Hobbit Locket.

I do not speak/write fully informed for I have not finished the reading. From the reading we did today {the first 14 paragraphs of Justice:Childhood Love Lessons} I began to think. I started to wonder what was Hooks' argument. As of now I've mustard this: Hook is against hitting children and is convicted that love and violence can never co-exist.

I agree with the latter. Love does not call for violence--ever--rather for sacrifice. But I am under the impression that Hooks believes when a parent spanks their child the exhibit a lack of love for them. There is abuse and there is discipline. Yes I have heard the argument "There are other ways to discipline than to spank", I agree.

I've witnessed parents hit their children because they are frustrated or angered. That is the violence Hooks is talking about. I fear that she over looks the fact that spanking is a form of disciplining.

All this leads me back to Lord of the Flies. In the ninth grade we examined two theories; Hobbes' theory:humans are born bad but are only good because of laws and government; and the other is Locke's theory:humans are born with a clean slate and are a sum of their experiences. I personally believe that humans learn to be and do good. So disciplining a child through spanking is not abuse but discipline in a form the child will understand. If we as humans are born primitive and violence is primitive then a child will respectably react to primitive behavior. One can't expect a three year old to understand that throwing tantrums is bad because it is an unhealthy way to release frustration. But if one reacts primitively to the child's behavior the child will respectably understand. Parents have to continually get down to their childrens' level, literally and figuratively. Children make the connection that throwing a tantrum will lead to being spanked, and once they are older they will understand that throwing a tantrum is not a healthy way of expressing frustration and is discouraged.

Things to think about.

♥peace