Do they ever state what exactly it is they think they're fighting for? "Freedom"? "America"? I remember feeling pretty driven to start blogging for political reasons after the 2004 election, and I got all manifesto-y and cheesy sometimes, but it was in the context of fear that civil rights would go further down the toilet, that the environment would be further destroyed, that more innocents abroad would be killed... I feel like all their "military" rhetoric is coming out just because they feel like "their side" is losing the war of ideas now. Do they actually care about policy? Are they fighting just to protect big business's interests and the general right of the military to whoop poor people's asses? So noble!
As with most right-wing movements, they're not for anything in particular, but they're definitely against something. Their motto makes clear that they're fighting people who oppose the war, not the people who are killing American soldiers. Their attitude really is that insurgents and terrorists are easy to handle- after all, we're Winning In Iraq!- but that those pernicious war critics at home are the most dangerous enemy and must be fought from QWERTY to XCVBNM.
everything actual is possible, as they say
The world increasingly makes me think the T-axiom was a bad idea.
"Prissy"? No. "CANDYASS."
These brave boys needs a song. It's hard to fight in their pajamas:
Just before the blogpost, mother,
I am thinking most of you,
While upon the screen we're watching
With the liberals in view.
Comrades brave are 'round me typing,
Filled with thoughts of guns and God
For well they know that on the morrow,
it's Random 10 on their iPod.
CHORUS:
Oh well, mother, you may never
Get me to pay any rent,
But, oh, you'll not regret this, mother,
Since I'm numbered with the... bent.
Oh, I long to leave you, mother,
And the basement here at home,
But I'll never leave my laptop,
Till the lib'ruls I can pwn.
Tell the traitors all around you
That their cruel words we know,
In every battle kill our soldiers
By the help they give the foe. [Wow, I didn't need to change this verse. CALAPWN.]
Hark! I hear the hard-drive whirring,
'Tis the signal for the fight,
Can I have some coffee, mother? --
It will be a long, late night.
Hear the typing fast and furied
How it swells upon the air,
Oh, yes, we'll rally 'round the laptop,
In our jammies 'neath the stairs.
Prissy really doesn't work as a relacement. Could candyass work ass a universal replacement? Really, you'd have to take a plausible word and give it a new meaning.
Awesome, Cala!
And DW is right, the original problem is that there's no suitable universal replacement. Here we want 'candyass', but that's not appropriate for other uses of gay; the point being that 'candyass' is more accurate here.
Whereas that last paragraph was totally prissy but not candyass. See how important it is to draw distinctions?
I'm inded right. I seem to remember that I myself gave the answer in 7, and apolgised for giving an earnest answer. Or was that a completely different discussion?
Do not praise me; write your own! We need to furnish our Fighting Keyboardists with a Suitably Stupid Songbook.
[Epistemologists are so cute before they've had their coffee.
'Candyass' captures the 'lame, how fucking stupid are you' sense of gay; 'prissy' serves for the 'well, we would say effeminate, but the girls would kill us' sense.]
And my usage of 'candyass' apparently originates from the third or fourth episode of The West Wing. I didn't realize it until I was watching it, but Martin Sheen says 'candyass' (because he doesn't want any candyass military options, and then Leo yells at him, go Leo!!), so it's okay, perhaps even obligatory, to use.
until I was watching it yesterday, that is.
we would say effeminate, but the girls would kill us
It's adorable when y'all talk all tough and manly.
Glory, glory, hallelujah
It's hard to beat off with a ruler...
Those are mighty generous odds. I would have said it would be about 100 to 1, and the odds would only be that generous if the little yellow streak managed to put a stick through the spokes of the wheelchair. That way the chicken-eater would have a chance of running away before the WWI vet beat him to death with a rolled-up VFW Post newsletter.
Those people are the kinds that memorize the stats of every piece of military equipment ever invented, hoping desperately that their sad act of memorization will impress the ladies.
"Oh, yes, we'll rally 'round the laptop, In our jammies 'neath the stairs."
Cala is teh AWESOME.
Cap'n Ed and his crew remind me of these guys I knew in school who liked Reagan. They hung pictures of Reagan in their lockers and videotaped all his TV appearances and cut class to see him the day he visited. They didn't just believe Reagan's policies were good for the country--though they did, to the extent they knew what those were--they were Reagan fans. I'm not surprised that so many of these warblogger guys are Star Trek fans (my friends the Reagan fans were, too)--the language of fandom seems to be the only way they can think about politics. Sometimes, a significant fraction of right-wing politics in this country looks like nothing but revenge of the nerds.
On the subject of "ghey"/"prissy"/"candyass'...
When I was in elementary school, everything was either "ghey" or "wilted" and they meant approximately the same thing.
At least five time a day someone would day: "Nice head. You are such a wilt."
Anyone who'd write this: "If the conflict be short, the enemy of obvious evil and the victory clear, then the support will be easily held," is way wilted.
Despite what I said before, I'm wondering if 'lame' isn't the correct answer. It may not always be satifactory, but is it ever wrong in the way prissy or candyass may be?
Despite what I said before, I'm wondering if 'lame' isn't the correct answer. It may not always be satifactory, but is it ever wrong in the way prissy or candyass may be?
Huh, maybe the etymology of candyass isn't entirely innocuous. Dammit.
is it ever wrong
What do you have against disabled people, Weman?
It doesn't have to be innocuous. It is an insult.
Yeah, but we want to be insulting whiny-ass titty baby chickenhawk warbloggers, not gay people.
I don't think candyass has a specifically gay meaning. Have you found a different etymology?
I'm just guessing. American Heritage defines it as 'sissy', which itself is not etymologically great, and it sounds like it means "one whose ass is consumed." But this may be too removed (dare one say twee) to really merit worrying about the term, kinda like "Dutch treat."
I think the obvious inferred (if perhaps incorrect) etymology is homophobic. I assume what matters is how people perceive it, not the history of the creation of the word.
See, I don't perceive it as homophobic, just implying weak. (I assumed it just was like 'dumbass', with 'ass' as a suffix. Or 'whinyass'.)
Or, at least if 'whinyass titty baby' is unobjectionable, 'candyass' is hardly worse.
Anyway, this much worrying about this insult is totally candyass.
I think sentimental is the word we’re looking for. I think neo-cons are grounded in the notion that there are too many details to know, so knowing is unreliable. This leaves them with feeling, and with the strange notion that we can “feel” things into being. It’s magical thinking. Pray for it, and it will come. Think positive thoughts about yourself, and you will become a good person. Imagine that your “enemy” isn’t illusive, and they will become “obvious”. Like fascists before them, neo-cons have discovered the power of esoteric arguments. Case in point:
“If the conflict be short, the enemy of obvious evil and the victory clear, then the support will be easily held. Victory has a thousand fathers, afterall. If however, the war is long and the enemy is elusive and victory is ill defined, then a free society is at a distinct disadvantage. A nation that cannot be smashed, can instead be nibbled to death!”
This is a series of aphorisms written in esoteric language that serves to obfuscate meaning. The meaning itself is errant while still conforming to patterns of truth. The above call for mindlessness implies that the ‘enemy’ (meaning insurgents and terrorists of various undefined natures, I’m guessing) is elusive: not because they are few in number, without a nation, without uniforms, and without diplomats, but because we don’t imagine them as ‘obvious’. When neo-cons say “you lack imagination”, this is exactly the magical thinking they’re talking about. The imagination that can flush an enemy out into the open by imagining it is true.
It’s a standard military tactic of smaller forces: make the larger force expend resources chasing you around. No amount of the large force imagining the small as not being small, not being elusive, or not being ill-defined will change this.
They’re coming aboard alright: aboard a fantasy ship where your every dream can come true if you just wish hard enough for it.
9: It's gotta be episode three, they're not talking about a military response in four.
It's the one called 'Proportional Response' or something like that.
24 -- what do you have against the people of the Netherlands, Weiner?
I still wanna know what's wrong with "pathetic."
And I have to speak out for the whiny-ass titty babies, who are sometimes kinda cute, at least when they're not whining.
A baby which gets its nourishment from its mother's teat -- thus someone who is not fully self-sufficient but rather dependent on people around him to take up his part; a "momma's boy".
If the whiney ass titty babies stuck to demanding to be held, entertained, or given tits, I wouldn't mind them so much. It's when they start demanding wars that they bother me.
34:
This, to me, is a philosophy that measures an individual's realization of self proportionate to that individual's ability to fill a prescribed 'part'.
Might I ask from who, what or where this part is prescribed?
Do you mean the prescribed 'part' of 'an emotionally self-sufficient being'? Or are you talking about something else?
35 -- Dandle me! Dandle me NOW!
I didn't say "emotionally" anything.:P
Maybe "fully self-sufficient" is the problem. Assuming you mean sufficient as in qualified, as oppossed to enough, what makes one fully qualified to be one's self other than being one's self, and who's best to judge that but one's self? And maybe I could even say; how can anyone do anything other than take up the part of being one's self, as one's self is qualified by and as the things one takes up?
38. Whatever. "Emotionally self-sufficient" would have been a better phrasing than "fully self-sufficient" -- I am not demanding that folks harvest their own vegetables nor knit clothing for themselves.
Your question "how can anyone do anything other than take up the part of being one's self" ignores the state of being I was attributing to the titty baby, viz. demanding that others take up his part. He is fulfilling the role of needy, immature brat -- to do this is to fail to fulfill the role of mature, [emotionally] self-sufficient adult -- I am asserting that the latter role is a qualitatively better one, that the world needs mature people and has more titty babies than it needs.
A further note: when I say "emotionally self-sufficient" I am not thereby implying that a mature adult should have no emotional attachments. I guess you could read it that way -- however that would be a silly reading, and my point was not a silly one. So the reading would be wrong, qed.
What's a titty baby?
But more importantly, who or what is a Mitchet?
implying that a mature adult should have no emotional attachments
I didn't even think of that, and ya, that's a silly reading.
So, if someone is needy, and is being a brat about what they need, they aren't emotionally self-sufficient? Ok, that *does* make sense. Of course; if someone is needy emotionally, they don't have what they need to be emotionally self-sufficient.
Would it makes you feel better if they were otherwise??
dependent on people around him to take up his part
Are we thinking of the same titty babies? They take up their own parts all the time. It's like their hobby or something.
(Chuckle)
CCP -- hard to know how I would feel if things were otherwise. There would be less opportunity for snark I guess, which is how I get much of my good feeling these days; but perhaps other avenues for good feeling, which are less open to me currently, would present themselves.
Second sentence, first clause should read "There would be less opportunity for 43-esque snark I guess"
If one can't take up one's own parts; who will?
Modesto: But then again, maybe titty babies are exactly what you need. So, while they're not fufilling their own needs, at least they're fufilling yours.
"titty babies" sounds like the name of a milk-based candy.
Or a candy-based ass.
Ass me no candy, I'll tit you no babies.
I know that's profane, but I don't think I could prove it.
I'm not usually bothered by these terms. "Gay", "pussy", even "cunt" - none of them bother me, but "titty baby" I find someone offensive. I can't even figure out why.
While I of course agree that actually forming the 101st Fighting Keyboardists is ludicrous (Keyboardists!), I'd like to note (as I think I have before) my disapproval of the actual use of "chickenhawk" in an argument. I suppose it's fine if the person whom one is calling a chickenhawk inaccurately identifies him or herself with the forces in Iraq or accuses people who opposed and oppose the war of not supporting the truth or some-such, but otherwise it's just off-point. And there are so, so many good arguments against starting or continuing this war that I don't like to see people who are on the right side use bad ones.
55: I'm sorry, what were those good arguments for starting this war? And by "this war," do you mean the Iraq shebang, Afghanistan, the Long War, or something else?
Am I misreading my own comment because I know what I meant to say, or doesn't the word "against" render your question moot?
I've never really understood the argument that it's off-point. It doesn't speak to whether the war itself is a good idea or not, and it isn't determinitive about whether or not the war hippies' support is contingent on their lack of risk, but it is evidence, however weak.
SCMT: Yeah, if what you're arguing is that "War supporter X is a bad person," then it's certainly an argument towards that point; though the argument can be rebutted.
w/d: No, I meant that the chickenhawk argument is really about how deeply the war hippies really believe that the Iraq war MUST. BE. FOUGHT. I think of it this way: If you come to me and tell me that you have an excellent investment for me, I might ask if you've invested yourself as a means of getting some insight to the depth of your belief in the investment. There might be very good reasons for you not to invest - you lack the money, you have special access to even better investments, etc. - but I'd still ask, and I'd still have reason to ask.
57: Yes, sorry for the confusion. I simply misread the question. But I'm still unclear on why the chickenhawk label is bad (or good---frankly, I'm agnostic on the matter).
Wasn't chickenhawk originally a military epithet for those who successfully avoided the draft/got themselves undangerous assignments?
(Note: I have never heard anyone derided as a "titty baby" in real life. I believe I have read the epithet on the blawgz, and perhaps even read the explanation I posted in 34; although it seemed to me like when I read 22 and 33, I was constructing the explanation from whole cloth.)
A Chickenhawk is a middle aged gay man who prefers very young men. It's the gay male version of cougar. He's the hawk, the young man is the chicken. This other meaning? Well, it's just wrong.
(it took me forever to understand what you were talking about)
63 is right, and I had also constructed the explanation in 34 from whole cloth before (or shortly after) using the phrase; which is why I was willing to declare it inoffensive. I would wish to avoid any insult that implied something negative about titties themselves or those who bear them.
Oh, good god. The terrorist will win because the liberals are too candyass to insult someone without focus-grouping it first.
I don't think it's particularly candyass to consider the etymology and social function of insults.
When you apologize for all of the insults ('It's an insult, but I don't mean it to be offensive to anyone!'), it is totally candyass.
I'll grant you that ethnic and religious slurs are bad and should be abhorred. That said, if you want to call me a dumbass motherfucker chickenhawk, it seems a little... candyass to wonder if that really conveys the sense, and insist you didn't mean anything against the mentally handicapped or victims of incest or pedophilia.
You know, candyass isn't actually that bad as an insult. In fact, it sounds better than the reality: shittyass.
I've noted earlier that I apparently grew up too early to experience "gay" meaning "lame." Back in my day, the term of choice was "retarded."
Cala has a point. Anyway, "dumbass motherfucker chickenhawk" is perfectly OK. Though I prefer leaden-handed snark, really.
It depends on what you're up to. I mean, certainly you want to insult the person you're directing hostility towards, but a lot of insults work as metaphors and insult other people for other reasons. I don't think this is that much of an issue with "chickenhawk", first because most people aren't aware of the etymology, second because if the predation in question is on the non-legal it pretty much deserves to be insulted. OTOH, "whiny ass titty baby" is basically depending on the ideal of masculinity that is well-disidentified from mommy; it's not just about being a grown up (or "titty" wouldn't be in there), but about being a man who isn't needy or dependent, and still further, the imperative to disidentify and be manly is partly based on not wanting to be like a woman. I'm not saying no one's allowed to say it, but there's nothing wrong with discussing overtly what it comes from and why it's an effective insult. Many of the best insults for weak are probably going to be gendered. Gender is our biggest metaphor for weakness and strength. It's kind of a bind in crafting effective insults. It's not like I always shy away from using them, though.
(Also, my biggest objection to "gay" was never its use to mean lame in the generically "stupid" sense; I don't think you should for a bunch of reasons, but in context, if I knew the person well enough and knew them to be non-homophobic, I'd know they were using junior high slang and wouldn't think they meant ill by it. My objection was to "gay" as an insult to mean "inappropriately femmey" because I objected to the actual intent of the speech act there, not the word.)
I'm only semi-serious. It was just the combination of the 'by titty baby do you mean that all men must have no emotional attachments?!!11!?' (because otherwise it is normal to suckle at the age of 37) + the 'oh, I never meant to offend anyone.' that made me just snap. I haven't done much on the theory of insults as speech acts, but I'm pretty sure being offensive is pretty high on the list.
Kind of, IMO, like putting IMO after every other word. IMO, you're a stupid son of a bitch. IMO. No shit, of course it's my opinion. Just my opinion! Don't get upset!
In other news, my apostrophe key keeps bringing up the Find dialogue box. It is about the most annoying thing on the planet.'
I never appologize for what I'm saying, and look what a great guy everyone thinks I am.
my apostrophe key keeps bringing up the Find dialogue box
hey! that happens to me! a lot! what is that?!
wtf, firefox.
Then the Find box disappears unless you type something damn fast, and even if you do, your query is gone when you hit apo again.
Silvana: Nice meeting you. Where's your blog, or do you have one? I don't, so who am I to ask?
Wow, cool -- I always get the find box by typing slash, but apparently the apostrophe does it too. Why it this a problem? If you are inside a text entry box in a form, it will not happen -- where else would you be needing to type apostrophe inside your browser?
Either ' or / will bring up the find box for about 5 seconds, at which point it will go away if no text is entered. Your search text will not be remembered after the box is dismisssed. If you want the box to hang out long-term regardless of whether you type anything in it, and to remember your search text, use ^F.
(I know the / invokes find for compatibility with the expectations of users of vi -- I guess some other popular editor uses ' -- maybe emaxx?)
It was happening inside the text box, TMK.
Aiiiiee! I just restarted Firefox and the problem went away.
When you bring up the find box with ', it searches for links only; so if you type ' followed by 'modesto' you get nothing. / brings up the normal find box.
72: The problems with things like "titty baby" and "pussy" and so forth are, of course, precisely *why* they're effective insults against the chickenhawk crew (and yes, CCP, I know about the other meaning, but y'all up north have to just DEAL with the fact that we are the dominant power here and nowadays it means what we say it means. Don't be a pussy about it, or we'll invade your country and melt the ice caps to send the water to Las Vegas). The pose of the chickenhawks is *all about* macho posturing, and the temptation to deflate it by pointing out that they're all mommy-dependent basement-dwelling crybabies is overwhelming.
Even though I hope to continue raising a mama's boy my own damn self.
Even though I hope to continue raising a mama's boy my own damn self.
Whiny-ass titty babyhood begins at home. Though if you'd like a primer on how not to raise your child, you can start here. It makes me feel sick to my stomach.
It makes me feel sick to my stomach.
As it would any good whiny-ass titty baby.
Let not my flippancy indicate that I'm not also made queasy (and angry) by the facts in that article.
M/-/-/-/-/tch, my tummy hurts.
If you don't shut up I'll give you something to whine about!
God, this line, if it weren't real advice actually heeded by live human beings, just begs to be followed by "ATM":
Pearl's books warn parents to never whip in anger, always in joy.
How do people feel about the acceptability of any kind of corporal punishment? I mean, obviously we all think welt-raising is bad, but what about gentler spanking? I was thinking of doing a post to solicit opiniongs on this.
89 -- the safe word is "I repent!"
It depends on how bad you've been, Tia.
60 -- perhaps we should do a study. Your place?
If you are inside a text entry box in a form, it will not happen
Not so. This has happened to me several times while trying to type an e-mail in GMail. It's very frustrating, but I usually just either restart Firefox, or write my email without apostrophes.
How do people feel about the acceptability of any kind of corporal punishment? I mean, obviously we all think welt-raising is bad, but what about gentler spanking? I was thinking of doing a post to solicit opiniongs on this.
I'm pretty firm that it's bad because it's no longer a norm. I don't think the spanking itself was a major problem, back when it was conventional, but I don't think it's good to punish your children in a way that is unconventionally harsh or humiliating. For someone living in a milieu where mild spanking is conventional, I doubt it does much harm.
(I also think that the 'no spanking' norm is a better one than the 'spanking' norm, because it's too close to the possibility of real violence. My sense is that a parent who spanks is more likely to, in a moment of anger or just loss of control, really hurt their child, while a non-spanker is more likely to 'lose it' and swat the kid on the butt, if they lose it at all.)
84
What a fucking psycho. The very idea of whipping an infant under the age of one is obscene. It can't even accomplish anything. The baby doesn't have the cogntive capacity to associate the pain with anything it has done wrong. It certainly doesn't have the muscle control to hold back from biting during breastfeeding.
Didn't Harry Harlow's experiments teach us anything about the way babies respond to pain?!
I got spanked a lot as a kid, generally with a belt. I'm very, very opposed to that. The only time I hit either of my kids was before they could talk, lightly smacking the back of their hand if they were reaching toward a hot stove or going to pull a plug out of the wall. You don't have to cause pain, just enough to startle and distract them.
The disclaimer: my older son has always been a calm, quiet child that couldn't pose any less of a disciplinary problem. I haven't even used timeout since he was three. It's almost creepy, and not at all the child I should have earned karmically through my own childhood. The new one already appears to be quite a challenge, so we'll see how my restraint and good humor hold up.
In general, my observation is that kids who get hit are the kids who hit others when they're angry. They target weaker kids (not always physically) as they get older, to relieve the feelings of powerlessness that getting beaten engenders. It's no good. Don't hit your kids.
Sounds like this again.
And tempting the kid with a toy and swatting the hand when s/he reaches for it? Pushing them into the pond when they stray too close? Wow.
I was spanked as a kid. I wasn't spanked hard, but I do remember the whole thing being associated with humiliation and a feeling of total loss of control that was way disproportionate to the pain. I never got hit with a belt except once at my first fundamentalist Christian best friend named Melissa's house. She convinced me to climb over the gate, and we were caught and got the belt. I think my father had a little talk with Melissa's mom afterwards though, because she never hit me again.
90
We all know parents who use gentler spanking that creates discipline without harming the child, but I think in these cases the spanking itself is actually doing very little. Generally that kind of punishment is accompanied by a lot of ritual: a series of warnings, building up the event. But in those cases, it is the build up that really creates the discipline.
So why bother with the spanking at all? When the spanking get mild enough that it is not abuse, it also just isn't that important a part of how you create discipline.
I think of the term "corporal punishment" as having a formal, behind-the-woodshed, wait-until-your-father-gets-home quality. That kind of thing was often depicted on tv when I was a kid, and I presume must have been common. My parents didn't do that; both would very occasionally, when provoked, cuff or slap us. Amounting perhaps to a few dozen times in our whole lives. I don't mean that doesn't have an impact, it does, but I don't think of that as "corporal punishment." What say you?
I agree with apostropher too, even though I have to admit to having spanked PK on a few occasions, especially when he was four--old enough to be mouthy and argumentative and stubborn, too old to actually understand the difference between things that can be argued about and things that simply can't (plus too old to just pick up and tote). It's not cool, I don't think it's defensible, and I've said as much to PK, along the lines of "no, I shouldn't have spanked you, I was angry and I lost my temper and I'm sorry" kind of thing.
I think, aside from the "slapping" that apostropher mentioned, no good can come of spanking. If you only do it a few times, what are you really accomplishing? If you do it a lot, you're fucking up your kid.
I have to say that I think it brings up a cognitive dissonance in kids. You're taught not to hit, yelled at if you hit your siblings, etc. Then, all of a sudden your parents are doing it. Wtf? The one time I remember being spanked (I stole some money - at 5!), I was like "Dad, don't you love me anymore?" and he said "Yes, of course I do." "Then why are you doing this?" "To show you that stealing is wrong." "But I already know that."
Didn't have much of a good answer for that. And yeah, I spent my whole life trying to argue my way out of shit. Worked most of the time, but not that day.
It's true, and probably a milepost in social development, but I apologize to my kids too, trying to make them understand my anger but not justifying hitting them. I don't recall either my mother or father ever doing that.
Yikes. That article has some really choice bits near the end. "[Killion]'s only daughter, Moriah, is just 2, and already Killion has read Pearl's discipline book four times. 'We're preparing her to be someone's mate one day,' said Killion."
Did you notice how, in the section under "Fuss Puzzles Pearls", ther Pearl family's reasoning is not in quotes -- "They are self-assured young men and women raising their own babies to be God-fearing mothers and fathers" appears in the editorial voice. Weird.
BTW as an alternative to spanking might I recommend incorporeal punishment?
The last bit of LB's 96 is important, too. I've gotten frustrated enough with Noah that he's been in real peril of getting a smack on the butt. And that's all that would happen if I lost control. My father, on the other hand, did leave bruises and welts a couple of times when he totally lost it. I have vivid memories of sitting in the bathtub and looking at the bruises on my legs and thinking that when I got bigger, I would kill him.
That's not a cool thing to put on a third-grader's mind.
Corporal punishment, in any form, has been illegal in Sweden since the 1950s.
112:
And how is this enforced? who has the standing to raise it? how many cases and what are they like? Would an incident "toll" so that an adult child could bring an action against a parent on reaching majority?
And how is this enforced?
Public floggings.
"Thirty times a day, I was striking my son. He wasn't even 2 years old. I kept waiting: Where is this joy we were promised?'"
IDP: blog is my name link. (usually too lazy to type it in)
111: Samoa was a hitting culture; almost everyone hit their kids, and to a point that would absolutely be considered abuse here. The kids seemed to roll with it pretty well (to a point: Samoa has an incredibly high rate of teen suicide) but they got hurt a lot. Beatings that left bruises were normal, beatings that left real injuries weren't at all unusual.
(I also noticed that hitting kids makes other discipline ineffective. Teachers were supposed to hit kids in the classroom; I didn't, barring one semi-accidental incident, partially out of principle, and partially because the 'kids' I was teaching were largely bigger and almost universally stronger than I was. But once they knew that my class was the one where they weren't going to get hit, there was nothing much I could do to make an impression on them.)
96, 111: Yeah. That's what I find the tough thing to talk about: "losing it" and forgiving yourself, but without rationalizing or excusing it. The latter can make it all too easy to do again. Even if you fuck up more than once, it's important to maintain the line that hitting isn't okay. Thank god PK is old enough, now, that the days of utter frustration (and, let's admit it, depression and a resulting lack of coping skills) are gone. Probably both because he's aged out of that stage and because I kept working on finding non-corporal ways of getting him to do what needed to be done. Unsurprisingly, it's usually easier if I just let down my guard and admit that I'm frustrated and upset and would he please help me out than it is if I yell at him. Go figure.
I was quite wrong, it's only been illegal since 1979. There aren't any special laws for violence against children, just the law against assault. So slapping your child once isn't going to land you in jail. You'd get in trouble with social services before you get in trouble w the law. I would guess that not that many cases get tried that wouldn't be tried in New York too. I don't know.
There's a strong taboo against it, though, and children knows that spanking is illegal.
117: I think this is an interesting point (the first paragraph, not the last--I totally agree with the last and have nothing to add to it). I wonder if the occasional spanking, hand-smack, or cuffing of the head is a lot less of an issue in a context where there's a lot of physical contact between parents and kids, all the way from cuddling to horseplay. I kind of suspect that this is the case. It seems to me that ours is a culture that's uncomfortable with physicality, broadly speaking, between adults and kids: bathing with a kid past infancy is weird, teachers hugging kids is Not Okay, etc. I'm obviously expressing a lot of my own internalized anxiety and guilt on the subject, but I *hope* (and my impression is that this is the case) that b/c we're way, way more physically affectionate with PK than my parents ever were with me, that my having spanked once upon a time isn't quite as awful as it would be otherwise. At least, his usual response was a defiant "that didn't hurt" and honestly, I think that I didn't really spank him any harder (though longer) in anger than I do in play, which I think is totally okay.
117:
The expectation of violence between teachers and students was once common here. In Farmer Boy, the out-of-sequence one of the Little House books which is the story of Almanzo's childhood in NY State, one teacher is beaten so badly by older boys he later dies, and his avenging roomate takes the job and with Amanzo's father's help, takes them on with a bullwhip.
Is he docile? That's generally the best indicator as to how you are doing as a parent -- an agitated child is a warning sign of an ungodly household.
121 -- I never read "Farmer Boy" -- isn't Almanzo the name of Laura Ingalls Wilder's husband? I had thought all the books were about her own childhood.
122: "Docile"? No, not exactly. Obviously we're all going straight to hell.
No, that one is about her husband's childhood in NY state -- it may be my favorite of all the books. It's a record of life on a prosperous, stable farm, rather than Laura's pioneer childhood, and it's charming.
120:
I think this is true. I am much more physical, particularly with my son, than my father was with me. I was talking to my son just the other day about how he felt when I was angry with him, and he admits to having been mostly scared, shocked and humiliated even if I didn't really hurt him. On the other hand, he still lets me kiss him and will spontaneously hug me even though he's thirteen. I don't remember hugging my dad until he got dementia; he might not have been crying but I was.
he admits to having been mostly scared, shocked and humiliated
Yeah. And PK gets all of those things if I shout at him, too; he's remarkably good at immediately discerning the shift in tone between a voice raised in exasperation and a voice raised in genuine anger (though more with me than with his father, oddly.) And thank god, we're both also getting better at identifying the moment just *before* the shouting and agreeing to cooperate in order to avoid crossing that line.
125: House on Plum Creek v. Farmer Boy smackdown!
Seriously, they lived in a dugout. Top that.
To follow up on 119, there's a civil law ban without sanction against all forms of corporal punishemnt. You could be tried for assault for regularly spanking your child. Social services could take your child away from you. IM most decidely NAL.
IM most decidely NAL
I think "I most decidedly ANAL" is the preferred usage here.
131: Are you still of two minds about it?
128:
And her sister goes blind, the family is at it's lowest ebb. There's nothing pastoral about Little House after awhile.
And all of the Wilders, including the parents, head west eventually. Farmer Boy is an idyll of self-sufficiency, but the clouds of debt and a money economy, as when Almonzo has to decide whether to be apprenticed, and watches his would-be master have to deal with a customer are present there too.
132: Not especially, but I think "most decidedly" indicates a clear and constant preference vs. any other particular act, and I don't think that quite applies.
When I was little and we played Little House we always fought over who got to be Mary so we could pretend we were blind.