DSM: Dawn's theory about kids getting hit

From: Melanie Noviss (wiz@idirect.ca)
Date: Wed Nov 14 2001 - 12:15:20 EST


Hello,
I'm newish to this list and was shocked to see the original message on this topic.
In fact I had nightmares about it -- a world full of people so blindly passionate
about their beliefs (though on second thought one might make a case that that may
be closer to today's world reality than I originally thought). Even though the
topic seemed peripheral to the list topic, the approach was so hardline that I was
surprised not to see it quickly challenged. Much lesser points seem to be debated
greatly on this list. I'm grateful that the two messages of those who were having
trouble posting were eventually distributed.
I still feel too emotional about the post to respond clearly except to say that I
hope Dawn maintains her acquaintance with the Unitarian minister.
Melanie Noviss

Dawn Harkness wrote:

> > dawn,
> > i've been reading some of the recent posts.
> > here's a couple of stupid questions:
>
> Leslie, those are your words, not mine.
>
> > if you embarrass a parent into not hitting their child at the moment,
> > what do you think will happen to the child after? you feel like a
> > righteous heroine for the moment, sure...but what about the kid?
>
> My experience with people who hit their kids is that it isn't a deliberative
> decision. People who hit their kids (especially in public) do so because
> they are angry and out of control. If the parent was hitting the kid for a
> rational reason, then nothing I do is going to harm the kid, because a
> rational and in control parent isn't going to blame their kid for my
> actions. Personally, I don't think there is ever a good reason for using
> violence as a form of discipline. Parents who hit their kids because they
> (the parents) are angry and out of control don't need a "good" reason.
> They'll hit their kids for a bad reason or even no reason at all.
>
> So no, I don't think confronting the parent harms the kid any more than the
> parent was already intending to. However, it does send the message that
> hitting your kid is unacceptable. It might even cause them to reflect on
> their behavior. On the other hand, ignoring parents who act this way sends
> the opposite message, to the parent, to other bystanders, and most cruelly,
> to the child.
>
> > isn't there something offensive and scary about people who use their
> > children as a poster child for the parent's political and personal
> > agendas? smacks of yuppie objectification to me.
>
> I have no idea what you are talking about, and considering how off the wall
> I think your post is, I am hesitant to ask for a clarification. But what
> the hell, fire away. If you want to challenge a position on a post I have
> made to Discuss Sudbury Model, go for it, Leslie. However, if this is a
> personal attack having nothing to do with anything I have written on this
> forum, then let's just do it off line so I can speak freely with out
> violating the rules of this discussion group which require people to avoid
> personal attacks like the one you have launched against me.
>
> > do you really think that raising the tuition for families with more than
> > one child will help sudbury valley? or are you just trying to get rid of
> > the riffraff?
>
> I am right in the middle of drafting a paper outlining my position on the
> tuition question. When I am done, I will submit it to the SVS Journal in
> response to the recent call for papers on this topic. Without going into it
> in detail here, my proposal wouldl not raise the amount of tuition you or
> any other family at Sudbury Valley has to pay if you don't think you can
> afford it. However, the fact that you have raised this subject in this
> forum finally makes it clear to me what is pissing some people off so much
> right now. Thank you for the clarification.
>
> Dawn
>
> ===========
>
> If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
> majordomo@sudval.org (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following
> phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing
> "email@host.dom" with the email address that you subscribed under:
>
> unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model email@host.dom
>
> If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
> you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
> "dsm-digest"
>
> This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives

===========

If you wish to be removed from this mailing list, please send an email TO
majordomo@sudval.org (do NOT reply to the mailing list) with the following
phrase in the BODY (not the subject) of the message, replacing
"email@host.dom" with the email address that you subscribed under:

unsubscribe discuss-sudbury-model email@host.dom

If you are interested in the subject, but the volume of mail sent is too much,
you may wish to consider unsubscribing from this list and subscribing to
"dsm-digest"

This mailing list is archived at http://www.sudval.org/~sdg/archives



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.0.0 : Wed Mar 27 2002 - 19:39:48 EST