Now Liberals Believe in ‘Love Whooping’

CorporalPunishmentby Jerry Richardson4/30/15
For years before the pediatrician Benjamin Spock peddled his unbiblical and bogus advice on child discipline to the world, successful parents adhered to the biblical admonition that

He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently.
—Proverbs 13:24 NASB

In today’s world that has become so yesterday (anything that happened 5 minutes or more ago).

But now, suddenly in Baltimore, Maryland liberals and the liberal-media have a new champion: A mother who publically slapped her hooded, thug, engaged-in-rioting, teen-age son. A black, single-mom mother publically gave her son a love whooping.

Wow! Can you believe it?  According to the liberal media a whooping can be love?

Where do we even start with the contradictions involved here?

Let’s do a level-set.  Liberals are the ones who made it politically-incorrect for parents to win the battle-of-wills with their children by the use of appropriate corporal punishment if necessary.

Now when it’s becoming nationally apparent—news-worthy-noticed—that black parents (especially single-mom, black parents) in predominately black communities are completely losing the battle-of-wills with their children, the liberal, Spock-advised-supporting media has suddenly championed the exact opposite of what they have trumpeted for the past 68 years (2015 – 1946):
Don’t EVER use corporal force on rebellious children.

What a crock!  And America bought it.

America bought it along with the insane concept that people, individuals including children, are not responsible, totally responsible, for their own actions.

Please understand this: When individual responsibility is discarded, law and order go away.  That’s where we are in America today: Individual responsibility is rapidly being discarded.

But maybe the tide is turning back toward unavoidable reality:

A Baltimore mom who earned national fame by finding her rioting son and smacking him upside the head before dragging him home inspired a special plea in the halls of Congress on Tuesday.

Toya Graham spotted her 16-year-old son, Michael, among the masked miscreants Monday, and promptly swung into action, pulling off his ski mask and slapping him as she pulled him away from the crowds. “You want to be out here doing this dumb s–t?” she was captured telling him on camera. As he tried to get away from her, she continued, “Get the f–k over here. Get over here now. Did you hear what I said?”
—-
On the House floor yesterday, Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.) propped up a picture of the mom, saying it was “is time now for black mothers to once again rise up.”
Congressman praise a ‘Love Whooping’

Don’t miss the fact that the congressman making the above quote is a black Democrat from Chicago, Illinois’s (mostly south-side) 1st Congressional district.

Wouldn’t it be amazing if liberalism’s failure–“willful blindness” to reality—brought us back to the sensible, age-honored, biblical-principle of disciplining children?

Why are we having the riots in Ferguson and Baltimore?  And please, it is NOT because of police brutality. It is definitely because of something else. The answer is to be found in the proper response to the following question:

Why are so many parents today derelict in teaching and enforcing public, civil behavior?

Answer: The political correctness of progressive thought has embedded, into many modern minds, a bogus child-rearing philosophy first foisted upon the American parenting public by Dr. Benjamin Spock:

“In 1946, Dr. Benjamin Spock first published his infamous book “Common Sense Book of Baby and Child Care,” which was unlike any that came before it. Instead of stressing the importance of teaching self-denial and respect for authority, Spock discouraged directive training and emphasized accommodating children’s feelings and catering to their preferences
—-
“Using Spock’s approach, parents began to feed self-indulgence instead of instilling self-control – homes were becoming child-centered. As parents elevated children’s “freedom of expression” and natural cravings, children became more outspoken, defiant and demanding of gratification. In fact, they came to view gratification as a right.”

Dr. Spock

It would be difficult to adopt a child-rearing approach that is more non-biblical and more societally-disastrous than Dr. Spock’s prescription.

What has been the result?

America has been building an undisciplined, self-indulgent society.
Childhood Incivility

© 2015, Jerry Richardson • (1756 views)

Share
This entry was posted in Essays. Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to Now Liberals Believe in ‘Love Whooping’

  1. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I thought this was the money quote:

    “Using Spock’s approach, parents began to feed self-indulgence instead of instilling self-control – homes were becoming child-centered. As parents elevated children’s “freedom of expression” and natural cravings, children became more outspoken, defiant and demanding of gratification. In fact, they came to view gratification as a right.”

    I don’t have children and the idea of beating them doesn’t appeal to me. My father used a razor strap on us boys and he seemed to like doing so a bit too much.

    But the principle is sound: Spare the rod, spoil the child. Children to some extent must have civilization beaten into them…hopefully mostly figuratively, but occasionally literally, especially boys.

    This is also why it is imperative that there be a man (a real man) in the house. Yes, it’s nice that the black lady gave her boy a “whoopin'” but it will likely not be taken very seriously by the son (for he was at the riot in the first place, remember). Sorry, ladies, but young boys just do not take women as seriously when it comes to these things. My mother would occasionally try to whoop me with a wooden spoon. And despite the fact that it often hurt a little, I would usually laugh as she chased me around the house in order to try to administer that whoopin’.

    Boys need the bull-elephant poppa male in the house to administer quick justice. A boy will respect (tinged with fear, which is half the point) his father like he will not his mother. So as much as they want to make a hero out of this black woman (and she’s surely better than the non-whoopers), let’s remember that she’s a single mother with six children. There’s a moral rot there deeper than what a good whoopin’ to one renegade child can restore.

    There is no one size fits all. Wisdom is needed in regards to disciplining children. Some children are indeed more sensitive and a whoopin’ is then little more than a form of sadism. For other children it’s the only language they understand. But in this insane, juvenile, politically correct culture that knows more about tattoos than toddlers, does the wisdom exist to make even the barest of distinctions?

    Probably not. So it serves many purposes to just indulge children. First of all, it helps absolve the parents from their duty. It’s easier to justify single-parenthood or shuffling kids off to daycare if indulgence (particularly parental indulgence) is the guiding force. And that’s probably the real lesson here. The children of Dr. Spock are now having children and for many it’s just not in their mind that self-discipline, rather than indulgence, should be the watchword. So they indulge themselves, to hell with the children (although they think their laxness, if not dereliction, can be called modern “nurturance”). And to hell with future generations of children. We see this in the reckless borrowing and printing of money that will degrade the prospects of future children.

    Black culture is a mess. It’s a mess, in large part, due to condescending white liberal culture for whom blacks are mere mascots or puppets whose primary use is to show how supposedly damn enlightened and compassionate the white liberals are. As some blacks have noted, they are still on a different planation of sorts.

    Jeffrey Lord has a half-decent article today that touches on the subject: Donald Trump Slams Government by Race.

    • NAHALKIDES NAHALKIDES says:

      Good points, Brad. They are supported by a statistic I read somewhere that spanking is more common in black homes than white ones. That corporal discipline by itself has not been enough to prevent the disintegration of the black family. Fathers are needed, spanking or not.

  2. Jerry Richardson says:

    Brad,

    So as much as they want to make a hero out of this black woman (and she’s surely better than the non-whoopers), let’s remember that she’s a single mother with six children. There’s a moral rot there deeper than what a good whoopin’ to one renegade child can restore.
    —Brad Nelson

    Someone wrote an article recently, maybe Ann Coulter, with the theme that people and the media should stop glorifying single-moms. I think that sentiment is correct. A major part of the problem for this media-applauded-mom was created by her own bad choices and decisions.

    The social, economic, and criminal problems in black communities are not going to be solved until black communities begin to rebuild their culture around families, solid work-ethics, and personal responsibility.

    • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

      Good for Ann. I would expect nothing less.

      Most of this glorification of the single mother stems from feminism’s basic premise: Men are expandable.

      The social, economic, and criminal problems in black communities are not going to be solved until black communities begin to rebuild their culture around families, solid work-ethics, and personal responsibility.

      Yes indeed. And they can go back to Booker T. Washington for a good template for that. Nothing new under the sun. I think the unspoken main effect here is the race-based grievance. That is, there are large pockets of blacks who hate whitey . . . or at least hating whitey is a good excuse to engage in degenerate, corrupt, and unproductive behavior. And with plenty of Democrat politicians giving material and rhetorical support to this dark religion, this corruption will be hard to uproot….no help at all, of course, from the 99% of Republicans who are completely emasculated on the subject.

      • Jerry Richardson says:

        Brad,

        Most of this glorification of the single mother stems from feminism’s basic premise: Men are expandable.
        —-
        I think the unspoken main effect here is the race-based grievance. That is, there are large pockets of blacks who hate whitey . . . or at least hating whitey is a good excuse to engage in degenerate, corrupt, and unproductive behavior.
        —Brad Nelson

        Yes, and it makes you wonder where these men and white-men haters are going to turn when there are no sheep-dogs to defend them from ideologues who will gladly cut-off their heads with a knife. Sure, Al Sharpton, Jesse Jackson and their gang will ride to the rescue.

        • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

          Yes, and it makes you wonder where these men and white-men haters are going to turn when there are no sheep-dogs to defend them from ideologues who will gladly cut-off their heads with a knife.

          Jerry, a lot of people have much invested in the racial grievance industry. And you’ve got to hand it to the mob. Their intimidation works. It might leave a momentary mess in Baltimore, but all across the nation the message (once again) has been received: Do not treat blacks as equals.

          Black supremacy (blacks not having to play by the same rules as everyone else) is the watchword. The question in the short-term is if enough black leaders will speak out and puncture the balloon of this self-serving separatist/racist sub-culture.

          But don’t look to whitey for that. The liberals gain too much from this industry, and the rest have been successfully intimated into silence. Everyone understands the implicit (sometimes explicit) message: If you criticize the status quo of the racial grievance culture, you are “insensitive,” at best, “racist,” at worst.

          More moral rot thanks to the Left and the Democrats. And the gutless Republicans are silent collaborators.

          • Jerry Richardson says:

            Brad,

            Black supremacy (blacks not having to play by the same rules as everyone else) is the watchword. The question in the short-term is if enough black leaders will speak out and puncture the balloon of this self-serving separatist/racist sub-culture.

            But don’t look to whitey for that.
            —-
            More moral rot thanks to the Left and the Democrats. And the gutless Republicans are silent collaborators.

            Yes, and what continues to make me the maddest are the “gutless Republicans” who will not challenge this idiocy.

            I keep my eyes open for these people (RINOs and CINOs) and if and when given a chance I will work and vote to defeat any attempts these COWARDS make toward attaining or remaining in public office.

            • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

              It’s easy to see why Jonah cut and run on the issue of homosexual marriage. The idea is now just too ingrained in the culture. And the idea of protecting an institution for long-term benefits is swamped by the short-term demagogic appeal of slogans such as “marriage equality” and “non-discrimination.” Jonah caved without even trying to make a rational, conservative argument.

              It should be apparent to anyone that single-parent families are a bad idea. No one has complete control of the culture, but conservatives (or those who purport to be conservative) should speak as one voice against any idea that undermines the unity of the family, for if not family as the central organizing force in society, there is only the state remaining. Again, I remain deeply disappointed that Jonah didn’t even try to make an argument in this vein.

              So “gutless” is indeed a good word to describe this…or just opportunistic. I don’t hate homosexuals, but only a fool would turn a blind eye to all the practices and ideas that trivialize marriage. And if marriage (and men) are seen as optional, you’re going to get what you get, and that will be dependence upon the state.. And there is nothing conservative about that. And conservatism is inherently impossible in such a situation.

              • Timothy Lane says:

                Note that David French mentioned that he has now evolved from supporting homosexual marriage to opposing it. I can understand and even sympathize with a conservative seeing homosexual marriage as legitimate — but when the homofascists made it clear that they would brook no dissent, or even allow permit friendly relations with dissenters, the proper conservative response was to lash back at the homofascists. Of course, it’s easier for those of us who never gave in to them in the first place.

  3. Timothy Lane says:

    Already there are some liberals denouncing Graham for “beating” her son (which of course is a typically liberal gross exaggeration). Some people never learn, which is why they remain liberals.

    I recalled that Bobby Rush was a former Black Panther. According to the Almanac of American Politics 2014, he actually was raised on the north side of the city, a Boy Scout and the son of a Republican activist. It was during his time in the army that he became radicalized. But he may have retained a little of his original upbringing.

    My paternal grandfather notoriously had a razor strap he was quite ready to use, and many of the grandchildren (there were a total of 9 in 4 families) reported how painful being hit by that could be, but as far as I know I never faced that.

    As MAD Magazine once said, “Spock, Spock, the baby doc/Leads a peace march down the block./Around him everywhere you look/Are kids he messed up with his book.”

  4. Jerry Richardson says:

    Timothy,

    “Spock, Spock, the baby doc/Leads a peace march down the block./Around him everywhere you look/Are kids he messed up with his book.” —Timothy Lane

    Choice! I’ve got to remember this one for later use. 🙂 🙂 🙂

  5. Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

    I can understand and even sympathize with a conservative seeing homosexual marriage as legitimate — but when the homofascists made it clear that they would brook no dissent, or even allow permit friendly relations with dissenters, the proper conservative response was to lash back at the homofascists.

    Timothy, I wouldn’t put Jonah in that category. His explanation for his change was disingenuous, at best. And I entirely agree with your evaluation of events. I wasn’t always hostile to the idea of homosexual marriage. Maybe I had good reasons or silly reasons (mostly silly, I’m sure), but I had reasons.

    And when the landscape changed and I had new information (such as the reality of the Pink Mafia), my current position against homosexual marriage was further reinforced. It’s not that two queers getting married will destroy the world. It’s that the politics, law, and social customs that form around it are so inherently destructive to society, families, and just basic freedom itself.

    Sorry, if you want to get married, you can…chose a member of the opposite sex. If you want to do anything else, I won’t likely stop you (outside of child molestation, incest, or bestiality), but don’t try to anoint your perversion by calling it “marriage.” Real people in real marriages alone deserve that distinction.

    • Timothy Lane says:

      My view was actually a very good conservative one: that time would show whether homosexual marriage was a good idea or a bad one. And, indeed, time has shown that it was a very bad idea because it has set loose the Lavender Thought Police of homofascism.

      I think the real blunder came with Lawrence v. Texas, in which the “right” to engage in deviant behavior was declared. I had no problem with legalizing homosexual behavior in private (and still don’t for the most part), but declaring such bans unconstitutional was another matter.

      Or perhaps the original error was Griswold v. Connecticut (which in fact was, I believe, the decision based on a penumbra of an emanation). But (sorry, fabula calculo), I increasingly think strict Muslims have the correct solution to the problem of homosexuality. And if that and the current situation were the only choices, I definitely would choose the Saudi approach.

      • Brad Nelson Brad Nelson says:

        I wouldn’t stone them. But I would tie them in a chair and make them watch “Fifty Shades of Gray” or some marginally vulgar romantic boy-girl film like that (boy-girl-girl-girl-girl film?).

        At the base of all this is the paradigm shift from man, inherently flawed and in need of moral instruction and some restraint, to the idea of man being freed (and made better) by being freed from moral instruction and restraint.

        Granted, there still is a quite stifling moral framework out there in regards to the Left. It’s a totalitarian system and is eventually going to have more anal-retentive moral restraining laws than the most pious Puritan could ever have imagined.

        But because sex, drugs, and rock-and-roll (metaphorically, speaking) are the Soma of today’s crowd, they swallow down everything else. This is a live-for-today culture that has little or no metaphysical reach. This is, as I’ve stated (and surely you’ve stated), a grasshopper culture, not an ant culture. We’re eating our seed corn. And to suggest restraint is considered not just bad manners but harmfully retrograde.

        This is the mind-farking (not my first choice of words) that the Left has done to all who are touched by it. It is enough to simply be “open” to all things and then everything will work out fine. No smart moral framework is needed, thank you, and certainly no restraint, no making of hard choices.

        “Nice,” as we especially see in people such as Pope Francis and others,” has been substituted for “good.” It’s about being liked and never needing to challenge anyone else’s behavior for, as has become the thoughtless slogan of today, “It’s all good.”

        Well, it’s not. A garden must be weeded, something anyone who has ever tried to grow understands. You can throw a bunch of seeds in libertarian fashion at the unprepared ground and announce “What a grand garden it shall be.” But without planning, order, restraint, and pruning, you’ll just have an unproductive mess.

        And it’s not hard to morph into the role of Chauncey Gardner when talking about all this stuff.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *