't find it.

...but still, i'm scratching my head over what the meaning of this thread is other than trolling.

One more attempt...I think using terms such as abuse and violent to describe parenting styles other than GD is extremely offensive to those who choose to parent in other ways (and even to some of us who practice GD parenting!). As an advocate for GD, I think it sad that the GD message is so often presented in a way that comes accross as judgemental, holier-than-thou, extremist and offensive and is thus dismissed by the very audiance which it should be working to 'convert'. I think it safe to say that over 50% of those on this board do see physical punishment as abuse, but I was trying to determine if those same persons could also entertain that presenting the message in that way might do harm to the cause of GD.

I got the following defination for gentle from Merriam Webster Online:
1 a : belonging to a family of high social station b archaic : CHIVALROUS c : HONORABLE, DISTINGUISHED; specifically : of or relating to a gentleman d : *KIND, AMIABLE* -- used especially in address as a complimentary epithet <gentle reader> e : suited to a person of high social station
2 a : TRACTABLE, *DOCILE b : free from harshness, sternness, or violence*
3 : *SOFT, DELICATE*
4 : MODERATE

I think it ironic and unfortunate that people advacating for GENTLE discipline, be so abrasive, harsh, and ungentle in their approach. (and yes, I recognize that is a very offensive thing to say.)


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *immortal ambition*
Not sure what you mean on this. Murder is a pretty clear cut law. You have one person who killed another person. Yes there are degrees. There are degrees to everything even abuse under the law. I am not sure how it would lessen the word murder since they both qualify under the actual definition. One was not legally murdering people while the other was illegally doing it. They are both breaking laws.

Well, except they weren't breaking laws when they were doing it. They had redefined murder in their society to not include the killings of their victims.

Quote:

But if you believe spanking is abusive how can you not think those parents are bullies or selfish. That doesn't make sense. I believe those who abuse are selfish and bullies. Why is it easier to call someone abusive than to call them selfish or bullies. That tells me more than anything that the term abusive is losing it's power and becoming just a new label for everything we personally believe is bad.
I don't understand your reasoning here. I believe that people spank for all sorts of reasons: some because they are bullies, lazy, selfish, yes. Some because they feel they have to in order to raise a "well-behaved" child, because they have a view of children as their property and not as distinct individuals, because their parents spanked them and it's what they know. I think hitting another person, when not necessary for self-defense, is always an abusive and violent act. That doesn't mean that everyone who does is a selfish, lazy bully. And I just can't see how saying so waters down the word "abuse."

Really, it seems to me that people who claim that saying that spanking is not abuse are, themselves, attributing to children a lesser status than adults.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

And, btw, you're right about this:

Quote:


Originally Posted by *immortal ambition*
I am disagreeing that it is abuse under the definition/law .When the laws/definitions change to include spanking under the title of abuse I will back that.

I think many of us would argue that the law will never change until people start viewing spanking as abuse.

Quote:

How would it benefit these people to call them abusers and belittle them and send CPS/police to their house? Doesn't it make more sense to work with them and teach them a better way? Would it be better to have all children who have been spanked taken from there homes and sent to foster homes.
Is anyone actually advocating this? I haven't seen it.

Quote:

So if the definition of abuse is only if a person feels abused then that little boy would not be abused. I diagree with that.
I think people are saying that if an act that society doesn't consider abusive is perceived as abusive, then it's abuse. Acts like raping a child are almost universally perceived as abusive (the exception being those who are doing the raping), so the perception test wouldn't really come into the equation.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
I think it ironic and unfortunate that people advacating for GENTLE discipline, be so abrasive, harsh, and ungentle in their approach. (and yes, I recognize that is a very offensive thing to say.)

I see your point, but I think you should realize that we aren't all out in the world pointing our fingers at non-GD parents, yelling "ABUSER! ABUSER!" We're on a GD board discussing GD and also discussing the consequences of non-GD parenting. It's natural that we should let out our honest feelings out here in more candid language.


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

Haven't read all the posts, but I would like to state foremost that I do not believe spanking is the proper or ethical way to parent. But I am still trying to figure out my stance on the questions asked, and will continue reading. I did however want to make a few comments before reading further. This in particular made me think of something:

Quote:

I dislike people using the words abuse for everything they disagree with. I have seen people calling parents giving their children candy or soda abusive, I have seen people calling parents putting their children in daycare neglectful, I have seen people calling co-sleeping, extended nursing abusive. No matter what side you parent on (more traditional or more alternative) someone who disagrees with you will think you are abusive.
It reminds me of all the times that I had friends while growing up who were very well taken care of and not IMO "abused" in any way. Their parents absolutely loved them and struggled with raising them in the best way they knew how. Probably all of them spanked at least on occasion. Several of my friends ran away (temporarily) or even called CPS on their own parents for "abusing" them. I recall them telling me of their parents' offense and sympathizing that it was indeed unfair, but secretly thinking to myself "OMG- they called CPS for THAT!?" Meaning, that as spanking has fallen out of favor it has been stigmatized to the point of children turning on their parents for any transgression - be it an isolated swat on the back of the head for sassiness or belt to the rear for breaking a window. As opposed to beating a child out of anger or frustration without having a lesson of some sort involved.

Furthermore, I have been swatted at least a handful of times. I have even been hit with objects other than a hand, and maybe even once or twice far too hard to be considered okay in any circle, but I would never in a million years think of or call my parents former "child-abusers". Naturally, that would be highly offensive to either of them. I'm sure at the time, I seriously considered that it may be abuse, but that's exactly my point. Parents that really do mean well and are inherantly "good" parents run the risk of getting lumped into the category of child-abusers when their own children hear that any spank, any time, is child abuse.

Quote:

What would those be? I'm trying to think of an example that would actually help change a rigid person's mind.
I was having a conversation with my BIL the other night. I completely disagree with most of his parenting styles. This includes his choices to spank, use shame to discipline, and embarrass his children in public. But during the conversation, he sincerely got across to me the capacity of his love for his children. He confessed to me that he usually feels like a complete failure as a father, but that the fact that he doesn't have them full-time, coupled with his own upbringing with an abusive father has made parenting a struggle for him. His biggest fear is that his children will grow to believe that he doesn't love them.

IMO, his parenting techniques are no where near to what _I_ have found to be successful. But I could not think for a second that he is intentionally "abusing" his kids, if in fact the way he treats them could be labeled as such. If it can, then I certainly wouldn't consider his mind - as an abuser - "rigid". Not after this conversation. He is contientious of his parenting flaws, he just doesn't know how to fix them. Before the conversation, I probably would have considered his mind quite rigid. But that's just the thing. I can't have this personal conversation with every supposed child-abuser/spanker in the world, and I will never be given opportunity to come to that kind of conclusion about every single supposed child abuser/spanker in the world.

So what would give me the right to judge?









P.S. I reserve the right to change my opinions at any given time


----------



## SunRayeMomi (Aug 27, 2005)

Quote:

Acts like raping a child are almost universally perceived as abusive (the exception being those who are doing the raping....
This may be neither here nor there, but it is my understanding that a person who rapes another person can understand it is abusive at the same time as they are committing the abusive act. Then again, I may be wrong. But I can see how a person can understand something for what it is yet still want to do it or have difficulty controlling their impulses to.







:


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Calling someone like that an abuser might make YOU feel better, but it won't address the roots of the problem.

Wow! You sure are making some whopping assumptions. I also feel compassion for everyone involved in abusive situations - Andrea Yates and all. Even _my_ abusers. But your or my compassion does not change the fact of what abuse is.

You also don't have a clue about the current or previous state of my mental health. It might make _you_ feel better to villianize me for having no compassion or some such thing, but then you wouldn't know what you were talking about...


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Just to follow up on the "if you feel abused, then it was abuse" train of thought, I don't buy that at all. I know plenty of people who blame others for things so that they can avoid taking responsibility for themselves, and I think that people absolutely can manufacture victimhood.

I know I did as an angsty teenager.

Namaste!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Ok Aira. Sorry if I got ahead of myself.

Namaste!


----------



## Niamh (Jan 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
You also don't have a clue about the current or previous state of my mental health. It might make _you_ feel better to villianize me for having no compassion or some such thing, but then you wouldn't know what you were talking about...

Wow. Using words like 'villianize' for the gentle tone that Dharmamama took with her post is a pretty broad stretch. Sometimes conversations take a funny turn on the internet because you can't see the person you're having the conversation with and it's easier to give out angry responses over a blind web.

For the record, I (and I could be wrong) don't think Dharmamama was villianizing you at all.


----------



## Niamh (Jan 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *natensarah*
I haven't read all the responses yet, but I want to say that I hate this idea. I think it's very offensive to call someone "a damaged adult"

Hate the idea or not, it's not on shaky ground. If you were really abused as a child, you are a damaged adult, at least until you work it all out.

I am a "damaged adult". I am working on fixing myself, but I'm certainly not afraid of the label. It gives me strength because I've put a name to my issues, and that makes it more beatable and less feared.

Of course, painting with too broad a brush (every child who was ever swatted will be a damaged adult) won't work with this label, but correctly labeling those who were abused as 'damaged adults' is not offensive. After all, they didn't damage themselves.


----------



## famousmockngbrd (Feb 7, 2003)

Also on the subject of who gets to define an act as abusive - it doesn't make sense to say on one hand, "society sees this act (i.e. child rape) as a clear cut case of abuse, so your opinion (as the victim) is irrelevant", then turn around and say at other times, "We as a society generally accept this kind of behavior (i.e. spanking), but since you (as the victim) felt it was abusive, it was abuse." Which is it? Is it society's call, or the victim's? Sometimes one, sometimes the other? That's too arbitrary, we need more clear cut definitions of what abuse is, and is not. Not to say that there is no room for shades of gray, but to leave it all up in the air as a matter of perception makes it too hard to enforce, legally or even morally.


----------



## irinam (Oct 27, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
People who strike children are guilty of abuse on my opinion. It may not be the kind of abuse that makes the news or gets children taken away but it is the abuse of someone's love, the abuse of a child's dependence on you, the abuse of trust, the abuse of your size advantage, the abuse of their innocence and of their fundementally right as a human being to be safe in their person and in their home. So yes, they may not be "abusers" in the legal definition.... but people who strike their children, especially ones who think it is an acceptable form of discipline...are guilty of abuse.


I completely agree. I do not really care for legal definitions in this case either.

To me spanking is a violation of basic human rights, not a "non-GD parenting choice"

I don't consiously do unto others as I would not want to be done unto me (and spanking does fit into that)

And just because beating me till I bleed would hurt me more than slapping me without leaving any marks, does not make the second option any more acceptable


----------



## charmarty (Jan 27, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *irinam*
I completely agree. I do not really care for legal definitions in this case either.

To me spanking is a violation of basic human rights, not a "non-GD parenting choice"

I don't consiously do unto others as I would not want to be done unto me (and spanking does fit into that)

And just because beating me till I bleed would hurt me more than slapping me without leaving any marks, does not make the second option any more acceptable


----------



## cottonwood (Nov 20, 2001)

"I don't agree with corporal punishment in any way, shape, or form, but I would definitely NOT define it as "abusive." The dynamic is completely different."

I am just really trying to wrap my mind around this. I keep thinking, what if someone were to decide that I needed punitive discipline, and that this should consist of causing me physical pain, and that I would not be able to avoid it. Would I feel this to be abusive? Would I feel it to be violating? Yes. Would I be less likely to regard it as such if I was younger or weaker or if the punisher was someone who also felt love for me? I don't believe so.

Someone pointed out that people in therapy who were spanked as children tend to feel that they deserved it. People in abusive relationship often feel this way as well. They feel it's their fault on some level. But how exactly does it follow then that it's not abuse?

To answer the OP, of course it matters how we present our case to abusers. I can see how someone who thinks spanking is a good thing would take offense at being regarded as abusive and that they would automatically close their ears. On the other hand, I don't know why they would bother stopping unless they came to see that it was abusive. If it's not abusive, what does it really matter whether you do it or not?


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Niamh*
Hate the idea or not, it's not on shaky ground. If you were really abused as a child, you are a damaged adult, at least until you work it all out.

Well, I don't think I phrased this very well. I'm saying that most Americans, who were spanked as children, do not consider themselves damaged, or at least any more damaged than anyone else.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Niamh*
I am a "damaged adult". I am working on fixing myself, but I'm certainly not afraid of the label. It gives me strength because I've put a name to my issues, and that makes it more beatable and less feared.

Okay, you can say that about yourself. But you don't think someone would be offended if you told them they were "damaged"? I would. I don't think of myself as damaged, that implies to me something that should be rejected.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Niamh*
Of course, painting with too broad a brush (every child who was ever swatted will be a damaged adult) won't work with this label, but correctly labeling those who were abused as 'damaged adults' is not offensive. After all, they didn't damage themselves.

Oh, wait, I think we're saying the same thing here. I guess the operative part of what you're saying is that you label YOURSELF damaged. Not that someone else has labeled you damaged.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Niamh*
Wow. Using words like 'villianize' for the gentle tone that Dharmamama took with her post is a pretty broad stretch.

Gentle tone? Well.....

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Until you have suffered from something like that (or PPD with auditory hallucinations, like I did), don't be so quick to cast stones at people. Calling someone like that an abuser might make YOU feel better, but it won't address the roots of the problem.

I suppose I could have said I was being called a "stone-caster who elevates myself by calling others names" but I thought we'd all agree that "villian" was close enough. Sorry.

----------------

I might ask that if validating your experience of abuse has been so powerful and beneficial to you, why would you deny that validation to others whose abuse you don't think is important?

I mean, what if say, your abuse was less severe than Sally's abuse and she thought you were just making a big deal out of nothing... Would her opinion make your suffering any less real? Would it make your validation and naming of your suffering any less potent?

Do you find that thinking to be as self-centered as it appears in that example?

-----------------

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Niamh*
Of course, painting with too broad a brush (every child who was ever swatted will be a damaged adult) won't work with this label, but correctly labeling those who were abused as 'damaged adults' is not offensive. After all, they didn't damage themselves.

I'm with you that saying so is not offensive. But I can't follow you to the idea that some damage is not damage. How far does it have to go before it's damage?

Well, my car got scratched and dented up the other day, and I'm not that pleased about it. It wasn't totaled, so does that mean that I won't be having my car repaired? I mean is it damaged, or not?


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
I call it factual.







A person who thinks that it's appropriate to hit a small child who is totally dependent on them and has no means of defending him/herself is absolutely damaged.

I thought you were referring to the abused, and I don't like calling anyone damaged, child or adult.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
I don't know many people who believe that they're going to get their children through to adulthood without ever responding in the wrong way. I'm not sure how that fits into this thread as I've not seen anyone say it. We're talking about violence toward children (or, to use the PC term, spanking). And I don't think that being violent toward a child is a "human" quality. I think it's something that happens to people - it's a value that is perpetuated from generation to generation and becomes so entrenched that it overrides the instinct to protect.

Well, I took your argument to mean that any person who had ever been spanked was damaged, so I guess I misunderstood. While I've never spanked my dd, I've roughly set her down a few times, yelled at her, and occasionally said things that were not very nice. Is she damaged? By your definition, I would say yes, and that's why I say that we must all be damaged, because no parent is perfect.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
You're assuming a lot. I wouldn't call many parents who spank lazy, selfish, or bullies. I do think they're confused and either too frustrated or too proud to think outside the box. They're probably also lacking in self-awareness because they're not questioning their own behavior. They're just taking it as a given that they somehow inherently know how to do this very important, very complicated job. I'm sure they love their children, but spanking is never a loving act.

Or they have a whole lot of societal pressure to spank. And I totally agree that spanking is never a loving act, but I do think it's done out of love.


----------



## Danae (Jan 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Niamh*
Hate the idea or not, it's not on shaky ground. If you were really abused as a child, you are a damaged adult, at least until you work it all out.

I am a "damaged adult". I am working on fixing myself, but I'm certainly not afraid of the label. It gives me strength because I've put a name to my issues, and that makes it more beatable and less feared.

Of course, painting with too broad a brush (every child who was ever swatted will be a damaged adult) won't work with this label, but correctly labeling those who were abused as 'damaged adults' is not offensive. After all, they didn't damage themselves.


I too find it offensive to call someone who was abused as a child a damaged adult. IMO calling myself damaged is just allowing the people who abused me to win. If I am damaged then everything they said is true. That no one would ever want me because I am damaged goods, etc...

Also, I believe that hitting a child or anyone else is abuse. I have not used the word abuse when talking to people who spank because when I say "You hit your children?" the point seems to be made very well using the word hit. Most of the time they will say "NO, I just spank them (swat, whup, etc.".


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

About the idea of "false victimhood"...

In my mind it's pretty clear that a person who claims victimhood where there may be none is absolutely seeking validation for some abuse somewhere. Perhaps if we allowed them the validation of their "real" experiences they would not have a need to be heard about their suffering by fabricating victimhood where it isn't.

I also think that they fell into that mental role by actually identifying with being a real victim. I don't believe that one can pull that out of the air without having some first-hand understanding of what it feels like to be violated.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Danae*
I too find it offensive to call someone who was abused as a child a damaged adult. IMO calling myself damaged is just allowing the people who abused me to win. If I am damaged then everything they said is true. That no one would ever want me because I am damaged goods, etc...

Alternatively, admitting to yourself that you are damaged allows you to fix yourself. That's empowering. At least I think so.


----------



## Danae (Jan 18, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
Alternatively, admitting to yourself that you are damaged allows you to fix yourself. That's empowering. At least I think so.










Of course I can only call upon my experiences but, for me it was just realizing that I was just as good as everyone else despite being abused. The other people I have met along the road to "recovery" thought the same way I did. I think damaged has a very negative connotation and implies that something is wrong with you when in fact the abuser is the one that has something wrong with them. Does that make sense? Not trying to say that I am right.

*Also, I believe that admitting you are damaged in order to fix yourself is way too similar to 12 step mentality which I do not believe in or agree with...jmho


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I make a big distinction between "damage" and "value".

I am no less valuable by having been abused. I am not a worse person, or unworthy of anything.

I can't deny, however, that my psyche is not the happy, blissful place I was born with the potential of having. I can clearly see where I am affected and how it might not have been were I raised in a more loving home.

That is damage.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I'm with you that saying so is not offensive. But I can't follow you to the idea that some damage is not damage. How far does it have to go before it's damage?

Well, my car got scratched and dented up the other day, and I'm not that pleased about it. It wasn't totaled, so does that mean that I won't be having my car repaired? I mean is it damaged, or not?

But people aren't cars! We're flexible, we're resilient, we're not valued by the Kelley Blue Book. Is it "damage" or "character"?


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

What exactly are you saying? That because people and cars are not the same, people can not be damaged?

The poster I quoted and responded to agreed that people are indeed damageable. We are speaking in terms of degrees here.

Please try to keep my words in context.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I make a big distinction between "damage" and "value".

I am no less valuable by having been abused. I am not a worse person, or unworthy of anything.

I can't deny, however, that my psyche is not the happy, blissful place I was born with the potential of having. I can clearly see where I am affected and how it might not have been were I raised in a more loving home.

That is damage.

That's exactly it. Thanks for stating it so eloquently.


----------



## Fuamami (Mar 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
What exactly are you saying? That because people and cars are not the same, people can not be damaged?

The poster I quoted and responded to agreed that people are indeed damageable. We are speaking in terms of degrees here.

Please try to keep my words in context.

I'm trying, I'm trying! I'm just not sure what you mean. Maybe we're using damaged differently. To me, it has a very negative connotation, as in something you should unequicivocally reject. Maybe you're thinking of it more as something you can repair. But I don't get that feeling.

I'm arguing that every person in this world has been "abused". There is no one that has not been violated by another person, especially in the narrow definition set forth by pps. Therefore, we are all "damaged". None of us is able to get to the happy blissful place in our psyche. So I think it's a negative way to look at people, and I think most people would be offended if someone else referred to them as damaged. I am not trying to minimize anyone's personal suffering whatsoever, if someone wants to call themselves damaged, so be it. Just don't call me damaged.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Abusive is defined by the person being abused, not by the person committing the abuse. If it FEELS like abuse to the person being hit, it IS abuse....


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Just because someone's experience of demeaning, demoralizing behavior inflicted on them by their parents doesn't hit your radar, why would you categorically dismiss the experiences that group of people?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *immortal ambition*
I could ask you the same thing. Just because someone's parenting goes against your personal belief why do you feel the need to label the whole group of people as abusive?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Why are you or anyone else the judge of what that level of violation is that harms or damages any one person, other than yourself?


Quote:


Originally Posted by *immortal ambition*
Exactly, you are labeling something abusive, how can you judge that. A single person can only have an opinion on it.


OK. Sorry I forgot to address this hours ago...

I said something to a friend of mine a long time ago, and I think it's appropriate now. The person being shat upon has the clearest view of the ass.

The person _being abused_ has the right to sit in judgement of his/her abusers, because they have the best view of what's going on - with some exception, meaning that person's denial coping mechanisms are active.

Enough of us have collectively noticed that certain things like hitting and shaming have consistently harmful effects on us humans. And so we strive to stop it from happening to others who aren't yet mature enough to know what is happening to them, or to speak up.

Hiding this overwheming evidence of harm behind "Who are you to judge me?" or "We do what works for our family." does not change the facts of human behavior and psychology.

It also doesn't make those of us who speak out about this noticable harm "judgemental", no matter how much you want it to be the case.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I make a big distinction between "damage" and "value".

I am no less valuable by having been abused. I am not a worse person, or unworthy of anything.

I can't deny, however, that my psyche is not the happy, blissful place I was born with the potential of having. I can clearly see where I am affected and how it might not have been were I raised in a more loving home.

That is damage.

Sorry to be obnoxious and quote myself...

But this is what I mean, natensarah.

I think that when a person is violated and the situation is handled promptly and in a healthy way, damage is nullified. I am certainly not a perfect mama, but when I violate my son in any way, I apologize and take other measure to allow my son to process what happened between us. I hope he has incurred minimal damage because of this. I hope that he learns to do this processing for himself someday, and will not suffer the same effects that I have when he enevitably gets violated during his life.

Hope that clears up what I'm talking about. I know it's confusing with several aspects of "damage" being discussed simultaniously!!


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

*


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
please focus on responding to whether or not you think it offensive to use terms such as abuse and violence in respect to non-GD parenting choices,

I would rather stick to pointing out the violence of certain actions and words, how those actions harm self and others. And yes, sometimes it will offend. But sometimes, handled tactfully, it doesn't. I think using the term "abuse" or "violence" offends and puts people on the defensive, it doesn't help and the same point can be made while avoiding the use of those particular words.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
whether you think it more often good or bad to use terms like abuse and violent when discussing non-GD parenting, i.e, does it typically wake people up or typically shut them down,

I think the term "abuse" and "violence" with regard to widespread and socially accepted parenting practices shuts people down. These are words that are, IMO, unlikely to result in someone hearing my POV nevermind being open to it or changing their own mind/practices. I don't think they wake people up, or jolt them into epiphany about their actions, and I think the point can be made without them provided we take the time and care to do so-and are willing to hear the other person, to understand them, to see their humanity. This can be difficult though. I am about to use the term "violent", and I think there's a good chance it will offend people and I'm torn about using it but frankly I can't at the moment think of another way to say it....and if anyone can handle it and remain open, MDC moms can.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
and if you strive to present GD in a non-offensive and non-judgemental way, what do you think the effect of other GDers not doing so (in *your* opinion) has on the overall perception of GD and the receptability of the GD message?

(Donning flame proof suit...) I think that in discussing the parenting choices of others, it is easy to become just as violent as the violent acts one is discussing and criticizing-through a judgmental approach and through words and through viewing people as merely the sum of their faults rather than seeing their full humanity ("Can you believe what she did?! She's cruel, and she's stupid. That is so abusive. Don't parents read books and educate themselves? She isn't trying hard enough. She's lazy and selfish."). Violence occurs in word, in thought, and in deed-not just physical acts of aggression and harm. I see this often and I feel very sad when I see it. I have been guilty of it myself. I am uncomfortable with simply labeling certain acts as violent or abusive and making this openly clear to all around me. I am uncomfortable with this simply because it does not actually address the root of the problem, the reasons people behave in violent ways, and thus does not lead to much in the way of change. We can address the violence in parenting on an individual level, and I think this will help when done with compassion (not wet-noodle approval, but with true concern for the welfare of _everyone_ involved), but it is not just an individual problem-it is also a societal problem that also needs to be addressed broadly. The violence we see in parenting reflects our society's values regarding children and the fact that our society in general does not value children, but merely pays lip service to valuing children. The violence we see in parenting also reflects the violent nature of our society in general. And one cannot end violence with violence, not even with the violence of word or thought. (Stepping off soapbox, flame away







)


----------



## umami_mommy (May 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
but I was trying to determine if those same persons could also entertain that presenting the message in that way might do harm to the cause of GD.

why not just say that then?

i'm mystified by the presentation of this issue in this way.

why not just come out and say "i feel really offended by the way the message of gentle discipline is sometimes presented in this forum."

what is it you are wanting instead? maybe if you state that, it would be clear what the point of this thread is rather than people just fighting about spanking being abuse or not.

i think offering threads like this just encourgages the kind of exchanges you are saying offends you.

just my .02.


----------



## umami_mommy (May 2, 2004)

famousmockngbrd,

i love your sig quote, it cracks me up every time i see it.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *honeybeedreams*
i think offering threads like this just encourgages the kind of exchanges you are saying offends you.


Honeybeedreams, thank you for saying that.

I was coming here to post something similar. Last night I was tired and hanging out online and really got sucked into this weird discussion - totally feeling like I was on mainstream.com. I woke up this morning with a fresher brain and am horrified that this discussion is taking place on MDC!!!

Why are we even exploring the question of whether spanking is abusive????

Did we forget about the stickies at the top of the forum?? It's a given in these parts that all hitting of all children is abuse.

Now if the OP wants to talk about the potential value of sugar-coating the facts to avoid offending spankers, that's one thing. But the turn this has taken is shocking to me.


----------



## *LoveBugMama* (Aug 2, 2003)

Do I think it is offensive to use the words abuse and violence when talking about nonGDparents?

That very much depends. Are we talking about parents that shame theirs kids? Do they use timeout? Do they yell? Do they use consecuences I would never use?

Or, do they hit their child? Maybe even with an object? Maybe even in public?

If tthe first is the case,then yes, I think it can be offensive.

If it is the latter, then no. To tell a person who is hitting a child that hitting is abuse is NOT offensive in my book. It is the truth. And, I am fortunate enough to be living in a country where it also is illegal to hit a child. So here most people will actually agreee with me that hitting is abuse/violence.

There are different degrees of violence. A spanking is abuse, beating the crap out of a child so it bleeds is worse abuse. Swatting a childs bottom is violence, breaking a childs leg because you threw the child across the room is even worse violence.


----------



## umami_mommy (May 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *CrunchyTamara*
Do I think it is offensive to use the words abuse and violence when talking about nonGDparents?

That very much depends. Are we talking about parents that shame theirs kids? Do they use timeout? Do they yell? Do they use consecuences I would never use?

Or, do they hit their child? Maybe even with an object? Maybe even in public?

If tthe first is the case,then yes, I think it can be offensive.

If it is the latter, then no. To tell a person who is hitting a child that hitting is abuse is NOT offensive in my book. It is the truth. And, I am fortunate enough to be living in a country where it also is illegal to hit a child. So here most people will actually agreee with me that hitting is abuse/violence.

There are different degrees of violence. A spanking is abuse, beating the crap out of a child so it bleeds is worse abuse. Swatting a childs bottom is violence, breaking a childs leg because you threw the child across the room is even worse violence.


umm, yeah, but what's your point? i must be missing it.

i find it interesting though that research suggests that children are more emotionally damaged in the long term by timeouts than spanking (straightforward spanking on the rump).

so if we follow the idea of "worse" abuse, maybe we at MDC should be advocating spanking over timeouts, since children are less damaged by it in the long run.







:

i just don't get the "worse" abuse line of thinking... what is the point of ranking abuses?


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *honeybeedreams*
i just don't get the "worse" abuse line of thinking... what is the point of ranking abuses?

No kidding!

********
Editing to add that the following is meant to agree with HBD, not directed toward her!! (I reread it and it's worded as if I'm arguing against her point that I very much agree with...)
********

As if anyone could know the extent of the harm done to another person... If someone has a low threshhold and gets badly effected by subtle shaming and such, who are you to say that they were not? Are you suggesting that they are weak beacuse they were hurt deeply by something that might not cause so much hurt to another person?

And on the contrary, if someone has a very high threashhold for abuse, and can handle quite a bit of mistreatment without showing outward signs of it, are you suggesting that they are OK because it didn't really effect them, because you can't tell??

WHY ARE YOU (editorial) THE JUDGE OF ANY OF THIS?????


----------



## freestyler (Jan 28, 2005)

I cannot believe spanking or hitting could be considered anything BUT abuse. Not in my reality system! I sure consider it abuse!! But more to the point of the OP's questions, I think there is a lot of distance on the spectrum between those who spank and those who practice GD-type parenting. Gads, the questions imply that not to be GD is to hit your kids! That simply is not true. Maybe some parents are not GD folks, but that does not mean they are the ones hitting their child if the child "throws sand in a kid's face, or breaks something" or whatever. But maybe those parents will have a reaction in those cases like, "OK, go take a time out and I don't want to see you for 30 minutes/5 minutes/the rest of the morning." It is not spanking, and is also isn't very nice, and it also is not GD, so where on the spectrum WOULD you put it? Somewhere in the middle, right? Let's try to remember that there are more parenting styles than just "GD" or "non-GD." Labeling people and parenting, and dividing the world into two simplistic camps, is convenient if you're setting up exhibits in a zoo or a museum, but not very good for real life. That sort of thinking might do everyone involved a disservice and cause more animosity than anything else. Suddenly it's the us-against-them mentality, right? I mean, if we don't want us-against-them with our kids, why do we set ourselves up for that thinking with other parents? Does that make sense?

Also, I think the term gentle discipline is very sensitive and very very open to interpretation!! Saying someone is NON-gently disciplining their kid is bound to get them defensive. It implies that they are being the opposite: rough or violent or cruel. Well, to someone who grew up in a truly abusive home (i.e., parent hit with belt, bloodied their nose occasionally, beat them, didn't listen and belittled and yelled or bodily threw them into their room, etc.), once someone from that background becomes a parent, maybe they go out and educate themselves JUST enough to NOT repeat those samme behaviors. Maybe they still yell at their own kid a little bit, and once in a blue moon belittle something by accident. Not very GD, right? But to that parent, I think they will think they are doing one hell of a good job!! I think they will think "Damn, I sure did work hard to overcome the terrible influences of my parents. I never have hit my children, I am gentle and loving and a good listener 95% of the time, I do not lash out in anger. I am such a gentle parent!! Especially compared to the way I was parented!"

Can you begin to imagine what it takes for people to overcome an abusive background and parent well themselves? Are we gonna say those people are not being GD type parents? In their minds they are! Let's remember the huge spectrum there is and that people will have their own perceptions of where they fit on it, largely based upon their upbringing. If those parents are lucky, they'll find a GD board and hang out on it, and learn about an even more "extreme" kind of kindness and gentleness. But remember that until they come into contact with a GD forum or book or other source, they are not likely to see that being even more gentle is a possibility.

Anyway, that's my two cents. There really is more to parenting than GD and non-GD.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

I guess, like the manners thread, sometimes saying nothing or only that which is true is preferrable to the whole tamale of one's truth. One can say hitting is violence. But if the goal is to advocate for the needs and voice of the child, helping to give voice to the child doesn't need to say outright that hitting is abuse either. There is a way to say that *the child is hurting*, rather than "_you_ are abusing the child". The action of the hitting is less of the issue than the effect on the other person. The underlying need that prompted the hitting still exists. Just as it exists when a child hits others. Helping someone to find a more constructive method of meeting their underlying need is not facilitated by judging the action, whether adult or child. Focusing only on the child's experience, doesn't facilitate finding an alternative way to meet the parent's underlying need.

The parent doesn't have access to other conflict resolution tools. Providing new tools helps the child. Helping the parent to see the experience of the child helps the child. Judging the parent doesn't help either.

Helping doesn't judge. Judging doesn't help. Neither parent, nor child. It is the same philosophy when applied to adults beyond self-control as it is when applied to children beyond self-control. Meet the underlying needs in constructive, mutually agreeable manner.












































Pat


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Jumping in late to say this, but...

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
It is not up to me to make someone feel really good about hitting their child....if they feel offended perhaps they shouldn't be committing such an offensive act. Yes, instilling fear in another individual by physically striking them with hands meant for caressing and loving them, is offensive to me...

I'm not talking about whether hitting kids IS abuse or not. Or that it shouldn't be expressed that way to someone who is hitting their kids.
What I'm saying is that IF you do use the words "abuse" and "violence" I don't see any way that that could do more good than using other (less extreme) words to get your point across, AND imo, it will do harm in most situations. The person will tune you out.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I think that if someone is offended that we call their hitting of their children abuse, then that's between them and their conscience.

sure. I'll agree with that. I agree with it a lot- I see it often. BUT offending them is NOT the way to get them to stop hitting their kids! (or anything else, actually- cio, circing, vaxing, etc)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
On the other hand, I don't know why they would bother stopping unless they came to see that it was abusive. If it's not abusive, what does it really matter whether you do it or not?

We decided against spanking when we hadn't ever considered it abusive. It's just wrong to hit anyone. That's all. I don't think it has to be labeled "abusive" in order for it to be "wrong."
Actually, dp thinks that hitting kids to get them to "be better" is about the most ridiculous thing he's ever heard. So I guess we could add that to WHY people would stop spanking (or never spank, in some cases), even if they didn't necessarily consider it abuse- it just plain doesn't work.


----------



## dharmamama (Sep 19, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy*
So I guess we could add that to WHY people would stop spanking (or never spank, in some cases), even if they didn't necessarily consider it abuse- it just plain doesn't work.

I actually think that some of the reason people continue to spank their kids (and I don't mean just the same kids getting spanked repeatedly, I also mean new groups of parents who decide to discipline with spanking) is because it DOES work ... in a very limited way, yes, but it does accomplish the parent's objective of getting the kid to stop whatever they are doing right now. Not all the time, of course, but frequently enough that parents see it as a success. Yes, it can have very bad long-term consequences, but many times parents who are in a tension-filled moment aren't thinking long-term. They are thinking, "He needs to stop that right now!" I have never spanked my kids (or any kids) but I can certainly relate to that feeling. Unfortunately, not everyone is going to think long-term all the time. I know that yelling at my kids is no good, but occasionally I raise my voice to them in frustration. Sometimes my "need"/desire for an immediate solution takes precedence over my knowledge of long-term results.

I think the same is true of some parents who spank, and I think this is one of the reasons why people continue to spank even though there is a lot of evidence that it "doesn't work."

Namaste!


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

OK, I wasn't very clear about that quote above... I'm not suggesting in any way that anyone go up to a spanker, point, and say "Abuser!!" or anything remotely of the sort. I was more addressing where the notion came up (somewhere in here) that we shouldn't even _call_ spanking abuse so as not to offend. And I believe that if someone gets offended by hearing it called what it is, then they indeed are deeply aware of what they are doing.

I do not get offended by someone telling me I'm abusing DS by using cloth dipes, or eating macrobiotically, or not taking him to church. Annoyed for sure, if they get nasty and pushy - but not _offended_. That is a very specific thing.

I know as well as anyone that parents must overcome tremendous odds to treat their children better than they were treated. I would never suggest that parents be ridiculed or shamed for their struggles.

But I will not avoid calling mistreatment and abuse what it is when discussing it.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *honeybeedreams*

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
but I was trying to determine if those same persons could also entertain that presenting the message in that way might do harm to the cause of GD.

why not just say that then?

i'm mystified by the presentation of this issue in this way.

why not just come out and say "i feel really offended by the way the message of gentle discipline is sometimes presented in this forum."

what is it you are wanting instead? maybe if you state that, it would be clear what the point of this thread is rather than people just fighting about spanking being abuse or not.

i think offering threads like this just encourgages the kind of exchanges you are saying offends you.

Touché! Hindsight is 20/20. I tried to be very specific so as to narrow it down, so as to focus the discussion on the effect of offensiveness to the cause of GD, I failed (MISERABLY!) As for "why not just say that"&#8230;.I have many times, but it seems to come across as my being thin-skinned or defensive or advocating for abuse, etc. I really tried to be very, very clear, precisely to avoid the spanking=abuse angle as that has been done to death several times in recent history. Also, I know that I was encouraging dialogue that I would find offensive; I was willing to subject myself to the offense in hopes that some real dialogue could take place about how to constructively forward the cause of GD. Again, I failed, but my intentions were pure.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

This thread is depressing the hell out me. Yes, I asked for it. Yes, I did foresee it in advance of posting. It is depressing me, but not in the way I anticipated. What I keep seeing over and over again is that people on this thread have felt abused and violated and are working hard to protect others from what they went through. I had no idea that so many felt that way.

In a previous post, I said hindsight is 20/20, but that's not true, in hindsight I don't know what I could have done to focus this thread. A part of me wishes that I hadn't included definitions, but that is a big part of it. We use words, and the words have connotations and mean different things to different people based on "their world" view. I can with straight face and clear conscience say that I too believe it TRUTH that SPANKING=ABUSE, provided the definition of abuse that I use. Further, I can say with straight face and clear conscience that I believe it TRUTH that SPANKING=EFFECTIVE DISCILPINE, humiliation even more so!! (note per dictionary.com, effective: Having an intended or expected effect - Producing a strong impression or response and discipline: Training expected to produce a specific character or pattern of behavior-Controlled behavior resulting from disciplinary training-Control obtained by enforcing compliance or order.-A state of order based on submission to rules and authority-Punishment intended to correct or train. ) but what does that accomplish? So I'm being truthful, so I'm being direct, I am also adding a ton of NOISE to the message.

I have stated before that I am willing to entertain that perhaps being civil (meaning not offensive or rude) may not be enough, but I haven't read anything here that gets even slightly below the surface regarding that stance, and it just doesn't follow logically to me that being militant (meaning having a combative character; aggressive) in an approach to forward gentleness has a prayer of being effective. I would love to discuss how social and political change is achieved. Any takers? Maybe I'm setting expectations to high, I don't know how it happens, why should I expect someone else to&#8230;

Anyway, I also wanted to respond to some other comments.

It has been asked, if it is not abuse, what is it? How about calling spanking, spanking? How about calling it discipline or an attempt at discipline or heck, maybe even an ineffective attempt at discipline (but to be honest, I think that last one is a "shut down") When we talk about "time-outs" we don't talk about putting a child into emotional isolation, we talk about whether or not time-outs are effective, we talk about whether they are the 'best' solution (or even a solution at all?). I argue that thinking and communicating about things as "better" is MUCH stronger than thinking about things as "right". Instead of communicating TO someone that they are RIGHT/WRONG, try communicating WITH someone about what is BETTER. I'm not suggesting that we make someone "feel really good about their hitting", I'm suggesting that we open a door, not close it.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie*
If we are interested in really helping the parents learn better ways of interacting with their children, then, as many previous posters have talked about in other posts, a better approach would be more empathic and sympathetic, connecting with the parent regarding how hard it is to raise children, and being on their side in figuring out a better way together.

Love it!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
&#8230;I think the point can be made without them provided we take the time and care to do so-and are willing to hear the other person, to understand them, to see their humanity.

Love it!

Quote:


Originally Posted by *dharmamama*
Abuse is a climate. People can spank without being abusers. I think that they could find better parenting tools, but I don't think that every spank is an act of abuse.

Love it!

To those who may have taken offense by my definitions from my original post, they were trite and I am sorry. Abuse is real in so many lives, I didn't mean to belittle it. On the other hand, love is so real in so many lives, even for those with spanking parents, and I was trying to communicate that. I may be naive, but in *my world*, most spanking parents spank out of love. My parents spanked, and my aunt and uncle criticized them for it. I have complete respect for my aunt and uncle for standing up for what they believe and I have complete respect for my parents for having done the same. My parents were the type to set clear but fair boundaries, and I knew when I was crossing them. I was spanked maybe three or four time, and though a trite idea, I have NO DOUBT that it hurt my parents more to spank me, than it hurt me. They did it out of love and responsibility. Misguided? Sure. But, love and responsibility just the same.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
I see your point, but I think you should realize that we aren't all out in the world pointing our fingers at non-GD parents, yelling "ABUSER! ABUSER!" We're on a GD board discussing GD and also discussing the consequences of non-GD parenting. It's natural that we should let out our honest feelings out here in more candid language.

I do realize this, but unfortunately, some are out there delivering a message which is being received as "ABUSER! ABUSER!" And while I generally agree with your stance, last night, I was close to walking off this board because I felt like such an outsider and at this point in time, when I meet with the other ECFC moms in my area, there is NO WAY that I would recommend this board as being something which may add clarity to their search for a better way of parenting, and I think that's very sad.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
What about those whose intentions are not to harm, but to "teach", or "discipline", to "show love" by hitting?

Are those who believe their actions are helpful to their children not abusers because of their intention? Are their children any less burdened by the consequences of being hit?

Probably insignificant at this point, but in my case, apparently yes.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *SunRayeMomi*
Parents that really do mean well and are inherantly "good" parents run the risk of getting lumped into the category of child-abusers when their own children hear that any spank, any time, is child abuse.

I agree with this. I think that spankers by definition lack *some* degree of good judgment regarding parenting choices, and to introduce friction in the parent/child relationship is helping to set them up for a whole range of problems which will be dealt with in a way that lacks *some* degree of good judgment. I think it better to comfort and affirm the child, but to confront the parent separately.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *fourlittlebirds*
If it's not abusive, what does it really matter whether you do it or not?

I know this has kind of already been said, but IMO the answer is because there are better ways.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *freestyler*
Gads, the questions imply that not to be GD is to hit your kids! &#8230;Labeling people and parenting, and dividing the world into two simplistic camps, is convenient if you're setting up exhibits in a zoo or a museum, but not very good for real life. That sort of thinking might do everyone involved a disservice and cause more animosity than anything else. Suddenly it's the us-against-them mentality, right? I mean, if we don't want us-against-them with our kids, why do we set ourselves up for that thinking with other parents? Does that make sense?

freestyler, your reply bothers/saddens me most of all. I thought I was very careful not to imply that GD is to hit, including examples of humiliation, emotional abuse, etc&#8230;which is NOT to mean that I am implying that non-GD parenting is abusive, quite the contrary!! I thought I worked hard to demonstrate that labeling us/them is not effective, that was much of my point, it saddens me that I was so misinterpreted. Thank-you for stating your interpretation, I WILL be more careful going forward.

To be honest, after the last couple of days, I'm not sure I have what it takes to call myself a GDer. I have found much more compassion and attempt at betterment from my 'to the left of mainstream' friends and acquaintances, and from my 'mainstream-spanking' extended family, NONE of which I see as abusive in any way.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Just as I can't say what is or isn't abuse "according to GD", the parent can't say what is or isn't abuse "according to the parent". It is according to the individual, who dissents. (before they are indoctrinated to believe "it is for their own good" or because "the parent knows best").

Interesting. Not sure if I agree yet or not, but I'll mull it over.


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

wow, I feel the need to clarify too. I never suggested, and I am sorry if it came across....that I would just walk up to someone on the street and scream at them that they are horrible abusers and are committing violent acts. Of course that is no way to change someone's view and it doesn't seem like it would help the child much.

However, in speaking to someone about *discipline* (and this has happened many times) ... I begin very gently and very non-threatening and attempt to explain things or discuss things in such a way as to open up their mind just a teensy weensy little bit to allow a different perspective. Inevitably though, I hear such pride in their voices....such a sick, twisted logic (imo) and an almost sadistic pide in how "all johnny needs is a whack and he behaves!!" or "they know when I get out the wooden spoon..." ...hahahha all jovial and happy, almost like it is a kick to hit their children -- then yes, I plainly tell them my opinion. I feel spanking is a form of abuse and is certainly an act of violence. As much harm as some posters seem to think there is in labeling the act of striking a child as a violent act -- there is, imo, just as much harm in nodding and smiling along with the person who so proudly boasts of their violent acts.

A huge part of why many people change certain behaviors (or not) is whether those behaviors are accepted by their peers or society or not. It is basic Sociology 101... I for one, REFUSE to be one of the people who nods and smiles as people recount their stories of control, manipulation, shame and acts of violence they have carried out on their children.

It is quite one thing to take the position of "we spanked little johnny, we just don't know what else to do"... though it is still not right, it (imo) says to me that the parents in question are seeking alternatives, or are at least open to them etc... and I would take a vastly different approach...

...but most often, a nice, friendly, non-threatening discussion about spanking (with people who spank in my experience) turns into a brag fest of the times they got Johnny right into line by beating his butt or whatever...that is what sickens me.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
What I keep seeing over and over again is that people on this thread have felt abused and violated and are working hard to protect others from what they went through. I had no idea that so many felt that way.

I think if this is the case, it might help to explain just why its so hard for many of us to refrain from speaking openly about the child's experience of spanking. When parents want to speak in terms of "effectiveness", it is a blatant statement of their disconnection from their child's emotions. Hearing parents care more about getting their way than what they are doing to their child is almost unbearable to some of us who can't help but identify with that suffering child.

I can't speak for everyone about how much compassion they feel for the spankers. I personally do. But the doesn't stop the shock, horror, and urgency I feel about how emotionally ostracized a spanked child feels. Something in my conscience tells me that going along with parents' ignoring of the devestation they wreak on their child just can't help.

It doesn't mean that I scream at them and belittle them. But going along with putting our collective heads in the sand doesn't work either IMO...

Just hoping to give you a little more perspective. Not sure it makes a lick of sense - I've very distracted at the moment. (Took me 45 minutes to type this out...)


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I can't speak for everyone about how much compassion they feel for the spankers. I personally do. But the doesn't stop the shock, horror, and urgency I feel about how emotionally ostracized a spanked child feels. Something in my conscience tells me that going along with parents' ignoring of the devestation they wreak on their child just can't help.

It doesn't mean that I scream at them and belittle them. But going along with putting our collective heads in the sand doesn't work either IMO...


Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
As much harm as some posters seem to think there is in labeling the act of striking a child as a violent act -- there is, imo, just as much harm in nodding and smiling along with the person who so proudly boasts of their violent acts.

I do not think that taking care with language and approach is the same as standing by smiling with head in the sand. I think whole point of this thread is that maybe there are ways of confronting the issue in ways that are both _effective_ and _gentle_. Just like we approach teaching our children. Most of us here know that in teaching our children shaming doesn't work. So why would it with an adult? Adults learn so differently? The nature of humanity is different in an adult than it is in a child?

The harm some of us see in using the words abuse and violence in speaking with the parent committing the act, is that our message may not be heard because of the defensiveness the words provoke, that we may shut down the opportunity to show someone another perspective and approach-and that does not help the child.

And if my intention is to actually help, then I'm focused on helping the parent learn and grow-not on proving that I'm right, or shaming them by calling what they are doing abuse (even if I think it might be). Being right isn't the point. Helping is.


----------



## Dragonfly (Nov 27, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
I do not think that taking care with language and approach is the same as standing by smiling with head in the sand. I think whole point of this thread is that maybe there are ways of confronting the issue in ways that are both _effective_ and _gentle_. Just like we approach teaching our children. Most of us here know that in teaching our children shaming doesn't work. So why would it with an adult? Adults learn so differently? The nature of humanity is different in an adult than it is in a child?

I do think that the nature of humanity is different in an adult than in a child. Children don't have all of the baggage that adults do that triggers them to be offended by anything even remotely resembling a judgment.

Message boards are a perfect example: Take the breastfeeding vs. formula debate. People get offended when someone simply says that breastmilk is the best nutrition for babies. It's a scientifically proven fact, yet people get incredibly offended by it. They think such a statement passes judgment on their choice to formula feed. This is how many, many people are. To simply discuss a contrary idea or opinion, no matter how gently or justified, is to offend them.

Do I think that this means we should shame adults? Of course not. I do believe, though, that we can gently hem and haw and tiptoe around and we will either still offend the people to whom we are speaking because they are predisposed to being offended OR we will fail miserably in helping children because the message will be so cloaked in subtlety that it just won't sink in.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

I'm glad you started this thread.

I read the "GD" board because I want to think of different scenarios and how I could possibly react to them when we have children in the future.

&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;&#8230;..

***In the confines of discussing non-GD parenting, what would be your definition for violent or violence? (What would be your threshhold for feeling use of the word was approipriate?)***

Erratic, anger-driven striking or threatening to strike children without reasonable guidelines.

***In the confines of discussing non-GD parenting, what would be your definition for child abuse? (What would be your threshhold for feeling use of the word abuse was approipriate?)?**

Disregard for the health and well-being of the children through neglect, frequent striking based on the mood of the parent, sexual contact of any nature, caustic/demeaning treatment intended to hurt the feelings of the child, failure to provide healthcare and nutritious food, squalid conditions in the home, failure to provide children with an education.

***In your opinion, what should be the consequence of commiting child abuse?***

In the situations where there is no hope for rehabilitation of the nuclear family, the child should be removed from the situation and placed with loving relatives if at all possible&#8230;. I shudder to think of foster care, but, if it's as bad as that at home, perhaps there's a greater chance the childhood could be salvaged living apart from the abuser. In the cases where a crime has been committed, the offender/abuser should go to prison.

***Do you think words like abuse and violence can be offensive? ***

Yes.

***Do you think using words like abuse and violence to describe non-GD parenting likely would be offensive to parents practicing non-GD parenting?***

Yes, but, sometimes the situation IS violent and abusive. See above.

***If you use words like abuse and violence in talking about non-GD parenting choices, do you care if others take offense? Would you change your vocabulary if you knew you were causing offense? Is it your intent to cause offense?***

It all depends. I usually wouldn't use those terms because I do find them to be triggers, people would likely tune out and shut down rather than reflect on their actions and behaviour - thoughtful consideration of methods would be better for the child and the parent, so, I rarely see a point in labelling.

***Do you think using words like abuse and violence to describe non-GD parenting styles does a disservice to GD? What do you think the over-all effect is?***

When those terms are being applied to parents who spank their children, but, otherwise provide for them, love them, care for them, listen to them, educate them, feed them, etc, etc, basically be "good to them" then, I think that it is unfair and rather high-horsed to use those terms and it only instigates a fight. If you want to discuss the merits of spanking, or corporal punishment, etc, then do so: back it up with facts and your own experiences. Calling an otherwise "good parent" abusive and violent for spanking their children does nothing to foster thoughtful discussion.

-----------------------------------

My parents each spanked me once growing up.

My Dad spanked me when I climbed the kitchen drawers to reach for the butcher knives at the age of three. It was a safety issue and I guess he wanted to send a very strong message.

My Mom spanked me when I had my - according to her - first and only tantrum in the middle of a department store when she wouldn't buy me something&#8230;. Also age three, I think.

I'm not damaged by these experiences, my parents were great in most ways and I appreciate the childhood they provided for me. My sisters were spanked once as well, after getting into the medicine cabinet and attempting to portion out some liquid.

To me, this does not compare in ANY way to people who were abused growing up. Pulling hair, throwing to the ground, demeaned, etc? That's horrible, and I think that IS abusive and violent. Calling MY encounters with spanking abusive is not only wrong, in my opinion, it lessens the gravity of the situation for those who were abused as children.

----------------

I'm hoping to practice a firm form of gentle discipline with my children, I don't think that spanking is an effective or beneficial method of "regular discipline" and I think it shouldn't be done in the vast majority of situations. As a reaction to a dangerous situation for the child or another kind of extreme situation??? I don't know. That's why I'm reading these boards.

But, when I read some of the posters call all forms of spanking or even verbal reprimands "abusive" I usually ignore most of what they say afterwards.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

believe it TRUTH that SPANKING=ABUSE, provided the definition of abuse that I use. Further, I can say with straight face and clear conscience that I believe it TRUTH that SPANKING=EFFECTIVE DISCILPINE, humiliation even more so!! (note..<snip>
Are you saying that Effective discipline = Abuse? Or that discipline (ie. controling "effectively") is abusive (of another's autonomy)? .......maybe you are hearing me.......

Pat


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Bingo, Dragonfly!!

I couldn't have framed my sentiments better!

Scubamama, I think maybe...







Well spotted!


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

and it just doesn't follow logically to me that being militant (meaning having a combative character; aggressive) in an approach to forward gentleness has a prayer of being effective. I would love to discuss how social and political change is achieved. Any takers?
I do agree, but I have a much harder time being patient with adults than with children. Especially those who don't see the *logic* of this in the reverse. How does being militant (meaning having a combative character; aggressive) in an approach to forward gentleness (*in children*) have a prayer of being effective? Thank you for making my point that *modelling* is the way. To both parenting and social change.

_Be the change you wish to see.~Buddha_

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

I guess what I can't reconcile within myself is the fact that most people (generally) have no problem labeling abusive or violent behavior when it relates to strictly adults--- spouse hitting another spouse -- someone shouting racial slurs -- someone punching someone at a bar-- etc.... but I seem to see many justifications when the dynamic changes from an adult committing violent acts on a child (hitting, shaming etc)...

Love does not hurt. Active love does not hurt...if you are hurt, something is wrong. If you are being hurt, something is wrong. Yes, the end of a love hurts, or an arguement may temporarily hurt one's feelings and the like...but active love is not supposed to hurt.

The act of systematically hitting a child (I am not talking the one time regretful loss of control and swat on the butt, though that is wrong too imo)....but the idea that shaming and yelling and hitting your child is an acceptable form of "discipline" without any regret, remorse, desire to change, or exploration of any other method...is abusive and violent in my humble opinion....


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:

It has been asked, if it is not abuse, what is it? How about calling spanking, spanking? How about calling it discipline or an attempt at discipline or heck, maybe even an ineffective attempt at discipline (but to be honest, I think that last one is a "shut down") When we talk about "time-outs" we don't talk about putting a child into emotional isolation, we talk about whether or not time-outs are effective, we talk about whether they are the 'best' solution (or even a solution at all?). I argue that thinking and communicating about things as "better" is MUCH stronger than thinking about things as "right". Instead of communicating TO someone that they are RIGHT/WRONG, try communicating WITH someone about what is BETTER. I'm not suggesting that we make someone "feel really good about their hitting", I'm suggesting that we open a door, not close it.
Maybe, I could have read the whole post before responding, but I didn't want to lose my train of thought. MY position is that *punishments* are not *necessary* if the focus is on *underlying needs* rather than altering *behavior*.







Not better, not right or wrong. But an alternative paradigm of problem solving the *needs*, rather than changing the "misbehavior". But the communication tools to move beyond fault/blame and right/wrong requires *models* of a different way to be in relationship with children.

Pat


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Something I don't get is if this conversations is about how we talk about hitting children as a general topic or how we discuss it with individual parents (especially parents who spank or have spanked). Because, for me, it's a much different thing.

With advocacy issues there are the facts and opinions of a particular person or group and there is an outreach approach, no? I've always thought of these two things as being very different.

And, yes, I'd be happy to discuss the approach of promoting GD or for preventing children from being hit. I must say that with friends, expressing that I think it's flat out wrong and abusive and why seems to be very effective. My experience has been that my friends don't want to hit, know it's wrong but experience pressure from society to experiment with it when things get challenging. Talking this out with them is helpful and "harsh" words can be helpful.

There are many other situations where another approach would be more helpful.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Are you saying that Effective discipline = Abuse? Or that discipline (ie. controling "effectively") is abusive (of another's autonomy)? .......maybe you are hearing me.......

Not sure I am following you. I was being sarcastic (though technically truthful) when I said that spanking equals effective discipline.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I do agree, but I have a much harder time being patient with adults than with children. Especially those who don't see the *logic* of this in the reverse. How does being militant (meaning having a combative character; aggressive) in an approach to forward gentleness (*in children*) have a prayer of being effective? Thank you for making my point that *modelling* is the way. To both parenting and social change.

I totally agree. (And I too have a harder time being patient with adults, luckily we don't have to let that get the better of us!)


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Maybe, I could have read the whole post before responding, but I didn't want to lose my train of thought. MY position is that *punishments* are not *necessary* if the focus is on *underlying needs* rather than altering *behavior*. Not better, not right or wrong. But an alternative paradigm of problem solving the *needs*, rather than changing the "misbehavior". But the communication tools to move beyond fault/blame and right/wrong requires *models* of a different way to be in relationship with children.

And again, I completely agree.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

> scubamama said:
> 
> 
> > Are you saying that Effective discipline = Abuse? Or that discipline (ie. controling "effectively") is abusive (of another's autonomy)? .......maybe you are hearing me.......
> ...


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
I guess what I can't reconcile within myself is the fact that most people (generally) have no problem labeling abusive or violent behavior when it relates to strictly adults--- spouse hitting another spouse -- someone shouting racial slurs -- someone punching someone at a bar-- etc.... but I seem to see many justifications when the dynamic changes from an adult committing violent acts on a child (hitting, shaming etc)...

Love does not hurt. Active love does not hurt...if you are hurt, something is wrong. If you are being hurt, something is wrong. Yes, the end of a love hurts, or an arguement may temporarily hurt one's feelings and the like...but active love is not supposed to hurt.

The act of systematically hitting a child (I am not talking the one time regretful loss of control and swat on the butt, though that is wrong too imo)....but the idea that shaming and yelling and hitting your child is an acceptable form of "discipline" without any regret, remorse, desire to change, or exploration of any other method...is abusive and violent in my humble opinion....

I think you make some really good points and paint a powerful argument why my opinion that spanking is not tantamount to abuse needs further exploration (which I am doing!) Before going further in my response, I feel a need to state, that I fear some people will see my comments as trying to "uphold or advocate physical punishment" going against the guidelines of this forum, but that is not my intent. I am in no way communicating a, "Personal preferences for" or "encouragement [for] use of physical punishment" but I do think it necessary to recognize and try to understand if we are to be effective advocates for change, which was the intended point of this thread. I do this wholeheartedly "with the intent to learn more about Gentle Discipline", and how its cause can be furthered.
Again, let me say a powerful post/concept. I think part of why there are so many justifications for why it is OK, stems from a fundamental disagreement of the nature of children/humanity. I think it safe to say that those of us striving for GD hold the following to be true&#8230;

Quote:


Originally Posted by *'Natural Family Living' by Peggy O'Mara, taken from the forum guidelines*
Effective discipline is based on loving guidance. It is based on the "belief that children are born innately good and that our role as parents is to nurture their spirits as they learn about limits and boundaries, rather than to curb their tendencies toward wrongdoing. Effective discipline presumes that children have reasons for their behavior and that cooperation can be engaged to solve shared problems.

&#8230;whereas I think many, while agreeing that effective discipline is based on loving guidance, disagree about what that means, i.e., loving guidance means effectively disciplining which means curbing "tendencies toward wrongdoing" which means etc, etc. And while I've already stated, I think it appropriate to state again so as to be clear, I think many fundamentally disagree that children/humanity is born (or is inherently) good. I think many take VERY SERIOUSLY their role to TEACH their children to be good, and teach them to turn away from their inherent and inborn tendencies toward wrongdoing. I don't profess to be a Bible expert, and I mean no offense, but the Bible states (Old Testament-KJV) "He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes."-- Proverbs 13: 24, and while there may be many interpretations and while some may feel it taken out of context, I don't think it a stretch to say that many people(s) and even generations have taken this message to mean that if you don't 'effectively discipline' your children (i.e., use force as required) than you are contributing to their eternal damnation - a pretty serious offense I would say! While I know the Bible also has portions on beating slaves and so on that mainstream now sees as preposterous, I don't think they have gotten beyond the idea to effectively parent is it break the hold of our children's "inborn tendencies toward wrongdoing."

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
Love does not hurt. Active love does not hurt...if you are hurt, something is wrong. If you are being hurt, something is wrong.

I think this is a beautiful quote and sentiment, but I can't agree. Sometimes love does hurt. I once had to restrain my screaming flailing PETRIFIED child ( *please no flames*), so that we could remove a tick from his head. It hurt me so bad! I was crying then and it is bringing tears to my eyes now just thinking about it. We tried every gentle approach we could think of. We let him fall asleep three times before trying, but each time he awoke, and the tick IMO had to come off due to the threat of lyme disease. What resulted was a less than gentle scene, one that I think was very traumatic for him, because I loved him. I "hurt" him for the better good. This scene in no small way parallels why many parents spank. (When my dad spanked, I saw the tears in his eyes!) I think these parents by and large love there child tremendously and take very seriously their responsibility to break the hold of "inborn tendencies toward wrongdoing" and to 'teach/train' their children to be virtuous in the best way they know how. (Add to that the angle that some religions add, that failure equates to eternal damnation of your beloved offspring and whaoooooooo, that is heavy!

I'm not saying that it is all based on religion, but I think the idea of "inborn tendencies toward wrongdoing" is a very broad though perhaps unconsciously held core belief. (Even I struggle with fearing that when kids become teenagers, that my role of parent will be forced to being one of "curb[ing] their tendencies."

I know this is getting really long, but I also think that many see adults and children as having very different limitations regarding concepts of self-control and exercising good judgment. (Assumes adults have learned and children must be trained). That there are different ways to deal with adult and child 'tendencies gone wrong'. (Adults - legal system, jail, monetary fines and children generally the responsibility of the parent - who needs flexibility and 'tools' (i.e., spanking) to fulfill the responsibility) And that we as adults have different responsibilities to our *own children*, different than all others. (My children, I can't walk away from, I can't abandon, all others, I can) Keep in mind that I can not hit your child (though I recognize some exceptions exist) as that would be legally seen as abusive.

I think the idea that spanking is seen as acceptable because children are seen as possessions or second class citizens is a very jaded view. I think the reason that many people and our legal system allows for the option of spanking, it because those people/institutions hold the belief that at the core of a parent/child bond there is love and that the tool of spanking will not be abused (no flames please, read in context) and then goes the extra step of putting in place measures to protect the children from abuse by legally defining. Is it effective? NO! Are the intentions pure? I don't know, I hope so. But like anything else, medical care, nutrition, education, etc. when the masses put life on auto-pilot, stop thinking critically, and disengage, everything gets goofy and strange habits become engrained and are taken for granted. I don't think all parents spank in a loving way (though I really do think mine did) but I do think the overwhelming vast majority do so with the intent of making their child a better person, even if that just means "less annoying".

Quote:


Originally Posted by *captain crunchy*
but the idea that shaming and yelling and hitting your child is an acceptable form of "discipline" without any regret, remorse, &#8230;or exploration of any other method

A very VERY sad idea, and one that I hope and believe is not commonly held. I think that again, the assumption is that love is at the core of the parent child bond, and that parents are ACTIVELY working in the best intent of the child and will undoubtedly look for the most effective, least 'damaging' method and will feel regret, remorse for recognized mistakes and learn from them. (And sadly, I think that 'adults' (in the blanket sense of the word) are being given way to much credit for acting thoughtfully.)


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

ThinkBlu, I'm in the middle of reading your recent posts, and I stopped to post in the suggestiong that you read anything by Alice ******.

I kinda assume that most around here know about her, but from reading what you wrote, it struck me that you might not, and her writing might help you find what you're looking for.

She has several books out, "The Drama of the Gifted Child" is generally considered her pinnacle work. I'll dig up some links to her articles. Be right back...

ETA:

http://www.naturalchild.org/alice_miller/

And a few other authors:

http://www.naturalchild.org/articles/


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Okay, I think I really somehow did not make myself clear. So one last try so you all don't think I'm all about tiptoeing around and sucking up to people when I see their kids are hurting. I know not everyone will agree with my pov, I just want to be understood and I don't think I have been.

Here's what I think. I think that parents who are doing things that hurt their children are not doing it because they are cruel and malicious. They are doing it because that is what they have learned from their families and the culture at large, or because they are feeling very pressured to do it, or because they really believe it is what they have to do in order to be a good parent and that to do otherwise is to fail their kids, or because they haven't had access to accurate information about child development or access to information about alternative ways of parenting, or because they are lacking emotional resources and this lack in some way leads them to parenting this way, or any combination of these things, or or or.......

So what I think, really, is that you can't help the child without helping the parent.

I think it might be effective with some people to simply say "you know, I think spanking is violent", and I think it's probably possible to tell whether someone is receptive in this way by talking to them a little. But with a lot of other people that isn't enough, it's just woefully inadequate because it doesn't go far enough in addressing the reasons the parent spanks (or whatever harmful behavior) or the alternatives available and doesn't even go near offering the support any parent needs in order to change. And for many people using certain words shuts down the conversation completely so if I encounter people like this (I have a relative who is like this) I use different words. I do my best to use less inflammatory words that mean the same thing.

I am not talking about standing by doing nothing or pussy-footing around talking in mysterious and subtle ways. _I am talking about recognizing that whether or not I think it's the way it should be or the way I'd like it to be, many people do shut down (stop listening) when you phrase things a certain way._ I would like to create the chance that they will listen to and hear what I have to say. I would like to facilitate communication. Not give a lecture. If I actually want to help I have to be willing to communicate, to listen and to respond and to say what I'd like them to hear.

Maybe they _won't_ listen if I do this. But I will have tried. And if they aren't a person who will listen when I use words that aren't as inflammatory but mean the same thing, then they aren't someone who would listen even if I did use strong words.

I'm now (after this thread) feeling a little, well, weird for wanting to speak in ways that allow other people to receive what I want them to hear. For wanting to allow them to feel heard, for wanting to understand what they need to change. For wanting to have a dialogue. It's so much more important to me to get at the reasons people do what they do, and to give them (to the extent that I am able) what they need to look at things in a new way and what they need to do things differently. I want to also be an example, both by how I interact with my children and how I interact with most adults.

And I guess if it's a person I don't know, some stranger or passing acquaintance or some parent I see at my child's school but don't know well at all, then I think the issue is better addressed by some social activism than by me attempting to sway the parenting practices of a person I don't have any kind of relationship with. Letters to the editor, magazine articles, newspaper articles, whatever a person or a group can do. And in this venue, by all means grab people's attention with whatever words you can-and offer them alternative ways to meet their needs and meet their kids needs, alternative ways of parenting. I was talking previously about communicating with people whom you know well enough to feel comfortable addressing this topic.

Off to take a break. These threads leave my head spinning and my heart heavy.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

: What Sledg said


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
I feel passionately about improving the plight of families in our society, and the parent child relationship as I think that key...thus also about GD or what I like to think of as thoughtful introspective parenting. I agree that I am more tolerant perhaps of mainstream parenting, but not because I don't think it could be better, but rather because "to get there, I have to start from where I am", if that makes any sense, and "where I am" is a place where mainstream parenting is mainstream. I think it critical that I understand the state of things today, and the mindset of things today in order to progress. Further, I think more important than not making mistakes in relationships is that love (and respect) exist in a relationship and I see love at the core of most even mainstream parenting.

I don't think you'll find anyone interested in change who doesn't think that understanding the influences behind people's actions is important. Also, "Meeting people where they're at" is a very common advocacy focus from my experience.

However, I disagree entirely and passionately with the assessment made by a quite few people here that labeling hitting children as abuse or violence is ineffective advocacy.

Furthermore, I do not think using this language conflicts with being thoughtful or gentle.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
So what I think, really, is that you can't help the child without helping the parent.

&#8230; And for many people using certain words [added by ThinkBlu - or conveying a judgmental attitude] shuts down the conversation completely&#8230;

I am not talking about standing by doing nothing or pussy-footing around talking in mysterious and subtle ways. I am talking about recognizing that whether or not I think it's the way it should be or the way I'd like it to be, many people do shut down (stop listening) when you phrase things a certain way. I would like to create the chance that they will listen to and hear what I have to say. I would like to facilitate communication. Not give a lecture. If I actually want to help I have to be willing to communicate, to listen and to respond and to say what I'd like them to hear.

wanting to speak in ways that allow other people to receive what I want them to hear. For wanting to allow them to feel heard, for wanting to understand what they need to change. For wanting to have a dialogue. It's so much more important to me to get at the reasons people do what they do, and to give them (to the extent that I am able) what they need to look at things in a new way and what they need to do things differently. I want to also be an example, both by how I interact with my children and how I interact with most adults.

Very nice sledg! I hope you are being understood. I'm beginning to convince myself that maybe I am, that though we may still disagree that we all understand that we are trying to advocate as effectively as we can.

Your post also states&#8230;

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
I would like to create the chance that they will listen to and hear what I have to say&#8230;.
Maybe they won't listen if I do this. But I will have tried. And if they aren't a person who will listen&#8230;then they aren't someone who would listen even if&#8230;
&#8230;. I want to also be an example, both by how I interact with my children and how I interact with most adults [added by ThinkBlu - or possibly replace with how I advocate for the helpless]

And to show others who may feel that I am not seeing their message, that maybe I do, I would just like to say that I can see where the above statements apply to all of us.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *sledg*
And I guess if it's a person I don't know, some stranger or passing acquaintance or some parent I see at my child's school but don't know well at all, then I think the issue is better addressed by some social activism than by me attempting to sway the parenting practices of a person I don't have any kind of relationship with.

Food for thought. I generally think this too, though I have recently (like in the past day or two) begun to think that maybe there are ways to instantly bond with someone, if your sincere intention is to help. I think some people have a gift for making an immediate connection. I don't have that gift, but maybe if I work at it, maybe it can be developed.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
I don't think you'll find anyone interested in change who doesn't think that understanding the influences behind people's actions is important. Also, "Meeting people where they're at" is a very common advocacy focus from my experience.

However, I disagree entirely and passionately with the assessment made by a quite few people here that labeling hitting children as abuse or violence is ineffective advocacy.

Furthermore, I do not think using this language conflicts with being thoughtful or gentle.

Understood, and while I am willing to entertain that there are perhaps times when labels such as abuse and violence are the most effective vehicles for advocacy, I think more often than not, that not the case. I guess if I were to propose a compromise, I would suggest recognizing that some do take offense (as many here have attested to) and start soft, escalating only to labels if you think that would be more effective after the soft approach fails. I think it possible to go from the soft approach to the hard approach, but once things have been 'shut down' by the hard approach, it's not easy to go to soft.&#8230;Or, we could agree to disagree.

FWIW - I absolutely agree that the language does not conflict with being thoughtful or gentle. While I find it offensive, I also find it technically accurate, even thoughtful. I think I was making an unfounded assumption, assuming that if the words were offensive (IMO) that the delivery would also offensive (IMO).

Also, FWIW, the part in my post about "understanding the influences behind people's actions" (to use your words) from my original post, was not meant to educate or talk-down, it was meant as a defense as I feel that my attempt to understand has been misinterpreted by some to be advocating or condoning ineffective parenting practices.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
ThinkBlu, I'm in the middle of reading your recent posts, and I stopped to post in the suggestiong that you read anything by Alice ******.

I kinda assume that most around here know about her, but from reading what you wrote, it struck me that you might not, and her writing might help you find what you're looking for.

By the way, thanks. I'll check her out.

Must admit, I'm curious to know what you think I'm looking for...not meant as sarcastic, honestly curious. Feel no need to divulge....thanks again. It's nice to know that someone is seeing my intentions as pure, and not just designed to heat things up.


----------



## phathui5 (Jan 8, 2002)

Quote:

Well in response to many previous posts, if I had a husband that hit me every night for spilling my milk, or getting into a t.v. show and not listening or not picking up my clothes, I would consider him abusive. Why is the definition different when it's a child?
It is different because children in mainstream America (not here on MDC, I would hope) are normally considered second class citizens. They're what women and blacks were until recently.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Dragonfly*
Really, it seems to me that people who claim that saying that spanking is not abuse are, themselves, attributing to children a lesser status than adults.









:


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I was digging through to see where I read something that gave me that idea, but I'm going to be called by DS any minute, and don't have time.

The gist was that I got the impression from a sentence or two that you are sincerely asking about how people who advocate from a child's POV came to our opinions. Not sure I worded that exactly how I really mean, but you get the idea...


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Haven't caught up with reading threads, but happened upon this presentation related to constructing persuasive arguments. The basic premise is that one can argue logic, ethics or emotional imperatives. Each more effective depending upon the subject and audience. The ole' "know your audience" admonition......http://www.public.asu.edu/~macalla/l...hospathos.html

Maybe child advocacy isn't either: tip-toe *OR* abrasive, but "it depends....."

Pat


----------



## umami_mommy (May 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
By the way, thanks. I'll check her out.

Must admit, I'm curious to know what you think I'm looking for...not meant as sarcastic, honestly curious. Feel no need to divulge....thanks again. It's nice to know that someone is seeing my intentions as pure, and not just designed to heat things up.









i think your intention was (known to you or not) that you would present this issue in a particular way (hence not being direct and up front, but convoluted and highly intellectual) and that would "turn on the light" for those of us that get hot about the issue and change our minds about the topic, ie that the medium *is* the message, and we would be reformed.

if you really meant to simply state the fact that you were offended by the way some approach this issue, then you would have done just that. since you did not, i would have to assume that something else was going on for you.

just because you present someone with an intellectual argument that makes sense, it doesn't mean that they will always be swayed by it, or even interested in seeing another prespective.

i hope i'm making sense.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *honeybeedreams*
i think your intention was (known to you or not) that you would present this issue in a particular way (hence not being direct and up front, but convoluted and highly intellectual) and that would "turn on the light" for those of us that get hot about the issue and change our minds about the topic, ie that the medium *is* the message, and we would be reformed.

if you really meant to simply state the fact that you were offended by the way some approach this issue, then you would have done just that. since you did not, i would have to assume that something else was going on for you.

just because you present someone with an intellectual argument that makes sense, it doesn't mean that they will always be swayed by it, or even interested in seeing another prespective.

I was/am looking for a conversation based on intellect and logic, as opposed to one based on emotion....that is my comfort zone, and that is what 'moves' me, OTOH, I recognize that is not what moves most, so I welcome the emotional arguments as well though I admit, and not proudly, that they tend to frustrate me and I think that much of what is meant to be communicated is lost on me and dismissed as "being emotional". As for being "convoluted" and not being "up front", I disagree. I think my original post did state what I was trying to better understand, though I also recognize that my attempt failed and my message was not clearly received by many.

You have previously questioned why I did not take an "I am offended" approach, and I tried to respond to that in post#93 and I am going to avoid repeating, but I would like to add that I think there is a big difference between the giver of a message being offensive, the giver of a message sending an offensive message, and the reciever of the message taking offense. I don't think I have been in any way secretive about that fact that I have taken offense (in this thread and others) and it generally seems to be directed back as 'my problem'. Earlier in this thread, someone introduced the idea that if someone takes offense, that is between them and their conscience, which in my opinion is a cop-out, and it doesn't address people like me, people who take offense despite a clear conscience. I wasn't looking for discussion about why people take offense to the message, I think that is clear, I was looking for discussion about whether or not people knew that they were being offensive in thier delivery of the message, whether or not they knew they were delivering an offensive message and whether or not they thought it mattered. From the original OP

Quote:


Originally Posted by *OP*
Do you think using words like abuse and violence to describe non-GD parenting likely would be offensive to parents practicing non-GD parenting?
[added for this post - i.e, do you recognize the message IS offensive?]

If you use words like abuse and violence in talking about non-GD parenting choices, do you care if others take offense? Would you change your vocabulary if you knew you were causing offense? Is it your intent to cause offense?
[added for this post - i.e, do you recognize the message IS offensive? do you recognize that the delivery of the message is offensive? Does it matter?]

Do you think using words like abuse and violence to discribe non-GD parenting styles does a disservice to GD? What do you think the over-all effect is?
[added for this post - i.e, Does it matter?]

IMO, this is pretty clear. *You* can ask why I didn't use different words, but I chose my words very carefully, particularily to try to avoid people taking offense to the questions. In hindsite, I think this topic ironically 'has a lot of noise' in it, i.e., a lot of emotion, and I'm not sure any words or any delivery can make *you* hear the message that I am trying to send.

I think that many of the messengers who deliver offensive messages (IMO) and who deliver messages offensively (IMO) do so without being aware that they are part of the problem when the message is not recieved. They feel justified that their message was "right" or "accurate" or "truth" or ________, and they turn the fact that it is also offensive back on the receiver, stating that the receiver TOOK offense, rather than realizing that 'I (or the message) GAVE offense'. I don't deny that I was hoping (though NOT hopeful) that some might take that message to heart. I have however long ago realized that my technical-manual style of persuasion, never works on topics with emotional aspects (which is almost all topics!) but I did hope (and it has happened IMO) that some others would also weigh in more eloquently on the topic.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

Thinkblu,

For what it's worth, I appreciate what you're trying to do and the manner in which you are presenting this issue.

Many on this Gentle Discipline board seem to do their best to snip sentences out of thoughtful posts, paste them react to them with overly strong language and kill the discussion - and it's really frustrating.

I do think the way in which Gentle Discipline is approached here often clouds the issue and turns people off. I've managed to scrap some valuable information out of this forum, but, it can be very tedious, especially when I see a mother asking honest questions, doing her best and being attacked. If someone claims that you were unclear in your intentions, they are being wilfully blind.

YES, I am angered when any form or amount of corporal punishment, (or even stern verbal reprimands) are called "abusive". My parents were/are EXCELLENT parents, and I'm so thankful that I had them to grow up with. I was only spanked twice in my life, but, if I had done something horrible, say, drowning kittens - as my cousins were caught doing - I would have been spanked for certain. When I hit my sisters, I was warned, when I did it again, I was yelled at and sent to my room. Calling my parents abusive for being what I would call "strict" is pointless because I tune out when those methods are labelled in that way.

BUT, I am here, trying to read the Gentle Discipline Board because I think it's important to learn some alternatives to spanking before I have children, because I don't WANT to spank my children, and I want to cut down on yelling. There was a lot of it in my house and I don't want to repeat it, NOT because I think it was abusive, but, because it was pointless in most cases.

So, I'm glad you posted this, ThinkBlu, it's addressing a problem I was having with much of the discussion that goes on here.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Haven't caught up with reading threads, but happened upon this presentation related to constructing persuasive arguments. *The basic premise is that one can argue logic, ethics or emotional imperatives. Each more effective depending upon the subject and audience. The ole' "know your audience" admonition......*http://www.public.asu.edu/~macalla/l...hospathos.html

*Maybe child advocacy isn't either: tip-toe OR abrasive, but "it depends....."*


Thanks for the link.

I agree with this. I myself am "turned off" by emotional or offensively worded or presented arguments. And generalities (i.e., all Republicans, "men really make me made when&#8230;", Christians believe this / Scientists believe that, etc.) all put me on the defense, regardless of my status as a member of the targeted group. OTOH, my college roommate was "shut down" by 'intellectual mumbo jumbo'. I think given circumstances (i.e., skills of presenter, nature/mindset of audience, etc.) that different styles are called for. I find myself thinking that I am imposing unrealistic expectations on the "offensive". Why would *they* be capable of effectively delivering a message in a non-passionate way if that is their 'nature', when I have thus far in life not become capable of effectively delivering a message passionately?

Food for thought. I know this is kinda trite, but I heard this on the radio this morning (don't know the context, didn't hear the whole story) and I thought I would share. The person talking was advocating for the learning of foreign languages, and made a point to the effect that&#8230;

while speaking the same language as someone does not in of itself solve problems, it is a good place to start.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *phathui5*
It is different because children in mainstream America (not here on MDC, I would hope) are normally considered second class citizens. They're what women and blacks were until recently.

Can you elaborate a bit more on this? I am an American and I'm sure that influences my perspective. I don't know much about American law when it comes to the historical plight of women as second class citizens, but I do know a bit about the plight of slaves, and I know that law was designed to limit their rights and were generally enforceable by all persons of 'higher status'. I don't see this as the case with children, quite the contrary (i.e., *you (with some exceptions) have no more rights to discipline my children than you do other adults, I as a parent am legally responsible to provide for my children, etc.), so I have a hard time understanding that argument.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Trinitty, (regarding post#130)

Thank you. It's worth a lot!


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
Can you elaborate a bit more on this? I am an American and I'm sure that influences my perspective. I don't know much about American law when it comes to the historical plight of women as second class citizens, but I do know a bit about the plight of slaves, and I know that law was designed to limit their rights and were generally enforceable by all persons of 'higher status'. I don't see this as the case with children, quite the contrary (i.e., *you (with some exceptions) have no more rights to discipline my children than you do other adults, I as a parent am legally responsible to provide for my children, etc.), so I have a hard time understanding that argument.

Perhaps the equally emotional argument that "children are treated like property" might or might not make the point more clearly.














:

The point is that children (as a group or "class" of individuals), by law, have severely limited ability of recourse about how they are treated as compared to other "groups". Just as the "groups" of women and blacks had limited laws available to protect them from the will of the master. Children are "second class citizens" by law still. Not to mention the laws which *limit* children's rights of recourse, ie. you can't sue your parent for restraint of association, restriant of freedom of speech, restraint of free movement and restraint of other Civil Liberties which are endowed by the Constitution to all but CHILDREN! Ageism is the next equal footing upon which I am working to change. The sad part is that ageism is so pervasive as to be invisible. Just as patriarchy was (is). "It has always been done this way." "This is the way it is done."

Not to mention the right to be free from being physically hit. Of all things, how could that right not be remitted to other human citizens of a "civilized" country. We extended it to prisoners, mental patients, the elderly, animals.....





















Finally women and minorities. But not children. Is this clearer?:

Legally protected rights NOT to be hit by another =A

Prisoners=A
Mental patients=A
Elderly=A
Animals=A
Women=A
Minorities=A

Children do not = A

_(oh, but hitting is "an attempt to discipline" "out of love for he who is hit")_ Can I say Bull**** on-line?









Ageism is changing, one family at a time. It is changing with me.

_Be the change you want to see.~Buddha_

Pat


----------



## umami_mommy (May 2, 2004)

thinkblu, i agree with what you are saying in your post to me.

i live with some who think s a lot like you do and so i recognize what you are saying. i (who reasons in a MUCH different way) was not able to quickly clearly find the reason/intention for your thread, to me, it seemed covert. (not "intentionally blind" as someone so rudely put it)

i recognize your intention, but do think that when approching a very emotional issue, an overly intellectual argument clouds the water (for me). just my opinion.

since this thread ended up being about opinions about spanking and abuse, maybe you could try again with an "*is* the medium the message?" thread.


----------



## umami_mommy (May 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trinitty*
YES, I am angered when any form or amount of corporal punishment, (or even stern verbal reprimands) are called "abusive". My parents were/are EXCELLENT parents, and I'm so thankful that I had them to grow up with. I was only spanked twice in my life, but, if I had done something horrible, say, drowning kittens - as my cousins were caught doing - I would have been spanked for certain. When I hit my sisters, I was warned, when I did it again, I was yelled at and sent to my room. Calling my parents abusive for being what I would call "strict" is pointless because I tune out when those methods are labelled in that way.

FWIW, i just wanted to mention that i have heard many times from adults that were abused in the most severe ways, say *exactly* the same thing about their childhoods, parents and how they were "disciplined." why might that be?

i do think that this is significant. i really really do. i think it's really important to think about this and all it's implications.

i can give you example if you'd like.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *honeybeedreams*
FWIW, i just wanted to mention that i have heard many times from adults that were abused in the mose severe ways, say *exactly* the same thing about their childhoods, parents and how they were "disciplined." why might that be?

i do think that this is significant. i really really do. i think it's really important to think about this and all it's implications.

i can give you example if you'd like.


Because for what other reason would the provider of all that is essential to (a dependent child's) life, hurt their child ("me"), but out of love??????







This is "damaged" logic or brainwashing to believe that pain is deserved as discipline. And it is believed.







And it is repeated. And it is believed. This is the worst possible (emotional and psychological) abuse: To believe that one deserved to be hit OUT OF LOVE!









I am not saying the parent *intends* the abuse. They too learned (had to *believe*) that pain is deserved as "discipline". This cycle of abuse needs to be broken to change.

Pat


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Honeybeedreams and scubamama,

I too think this topic very worthy of further explaination. I was actually drafting up a spin-off topic this morning based on a previous comment that scubamama made about "indoctrination". I think "Stockholm Syndrom" is a pretty well known concept, which I think has direct ties to this topic....If we see someone as having ultimate contol over us (i.e., we are a dependant) and they show some mercy on us (which could be as thin as sparing our life by having not killed us when they had opporitunity) then we begin to see that our actions CAUSE the actions of others and we begin to take full responsibility for the actions of others. (This is the syndrom often sited in conjunction with Patty Hearst and Elizabeth Smart, The Kidnapped Bank Tellers (Sweden I think) and others who defended there kidnappers as compassionate, defying common logic.)

Anyway, unless someone beats me too it (which might not be a bad idea given how my OP's are thought to death!) expect to see a spin-off.

I think it potentially interesting to explore this topic with the idea that abuse is a climate (as suggested by dharamama) and possibly the debate regarding whether abuse is defined by the recipient, by the intent or by some unbiased objective but I it starts getting really muddy....much as this thread did. Why does everything have to be interwoven and so freaken complicated?!


----------



## umami_mommy (May 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
Why does everything have to be interwoven and so freaken complicated?!

which is why i think people so often retreat into black and white and moralistic thinking. because it doesn't require much analysis or deep thought and certainly no self reflection.








:


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *honeybeedreams*
which is why i think people so often retreat into black and white and moralistic thinking. because it doesn't require much analysis or deep thought and certainly no self reflection.

Hear hear! It's easy to defend what you know is "right".


----------



## MissRubyandKen (Nov 2, 2005)

Quote:

Because for what other reason would the provider of all that is essential to (a dependent child's) life, hurt their child ("me"), but out of love?????? This is "damaged" logic or brainwashing to believe that pain is deserved as discipline. And it is believed. And it is repeated. And it is believed. This is the worst possible (emotional and psychological) abuse: To believe that one deserved to be hit OUT OF LOVE!
I want to speak up as one who was spanked who does not believe I deserved it. I also feel my parents were loving parents, despite the spankings, despite their mistakes. I'm sure it does happen where people believe they deserve it, but I am proof it does happen where people do not. Both of my parents were made to pick switches and then stuck with them on bare skin when young. Both of my parents thought it was their job to make their dc behave to society's standards. No one had ever shown/told them otherwise. Their mistakes were much less than their parents. MUCH less. I would not strip them of their humanity and label them 'abusers'. They were not. I agree that abuse is more of a climate. It does not mean my parents were right, they made a HUGE mistake IMO, but I forgive them for not knowing any better.

I also want to state that IMO each person who decides not to spank is contributing hugely to societal change by doing just that. Spanking is much less prevalent than a generation ago and the way people spank is also commonly less physically drastic and hurtful. There has been positive change ALREADY and there will continue to be so IMO possibly until it is extinct in all but the rarest cases, though doubtful while we yet live.

I do want to recognize that some people are TRULY abusive and abused but I do not feel that mainstream parents and their children fall into my idea of these words. HITTING IS HARMFUL. PERIOD.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

Honeybeedreams,

Please do provide your examples. I'll do my best to read them with an open mind, as long as you do your best not to call my parents abusers or violent people.

I too know people who were abused by their parents, horribly abused, who would still defend them to others, I'm well aware of the Stockholm syndrome, and I find it very sad. But, to apply it to my gleeful childhood that was sheltered and fostered by rational, loving parents would be a farce and I think it would be a deep disservice to those who did cannot draw from their childhood as from a well of happiness.


----------



## umami_mommy (May 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trinitty*
Honeybeedreams,

Please do provide your examples. I'll do my best to read them with an open mind, as long as you do your best not to call my parents abusers or violent people.

I too know people who were abused by their parents, horribly abused, who would still defend them to others, I'm well aware of the Stockholm syndrome, and I find it very sad. But, to apply it to my gleeful childhood that was sheltered and fostered by rational, loving parents would be a farce and I think it would be a deep disservice to those who did cannot draw from their childhood as from a well of happiness.

well, i'm not going to say that my clients defended their parents, but simply that they did not identify themselves as abused. they said "my parents spanked me or hit me but they loved me and was a difficult child. mostly i deserved it." having been an alcoholism counselor before i was a therapist i heard stories that would make your hair curl they are so terrifying. but two clients stick out for me. both women. one came to see me because she began having intrusive thoughts about her father's battering of her mom after she was married the second time. "were you also abused?" i asked her. "no" she told me. but then went on to relate being spanked, slapped, kicked and punched right up until she was 15 years old and ran away. as a 3 year old she was left alone while her parents went out at night. she slept on the kitchen table becuase she was so afraid of the "monsters." "do you not think it was abusive for them to leave you home alone?" i would ask her. she was baffled. after a period of months we started talking about how one might treat children in a loving and kind manner. she still had trouble saying "i was abused." she simply could not believe it. this was normal parenting as far as she was concerned. after seeing me for 18 months she finally cut off contact with her family (because they were still abusive to her), but her close frineds kept giving her a hard time about it. why? many of them treated their children the same. when she would tell them "i was abused" they would say "it wasn't that bad." why? becasue they were hurt like that too. it's the norm in this culture and we accept it all the time.

finally 7 years later she does not speak to her family or to her freinds that didn't support her cutting off contact with them. she also is honest with herself about how they hurt her while saying "i love you." it took a long time. this is a sucessful woman, with a very high paying job, with many friends and a packed social calendar. you would never mistake her for one of my run-over, down in the gutter alcoholism clients, not in a million years. but she was just as, or more abused then some of them. people would say she had good parenting and a good start in life to be so sucessful.

another client i remember is one who told me these grusome tales of abuse, with a straight face and never batted an eyelash when i said, "how horrible. i can't imagine how scared you must have been." she kept trying to convience me that she really didn't have it so bad. it wasn't until she got a boyfriend with children that she began to suspect that something bad had happned to her. but she still could not say "i was abused." she simpled did not believe it despite having been stabbed and then beaten with a ski pole on x-mas morning for spilling her fathers coffee when she was 7. (among other things)

i was a spanker when i was a stepmom. did i think for one minute that i was abusing my stepdaughter? of course not. i simple didn't have any other tools available for parenting at the time to use. on the other hand, does that negate all the good parenting i gave to a neglected little girl? no, of course not. i made sure she was fed 3 times a day, got a regular warm bath, had clean and appropriate clothes to wear and went to school everyday and had help with home work. i took her to girls scouts and swimming and gymnastics and playdates and made many happy birthday parties for her. the abusive aspects of my parenting did not erase what was good and what was good did not excuse my abuse.

i think it's very significant that those who have been horribly abused will swear that have not been. and that many think that labeling hitting as abuse somehow negates the good stuff, it does not. i had a client that was horribly sexually abused (i won't go into details), but she managed to get through college, become a special ed teacher and raise a son as a single mom. her parents must have done something right, despite the fact that her father mangled her for life. she was very messed up, but she functioned pretty darn good in day to day life. and was a good mom too, not the best, but pretty darn good.

my point is, saying "my parents hit me, i wasn't abused, and they loved me." doesn't mean much (as far as naming abuse) since it's so common in our culture, it's like eating at mickey d's, everyone does it even though it's bad. and coming out and saying "my parents were punitive, it was wrong and it was abuse and i choose another way" doesn't make them monsters. it just means they made some mistakes, like most parents.

what you say about your childhood is not at odds with having been abused. i had a blast as a kid too. my parents loved us tons and tons. they also spanked the crap out of us. only on the butt, never ever anywhere else. but it *was* abuse. and that doesn't take way from any of the fun and love i had as a kid, and it doesn't take away form all the good stuff that happened for me then either.

HTH!


----------



## bright eagle (Feb 14, 2004)

so
i disagree will spanking

and this is not a direct response to the cause of affecting change in those who support spanking

but,
as being a mother who has spanked,
and wished she hadnt

i will say that guilt is of little service to the dynamics of change. accusations and hard words did not(could not) not have prevented me from spanking my dc at the times that i didnt. it was connection. connection to my self and to my children. it was breath that gave me the room to move past the tremendous weight of being overwhelmed and feeling powerless. powerless to manage the common task of raising responsible children.

some people do not have the venues open for connection. for those, i can only fell grief and trajedy,and take refuge in a process that is greater than understanding, as i am not an activist, a rescuer. but for those who are struggling through the courageous journey of change and healing, then i have compassion.

i think, for those who are seeking to live from thier heart, it is connection that they need most.


----------



## Trinitty (Jul 15, 2004)

Honeybee,

Thank you for sharing those examples, as I expected, they're really hard to read and think about.

If you were repeatedly spanked as a usual method of correction as a child, I CAN see how you would call that abuse, it's for YOU to come to that and to accept that term and apply it to your experience. I'm being careful here because I know someone who was hit/spanked all the time, yet was raised in a "good home" and that person would flip right out if *I* were to call it abuse. If that person wanted to term it that, then, that would be that person's choice.

While I may sound like I'm one of your past patients defending my parents, I really am not, I wish I could bring you with me in a time machine and show you. Since they only spanked me once each, and since my sisters were only spanked once - in a moment of horror and fear for my mother who was scared for their lives - then, perhaps that's what made them decide that it wasn't the best discipline method? THAT cannot be considered abuse, can it?


----------



## umami_mommy (May 2, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Trinitty*

While I may sound like I'm one of your past patients defending my parents, I really am not, I wish I could bring you with me in a time machine and show you. Since they only spanked me once each, and since my sisters were only spanked once - in a moment of horror and fear for my mother who was scared for their lives - then, perhaps that's what made them decide that it wasn't the best discipline method? THAT cannot be considered abuse, can it?

i have NO idea, maybe your parents *did* decide it *was* abusive and that' why they decided to stop. i know that certainly happens. and there is nothing wrong with making mistakes and learning from them as a parent.

when my stepdaughter lived with her drug-addicted mom, she was totaly unsupervised. she would be found wondering about outside at midnight by the neighbors. since they lived on a corner, she was almost hit by cars a bunch of times. it took us over 18 months to get custody of her. in the meantime, her father (after trying to reason with a 3 year old) finally spanked her with a belt. she never (that we knew) ran in the street again. was that abuse? we were terrified she would be hit by a car all the time. it was the only time he ever hit her like that.

when it comes to hitting and kids, i'm not sure there are always simple answers.


----------



## Magella (Apr 5, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *bright eagle*
as being a mother who has spanked,
and wished she hadnt

i will say that guilt is of little service to the dynamics of change. accusations and hard words did not(could not) not have prevented me from spanking my dc at the times that i didnt. it was connection. connection to my self and to my children. it was breath that gave me the room to move past the tremendous weight of being overwhelmed and feeling powerless. powerless to manage the common task of raising responsible children.

Wow. Thank you for sharing your story, you are very brave to do so. And I deeply admire your courage to do the inner work necessary to stop spanking. And you have so summed up what I know in my heart to be true. It's not guilt that helps people change, not shocking people with words. It's understanding and connection, it's compassion and support, it's awareness of both self and other-these are what help the most.

And as honeybeedreams said, there are no simple answers-not to the question of why parents do things that hurt their children, and not to the question of how to help our society change, and not to the question of whether and how we can help individual parents.


----------



## boomingranny (Dec 11, 2003)

ThinkBlu hit it on the head. If you really want to change or affect change guilting and accusatory language will get you Nowhere fast. If it doesn't work with our kids than how will it work with adults?

June


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *immortal ambition*
Honestly it sickens me when people dilute the word abuse. Abuse is a strong word (with a real defenition) and not a word that will change meaning with each persons opinions. It does a disservice to those who have truly been through abuse or neglet of some kind.

ITA.

I don't think words like "abuse" and "violence" used in the context of different parenting styles is effective. I think it's counterproductive. And, I think that it diminishes the experiences and realities of REAL child abuse. There is a huge difference between a loving, giving, nurturing parent who resorts to swatting the child's butt sometimes and someone who systematically destroys the mind and self-image of a child through sheer neglect, emotional unavailability, and physical violence.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
ITA.

I don't think words like "abuse" and "violence" used in the context of different parenting styles is effective. I think it's counterproductive. And, I think that it diminishes the experiences and realities of REAL child abuse. There is a huge difference between a loving, giving, nurturing parent who resorts to swatting the child's butt sometimes and someone who systematically destroys the mind and self-image of a child through sheer neglect, emotional unavailability, and physical violence.


Yes, but, Piglet (and others!), what if it is productive? What if using the words abuse and violence is just the right motivator for someone...like me? It is a fact that these words are what make it clear to me. These words and this belief are exactly what have helped me stand up for my child against a culture that thinks hitting children is "ok".

Thinking that hitting my child is abusive does not diminish the abuse of another. And, if you think it does, could you please explain this again?

To me, hitting children "a little" is not that different from sexually abusing a child "a little" or hitting your wife "a little" or swatting an inmate "a little".

And anyway, what is the definition of abuse?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I just wanted to talk about something that was on my mind a while back because I'm usually on the other side of this debate. What I think I'm consistent with is that honesty and factually are seldom problematic when it comes with love and good intentions. I know this sounds cheesy but I think it's true. So, whether we're talking about corporal punishment, CIO, formula feeding, circumcision, vaccination...when we advise with love for the parent as well as the child, I think facts are often the way to go.

This goes along with the idea that someone can do something that is violent or abusive without being violent or abusive people. I think this is a clear distinction that is maybe missing from the discussion.

I know that some here think that it is not a fact that hitting a child is abusive or violent but, with this, I disagree.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
I don't think words like "abuse" and "violence" used in the context of different parenting styles is effective. I think it's counterproductive. &#8230; There is a huge difference between a loving, giving, nurturing parent who resorts to swatting the child's butt sometimes and someone who systematically destroys the mind and self-image of a child through sheer neglect, emotional unavailability, and physical violence.

I agree.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
what if it is productive? What if using the words abuse and violence is just the right motivator for someone...like me? It is a fact that these words are what make it clear to me. These words and this belief are exactly what have helped me stand up for my child against a culture that thinks hitting children is "ok"&#8230;. [combining quotes from two posts]&#8230;honesty and factually are seldom problematic when it comes with love and good intentions. ...when we advise with love for the parent as well as the child, I think facts are often the way to go.

I'm having a hard time putting my response into print, as I tend to agree&#8230;and disagree. Please forgive if response is choppy.

I think you hit on a really key point&#8230;.love&#8230;for the parent and the child. I do however think it different to be in a relationship of mutual love (and hopefully respect) and a casual relationship where you may have love for the other person, but not be in a loving relationship with them, and I think the dynamics are different.

I disagree with your use of the words "facts" and "factually". What *you* see as factual, *I* do not. But I do see your point and I am willing to entertain that sometimes 'sanitizing' a message makes it about as effective as elevator music! I am willing to entertain that there may be times and people for whom using strong vocabulary or delivery may be the most effective method, &#8230;..but how do you determine when and whom? And further, is it really required or could a gentle message (delivered with love and best intention) also be effective?

I think that for communication to be *effective*, the involved parties either need to be on common ground regarding vocabulary, or the involved individuals need to make a conscious (or unconscious) decision to allow the other some latitude, and even then that 'offense' creates 'noise'. And while these dynamics may be decipherable in a close love relationship, they are not with more casual relationships. An example, earlier in this thread, someone put my opinions into print, and then labeled them as "bullshit". Despite the fact that I started this thread having made a conscious decision to be open minded, knowing offensive things (IMO) would be said, that little jab shut me down. Though I want to think about the point that she was making, and though I want to reply, every time I make an attempt, my thoughts spiral down to insults and sarcastic jabs. I have actually woken several times in the middle of the night, with some "priceless little insult" that my mind has concocted while I slept. In the end, perhaps the dialogue will be effective, but not efficient and I don't think any more effective that it would have been had the person been more respectful to *my* needs as the intended (or part of the intended) audience. Did this statement come 'in love', probably not, but even if it had (if it could have), I'm not sure that would have changed it's effect.

IdentityCrisisMama - I'm curious. At the time that these words and beliefs helped to make it clear to you, were you (consciously or not) seeking clarification or was it 'thrust upon you' in a way that opened your eyes? Did the words come from a resource that had first gained your respect? Did they initially cause offense, or was it more of an epiphany, i.e, "gee, I never thought of it like that before"?

I do think it comes down to knowing your audience and I think that needs to be very clear. If *you* are in a relationship vs. if *you* have been asked to speak to an audience of willing participants, vs. speaking to an audience of unwilling participants, vs. speaking with someone searching, vs. speaking to a mixed audience such as that on this message board, etc. etc. the dynamics change, but I would argue that a respectful message is always the best, and since different people have different standards of what is respectful, the bar must be held very high. When in doubt, err on the side of caution.

Finally regarding your opinion that it is factual that spanking is abusive&#8230;

Your post implies that when a message is delivered with love, and best intentions (and I would add reasonable judgment), that it can be effective even though the delivery may be seen by some to be less than fully effective (perhaps even as abusive, by definition). That is how I feel about spanking, in other words, spanking is not inherently abusive (though granted is also not effective) if it is delivered with love and best intentions and reasonable judgment. And so while in you opinion, to say that 'spanking is abusive' is a factual statement, for me it is not, unless you strip the word abusive to mean something like 'the infliction of physical pain/discomfort' (by which definition much medical care would also be abusive by definition) and clearly state that so that my mind doesn't go to all the societal connotations of the meaning of the word abusive. Please note, I am NOT advocating for spanking. My point, while I think you may be correct, I don't think it worth the chance. I think that if love and intent can make even an 'offensive' message palatable and effective, then to keep the love and intent, but remove the 'offensive' makes the message (or discipline) even that much more palatable and effective.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Thinkblu,

Thank you for your thought provoking post. I do disagree with much and agree with much. Basically, I think that those who use force against a child debase themselves to the audience of force, if only verbally, or through non-violent interventions. (ie. meeting the audience where they are) So, someone who is hitting a child in public, basically opens himself up to the harsh vocabulary of public judgement which includes our cultural connotation that their actions are 'abusive'. In the moment, and within the cultural context of judgment. However, I do agree, that the actions of hitting a child are intended to meet an underlying need of the parent and that by befriending the parent, one has more opportunity to affect change. But once a child *is being hit* in PUBLIC, the action is what needs to cease, in the moment. And if words, harsh or otherwise, redirect the anger, give voice to questioning their uncontrollable anger, or empower the child, that is my goal. To give *harsh* voice to the *dissent of the child*.

Quote:

And so while in you opinion, to say that 'spanking is abusive' is a factual statement, for me it is not, unless you strip the word abusive to mean something like 'the infliction of physical pain/discomfort' (by which definition much medical care would also be abusive by definition) and clearly state that so that my mind doesn't go to all the societal connotations of the meaning of the word abusive.
Abuse-the infliction of physical pain/discomfort *against one's consent*. Therein lies the difference. And as a critical care nurse, I can attest to much which would probably meet this definition of abuse, tragically. Yes, the cultural connotation of the "wrongfulness" of the action of the swing of your fist, ends at my nose. Or a child's body. Except as is consensually agreed: boxing, football, wrestling, IV insertions, setting broken limbs, surgery, etc. It is only children who do not live in our culture with the benefit of the connotation of violation when their body is imposed upon *against* their consent. Children are treated in the same category as property. Lower than pets. Perhaps almost at the same level of pets, since movie stars are activists for animal rights.

Pat


----------



## captain crunchy (Mar 29, 2005)

No, children are treated slightly higher than animals still...we still aren't allowed to eat them for dinner









...but Ferber is working on that book probably....


----------



## Piglet68 (Apr 5, 2002)

An interesting thought I've had while reading this discussion:

We know that societal attitudes can go a long way to improving behaviour. Example, where I live it is illegal to smoke in restaurants and bars and any other public places. More and more the overall attitude to smoking is "it's gross". People give you dirty looks if you light up near them, even at the bus stop. I've seen the smokers becoming more and more aware of this, and taking steps to keep their smoke away from other people, etc. Yet in places where no such laws and attitudes exist, parents openly parade around with lit cigarettes in one hand, and babies in the other. It's not that people are going around here saying "you're abusive! you rotten parent!", but there is just an overall societal unacceptance of this behaviour that seems to really have an effect on what people do.

Similarly, spanking is just not done here. And if it is, they keep it away from the public eye. Again, it's not that armies of GD parents are running around calling spankers abusive, horrible parents. But somehow the message of disapproval has come out (and, I'm proud to say, our own government health organizations advocate against it, both in information pamphlets, children's programming, etc). So even if there are a few who spank, they simply wouldn't have the balls to do it in public. RIGHT THERE this sends a message. I mean, if you don't want to do it in public then you MUST admit that the majority of people don't parent this way, ergo there must be another way of doing things.

So....my question is: how do these changes in soceital attitude come about? When did my city become so anti-smoking (I well remember the furor that arose when they first proposed banning smoking in restaurants - now nobody even thinks about it). How did my city become anti-spanking?

I don't think it was by using terms like abuse and violence.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

I am completely willing to say that the words one chooses are important but that's about it. I do not find any of the arguments that hitting is not abusive convincing. There is not a convincing argument that using these words belittles other forms of abuse. I am not convinced that using these words is offensive to "most" people and I think that those of you who think that might want to look into the origional message this is sending...ie. "You cant handle the truth". IMO, until we're willing to "call a spade a spade" when it comes to violence, it's going to continue to be overlooked by the greater culture.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Piglet68*
So....my question is: how do these changes in soceital attitude come about? When did my city become so anti-smoking (I well remember the furor that arose when they first proposed banning smoking in restaurants - now nobody even thinks about it). How did my city become anti-spanking?

I don't think it was by using terms like abuse and violence.

Cross post, Piglet

I disagree. I think that things like smoking got banned because people finally admitted that it is deadly! I think that hitting children becomes more an more taboo as people speak out about what it really is. Violence.

I could ask how a culture becomes anti-spanking without these words?


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

This is from the WHO Convention on the Rights of the Child:

Article 19
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

Note that they use the word violence and abuse and the term "all forms".


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Scubamama*
I do disagree with much and agree with much.

Well, as I think we near the end of this thread, I am happy to say that I think largely, we are all mostly debating degrees of grey.

Quote:

Basically, I think that those who use force against a child debase themselves to the audience of force, if only verbally, or through non-violent interventions. (ie. meeting the audience where they are) So, someone who is hitting a child in public, basically opens himself up to the harsh vocabulary of public judgement which includes our cultural connotation that their actions are 'abusive'. In the moment, and within the cultural context of judgment. However, I do agree, that the actions of hitting a child are intended to meet an underlying need of the parent and that by befriending the parent, one has more opportunity to affect change.
Well said and I see your point. While I agree that those who use force open themselves up to attack, I still would not advocate that to attack (verbally or otherwise) would be an appropriate or effective response.

Quote:

But once a child *is being hit* in PUBLIC, the action is what needs to cease, in the moment. And if words, harsh or otherwise, redirect the anger, give voice to questioning their uncontrollable anger, or empower the child, that is my goal. To give *harsh* voice to the dissent of the child.
Again, I can see your point. I vote for "otherwise". I don't see where using harsh words helps to deliver the message.

Quote:

Abuse-the infliction of physical pain/discomfort against one's consent.
Per this definition, "IV insertions, setting broken limbs, surgery, etc." would be abusive if the child did not give consent, would it not.?

Quote:

It is only children who do not live in our culture with the benefit of the connotation of violation when their body is imposed upon *against* their consent. Children are treated in the same category as property. Lower than pets. Perhaps almost at the same level of pets, since movie stars are activists for animal rights.
I will attempt to respond to this separately (though I have been attempting for about a week, and I'm not sure I'm very close to having something 'post-able'.) But I disagree. I agree that children have different rights , in some specific ways, I can see where an argument can be made that their rights are inferior, in other ways I think an argument could be made that they are superior (i.e., right to free education)&#8230;..in all, I think they are just different, and IMO, understandably and justifiably different&#8230;.anyway, watch for more on this if interested.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
I am not convinced that using these words is offensive to "most" people

What about to "some" people? How do you differentiate? What do you propose to undo the offense once it has been done? I'm not against calling a "spade a spade", I'm against calling a spade abusive. What is it that can be conveyed by calling spanking abuse, that can't be conveyed with other words?

Quote:

I think that things like smoking got banned because people finally admitted that it is deadly!
I think that part of what is changing perception of smoking is that it has been shown to cause cancer and other lung disorders that I can't spell and partially because of public service campaigns and public policy, not because of statements which put smokers on the defesive. Can we not make an equally convincing argument against spanking with out putting people on the defense?


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
Article 19
1. States Parties shall take all appropriate legislative, administrative, social and educational measures to protect the child from all forms of physical or mental violence, injury or abuse, neglect or negligent treatment, maltreatment or exploitation, including sexual abuse, while in the care of parent(s), legal guardian(s) or any other person who has the care of the child.

Note that they use the word violence and abuse and the term "all forms".

Thanks for posting this. I've been thinking a lot about the rights of the child lately and this sends me on a welcomed new direction. For what is worth, I found the following link, critical of the US's involvement in the process...http://www.un.org/News/briefings/doc...ucaspc.doc.htm

Curious how they define some of their terms. Part of why I think words such as abuse should be avoided, is because the have such extremely different meanings to different people. Kinda like the word discipline.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
What about to "some" people? How do you differentiate? What do you propose to undo the offense once it has been done?

I am just true to myself, my intentions and the situation rather than making assumptions about how another person will react. This is in part because I think the assumptions alone can be offensive. Once an offence has occured, I would do my best to correct it. IME, if I'm coming from a good place, that's an easy thing to do.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
I'm not against calling a "spade a spade", I'm against calling a spade abusive. What is it that can be conveyed by calling spanking abuse, that can't be conveyed with other words?

Yes, I hear you. I just have not had the experience where I felt I needed to convey my words in another way. This is a sort of Occam's Razor (one should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything) type issue, no?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
Not to be snarky, but define deadly! I think that part of what is changing perception of smoking is that it has been shown to cause cancer and other lung disorders that I can't spell and partially because of public service campaigns and public policy, not because of statements like Smoking is deadly.

Public policy is not the catalyst. The catilist is the reason that change is needed.


----------



## IdentityCrisisMama (May 12, 2003)

Well, according to that article the Bush administration feels that the words "rights" and "services" are too open to interpretation.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
Part of why I think words such as abuse should be avoided, is because the have such extremely different meanings to different people. Kinda like the word discipline.

Well, that's a good point if this has been a problem for you. I too have heard the word discipline used in many different ways but I choose to use it meaning "to teach" because I think this sends a positive message. When having a discussion, the definition of words can be a really good method of flushing out ideas. In this way, a conflict can be a good thing.

At this point I'd be REALLY interested in seeing the US law that exempts hitting children from being illegal! Does anyone know where to find that?


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

I know this is off topic, but I just can't see starting a new thread for this.....

Question regarding: children have been relagated to second-class or property status [in the U.S.]&#8230;.

I have been trying unsucessfully to draft a response, and before I go off again on my soapbox&#8230;if it were illegal for parents/guardians to spank or use other forms of physical punishment and if children had the right to sue (which by my understanding, they do but as minors, they need representation) would that change your opinion?

A few days ago, I thought the idea that children are treated as second-class citizens was really extreme, and taking the whole 'spanking is abuse' debate up a notch, but now I'm thinking that if one sees spanking as tantamount to abuse, and sees legislation making spanking legal, the natural logical conclusion IS that children are treated as second-class citizens. Does anyone disagree with my logic?

Does anyone here think that spanking is NOT tantamount to abuse but still feel that children are treated as second-class citizens?


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *IdentityCrisisMama*
I'd be REALLY interested in seeing the US law that exempts hitting children from being illegal! Does anyone know where to find that?

http://familyrightsassociation.com/i...nking_laws.htm


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
Well, as I think we near the end of this thread, I am happy to say that I think largely, we are all mostly debating degrees of grey.

Well said and I see your point. While I agree that those who use force open themselves up to attack, I still would not advocate that to attack (verbally or otherwise) would be an appropriate or effective response.

Perhaps, we need to define "attack". I certainly don't believe that calling a violent act "violence", an attack.







Nor is identifying the use of violence by a 100-200 pound individual, against a little child, "abusive", an attack. And in public, in the moment, I work to empathize before a parent's anger escalates. But, I am fine saying that violence is violence, in any context.

Quote:

Again, I can see your point. I vote for "otherwise". I don't see where using harsh words helps to deliver the message.
Most people do evaluate their actions according to a personal moral code and generally people do not evaluate the act of hitting a child "amoral". But violence and abuse are considered "amoral". So, by saying A=B and B=C, one can come to the same conclusion that A=C. And, *therefore* at least pause to consider their actions. Most just dismiss their actions and justify it as "discipline". Discipline need not include violence. Abuse is not discipline.

Quote:

Per this definition, "IV insertions, setting broken limbs, surgery, etc." would be abusive if the child did not give consent, would it not.?
Thank you for making my point so succinctly. I agree, that a child's consent is needed for medical interventions.

Quote:

I will attempt to respond to this separately (though I have been attempting for about a week, and I'm not sure I'm very close to having something 'post-able'.) But I disagree. I agree that children have different rights , in some specific ways, I can see where an argument can be made that their rights are inferior, in other ways I think an argument could be made that they are superior (i.e., right to free education)&#8230;..in all, I think they are just different, and IMO, understandably and justifiably different&#8230;.anyway, watch for more on this if interested.
Ummm....public education is compulsory, not volitional even. I believe a "right" must be something desirable and doesn't infringe upon freedom (ie. elective). A right conveys and ensures freedoms from compulsion, public education limits freedoms of the child based upon their age. Ageism. Again, thank you for making my point so succinctly.

Pat


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
A few days ago, I thought the idea that children are treated as second-class citizens was really extreme, and taking the whole 'spanking is abuse' debate up a notch, but now I'm thinking that if one sees spanking as tantamount to abuse, and sees legislation making spanking legal, the natural logical conclusion IS that children are treated as second-class citizens. Does anyone disagree with my logic?

Does anyone here think that spanking is NOT tantamount to abuse but still feel that children are treated as second-class citizens?

Well, I'm not certain exactly what you are asking, but... I do think spanking is abuse. I do think that children have second-class status in our culture. I do not think that based solely on the status of legislation regarding spanking.

Clear as mud?









There are many aspects of culture and law that cause me to believe that children are discriminated against. I'll try to delve into them in you are interested, but scubamama already addressed the compulsory schooling part - and I'm fairly confident that I would agree with her stand on other aspects...


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Perhaps the equally emotional argument that "children are treated like property" might or might not make the point more clearly.

The point is that children (as a group or "class" of individuals), by law, have severely limited ability of recourse about how they are treated as compared to other "groups". Just as the "groups" of women and blacks had limited laws available to protect them from the will of the master. Children are "second class citizens" by law still. Not to mention the laws which *limit* children's rights of recourse, ie. you can't sue your parent for restraint of association, restriant of freedom of speech, restraint of free movement and restraint of other Civil Liberties which are endowed by the Constitution to all but CHILDREN! Ageism is the next equal footing upon which I am working to change. The sad part is that ageism is so pervasive as to be invisible. Just as patriarchy was (is). "It has always been done this way." "This is the way it is done."

Not to mention the right to be free from being physically hit. Of all things, how could that right not be remitted to other human citizens of a "civilized" country. We extended it to prisoners, mental patients, the elderly, animals..... Finally women and minorities. But not children. Is this clearer?

One need only look around at MDC to see children:

1. forced into carseats
2. food choice withheld
3. forced to stay in bed
4. forced to go to bed
5. personal property taken, under the guise of "discipline" without due process
6. forced to go to places they don't want to go
7. forced to leave places against their will
8. limitations placed on choice of friends and associations that are not "approved"
9. punished, again without due process for language or expression (ie. "back talk", "sassing")
10. restrictions on access to media

11. gifts and money are controlled by another
12. restraint on phone usage
13. restriction on mobility, under the guise of "grounding"

etc.

Pat


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Wow, it's clear I would be in waaaay over my head to even begin to respond. Curious, IYO, should children have the same rights (i.e., alcohol, concentual sexual relations, firearms, contractual relations, marriage, military service, pornography, employment, etc.) as adults? Should they have the same authority and responsibility as adults? Should their lapses in judgement bear the same consequence as for adults?

This all seems so incompatable with 'organized society/civilization'. While *you* may see this as an ideal, do *you* see it as in anyway potentally feasable? If I can be so bold, would someone be interested in putting together their vision for a world where children are treated as equals and what that looks like?


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

I don't have much time, but as an overview (without getting into specifics) I think that children are way more capable than we allow them to be. They want to learn from capable adults and model us. Youth does not immediately and inherently equal bad judgement. I believe that children who are given their innate rights to choose the course of their lives know to seek out guidance from trusted people when they are unable to decide from within themselves.

I don't believe that they need be turned away from family and denied access to guidance from the ones who love them to ensure they have choice. It seems to me that most here feel that we are saying we must let them go with no family connection at all - that there will be unguided children running the streets making poor choices without consequence.

I believe that childen stop seeking guidance when they can't trust their guides.

I trust my child's innate abilities and honor his karma. I hope to live up to his trust in me.


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
Wow, it's clear I would be in waaaay over my head to even begin to respond. Curious, IYO, should children have the same rights (i.e., alcohol, concentual sexual relations, firearms, contractual relations, marriage, military service, pornography, employment, etc.) as adults? Should they have the same authority and responsibility as adults? Should their lapses in judgement bear the same consequence as for adults?

This all seems so incompatable with 'organized society/civilization'. While *you* may see this as an ideal, do *you* see it as in anyway potentally feasable? If I can be so bold, would someone be interested in putting together their vision for a world where children are treated as equals and what that looks like?

Do you think that ALL adults have the ability to handle alcohol, sexual relations, firearms, contracts, marriage, military service, pornography, employment due to obtaining the age of 18, or 21 in some "rights"?

Do you think that carseats, food choice, bedtimes, personal property, freedom of association, freedom of transit, media access, phone usage and mobility are of the same degree of danger to others in society as alcohol, sexual relations, firearms, contracts, marriage, military service, pornography, employment, etc.?

Aren't all adults able to *choose* their advisors and accept the consequences of their choice to follow the advice of others? What about the fiduciary relationship that is endowed upon the "advisor", such as a CPA, Lawyer, Physician? Adults have the choice to "disobey" or disregard the advice of advisors that they deem untrustworthy, and elect to create a new advisory relationship, AT WILL. Children have no such authority. On the contrary, our society disavows the child against such "disobedience" of assumed "authority".

I believe that as children are empowered to choose their advisors, that the advice might be less coercive, less forced, more consensual. And as such more respected *because* it considers the child's perspective. The role of the advisor is only as valued as the trust of the advisor. I would expect that those who demonstrate an inability to consider the child's perspective would loose advisement power. And each child is then empowered to seek an alternative representative, without the submission to coercion. (Unless, one still believes that "all children" *must be* subject to coercion. I presume that this belief has been dispelled by now.







)

HTH, Pat


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

I am not trying to debate or discredit this idea, I am trying to understand. I realize the examples I gave were extreme. I am trying to understand where/how the line(s) would be drawn. I can think of many reasons why this doesn't make sense *to me*, many reasons why this could not work in today's urban and suburban areas, and many examples which *prove* *to me* that if this were the way that our society functioned, that many people I know, including myself likely would not even be alive at this point&#8230;but I realize that because I have never been apart or seen anything even close to this, and can not even find any examples through history (of urbanized areas) that my reasons and examples are riddled with prejudices, biases and are conjecture at best.

I am asking for someone to give me a vision of what this looks like. In a perfect world, how does this look? A key thought that I have is that different responsibilities necessitates different authorities, and I think, different rights. Not better or worse, just different. Do these differences equate to inequalities? I am asking for education, and perhaps that is not fair.

I want to try to steer clear of examples, because I think examples are going to serve as 'speedbumps' to 'big picture' understanding, but in case responses to your questions/comments help to clarify&#8230;.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Youth does not immediately and inherently equal bad judgement. I believe that children who are given their innate rights to choose the course of their lives know to seek out guidance from trusted people when they are unable to decide from within themselves.

I agree youth does not equate to bad judgment, (neither does adulthood) but I do think that experience and responsibility generally inform better judgment.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
I don't believe that they need be turned away from family and denied access to guidance from the ones who love them to ensure they have choice. It seems to me that most here feel that we are saying we must let them go with no family connection at all - that there will be unguided children running the streets making poor choices without consequence.

Didn't mean to suggest that they would be turned away, but given what I have read, I have concluded that they would have the option to turn away and I am fearful of what 'lures' they might turn to in such circumstances. I think children are beautiful and capable, but I also think they *can be* overly trusting, naïve and even gullible. If you can't trust parents (and laws as they pertain to families) to generally act in the best interest of their children, how could it possibly work on a larger societal (urbanized) scale? To be honest, given my understanding of this, I do see unguided/misguided children running the streets making poor choices WITH HORRIBLE consequence. I know that there is a physiological condition where once people have acted in ways that they feel let their loved ones down, they often choose to banish themselves, feeling they no longer deserve to be in loving surroundings or no longer deserve the love of those most precious to them.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Do you think that ALL adults have the ability to handle&#8230;(fill in the vise of your choice, lol)

No, but generally they have the right until they demonstrate that their right to do so infringes on the rights of others. Would the same apply to children or would something different apply to both adults and children? What would this look like?

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
Do you think that carseats, food choice, bedtimes, personal property, freedom of association, freedom of transit, media access, phone usage and mobility are of the same degree of danger to others in society as alcohol, sexual relations, firearms, contracts, marriage, military service, pornography, employment, etc.?

Again, where/how do you draw the line(s)?

Freedom of transit? What exactly does that mean? That my child can go where and when he pleases? Add freedom of association&#8230;with or without whomever he pleases? My heart sinks. I just can't imagine.

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
I would expect that those who demonstrate an inability to consider the child's perspective would loose advisement power. And each child is then empowered to seek an alternative representative, without the submission to coercion.

_scubamama on a side note. I think your writing style is quite eloquent and you demonstrate a strong vocabulary. Your writings however go a bit 'above my head'. I mention this because I don't want you to think I am playing dumb, or being snarky in my responses. More than once I thought I was agreeing with you only to later feel that I had completely misinterpreted based on a subsequent response from you._

I interpret the above to mean that the child would take away the advisement power. Sadly, while I think this may be the case once a child has a strong foundation, I foresee this not consistently being the case, and to return to a previous point I made&#8230;if you can't trust parents (and laws as they pertain to families) to generally act in the best interest of their children, how could it possibly work on a larger societal (urbanized) scale?


----------



## WuWei (Oct 16, 2005)

Thinkblu,

I enjoyed your queries. I will need to consider them. It occurred to me that there are a couple of glaring examples of children as second class citizens. Circumcision came to mind. And their lack of voting rights. Here is an article related to children's right to vote.
http://www.lifelearningmagazine.com/0408/JulyAug04.pdf

Yesterday, I happened upon another example which was profoundly evident. I was visiting a very AP, co-sleeping until they are 8+, tandem nursing, homeschooling, nonvax, noncirc, yada, yada, non-spanking friend. Their 13.5 year old has earned and saved over $700 mowing lawns, doing clean up yard work, trimming, prunning, etc. over the past year or 18 months. The young man, wishes to spend all of his saved money on a new riding lawn mower, in order to be able to do more business. HIS parents refused "allowing" him to spend HIS money this way.









Pat


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *scubamama*
there are a couple of glaring examples of children as second class citizens. Circumcision came to mind. And their lack of voting rights.

Finally, something I can get my head around









Specifically regarding voting...wouldn't it be nice if in order to vote (or run for political office







) we could somehow check a persons (any persons) basic awareness and ability to think as an individual?

As for circumcision (or infant ear piercing), I can definatly see the point there too, but expand it to vaacines and other medical care issues and my head starts swimming again.


----------



## aira (Jun 16, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
To be honest, given my understanding of this, I do see unguided/misguided children running the streets making poor choices WITH HORRIBLE consequence. I know that there is a physiological condition where once people have acted in ways that they feel let their loved ones down, they often choose to banish themselves, feeling they no longer deserve to be in loving surroundings or no longer deserve the love of those most precious to them.

Unfortunately, yet again, I'm stealing some puter time and don't have much of it.

I wanted to say that in the above quote, I feel strongly that the example(s) here are not the results of giving children their rights. I suspect these children had poor or no guidance available to them. It is a very sad situation.


----------



## ThinkBlu (Oct 17, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *aira*
Unfortunately, yet again, I'm stealing some puter time and don't have much of it.

I wanted to say that in the above quote, I feel strongly that the example(s) here are not the results of giving children their rights. I suspect these children had poor or no guidance available to them. It is a very sad situation.

Take your time, I'll be around.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *ThinkBlu*
Specifically regarding voting...wouldn't it be nice if in order to vote (or run for political office







) we could somehow check a persons (any persons) basic awareness and ability to think as an individual?


This was done in the past when people with dark-hued skin were given the right to vote. States then required them to pass certain tests of ability to vote, which most couldn't pass. Funny thing is, many of the people with lighter-colored skin, who already had been voting, probably wouldn't have been able to pass the test, either. The US founding fathers initially wanted only landowners to have the right to vote. Eventually the idea of requiring a person to demonstrate a certain competency in order to be allowed to vote was ruled unlawful. If you are an adult and a citizen of the country, you have a right to have a say in what laws are made that might affect you, via your right to vote. The problem is that for any "test" of awareness and thinking, there will be some subset of people that would not test well due to cultural or ethnic differences, and it would not be fair.

This is so OT, but fun to think about. I don't think its possible to interfere with a person's right to vote, but if somehow a virus were engineered that only affected people who voted for The Shrub, I would not cry too hard for too long. Its one of my favorite fantasies. What if you woke up one morning and there were no more Republicans?


----------

