Dems want to control how we disicpline our children

[Mr. Intenseone]

http://www.nbc11.com/family/10793180/detail.html

[Dos Equis]

Lawmaker Proposes No-Spanking Law
Sponsor Says Measure Would Help Young Children

UPDATED: 8:47 am PST January 19, 2007

SACRAMENTO, Calif. -- A California legislator introduced a bill Thursday that would make it illegal for parents to spank their young children.

Assemblywoman Sally Lieber, D-Mountain View, authored the bill, which would make it a misdemeanor for parents to spank a child age 3 years or younger, television station KCRA reported.

The crime would carry a punishment of up to a year in jail or a $1,000 fine.
 

Lieber said the bill is long overdue.

"This bill is absolutely not big mother government coming in to tell parents what to do," Lieber said. "But it is creating a line in the law that stands on the side of very young children. Children that are 3 years old or younger are really sitting ducks for physical punishment, and they're no match with the speed or size or force of an adult who's beating them."

Opponents said the government shouldn't tell adults how to be parents.

If the bill passes and is signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, Lieber said it would make California the first in the nation to have a no-spanking law.


This might be the dumbest piece of legislation I've ever heard of. 

[mightymouse72]

although i STRONGLY disagree with someone telling me when i can and can't disicpline my child, no parent should spank a child under 3 years old.   i don't need a law to tell me that.  with the stupidity of some parents these days however, maybe a law is needed.

[Dos Equis]

although i STRONGLY disagree with someone telling me when i can and can't disicpline my child, no parent should spank a child under 3 years old.   i don't need a law to tell me that.  with the stupidity of some parents these days however, maybe a law is needed.

I don't know about that Mighty Mouse.  I think it depends on how you define "spank."  I used corporal punishment with all four of my kids, starting much younger than 3.  It started with "no" and then progressed to a tap on the hand and eventually their little behind.  I think it's one of the reasons my kids never threw tantrums in public and were very well behaved (outside of the house).  I've seen many a kid around age 3 or younger do the Curly shuffle in public, fall out in the store aisle, scream, etc.  Those kids need a swat IMO. 

But the government telling parents how to discipline their kids?  Absolutely ridiculous.     

[mightymouse72]

I don't know about that Mighty Mouse.  I think it depends on how you define "spank."  I used corporal punishment with all four of my kids, starting much younger than 3.  It started with "no" and then progressed to a tap on the hand and eventually their little behind.  I think it's one of the reasons my kids never threw tantrums in public and were very well behaved (outside of the house).  I've seen many a kid around age 3 or younger do the Curly shuffle in public, fall out in the store aisle, scream, etc.  Those kids need a swat IMO. 

But the government telling parents how to discipline their kids?  Absolutely ridiculous.     

i'm sorry, let me clarify.  a light "swat" on the hand or butt is needed for a small pup.  just enough to get the childs attention. 
my previous message was in relation to an all out butt whooping.  in which no one should do to a small child. 
i'm guessing if the bill goes any further, there will be massive debates on the definition of spank.

if Sally Lieber would have ever seen my father whoop me, my pop would still be locked up.
thank God he did.

[Dos Equis]

i'm sorry, let me clarify.  a light "swat" on the hand or butt is needed for a small pup.  just enough to get the childs attention. 
my previous message was in relation to an all out butt whooping.  in which no one should do to a small child. 
i'm guessing if the bill goes any further, there will be massive debates on the definition of spank.

if Sally Lieber would have ever seen my father whoop me, my pop would still be locked up.
thank God he did.

I agree about the "swat."  But I wouldn't want the government telling a parent how hard that swat should be, or whether or not a parent should spank their toddler.  This is really about differing parental philosophies.  The government has no business being involved in those decisions.   

And my mother would have been locked up too.     I did not use her method.  I adopted psychologist John Rosemond's recommendation:  only on the butt, only with your hand, no more than three swats.  Worked for me.     

[Cap]

Wooden spoon or the belt, then the child fears the object not your hand.  Worked for me or should I say, on me.   

[mightymouse72]

  only on the butt, only with your hand, no more than three swats.  Worked for me.     

my father's philosophy:

everywhere except the butt, put something in your hand, no less than 3 swings
i made the mistake one time of blocking his swing.   

i totally agree with you beach.  despite how anyone handles the disicpline of their child, the govt should NOT meddle in that aspect of life. 

can you imagine, if it did become a law, how children would use that against their parents.  "you can't spank me, i'll call the cops." 

boy, times have indeed changed 

[youandme]

I've seen many a kid around age 3 or younger do the Curly shuffle in public, fall out in the store aisle, scream, etc.  Those kids need a swat IMO.     

Hahaha I saw that yesterday, the kid had on a spiderman shirt, it was hilarious. He was going in circles on the ground, I thought he was break dancing. But I've seen some parents beat the living hell out of their kids in public. I doubt this bill would have much affect, only when someone beat their kid in public, or actually left some pretty bad marks, which is abuse.

[Dos Equis]

Hahaha I saw that yesterday, the kid had on a spiderman shirt, it was hilarious. He was going in circles on the ground, I thought he was break dancing.

lol.    Send that kid to my house.   

[Hedgehog]

Use of any violence in parenting is illegal in Sweden.

I don't see Sweden having a higher crime rate or bigger social problems than USA.

I'd like to see a good argument for allowing use of violence.

I have one argument against it - it goes against how the rest of the society functions.

We teach our kids not to fight, and violance is outlawed. Then to introduce violence in some form seems illogical.

Since it works fine in Sweden, not allowing physical punishment, then I don't buy the argument that it is a necessary part of parenting.

-Hedge

[Dos Equis]

Use of any violence in parenting is illegal in Sweden.

I don't see Sweden having a higher crime rate or bigger social problems than USA.

I'd like to see a good argument for allowing use of violence.

I have one argument against it - it goes against how the rest of the society functions.

We teach our kids not to fight, and violance is outlawed. Then to introduce violence in some form seems illogical.

Since it works fine in Sweden, not allowing physical punishment, then I don't buy the argument that it is a necessary part of parenting.

-Hedge

In my view, the main argument against the government prohibiting things like spanking is it is none of the government's business.  The government has no place at the dinner table or in the home telling parents how to discipline their children.  I know parents who spank and parents who do not.  They all make their decisions without big brother's help.  It isn't the government's role at all.  I find it highly intrusive. 

[240 is Back]

We spank our kids cause we were raised like that. it works.

Hedge doesn't spank his kids (real or hypothetical) because he was raised like that (or because he lives in a place where the majority of people were raised like that.  it also works.

A consistent discipline policy with clear expectations and enforced punishments, whether it be time-out or spanking, is the key.

[Hedgehog]

If parenting can be done just as effectively without the use of violence, why then, should it be allowed?

The ban of violence arguably enhances children's right and protects them.

I am interested in any arguments.

-Hedge

[mightymouse72]

If parenting can be done just as effectively without the use of violence, why then, should it be allowed?

The ban of violence arguably enhances children's right and protects them.

I am interested in any arguments.

-Hedge

i would hardly call it violence.

it's teaching your children to be held accountable for their actions.
they do something wrong- they must be punished.
in my opinion, that's what's wrong with society.  a majority of people in todays world don't want to accept the things they do as wrong.  they think they can do anything they wish- rob, kill, rape- call a lawyer, walk away and do it again. 

i firmly believe there is a direct relation between those people and how they were raised.

[Dos Equis]

i would hardly call it violence.

it's teaching your children to be held accountable for their actions.
they do something wrong- they must be punished.
in my opinion, that's what's wrong with society.  a majority of people in todays world don't want to accept the things they do as wrong.  they think they can do anything they wish- rob, kill, rape- call a lawyer, walk away and do it again. 

i firmly believe there is a direct relation between those people and how they were raised.

Ding!     I agree. 

[OzmO]

I can count on one hand the amount of times i spanked my children in the course of their lifetime (15 & 18).

My kids were very well behaved when they were young.

I can also tell you how annoying and pathetic some kids are whose parents never spank their kids but instead try an appease them.

You must communicate with your kids the motivations for your direction.  Get them to understand.  Communication is a 2 way street.  You may have listen longer. But when they feel they are heard they will almost always do as you ask.


But for the government to make spaking your kids illegal is plain stupid. 

Just make the punishment for abusing your kids stronger.
 

[240 is Back]

I can count on one hand the amount of times i spanked my children in the course of their lifetime (15 & 18).

completely unrelated but i just noticed...

you know what's weird?  I can almost predict the age of getbig members by their stance on the issue of 9/11.  most in their 40s want to hear nothing of it.  most in their 30s are skeptical.  most in their 20s are open to the idea.  Those in their teens have no ingrained emotional involvement with the parties who would have been involved, and look at things completely objectively for the most part.

back to the beating topic...

[Cap]

completely unrelated but i just noticed...

you know what's weird?  I can almost predict the age of getbig members by their stance on the issue of 9/11.  most in their 40s want to hear nothing of it.  most in their 30s are skeptical.  most in their 20s are open to the idea.  Those in their teens have no ingrained emotional involvement with the parties who would have been involved, and look at things completely objectively for the most part.

back to the beating topic...

Almost...

A lack of corporal punishment is the reason why today's youth has no respect for anyone, especially their elders.  If kids got smacked more they wouldn't act like little assholes.

[Hedgehog]

i would hardly call it violence.

it's teaching your children to be held accountable for their actions.
they do something wrong- they must be punished.
in my opinion, that's what's wrong with society.  a majority of people in todays world don't want to accept the things they do as wrong.  they think they can do anything they wish- rob, kill, rape- call a lawyer, walk away and do it again. 

i firmly believe there is a direct relation between those people and how they were raised.

Then Sweden, where any physical punishment is illegal, would be a very fcuked up country.

But it's not. Not according to the stats, anyway.

If you look at crime rate, poverty, average level of education and compares it to countries where physical punishment is allowed, such as the USA eg, Sweden doesn't lag behind.

On the contrary.

I can understand the liberal viewpoint that the government shouldn't interfer with parenting.

The argument against that, is usually that banning violence in parenting, is to further protect the childs status.

The argument against this usually is, that it limits the power or the control of the parent, it will make the kids unruly.

The argument against this is to point to Sweden, where a ban of violence in parenting hasn't resulted in any negative effects.

The only argument I can see is the liberal argument, that it should be allowed because it's the parents call.

Then again, why allow it when it's been proven to not be necessary?

-Hedge

[OzmO]

completely unrelated but i just noticed...

you know what's weird?  I can almost predict the age of getbig members by their stance on the issue of 9/11.  most in their 40s want to hear nothing of it.  most in their 30s are skeptical.  most in their 20s are open to the idea.  Those in their teens have no ingrained emotional involvement with the parties who would have been involved, and look at things completely objectively for the most part.

back to the beating topic...

I was just trying to make the point that even though i'm against spanking kids that I'm also against this proposed law.

Not to accidentlly hijack this thread.....  perhaps you should start a topic that focuses on the openness to CT theories based on age ranges.  It will be hard to stay on topic and not get in another debate on the whole CT possiblity though.

I'm  41 BTW.  Becuase of you and Beserker a few months back, i was oopen to the possibllity and through the course of all the discussions and research have 90% made up my mind about it.  But i am still open to any new evidence or issues that come up.

[OzmO]

Almost...

A lack of corporal punishment is the reason why today's youth has no respect for anyone, especially their elders.  If kids got smacked more they wouldn't act like little assholes.

Yes and no.  It's hard and unrealistic to pin point anyone one thing that determines how kids turn out.

[Dos Equis]

Noooo. . . . the 911 post whore is back.  

Hedge I think you mean "conservative," not "liberal"?

[Hedgehog]

Slightly off-topic...

As far as parenting, I believe there are quite a lot of bad parents around.

Parents who are quick to use bribes to get their kids to do stuff, ie offer the kid a little snack before bed.

Or parents who buy their kids fave cereal instead of the healthy ones.

What will happen? The kid will leave the breakfast with an empty stomach once. Then he/she will realize that they will have to eat what is served.

Too much panic and too little trust in kids these days.

I remember back when I was 9, I wasn't a dumb, I could figure out a lot. Kills me when I see buffoons talking to their 9 year olds like they're babies or shit.


It's all about keeping strict and firm rules, letting the kid dealing with consequenses, that's the best lesson.

-Hedge

[Hedgehog]

Noooo. . . . the 911 post whore is back.   

Hedge I think you mean "conservative," not "liberal"?

I meant liberal.

It's a genuine liberal perspective.

Of course, the liberal perspective would also take into account the rights of the children, which make it really interesting.

-Hedge