DSM: RE: Dawn's theory about kids getting hit

From: Joe Jackson (shoeless@jazztbone.com)
Date: Wed Nov 14 2001 - 16:22:47 EST


Hey.

What is it about this thread makes me think I've missed a couple dozen
or so messages?

Leslie, Alison: am I correct in assuming most of what you are talking
about has nothing to do with this list? If so, maybe raise it as a new
point of discussion and supply the list with background info or consider
keeping it off the list. 'Cause I have no clue what you guys are
talking about.

Melanie: I can tell you are upset about something, I can't tell what it
is. Do you disapprove of Dawn's really passionate message, or of the
really passionate responses? If Dawn's, then, do you disagree that
corporal punishment is different from assault and battery only in regard
to the discrimination inherent in how our society treats children? Or
is your discomfort regarding specific tactics?

And what's the "Unitarian Minister" line about? Is it a joke?
Sometimes the humor doesn't quite come off that great on this list, as I
have come to discover (doh!!).

Did you really have nightmares about a place where people are
desperately passionate about something? If so, a Subury model school
would probably represent a veritable house of horrors!! :)

peace, peeps.

Joe

> -----Original Message-----
> From: owner-discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org
> [mailto:owner-discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org] On Behalf Of
> Melanie Noviss
> Sent: Wednesday, November 14, 2001 12:15 PM
> To: discuss-sudbury-model@sudval.org
> Subject: DSM: Dawn's theory about kids getting hit
>
>
> 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
>
>

===========

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