The Imperfect Community

mammaX3_MOD · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 3:30 pm Post subject:

Pixie, not to "Yay" you, Laughing

but I do agree with you that if we let something as minute as this pass, not only is it a waste of law enforcement resouces, but then everyone with an adgenda will be trying to push theirs into law. And not just ant-vac'rs, anti- circ'rs, anti-formula feeders, but EVERYONE! Everyone who feels their way is right will be clogging up "the system" with their input. People will want to ban cars getting less than 35mpg. They'll want to ban hurting people's feelings (not just racial bigotry). They'll want to ban all dogs so as to not offend people afraid of them. Where will it stop? (I'd love to ban any large group of teens from cursing as I'm trying to make my way into the grocery store with my little ones! Laughing

)
Gees, we've all but banned smoking completely. How about banning alcohol consumption next? (I personally feel drunk driving is a bigger issue than smoking, but let's save that for another thread.)

TreeMom · Slightly Flawed Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 109

I had this great semi-eloquent response typed up and had to ditch it because of work! I really shouldn't even attempt to respond to debates at work because someone always walks in my office in the middle of it, comments that I look like I am concentrating and makes me feel bad for not working.

Since I posted at work I have sort of been all over the place, so I am going to attempt to not be all over the place. However we have violin lessons in a few minutes and I need to mentally abuse my child by rushing him out of the house.

I feel there are multiple questions here.

1. Is hitting a child under 3 wrong?
-- I think it is. I think it is in all circumstances. Yes Jessica if you hit a two year old I think you are wrong. I think it is a very bad thing.

2. Is hitting a child under 3 abuse?
-- I do not think it is abuse, but rather as I stated something akin to it. I also think not putting your child in a carseat properly and keeping them in the safest carseat at all times is wrong. I think it should be (and often is) a crime. I think it should carry potential fines, carseat safety classes, and yes in some circumstances jail time. I consider hitting a child under 3 similar. It has the potential for great damage although at any given time it may cause no damage at all. However I think both are wrong in every circumstance.

3. Is thinking hitting a child under 3 wrong an ultra-liberal ideal?
-- Um hardly. My cohort whom I adore at work and I actually stole the one eyebrow short of a socialist phrase from is a spanker. we have had this discussion and he thinks there is not an issue with spanking a small child. He is ultra-liberal. And for the other side, um...really you are not; claiming all non-liberals support the hitting of 3 year olds are you?

4. Should something that is not child abuse be a misdemeanor?
-- Yes. Yes. Yes Yes yes. There are all sorts of these laws that exist already and do great good.

5. Is this law solving the problem?
-- It depends on the problem. It has the potential to reduce the hitting of children under three. It does not in and of itself solve an issue completely.

6. If a law does not solve an issue, is it bad?
-- Not necessarily. Many good laws (carseats) may only treat an issue for some people. Some people will never do the right thing. But many people will simply because a law exists. Maybe you might toke up some pot because it is illegal, but I doubt you will start smacking two year olds because it is.

I think those are the main questions I saw.

Jessica - You are the one who just was so against anyone ever doing anything to parents. I used my parents as an example of people who ought to doing nothing under the guise of my parent's right to discipline. I do not for a moment think most parents are like them. In fact I am the first to scoff at claims of abuse for lame things (like ahem overscheduled kids, get real, that isn't abuse) because lame things don't break kids, abuse does. However I do not think as a parent you have a right to him a 6 month old. I think the 6 month old has a right to not be hit. I think a 2 year old has that right as well. To be honest I think a 15 year old has the right to not be hit, but I do not think a law banning all spanking will be reasonable, because as you said there are things that indicate spanking could be positive. However this is a law concerning children under 3. I think people who hit their children under 3 to be unreasonable and wrong.

When I say that I am sure there are people who could read this who think I am saying they are unreasonable and wrong in all circumstances. To avoid being accused of not standing by what I say, yes I personally feel that if you hit any child under 3 you are those things.

I also believe that courts are reasonable most of the time, that activists judges are an occasional thing and that people in general do the right thing. So if I were charged with the misdemeanor crime of hitting a child under three I believe I would be fined and offered parenting classes. I do not think in most cases under most circumstances that judges, juries or prosecutors are so unreasonable to insist jail time for a first offense with an adult who isn't acting like a jackass in court. So yes, I have no problem with tough potential sentences.

Now I must go take the boy to violin.

kelly

Jessica · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:30 pm Post subject:

Kelly, judge me all you want, that is your right, but just know if laws like these are passed (and they won't be because I think the American public is smarter than that), then all your parenting choices are fair game for government intervention. Who's to say that under these kind of over-reaches of the government, than ANY parenting decision should be the right of the parent.

Personally, if you think I'm wrong for swatting my hyper-active 3 year old to get his attention, is not a concern to me because I'm not really looking for your approval. I'm more concerned about the Government taking away parental rights based on a minority fringe. I'm part of a majority that finds it unacceptable and will vote accordingly. Thankfully, people like me still have the power to do something about it.

Ironically, I'm not a big spanker -- haven't spanked one ever and the other one in years and years, but find this kind of legislation a very serious danger to our rights. (And infant formula would be next. Many people think that is a grave hazard to infants, even moreso than spanking.) Americans need to take action, IMO. This is serious.

Petulant Pixie · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject:

And, Kelly, I disagree.

I don't think that spanking a 2 y.o. for the occasional behavioral issue is in any way harming the child. Seriously, I do not. I also haven't seen any documentation that shows that the occasional spank of a child does any harm at all. I think it is very different from not putting your child in a car seat, where there is overwhelming documentation showing the fatal risks involved. If you can find documentation showing long term effects of the occasional spank (as opposed to a child who is spanked all the time over the course of years for just about every offense), then I'd be interested in seeing it.

From a behaviorist's point of view spanking is bad because:
1) It models violence.
2) It uses a "might for right" mentality.
3) It uses punishment rather than positive reinforcement to teach.
--Positive reinforecment is giving rewards (verbal or physical--stickers, toys, etc.) to increase a desired behavior (getting along with siblings, not climbing on furniture, etc.). Negative reinforcement (often confused with punishement) is the cessation of a negative stimuli in order to increase a desired behavior (stopping electroshock on a cat when it pushes the right lever, or saying to a kid that he can leave his room when he apologizes). Punishment is giving an unpleasant stimuli to stop an undesirable behavior (time outs, taking away of toys, dog "bark collars", etc.). ALL the research shows that punishment in any form is ineffective for teaching. Positive and negative reinforcement are effective--positive reiforcement being more effective and negative reinforcement being hard to enforce.
--Punishment has been shown to not TEACH anything, but rather curb the undesirable behavior in the presence of the punisher only.

Aside from those issues which from a psychological view point, there is also the evidence that I stated before, that spankers usually increase the frequency and intensity of the spankings over time, which can lead to a generally violent upbringing, one where the parents use control and fear to discipline.

People can and do however use control and fear as their parenting style even without ever spanking or striking a child. My mother and my husband's mother used horrible guilt and passive agressiveness to tear us apart from the inside out. And, people can use spanking without it being about control or fear. There are times in young childhood where fear is a necessary emotion and a critical learning tool. I stand by my statement that spanking can *always* be replaced by some other disciplinary action, but PUNISHMENT cannot. Is a demeaning talking-down less harmful to a child than a swat on the butt? Is losing a prized toy for an extensive amount of time less harmful than a swat on the butt? There isn't anything out there that I know of that says those things aren't.

The only thing that's outstanding in pitting a spanking vs an other punishment is the modeling of violence. That varies from household to household. Are the parents modeling violence in other ways? Allowing violent television to be watched? Studies have shown (and there have been a ton of studies in this area) that while children do imitate violence they see in adults, whether in person or on television, the general upbringing is much more important. It used to be (in the 60's and 70's) that they believed that if you showed a child a violent scene that he'd immediately act out (they have tapes showing this with the Bobo dolls), but more recent research shows that it needs to be repetitive violence in several areas of the child's life to really be an issue. A parent who spanks frequently would be someone who is in danger of crossing that line. A parent who spanks on occasion would not.

I can guarantee you that the times I have spanked my children, the spank was less painful than the bumps and flicks that happen when we're horsing around. Spanking isn't used to inflict pain on the child. The idea of hitting a kid with a ruler or a stick--now that's a whole other ballgame! Swatting a butt with a hand isn't done to hurt the kid, in most cases, it's used as an attention-getter, to get the child to immediately focus. The same thing with grabbing an arm, or turing a kid's face towards you to speak to him. All of those are uncomfortable, but only the spanking would be considered a crime.

As I said, the irony of this situation is that the big stack of issues with spanking is simpy that it's punishment and this bill is using punishment as its technique to stop punishing. It would make a lot more sense to fund a program to teach ALL parents other techniques and offer ongoing support. I am a behaviorist, and I'd call that damn hotline! One of the things I miss most is being able to bounce ideas off of my peers on how to handle certain situations.

I do think you're viewpoint may be skewed because of your violent upbringing. I'm sorry for that. I know that there are triggers from my past that when I hear people talking about behaving in even remotely similar ways it makes me react. It's the baggage we'll carry with us forever. But, the truth is that stopping spanking isn't going to stop abuse. To stop abuse, which is the real problem, we need more support and education for parents.

TreeMom · Slightly Flawed Joined: 09 Jan 2007 Posts: 109

No, I just plain don't think people should hit children under three. The same way I don't think people should drive around with kids not in carseats.

I sort of roll my eyes at how "my violent upbringing" skewed my views because in recent years my "violent upbringing" (which was far more neglect with occasional violence and some sexual abuse thrown in for a rare side course) has proven to me that we almost always make too big of a deal about parenting issues. Spanking or not spanking will not break kids. Formula feeding or extended nursing will not break kids. Crying it out or family bed will not break kids. Daycare doesn't break kids. Boy Scouts doesn't break kids. Sports don't break kids. All these things we have big opinions on are just not that big of a deal. Those are just different choices people make in parenting. Those are not akin to the abuse that so many parenting debates end up claiming. In recent years since I was able to think clearly through my part in these debates to realize I personally wanted someone to give me the mother of year award for being perfect. When I realized that my part in these debates was so often an ego thing I began to realize that not feeding your child, locking them in closets, beating them, leaving scars, being hateful to your children THOSE things break kids.

I just think hitting a child under three is wrong. Like the carseat thing.

And Jessica - Open it on up. I have never had a problem with anyone peering into my parenting practices. Because like you, I believe that majority of people to be reasonable. No one is going to jail over a parenting mistake.

Kelly

Scout · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:24 pm Post subject:

Jeezus H., does every fucking argument have to come down to how the evil Liberals want pedophiles working in every school in America and how we just adore Andrea Yates and want to pass out porn and lube to preschoolers? Rolling Eyes

It's just so far from true and so tiresome. You want to take a tiny handful of extremists and act like they are totally representative of the whole liberal ideology. It's like saying the freakshows who bomb abortion clinics are representative of all conservatives. We "celebrate abortion"? That is like some Jerry Falwell bullshit.

I can see problems with this law, yes, and it doesn't matter because it will never be passed. Taken in isolation, no, I have no problem with the concept of banning the hitting of babies and toddlers. In all those instances where things go to the horrible extreme and babies are killed, it's because the parents' rights were put above the child's safety, so it's hard for me to buy the idea that parents have no rights.

Jessica · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:46 pm Post subject:

Jessica · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 8:52 pm Post subject:

Scout · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:08 pm Post subject:

I'm talking about cases where kids are being abused but the court wants to keep them with the parents. It seems to me that our judicial system is overly concerned with protecting parental rights in cases of abuse, which leads to kids being beaten to death when they could have been removed from the home. It happens all the time, just like you said, when social workers have been assigned but the kids are not protected at all.

Ok, and this is totally tangential if not irrelevant, but did you see a few weeks ago on oprah the guy who killed his twin daughters while his wife was not home? And she said he had been depressed and talked about killing himself. Oprah said "do you wish now he had done that instead of what he did?" and the wife said no. WTF?? I would have been like "No Oprah, I wish I had killed the motherfucker myself!" I'm with Dennis Miller: if you feel you are going to do something to hurt a child, you need to step up to the plate and kill yourself.

Jessica · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:34 pm Post subject:

ExCareerGal · Posted: Wed Jan 24, 2007 9:51 pm Post subject:

I do not think this will pass. I am not against rare use of spanking when it is a SERIOUS issue where I would not mind causing my child possible psychological harm. (Such as a way to deter running out into the street.) Though I would like to have a discussion with my 2 year old- I am totaly ok with him fearing me on this issue and possibly getting some irrational fear of trucks. I spanked my son one time. My daughter never.

I am against spanking as a casual deterrent on very young children but I also do not believe in a lot of behaviors that parents sometimes do (and even one's I do at times). But I do not need to legislate it, nor do I think legislation would be useful.

That being said I find Jessica's characterization of politics somewhat baffling. I do not believe all Republicans or Conservatives believe every radical right view (like having no corporate oversight and putting Christian prayer in all schools) or believe that Democrats or liberals necessarily support radical left views ( such as socialism or thinking the ACLU is always fabulous?) I am a moderate and hold as many conservative as liberal views. I think much of America is also in the middle. I find it interesting that on this board that when I have supported liberal views, it has been assumed that I must agree with all of them. I vote for whomever I believe is the best person (regardless of party) and I think there are as many wacko views on left as the right. I hope neither gets too much power!

As for this issue- though I strongly believe parent who not spank or use corporal punishment unless is extremely rare instances, I do not support legislating it.

Petulant Pixie · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:11 am Post subject:

Scout · Posted: Thu Jan 25, 2007 8:24 am Post subject:

I think the system needs to establish more group homes, or find some other way to deal with abusive parents. I do not believe it is ever in a child's best instance to be left with abusive parents, and too often it ends with the child being permanently injured or killed. I'm not blaming the social workers (although I'm sure some of them do suck, as with any profession). I think that, again, this is a societal issue because our society just does not care about or protect children.