parenting, to each their own or up for debate? - Page 8

[SandraS]

Originally Posted by 4inMyHeart3inArms

I personally dont think its funny that people hit children.

Oh, no, not in the least... that's the most unfunny thing ever... I just liked your apples/orange retort! I'm with ya, sistah...

[1littlebit]

Originally Posted by KirstenMary

I mentioned my coworker who had just returned to work (her first day back), and she mentioned that she was FFing by choice. How many of you would have tried to "educate" her right then and there?

a couple things on this. like i said in the OP you really just don't know why people aren't BFing and it may be pouring salt in the wound if you bring it up. the other thing is this is over and done with... what good would educating do her now? unless she told you why you shouldn't BF or why it wasn't important or something i would just leave it alone. if someone came up to me and told me about BFing i would be really upset b/c i already know and there is nothing more i can do.

[4inMyHeart3inArms]

Originally Posted by SandraS

Oh, no, not in the least... that's the most unfunny thing ever... I just liked your apples/orange retort! I'm with ya, sistah...

sorry I misread yout post
it's hard to tell on the internet sometimes, but I have actually had people laugh at me for suggesting that children be treated as kindly as everyone else. Sure they had to fight for their rights to be treated that way (even the white male did in a sense - hence the American Revolution so they could be their own country free of Britain) and I just think it's not unreasonable to fight for children to be included in that group of people who deserve 'xyz' humane treatment.

[SandraS]

Originally Posted by 4inMyHeart3inArms

sorry I misread yout post
it's hard to tell on the internet sometimes, but I have actually had people laugh at me for suggesting that children be treated as kindly as everyone else. Sure they had to fight for their rights to be treated that way (even the white male did in a sense - hence the American Revolution so they could be their own country free of Britain) and I just think it's not unreasonable to fight for children to be included in that group of people who deserve 'xyz' humane treatment.

Nope, I'm riding on your train. I cannot tolerate anyone hitting a child (or another adult for that matter). I have to deal with SIL tellling me 'every child needs beat at some point or another' while she hits her girls for doing something like, um, dragging their feet from the stroller. Yeah. If she weren't my SIL, I wouldn't even be around her.

[4inMyHeart3inArms]

Originally Posted by SandraS

Nope, I'm riding on your train. I cannot tolerate anyone hitting a child (or another adult for that matter). I have to deal with SIL tellling me 'every child needs beat at some point or another' while she hits her girls for doing something like, um, dragging their feet from the stroller. Yeah. If she weren't my SIL, I wouldn't even be around her.

and thank you for clarifying for me too, I'm really glad you did so I could apologize for misreading you.

I talk about children's rights in this area (spanking) frequently. Recently a no-mother friend of mine said she was so glad she knew me because she lvoes the way I handle my children. She was never spanked, but she never thought about what she would do, but after hearing things I have said it makes so much sense to her and seeing how I raise my kids she see hitting is not necessary and so she knows now she will never hit her own children when she has kids. :

BTW she has to be the nicest, most self motivated, good hearted people I have ever met. In college, excellent grades, FANTASTIC morals, and no one ever hit her. She's even developed some ideas on her own about the effects hitting might have on children. She told me yesterday : It's good not to hit them because then if anyone ever does they will realize how wrong it is and not engage with that person, and she was saying that it teaches them how to solve problems without violence. It led to a nice agreeable conversation on the subject too

[KirstenMary]

Originally Posted by 4inMyHeart3inArms

exactly. Dogs, Men, Woman, and Adults of all races are apples. And children are oranges.

At one time anyone who wasn't a white male were oranges too. Now they are considered as human as the white male, while the children remain oranges. They aren't really oranges though. They are apples that were put in an orange basket.

Heh. Nevermind, lol. We clearly disagree. And in a way, that's what this thread is about.

[KirstenMary]

I was bummed about my coworker, but I kept quiet. She has her reasons, none of which are my business.

[UhOhWhatNow]

I too don't know why all animals and all people aren't given the same protection as any other. This will always baffle me.

If my husband grabbed me and hit me at that baby shower, someone would have called the cops. Someone does that to a three year old, no one even misses a beat.

If you chained a dog up in his own waste in a shed, then killed him, you'd go to prison. Yet most people condone this type of treatment of millions of animals every day when we buy animal products. (Myself included- I haven't found a way out of this moral dilemma unless I stop owning dogs which eat meat, and I couldn't be a happy person without dogs, and most dogs do not thrive on a meatless diet. If such abuse of farm animals was not allowed, then I wouldn't feel nearly so guilty).

My point isn't to start that debate- but merely to say that these differences upset me. Why do some creatures essentially have no protection or rights against certain kinds of abuse, while others do? It sucks.

[4inMyHeart3inArms]

Originally Posted by KirstenMary

Heh. Nevermind, lol. We clearly disagree. And in a way, that's what this thread is about.

yep. but im saying its okay to speak up. Yes, there WERE people who thought the slaves should not be freed. They disagreed with MLK And Rosa Parks. There WERE men who felt they should be allowed to keep hitting their wives. They disagreed with their "right to hit" being taken away. There WERE people who think dogs are dogs and who cares if you hit them, and they disagreed with the new laws that now offer the animals protection.

They are all probably very mad that people didn't "mind their own business" but mind your own business is really code word for don't call me out on doing something wrong because I dont want to stop and I think *my* opinion about hurting other people is right, and your opinion about not hurting people is wrong, and you should keep your opinion to yourself. Why is it okay that these people act out AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE on their opinions but not okay for other people to say something about it? You want to have an opinion about your own life FINE but when your opinion is physically harming another person that its not just your opinion that counts anymore.

[KirstenMary]

Originally Posted by 4inMyHeart3inArms

yep. but im saying its okay to speak up. Yes, there WERE people who thought the slaves should not be freed. They disagreed with MLK And Rosa Parks. There WERE men who felt they should be allowed to keep hitting their wives. They disagreed with their "right to hit" being taken away. There WERE people who think dogs are dogs and who cares if you hit them, and they disagreed with the new laws that now offer the animals protection.

They are all probably very mad that people didn't "mind their own business" but mind your own business is really code word for don't call me out on doing something wrong because I dont want to stop and I think *my* opinion about hurting other people is right, and your opinion about not hurting people is wrong, and you should keep your opinion to yourself. Why is it okay that these people act out AGAINST OTHER PEOPLE on their opinions but not okay for other people to say something about it? You want to have an opinion about your own life FINE but when your opinion is physically harming another person that its not just your opinion that counts anymore.

Again, apples and oranges. While others may understand your comparisons, I (as do others in this thread) completely disagree with comparing circing to wife beating and slavery.

And if someone asked me, I would gladly give my opinion about circing, but I would never in a million years give that opinion unsolicited.

[SandraS]

Originally Posted by KirstenMary

Again, apples and oranges. While others may understand your comparisons, I (as do others in this thread) completely disagree with comparing circing to wife beating and slavery.

And if someone asked me, I would gladly give my opinion about circing, but I would never in a million years give that opinion unsolicited.

She's talking about hitting a child.

[KirstenMary]

Originally Posted by UhOhWhatNow

I too don't know why all animals and all people aren't given the same protection as any other. This will always baffle me.

If my husband grabbed me and hit me at that baby shower, someone would have called the cops. Someone does that to a three year old, no one even misses a beat.

If you chained a dog up in his own waste in a shed, then killed him, you'd go to prison. Yet most people condone this type of treatment of millions of animals every day when we buy animal products. (Myself included- I haven't found a way out of this moral dilemma unless I stop owning dogs which eat meat, and I couldn't be a happy person without dogs, and most dogs do not thrive on a meatless diet. If such abuse of farm animals was not allowed, then I wouldn't feel nearly so guilty).

My point isn't to start that debate- but merely to say that these differences upset me. Why do some creatures essentially have no protection or rights against certain kinds of abuse, while others do? It sucks.

A three year old is an ego personified. Perhaps the child was doing something unsafe, putting the child in immediate harm, and the mother grabbed the child because of a safety issue. I've seen it happen.

[KirstenMary]

Originally Posted by SandraS

She's talking about hitting a child.

She's talking about a lot more than that. And I still disagree with her opinion.

[SandraS]

Originally Posted by KirstenMary

A three year old is an ego personified. Perhaps the child was doing something unsafe, putting the child in immediate harm, and the mother grabbed the child because of a safety issue. I've seen it happen.

So hitting a child is okay if they're about to get hurt? I'm trying to understand your logic. Please advise.

[Storm Bride]

Originally Posted by UhOhWhatNow

I too don't know why all animals and all people aren't given the same protection as any other. This will always baffle me.

If my husband grabbed me and hit me at that baby shower, someone would have called the cops. Someone does that to a three year old, no one even misses a beat.

I get what you're saying, but it's not that straightforward. I keep my front door locked, any my children aren't allowed to leave the house without me. DH does the same thing. This is not only legal, it's encouraged - I could have CPS called on me if I let my kids leave the house whenever they wanted to do so. However, if dh did the same thing to me, he could be charged. Adults and children don't have the same protection there, either...but I don't know anybody who thinks that children should just be allowed to leave whenever they want to, or that an adult shouldn't be allowed to do so.

Please note that I'm not saying that spanking is the same thing - but we don't have the same rules for adults and children, and most people don't want us to (think about "legal age" to drink, marry, vote, drive, have consensual sex, etc.).

[UhOhWhatNow]

In the example I gave (in another post, sorry it was confusing!) the child was grabbed and hit because he was touching (with one finger, out of curiousity) a "diaper" cake made of disposable diapers. I can understand saying, "No no, that's a present for (expecting mama)" sure but hitting? And no, I didn't say anything.

I am reluctant to get too into a hitting children topic since I haven't ever parented a child other than my own 12 week old infant so "what do" I "know" about this. But, I will be well and truly shocked if I ever feel I need to hit my son. Just not my way.

(BTW I was not hit either)

[SandraS]

Originally Posted by UhOhWhatNow

I am reluctant to get too into a hitting children topic since I haven't ever parented a child other than my own 12 week old infant so "what do" I "know" about this. But, I will be well and truly shocked if I ever feel I need to hit my son. Just not my way.

(BTW I was not hit either)

You know all you need to know. You don't have to have parented a toddler or a teen to know you won't hit them. You are just as versed on the subject as anyone else, mama!

[UhOhWhatNow]

You do make a good point Storm Bride- thanks!

I can certainly agree. We wouldn't let our dog or child roam the street (people who do that are definitely neglectful or abusive IMO).

So, fair enough, some rules have to be different. But, protection is what it's all about in both cases. IMO hitting children is not appropriate and they should be protected from it just like they should be protected from roaming the streets or other hazards.

I know it's a slippery slope, but violence of any sort really does upset me a lot.

[UhOhWhatNow]

Originally Posted by SandraS

You know all you need to know. You don't have to have parented a toddler or a teen to know you won't hit them. You are just as versed on the subject as anyone else, mama!

Thanks. I try hard not to judge anyone when I haven't been in his or her position. It's tricky sometimes. I just want to understand... But I do feel pretty confident that hitting isn't necessary, and is not something I would ever do.

[4inMyHeart3inArms]

No really with the wife beating and slavery issue I am just talking about hitting a child - while yes I have feelings on some of the other issues it seems that these are directly related. It's about every other human and now even animals haven finally been given the right not to be hit against their will, EXCEPT for human children. It's about how just like they aren't protected there was a time where people who are protected now weren't protected either - how people SPOKE UP to change that - how its wrong its done to children and people should speak up to change that too (if they want it changed - obviously men who spanked their wives didnt speak up to put an end to it, and people with slaves didnt speak up to end slavery, etc - but some people DID speak up, or things would not have changed.) Society does not change when everyone sends the message its in an acceptable state of being. By not saying anything when you see a child be hit you are sending implied acceptable - even if its only acceptance of a persons right to hit another person (though in this case its only legal if that other person is a small child). Just because the law says it is their right does not mean it really is. That is not the only American law that protects people's ability to violate another person's right. We've lost sight of what this country was built on. What we need is a non-prejudiced approach to the original laws. Instead we just create laws that take away more rights, and never fully carry out the laws our country was built on.

As for "wife beating: that is not what I was taking about anyway. I was talking about spanking a woman (against her will) which is only considered "beating" today becuse women have rights, but the actions taken are no different then the ones taken against a child who is spanked. Why is it if a man puts a woman over his knee and spanks her (and im not talking about the bedroom kinky stuff, I'm talking about against her will) that it is considered abuse, but when done to a child it is punishment? I mean really, at least a grown woman can choose her spouse. Children can't choose their parents.

In some cultures, women have historically been spanked by the patriarch of the family or the husband. This is now regarded as tantamount to wife-beating and in modern times it has become socially unacceptable and is considered abusive throughout the developed world. Corporal punishment of women by their husbands, however, does still exist in some parts of the third world.
(Wikipedia)

It's really NOT apples and oranges to compare hitting a human to hitting a human, unless one person's status does not count as human because of a factor that has nothing to do with whether or not they are human? This was once color, this was once gender, and it is still age. It's not apples and oranges. It's just some people calling apples oranges to excuse their poor behavior. And even if it were apples an oranges they are both still fruit. Either one can be used as a baseball or served with breakfast, but if you don't want to waste food you eat it. Food is meant to be eaten, even if you don't use it that way.

Hitting another person simply goes again the human rights.

Universal Declaration of Human Rights

Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,

Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,

Article 1
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Article 2
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Article 3
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
Article 5
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.

There are 30 articles in total but the TOP ones seemed most applicable to what I am saying here. The ones they felt they should mention FIRST on their list.

There is also something called the 4 freedoms:
1. Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of religion
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear

Dr. Mahbub ul Haq first drew global attention to the concept of human security in the United Nations Development Programme's 1994 Human Development Report.

Personal security — Personal security aims to protect people from physical violence

(of course, the way this is carried out now hitting your wife or someone on the street in ANY capacity is considered violence and punishable by law, but hitting a child is not considered violence)

It seems that these things are CONDITIONAL not absolute. The only condition being children.

openly advocates four particular children's rights, including the end to juvenile incarceration without parole, an end to the recruitment of military use of children, ending the death penalty for people under 21, and raising awareness of human rights in the classroom.[21] Human Rights Watch, an international advocacy organization, includes child labor, juvenile justice, orphans and abandoned children, refugees, street children and corporal punishment.[22]

Scholarly study generally focuses children's rights by identifying individual rights. The following rights "allow children to grow up healthy and free":[23]

* Freedom of speech
* Freedom of thought
* Freedom from fear
* Freedom of choice and the right to make decisions
* Ownership over one's body

Other issues affecting children's rights include the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.