A Lessor Sex?

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 14 2005, 07:17 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 14 2005, 07:17 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--TheProudDuck@Mar 14 2005, 03:22 PM

Chicks dig that kind of Nietzschean uber-figure.

It was his attitude. He didn't like women. I can't imagine him trying to please them in any way, shape or form. I imagine the type that "dug" him would have been the ones looking for prestige and security--not the ones looking for excitement or romance.

Brigham Young didn't like women? Whatever would give you that idea? (Aside from that business about him "putting a javelin" through them if they were unfaithful ... er, maybe I see your point ....)

And so what if he "didn't like women"? You know that we sweet charming types have to show up with our "A" game to keep from losing all the women to the jerks who don't even try to hide their dislike for women in every context but one.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 14 2005, 07:19 PM

(Aside from that business about him "putting a javelin" through them if they were unfaithful ... er, maybe I see your point ....)

I haven't read the javelin discourse. My first clue about Brigham Young's true feelings towards women was when I read this excerpt from the Journal of Discourses (It's very long, so I'll condense it a bit)

THE POSITION OF WOMEN

Now for my proposition; it is more particularly for my sisters, as it is frequently happening that women say they are unhappy. Men will say, "My wife, though a most excellent woman, has not seen a happy day since I took my second wife;" "No, not a happy day for a year," says one; and another has not seen a happy day for five years. It is said that women are tied down and abused: that they are misused and have not the liberty they ought to have; that many of them are wading through a perfect flood of tears, because of the conduct of some men, together with their own folly.

I wish my own women to understand that what I am going to say is for them as well as others, and I want those who are here to tell their sisters, yes, all the women of this community, and then write it back to the States, and do as you please with it. I am going to give you from this time to the 6th day of October next, for reflection, that you may determine whether you wish to stay with your husbands or not, and then I am going to set every woman at liberty and say to them, Now go your way, my women with the rest, go your way. And my wives have got to do one of two things; either round up their shoulders to endure the afflictions of this world, and live their religion, or they may leave, for I will not have them about me. I will go into heaven alone, rather than have scratching and fighting around me. I will set all at liberty. "What, first wife too?" Yes, I will liberate you all. <unquote: blaugh, blaugh, blaugh...>

Now recollect that two weeks from to morrow I am going to set you at liberty. But the first wife will say, "It is hard, for I have lived with my husband twenty years, or thirty, and have raised a family of children for him, and it is a great trial to me for him to have more women;" then I say it is time that you gave him up to other women who will bear children. If my wife had borne me all the children that she ever would bare, the celestial law would teach me to take young women that would have children.

Do you understand this? I have told you many times that there are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty? - to prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can; hence if my women leave, I will go and search up others who will abide the celestial law, and let all I now have go where they please; though I will send the Gospel to them.

<unquote: that'll get a woman hot!>

Prepare yourselves for two weeks from to morrow; and I will tell you now, that if you will tarry with your husbands, after I have set you free, you must bow down to it, and submit yourselves to the celestial law. You may go where you please, after two weeks from to-morrow; but, remember, that I will not hear any more of this whining. - JoD 4:55-57 (September 21, 1856)

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 14 2005, 09:21 PM

Do you understand this? I have told you many times that there are multitudes of pure and holy spirits waiting to take tabernacles, now what is our duty? - to prepare tabernacles for them; to take a course that will not tend to drive those spirits into the families of the wicked, where they will be trained in wickedness, debauchery, and every species of crime. It is the duty of every righteous man and woman to prepare tabernacles for all the spirits they can; hence if my women leave, I will go and search up others who will abide the celestial law, and let all I now have go where they please; though I will send the Gospel to them.

<unquote: that'll get a woman hot!>

A TABERNACLE? That is just sick.

Celestial LAW? Was this the reason given for polygamy? My understanding of this was that there were not enough men left to care for these women.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Mar 15 2005, 08:40 AM

Celestial LAW? Was this the reason given for polygamy? My understanding of this was that there were not enough men left to care for these women.

I think caring for the widows was more due to the Old Testament "Levirite" law. I'm not sure a man needed to marry a widow in order to help support her, but it seemed practical to them at the time. Anyway, this is just how I formed my opinion of Brigham Young as a very unromantic person. He was more of a practical nature.

[USNationalist]

SO your founding fathers of mormonism were of the opinion that the women was of lessor stature.... but you guys contend that the idea is ludicrious.... Can you guys change your mind on or go against any subject?

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 15 2005, 04:21 PM

SO your founding fathers of mormonism were of the opinion that the women was of lessor stature....

Many women have become smarter and don't allow themselves to be treated or referred to as a "lesser"

USN, do you really believe that when you get married, that you will want to marry someone who is less than you are?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 15 2005, 03:21 PM

Can you guys change your mind on or go against any subject?

Sure. Why not? Founding Fathers are people too. I don't have to agree with everything they say to recognize their contributions.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 15 2005, 04:21 PM

SO your founding fathers of mormonism were of the opinion that the women was of lessor stature.... but you guys contend that the idea is ludicrious.... Can you guys change your mind on or go against any subject?

There is a difference between then and now ~ we have the gospel to enlighten our minds and give us further light and knowledge.

[Guest bizabra]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 7 2005, 03:25 AM

...ok So basicaly the female objection to being the lesser sex is the way its put. They just dont want to be refeard to as the lessor sex even though their role is the submissive/obedient one.

So then is there a PC (politicaly correct) way of saying "lessor sex"? Because i do understand how that term would be offensive. It does seem rather blunt.

Men and women should be PARTNERS! The idea that one of them should "serve" the other and be submissive to HIM is ridiculous and barbaric. I suppose you keep a "rod" handy to beat your wife with if she gets out of line, eh? The Bible sanctions that, ya know.

You, sirrah, are a misogynistic cretin. . . . . . . . . .

[USNationalist]

<<USN, do you really believe that when you get married, that you will want to marry someone who is less than you are?>>

-Yes. I want to be the building, and i want her to be the foundation. Man is stronger and tougher then women, they should be the protectors and providers. And the wife should tend to the home, which now days is looked on as barbaric to todays liberaly infulenced culture despite the fact that it is almost as important an aspect as providing for the family if not equal.I want a wife that will recognize me as the man of the house and respect my decisions. At the same time, God forbid that i should be an unjust husband. While it is the wifes possition to be submissive to the husband it is the husbands possition to be a good steward of the home. I believe god holds us accountable to our prospective possitions and it would be just as wrong of me to fail to keep my responsibility as it would for her to keep hers.

Im not so much saying that women are lessor, but that they have their place and the men have theirs.

<<Sure. Why not? Founding Fathers are people too. I don't have to agree with everything they say to recognize their contributions.>>

-Shouldnt a religion be consistant? I thought the word, as spoke of in john, didnt change. But you mormons add and subtract to your faith as much as clothes go in and out of style. What kind of religion lets secular society infulence its principles to such a degree? And its not like you think it was misunderstood before and now your doing it right.... you actualy changed it. Blotted out the old and wrote a new.

<<Men and women should be PARTNERS!>>

-sure, like a 60/40 kind of deal right? -haha

<<The idea that one of them should "serve" the other and be submissive to HIM is ridiculous and barbaric.>>

-And the idea that your not wearing a gown that covers all your body makes you a menace to society somewhere else. Go ahead and let whatever society your surrounded by dictate what you consider moral and right. Your just another pawn of man for the ages. You have no right, and no authority to dictate any kind of morality. Morality is dictated by one thing- power. The one with the power decides. The US governement has decided murder is wrong, why is that accepted? Because they can enforce it. In afganistan- women couldnt drive. Why was that wrong- because they could enforce it. But those human establishments still have their limits. The greatest morality, must come from the greatest power. And there is none greater then God and so there is none to question what he decides is moraly right and what is moraly objectional. Anyone with a moral stance of their own is nothing but a fool and a hypicryte for suggestion that what they think is right, due to their own opinions, is more right then what someone else may think is right, also baised on their own opinions. Morality without power is subjective and has no baises for any means of conviction. God breathed Morality is universal and the only legitimate standard of morality. So please- take your lectures, and statements about barbarism, and shove them.

<<I suppose you keep a "rod" handy to beat your wife with if she gets out of line, eh? The Bible sanctions that, ya know.>>

-Well here in the ole USA that counts for domestic abuse. And so im my submission to the laws of man for christs sake- no i do not. But can you honestly say out of all the wives that get beat, none of them diserved it? My uncle used to beat his wife- she didnt deserve that, our family kept telling her she was to good for him and to leave him (he didn't like that much, heh, so he ran off to kansas and didnt tell anyone). But what about the wife that is doing drugs in the house when you have kids? What about the alchoholic wife that refuses to do anything about it. What about the wife that is sleeping around. Do you really feel bad for them when they get served a knuckle sandwhich or 2? Or are you going to go 180 on your hole equality crap and say its wrong for a man to hit a girl?

<<You, sirrah, are a misogynistic cretin. . . . . . . . . . >>

-Snow called me one of those before (not the cretin part- which happened to be my fathers favorite insult, untill they changed the deffintion- or so he says).

But as to my responce: You, mam, are a ignorant fink and the pawn of society, a lessor and ultimatly insignificant power.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 16 2005, 12:20 PM

<<USN, do you really believe that when you get married, that you will want to marry someone who is less than you are?>>

-Yes. I want to be the building, and i want her to be the foundation. Man is stronger and tougher then women, they should be the protectors and providers. And the wife should tend to the home, which now days is looked on as barbaric to todays liberaly infulenced culture despite the fact that it is almost as important an aspect as providing for the family if not equal.I want a wife that will recognize me as the man of the house and respect my decisions. At the same time, God forbid that i should be an unjust husband. While it is the wifes possition to be submissive to the husband it is the husbands possition to be a good steward of the home. I believe god holds us accountable to our prospective possitions and it would be just as wrong of me to fail to keep my responsibility as it would for her to keep hers.

Im not so much saying that women are lessor, but that they have their place and the men have theirs.

USN, with out a good foundation your building will crumble. So therefore, your wife will be your supporter.

I was one of those women who tended to the home and children and once the children became more independent I lost my identity. Don't place restrictions on your wife to be because if you have an unhappy wife you will have an unhappy life.

I am happy to hear you say this "Im not so much saying that women are lessor, but that they have their place and the men have theirs." That is how a Partnership works.

I think that you might consider someone who is more than you are because she will share. :)

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 16 2005, 11:20 AM

Im not so much saying that women are lessor, but that they have their place and the men have theirs.

Now you are NOT saying that women are "lessor?" (I really think you mean to say "lesser.)

Main Entry: [1]less·er

Pronunciation: 'le-s&r

Function: adjective, comparative of <sc>1<sc>little

Date: 13th century

: of less size, quality, degree, or significance : of lower status

Now that you've completely changed your opinion, I will agree that women are generally of less size than their male counterparts.

[Lindy]

But what about the wife that is doing drugs in the house when you have kids? What about the alchoholic wife that refuses to do anything about it. What about the wife that is sleeping around. Do you really feel bad for them when they get served a knuckle sandwhich or 2? Or are you going to go 180 on your hole equality crap and say its wrong for a man to hit a girl?

YES

You should know that I wouldn't let THAT slide USN

From your own words.

Man is stronger and tougher then women, they should be the protectors and providers.

HOW can a man who is "stronger and tougher" justify hitting a woman? Alcohol, drugs, sex.... so a man can justify beating a woman because of it? If a man cannot see the problem and try to deal with that problem effectively without resorting to violence, then he's not much of a man IMO.

A knuckle sandwhich for what Anger? Frustration? Discipline? Boy, I have a thing or two to tell you the next time we talk.

[Faerie]

am i the only one who took a wee bit of offense at USN's use of the Lord's name in vain?

[Lindy]

Originally posted by Faerie@Mar 16 2005, 03:59 PM

am i the only one who took a wee bit of offense at USN's use of the Lord's name in vain?

what the heck? WHERE?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Faerie@Mar 16 2005, 03:59 PM

am i the only one who took a wee bit of offense at USN's use of the Lord's name in vain?

I must have missed it. He may be a male chauvinist oinker, but he's a Christian and I don't think he takes the Lord's name in vain.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 16 2005, 12:20 PM

<<USN, do you really believe that when you get married, that you will want to marry someone who is less than you are?>>

-Yes. I want to be the building, and i want her to be the foundation. Man is stronger and tougher then women, they should be the protectors and providers. And the wife should tend to the home, which now days is looked on as barbaric to todays liberaly infulenced culture despite the fact that it is almost as important an aspect as providing for the family if not equal.I want a wife that will recognize me as the man of the house and respect my decisions. At the same time, God forbid that i should be an unjust husband. While it is the wifes possition to be submissive to the husband it is the husbands possition to be a good steward of the home. I believe god holds us accountable to our prospective possitions and it would be just as wrong of me to fail to keep my responsibility as it would for her to keep hers.

Im not so much saying that women are lessor, but that they have their place and the men have theirs.

Faerie,

Is it the above quote which concerns you?

[USNationalist]

<<USN, with out a good foundation your building will crumble. So therefore, your wife will be your supporter.>>

-i think thats near exactly what i just said.

<<YES

You should know that I wouldn't let THAT slide USN >>

-sorry lindy. But what about beating kids for dicipline? Adults are much stronger then children, does that make pysical punishment for them wrong? I certainly dont think so. I had my fair share of such dicipline- i don't see a problem with it.

-And as to saying thats for kids, not adults i would have to disagree. The reason it shouldnt be for adults is because they shouldnt be doing those things that get kids hit. People used to get whiped for crimes, we still kill people for them. Adult or not when people do something wrong there should be punishment- and coperal punishment i do not think should have an age limit. -And it is biblical, Who here wants to say God was or is unjust? Ive never understood the christian objection to God breathed issues. Seriously... will we let our own pride go so far as to say Gods idea was wrong- we know the right way.

<<If a man cannot see the problem and try to deal with that problem effectively without resorting to violence, then he's not much of a man IMO>>

-i disagree. While it, IMO, should be the last resort i believe violence is the ultimate and most effective deterent. Even God uses it. Those who disobey get smited- those that die unsaved go to hell. Violence is a very christian concept. To often the word gets perverted into something evil when all it is (in this case)- is a means of dicipline. And why do people dicipline people? Because they love them (God diciplines those he loves). PEople are evil- they mess up, without dicipline we would get out of hand.

<<A knuckle sandwhich for what Anger? Frustration? Discipline?>>

-the kuckle sandwhich remark was somewhat exagerated. Closed fists do seem like something to be reserved for self defence to me. But yes- for discipline. -And also, the main piont of the wife hitting statement was to expose the double standard females hold on equality. However i stand by my statement that some have it comming. I had a friend (you know of her lindy) who's mom was an alchoholic and a drug user, who uses and abuses her family. She is ruining her kids present lives and her actions are going to be a big infulenne on their future. She deserves worse then a beating. Because she had never worked a day in her life her husband (who is also scum in his own right) cant afford to divorce her due to the allomoney. So kicking her out just puts the family on the streets (unless the kids live with the mom, and what crises has been resolved then?).

-You see, the problem with humanity is they are selfish. The fact that she is destroying her family is not enough to keep her from satisfying herself. She has nothing to lose because all she cares about is herself and thats not endanger. She is a bad wife, and if she can not take care of her responsbilities on her own she should be made to. For the kids sakes if not hers. People liker her, are the people that should be beaten. The people who wont respond to anything but something that will effect them personaly.

-look im sure all you are good wives or were or will be (and i don't even mean that as obedient yada yada- but im sure you are good family influences and not destructive ones). And absoloutly think it would be wrong for a husband to hit such a wife. But with wives like what i just described- i stand by my statement that they should be. If my wife did drugs in front of my kid i dont know what i would do. Because as much as she may need it, my going to jail wouldnt help my kids out any. Our secular society has tied hands behind backs that shouldnt be. --As it is illeagle i do not suggest that men should hit their wives, but only contend that whether they do or not, some have it comming.

<<am i the only one who took a wee bit of offense at USN's use of the Lord's name in vain?>> <<I must have missed it. He may be a male chauvinist oinker, but he's a Christian and I don't think he takes the Lord's name in vain.>>

-We probably have very different ideas of what it means to take the lords name in vain... but i don't think i did even by your standards.

<<Now you are NOT saying that women are "lessor?" (I really think you mean to say "lesser.)>>

-im aware i am mispelling the word, im doing it on purpose. I spell words the way i like to spell them. Lessor looks cooler then lesser.

<<He may be a male chauvinist oinker>>

-haha, an oinker you say. Thats gold.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 17 2005, 03:06 AM

<<USN, with out a good foundation your building will crumble. So therefore, your wife will be your supporter.>>

-i think thats near exactly what i just said.

I think so too.

[Guest elle]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 10 2005, 08:14 AM

There are somethings i will grant that women have over men (lifespan among them). But aside from things explicit to the sex (child baring)- there is nothing a average women can do that a average man cant, but there is much a man can do that a women can not (or not to the degree that a man can).

Well, let's see...I am an average woman, and I can do something that is not "explicit" to my sex that you cannot. I can use the english language without an inordinate number of misspellings and misuse of words.

[pushka]

LOL Elle..good point.

Well, USNational, I'm afraid I'm not too impressed with your 'model' of the 'ideal family'...role reversal is quite common these days, due to the difficulty in finding work for both men and women, also, I wonder if you would object to your wife being educated enough to resume work after raising your family with you? Or would this go beyond her 'duties' as a good wife?

I am certainly in disagreement with you regarding wife beating...I do think that people who abuse drugs or drink or anything else, in front of children or not, need help and some sort of rehab to get over their problems...they obviously have some deep down insecurities which have caused them to turn to these drugs/drink for an escape...maybe they had a bad experience in their own childhood and are not as strong as others when they in turn become parents. However the last thing that somebody in that position needs is a beating...that really does nothing to improve the situation, it just lowers what ever little self esteem they have in the first place...Education not beatings is what is required to help solve problems within families...

[USNationalist]

<<I can use the english language without an inordinate number of misspellings and misuse of words>>

-well i suppose i could keep from slaughtering the english if i felt so inclined. But i don't.

<<Well, USNational, I'm afraid I'm not too impressed with your 'model' of the 'ideal family>>

-well then i think we can agree, that we will not be marrying one another.

<< I wonder if you would object to your wife being educated enough to resume work after raising your family with you? Or would this go beyond her 'duties' as a good wife?>>

-I think it would be within the husbands right to deny that. But as for me personaly, i wouldn't. Just because a leash may be there doesnt mean it gets pulled on. Im not going to marry anyone i dont love, and im not going to treat poorly anyone i love.

-As to your rehab stuff. It doesnt always work. The mom i mentioned is in AA and NA- she comes home and drinks. Or goes off to vegas and takes the car- and doesnt communicate with her family. I do not care about the person causing trouble and helping them. I care about the victim.

And like i said- its a biblical institution you have no real grounds to go agaisnt it (if your of the christian persausion).

[Guest elle]

Wow. I want to look away, but I can't. It's an absolute train wreck of bad logic and bad theology.

well i suppose i could keep from slaughtering the english if i felt so inclined. But i don't

USNational, this is one of the very reasons you could never determine a "lesser" sex. We are all born with different talents, qualities, and potential. We only develop these if we are "so inclined." So even if it were better to be born a man, the advantage wouldn't bear out if said man weren't inclined to develop himself. For instance, are you, by virtue of gender, greater than Mother Theresa? Or Mary, mother of Christ? Would you even be so if you were "so inclined"?

You are right, though, men are physically stronger. Clearly, that is a mark of superiority, because we see in the scriptures all the time that God favors the physically strong. Nevermind all that "blessed are the meek" type of thing, right? I am a little confused though...any gorilla is stronger than the strongest man. So maybe it goes Gorilla, then Man, then Woman, right?

Also, you forgot to mention some other areas in which men clearly dominate. Most serial killers are far and away men. Rapists, too. Don't forget child molesters. Wow, pitting the sexes against each other in arbitrary categories to determine who God favors is fun!

OK, snarky comments aside, I really feel that you need to reevaluate what it means biblically to be a leader. Christlike leadership not involve denying anyone their freedom of choice, nor does it involve any phrases containing the word "leash." Obedience must always be a choice, and are obtained through gentleness and persuasion. "But he that is the greatest among you shall be your servant" Matt 23:11.

[Faerie]

the "G-d Forbid" and the "for C-----'s sakes"...wretched terms

[Lindy]

<<YES

You should know that I wouldn't let THAT slide USN >>

-sorry lindy. But what about beating kids for dicipline? Adults are much stronger then children, does that make pysical punishment for them wrong? I certainly dont think so. I had my fair share of such dicipline- i don't see a problem with it.

-And as to saying thats for kids, not adults i would have to disagree. The reason it shouldnt be for adults is because they shouldnt be doing those things that get kids hit. People used to get whiped for crimes, we still kill people for them. Adult or not when people do something wrong there should be punishment- and coperal punishment i do not think should have an age limit. -And it is biblical, Who here wants to say God was or is unjust? Ive never understood the christian objection to God breathed issues. Seriously... will we let our own pride go so far as to say Gods idea was wrong- we know the right way.

<<If a man cannot see the problem and try to deal with that problem effectively without resorting to violence, then he's not much of a man IMO>>

-i disagree. While it, IMO, should be the last resort i believe violence is the ultimate and most effective deterent. Even God uses it. Those who disobey get smited- those that die unsaved go to hell. Violence is a very christian concept. To often the word gets perverted into something evil when all it is (in this case)- is a means of dicipline. And why do people dicipline people? Because they love them (God diciplines those he loves). PEople are evil- they mess up, without dicipline we would get out of hand.

<<A knuckle sandwhich for what Anger? Frustration? Discipline?>>

-the kuckle sandwhich remark was somewhat exagerated. Closed fists do seem like something to be reserved for self defence to me. But yes- for discipline. -And also, the main piont of the wife hitting statement was to expose the double standard females hold on equality. However i stand by my statement that some have it comming. I had a friend (you know of her lindy) who's mom was an alchoholic and a drug user, who uses and abuses her family. She is ruining her kids present lives and her actions are going to be a big infulenne on their future. She deserves worse then a beating. Because she had never worked a day in her life her husband (who is also scum in his own right) cant afford to divorce her due to the allomoney. So kicking her out just puts the family on the streets (unless the kids live with the mom, and what crises has been resolved then?).

-You see, the problem with humanity is they are selfish. The fact that she is destroying her family is not enough to keep her from satisfying herself. She has nothing to lose because all she cares about is herself and thats not endanger. She is a bad wife, and if she can not take care of her responsbilities on her own she should be made to. For the kids sakes if not hers. People liker her, are the people that should be beaten. The people who wont respond to anything but something that will effect them personaly.

What about beating kids for discipline? There is a big difference between smacking a kid on the butt or hand, to make a point; and beating a child for discipline. A big difference. Physical punishment...a spanking if you will....does have it's merits IMO....but not a beating. Some parents would rather use other forms of punishment, and leave a spanking as the very last resort. That's part of parenting, different parenting skills for different types of parents. Some agree, some disagree. Can you find me a passage in the Bible that gives a parent the right to beat their child? Or a passage that gives a man the right to beat a woman? I agree that violence should be held in reserve as the last resort, but I think that the last resort should be a defense, not on offense. I will be the first one in line to sign a bill to pass a Biblical punishment against a child molester or a rapist. But I would also be the first in line to help throw the guy in jail, who hits his wife for punishment, because I don't think it's right. As for God being just or unjust? The Bible was written a VERY long time ago, in a different culture, different class of people, different environment. I'm not saying the commandments still don't apply to us, as they did to them, but I think that is one of the reasons we have a prophet in present days, to help guide this different class of people.

"Closed fists do seem like something to be reserved for self defence" I think that a closed fist, or even a semi-closed fist should always be held as a self defense tactic. (see above) As for the drugged out mother... she doesn't deserve to have children, but a beating is not going to help, it just might make the one who beats the woman feel superior and vindicated for awhile...but that's about all. A beating is not going to change who she is, or where she is going (unless it puts her in the hospital). And you may never know what it will take to make this person respond to reality and face her responsibilities, but she has to hit the bottom and WANT to change...you can't beat change into her. I can tell you that a child who has to grow up in an environment like that needs counseling....and friends who understand. But, as a friend, one can only do so much. I'm not a psych major, but I would think that children of irresponsible parents are forced to grow up too quickly accepting a lot of responsibility, or they follow in their footsteps; it would depend on which direction the child wants to go. Worse than a beating, to me, would be being devoid of the respect and love of your children, to never having a relationship with your children, or your children's children. To be miserably alone in a drug induced existance.

USN, there are times, I would like to beat people myself ....hoping to knock some sense into them...but more to make them hurt like they have hurt others. I don't do it, I just have to hope that the law will get them. And, if the law doesn't get them, and punish them, they will have to answer to the Lord as it is for their crimes....and that will be worse than any earthly punishment given.