Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[stevevw]

Your following links are all about hierarchy; but your comment was about hierarchy, rigid roles and control. These three things together are not "highly benefficial, healthy and normal."

There is control and rigid roles within those hierarchies. ie

Hierarchical systems provide a clear chain of command and define the roles and responsibilities of individuals at each level. By having designated leaders and subordinates, hierarchy ensures that decisions are made efficiently and that everyone understands their place within the system.

Authority and Decision Accountability
Hierarchy provides a framework for the establishment of authority and the accountability of decision-makers.

That authority has power and control over others. Those defined roles include rigid roles that need to be conformed to in order to allow the system to work.

 

[stevevw]

Can any control against someone's will (without their voluntary participation) truly be "good"?

No one is advocating this. Your conflating abusive and involuntary control with normal healthy hierarchal systems. Having a degree of control within society helps keep it in order and allows people to feel secure to be able to be autonomous. Without it theres no control, arbitrary control is enforced and the system begins to breakdown.

That is not a dominance hierarchy; that is a prestige hierarchy, unless the strong are using their strength to directly control the weak.

Any people occupying the upper levels of a hierarchy usually gain benefits, financial, standard of living, more choice and control over their lives and within society. So they indirectly have more control over those in the lower levels. They may for example gain wealth and be the landlord of someone occupies the lower levels.

Thus the tenant is paying off the owners home and subject to the landlord and the system that controls them more because they have less power occupying the lower levels of any hierarchy. Not that this system may be good, its just the reality of the system we live within which everyone buys into. We all aspire to be at the top of those hierarchies and look up to those who have managed to get there.

That is not a healthy way to organise families.

Of course it is. The basic idea is that parents are in control, have the final say and oversee the family. As opposed to a inversion of this where the child becomes the parent which sometimes happen. This is an unhealthy setup where the roles and balance of power and control have been reversed. Its a bit like allowing the inmates to run the prison.

You keep saying that, but you haven't provided any evidence, and there is plenty of reason to think that a military-style chain of command is deeply harmful in most settings.

Are you saying the miltitary is deeply harmful perse. Your saying in most settings so that more or less says the military is harmful. The military is a specific sector of society that needs a much higher standard of command and control as its deal with life and death, threat and needs to be combat ready. Its not for everyone and requires a high level of self dicipline and mental toughness.

But that is not too dissimilar to an elite athelete. I know NRL players do military level training to get peak fitness and dicipline to handle the intensity of professional league. Its really human excellence that we can get our bodies into such tip top shape and are able to stand such situations.

Here's an article on ten different ways to structure teams. This is one example of how hierarchy is not the only way, and often not the best way, to function together efficiently: Team Structure: 10 Ways to Organize Your Team [2024] • Asana

I will check this out and get back to you. I do know that these different setups have been tried. For one they don't work for society as a whole as its just too big and complex and hiearchal structure is needed to deceminate organise differences so that the best abilities are used and the jobs get done.

A dominance hierarchy is a structure in which one or some people control others. I'd argue that - absent some very particular protections, such as voluntary participation and free negotiation of terms - that is inherently abusive. And definitely something we should at least examine in society.

Dominance hierarchies naturally form, its a subconscious influence so we don't even realise we do it half the time. It doesn't register with the conscious mind as something bad but rather something natural like the need for companionship. We naturally rank people in status according to our values and that which aligns with how we see the world.

Competent people stand out as they achieve, help society, have resources, get what we are looking for. So we give them higher status and value. So they dominate society, get more stuff, more advantages and status, We don't mind because we think they deserve it and rightly so. This then creates a framework of value for hard work, creativity, which alos helps people know who they are and where they fit in. Gives self worth.

Without this its chaos, the dumb and scammers become the dominant because knowone knows what value quality work and talent is. The insane run society and theres no authority which is sort of happening now with kids disrespecting authority and continually breaking the law as they know theres no repercussions.

The case for hierarchy
In history, efforts to consciously build large scale organizations or societies without hierarchies have failed miserably and it’s a dangerous ideal. In China’s Cultural Revolution, the effort to stamp out social hierarchies similarly led to mass violence and populist tyranny. The effort to combat all forms of hierarchy will not only fail, but may lead to something even worse from a moral point of view.

Hierarchy (in a neutral sense) is the only way to organize large-scale societies.” Just as it’s impossible to efficiently connect large numbers of engineered components without hierarchy, it’s similarly impossible to connect large numbers of people in an efficient way without a hierarchically structured social organization. In short, efficiency is a clear benefit of hierarchy.

The efficiency of hierarchy may help to explain why we like hierarchies at some unconscious level.
The Case for Hierarchy

You keep saying this, as if it is true, or indeed as if a change in our social structures is something to be frightened of. I see it as potential improvement.

Well considering that social groups have fomred social hierarchies for millions of years I think it works and has proven itself. Any change is scary because it means someone is trying to socially engineer society into somethin unnatural and according to their own ideological beliefs rather than any basis in reality.

The simple fact is we need hierarchies to keep law and order. We need to allow some to hold more power and control who hopefully know what they are doing to control the rest of use. We need a framework that has a chain of control because there are many layers of society that need to work together.

A flat line of control won't work, a voluntary one won't either because the control needs to be consistent, with the same repeated controls. With the right checks and balances hierarchies have been operating successfully for a long time and now some ideologues want to come in and get all PC about how we should order society. Yes thats the scary part we have already seen what these Wokist have done in destroying society.

I'm not arguing that we get rid of (for example) marriage; I'm arguing that we remove any dynamic of power and control (hierarchy) from marriage. A marriage without any hierarchy is no problem at all.

I am not sure a marriage like a relationship is a hierarchy anyway. Its just 2 people and theres no levels to compare with going up and down the hierarchies.

I think I am, I just think it's completely wrong and, frankly, dangerous.

How is advocating that parents should be in control of their family and not the kids or State.

No the dangerous part is if we relinquish control to children or young people or those who do not deserve to by in positions of power and control and we get the who things upside down and decends into chaos.

Inverted Family Hierarchy
In a healthy and normal-range family, parents occupy positions of executive leadership within the family hierarchy. Parents have more knowledge than children. Parents have more experience than children. Parents have better judgement than children. Parents therefore occupy positions of executive leadership within the family. That is a healthy family hierarchy.

In a healthy and normal-range family, children cooperate with the executive leadership provided by parents. Children express wants and desires, but children also cooperatively defer to the executive leadership of parents. This represents a healthy family hierarchy. In a healthy family hierarchy, parents judge children’s behavior as appropriate or inappropriate, and parents deliver consequences (rewards and punishments) based on parental judgements of children’s behavior. This reflects a normal and healthy family hierarchy.

An inverted family hierarchy, however, flips the normal and healthy family hierarchy upside down, so that children become empowered into positions of executive judgement OVER parents.

Understanding the Pathology

Role-Reversal Relationship A role-reversal relationship is one in which the child is used to meet the parent’s emotional and psychological needs. In normal and healthy parent-child relationships, t…

drcraigchildressblog.com

The point is that parental control ought to be minimised to what is necessary for safety and nurture; not seen as a good thing in and of itself, where children are forced to conform to petty or unnecessary demands.

I agree but its by having a stable family hierarchy where the parents are at the top rather than the children is what allows the freedom to explore and be creative and expressive because its within a stable framework where the balance of power and control are in the right balance. Many childhood problems happen when this is out of whack and this actually causes developmental harm and stunts growth.

 

[Paidiske]

No one is advocating this.

Aren't they? Aren't you? I have said multiple times that if someone is participating voluntarily, then that is not so much of an abuse issue. It is when someone is not participating voluntarily - not willingly choosing to be part of the power exchange dynamic - that there are problems. And yet you have kept arguing for systems of hierarchy, power and control without acknowledging the need for voluntary participation.

Any people occupying the upper levels of a hierarchy usually gain benefits, financial, standard of living, more choice and control over their lives and within society. So they indirectly have more control over those in the lower levels. They may for example gain wealth and be the landlord of someone occupies the lower levels.

This is not, however, what we are discussing as abuse (although there may be a degree of ecomonic exploitation in play).

We all aspire to be at the top of those hierarchies and look up to those who have managed to get there.

Do we? Jesus said: "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves."

Of course it is.

No, it is not. Having someone "in charge," exercising power and control over others (again, excepting that necessary given the developmental immaturity of children) is absolutely not healthy. It is the literal definition of abuse.

The basic idea is that parents are in control,

The parents? Together and jointly? Because you didn't specify that before, for a start. You seemed to be arguing for one figure to control the whole household, or extended family.

As opposed to a inversion of this where the child becomes the parent which sometimes happen. This is an unhealthy setup where the roles and balance of power and control have been reversed. Its a bit like allowing the inmates to run the prison.

Or, a radical idea, we can allow everyone to participate in appropriate ways. Interestingly, the child safe standards in various states now require the participation of children in organisational decision making, for their safety.

Are you saying the miltitary is deeply harmful perse.

That wasn't what I was saying, but I do actually think it is.

I will check this out and get back to you. I do know that these different setups have been tried. For one they don't work for society as a whole as its just too big and complex and hiearchal structure is needed to deceminate organise differences so that the best abilities are used and the jobs get done.

And yet, ironically, we live in a democracy, which is not really a hierarchical structure.

It doesn't register with the conscious mind as something bad but rather something natural like the need for companionship.

It doesn't register as something bad, until we're the one being controlled, perhaps.

Competent people stand out as they achieve, help society, have resources, get what we are looking for. So we give them higher status and value. So they dominate society, get more stuff, more advantages and status, We don't mind because we think they deserve it and rightly so.

That's not a dominance hierarchy. It's a prestige hierarchy. A dominance hierarchy is one in which one person is directly controlling or exercising power over others.

Any change is scary because it means someone is trying to socially engineer society into somethin unnatural and according to their own ideological beliefs rather than any basis in reality.

As if what we have now is "natural," or not according to a previous set of ideological beliefs. There's no pure, perfect, "natural" social structure. Only what we negotiate amongst ourselves.

With the right checks and balances hierarchies have been operating successfully for a long time

But have they? Or have they actually systematically disadvantaged and disempowered those marginalised within those hierarchies? I'd argue it's much more the latter.

Yes thats the scary part we have already seen what these Wokist have done in destroying society.

Yes, it was so much better when a man could rape and beat his wife, children and slaves with impunity. (/sarcasm).

I am not sure a marriage like a relationship is a hierarchy anyway.

In many cases it is, and historically it certainly was. So we work to make sure that marriages are healthy equal partnerships, rather than relationships of power and control.

How is advocating that parents should be in control of their family and not the kids or State.

Because you are arguing for "control" as an unqualified dynamic. And not just within households but within society, institutions, politics, etc.

I agree but its by having a stable family hierarchy where the parents are at the top rather than the children is what allows the freedom to explore and be creative and expressive because its within a stable framework where the balance of power and control are in the right balance.

But the point is, the "right balance" is one where power and control are actually qualified, limited, and nuanced. Not one where they are valued or seen as the primary aspect of the parental role.

 

[stevevw]

But if between them, on an equal footing and with mutual respect and good communication, the spouses decide on this or that division of who will do what, that's not particularly a problem.

You could say the couple have voluntarily agreed to be restricted to rigid roles and differences in power and control. They believe that this is best for them.

I think its called self sacrifice. Sometimes we have to put others or the greater good first. Sometimes you are controlled by others and situations. Some people have sacricied their life to care for others. They could have been free to discover themselves and fullfill their potential but they chose or perhaps were forced in a way to give that up for others.

But this is not what we mean by "rigid roles." Rigid roles doesn't mean that (for example) if I work, I actually have to do what is expected in my job. It doesn't mean that if I'm the SAHP, I have to actually do the parenting stuff while the other parent is working. It means that these roles are seen as fixed, not open to change and negotiation, and decided on the basis of gender rather than out of the free choice of the people concerned.

Its not as extreme but its still a restricted role in the sense that the person at home is committed to looking after the kids and home more which will make it hard to much else if the idea is to spend time with the kids to give them a good upbringing.

Though its voluntary it still involves people doing stuff they don't want to do as copmpared to looking after self first. There are many examples where people have had to sacrifice what others would say was their life opportunities for a greater good they believe in. They have had to give up something that most progressives would say is a denial of the rights of the individual to life, to thriving.

I have agreed all along that no particular division of labour is inherently abusive. The abuse is in the control and coercion, not in who does what.

But this is the exact same logic I used for my arguement that its not the rigid roles, Trad marriage or hierarchies that are abusive but the abuser in violently controlling. That no particular rigid roles, Trad marriage or hierarchies is inherently abusive.

A dominance hierarchy is about control. That - the relationship of control - is what is being critiqued here as contributing to abuse. No other meaning of hierarchy is relevant.

So are you saying if males happen to dominate say the building laboring jobs and industry that this is abusive domination of females. Or that dominate the teaching industry that this is abusive domination or males.

Surely if a gender dominates say 90% of the work then that must be seen as denying the other gender right. They dominate the work, they get the money and benefits denying a fair and equal % of genders. Thats unequal and dominating isn't it.

That is, in effect, limiting the power within the hierarchical structure; minimising the hierarchical nature of it.

No its not limiting the hierarchal nature. That's still there, the reasons why the person occupies that higher or lower level of the hiearchy is still there for good reason. We are limiting people from exploiting the same differences. Plus people from lower levels of hierarchies can abuse upper levels ie teens abusing their parents, minority activists abusing executives and destroying their lives. It goes both ways.

Thats why I said abuse and violence can happen anywhere in any relationship dynamic. A non hierarchal structure can be just as abusive and in some ways more because there is no structure or structure to can counter abuse.

So you say. Where's the evidence?

Actually I should be asking you for the evidence as I have already provided ample. I mean what doi you mean by its common for parents to have unrealistic expectations to the point of destructive behaviour. It that was true would we have the vast majority of parents engaging in destructive behaviour.

The fact we don't shows that most parents don't allow their unrealistic expectations to get to the point of destructive behaviour. They have some insight and emotional intelligence to see through their unrealistic thinking before it gets to the point of destructive behaviour that harms their child.

But I have linked ample evidence showing the abusing parent, the parent that gets to the point of destructive behaviour is linked with psychological distress and irrational and unreal expectations and thinking. I should not have to keep relinking that evidence. Rather you need to counter it, explain why its not relevant with your own evidence.

And yet abusive corporal punishment is so common. So it doesn't seem to be such a "significant unreality," really.

Is it though. You were only arguing its not that common. But even if it is its a logical fallacy to say that because theres many who believe in abusive CP means they are not unreal. We have seen mass hysteria and unreal thinking before, like self cutting, Bulimia ect.

I think there is a form of modern day delusion due to emotional dysfunction not just for parenting but generally such as with road rage, Mum rage, and other violent and agressive disorders. It seems people are overloading, malfunctioning and breaking down and the main expression of this is pathology through anxiety and depressive disorders which are mainly expressed through aviolence and abuse.

 

[Paidiske]

You could say the couple have voluntarily agreed to be restricted to rigid roles and differences in power and control.

No; if they are both participating in decision-making as equal partners, there is not a difference in power and control. And if the division of labour is open to re-negotiation as needed or wanted, it's not rigid roles.

Its not as extreme but its still a restricted role in the sense that the person at home is committed to looking after the kids and home more which will make it hard to much else if the idea is to spend time with the kids to give them a good upbringing.

In that sense, any choice is a restriction in that it closes off the alternatives to that choice. But that is not what we mean by "rigid roles" in the context of abuse.

But this is the exact same logic I used for my arguement that its not the rigid roles, Trad marriage or hierarchies that are abusive but the abuser in violently controlling.

No, it is not the exact same logic. I have no issue (in the context of abuse and abuse prevention) with a traditionally gendered division of labour. But (dominance) hierarchies are inseparable from control. Rigid roles, if enforced, are inseparable from control. That's where the abuse comes in.

So are you saying if males happen to dominate say the building laboring jobs and industry that this is abusive domination of females.

No, that is not what I am saying at all. I am speaking of one person controlling another. There may be issues in workplace participation rates, but they are not issues of abuse.

No its not limiting the hierarchal nature.

Of course it is. If we take out the potential for one person to control another, we reduce the extent to which that structure is a hierarchy at all.

Actually I should be asking you for the evidence as I have already provided ample.

No, you haven't. The claim that in order for people to be "not seeing the reality of the situation" enough to abuse someone else, they must be cognitively impaired, has not been demonstrated at all. And I would suggest that the common experience of abuse would argue against it.

I mean what doi you mean by its common for parents to have unrealistic expectations to the point of destructive behaviour. It that was true would we have the vast majority of parents engaging in destructive behaviour.

Over half of Australian parents use corporal punishment; that seems pretty common to me.

But I have linked ample evidence showing the abusing parent, the parent that gets to the point of destructive behaviour is linked with psychological distress and irrational and unreal expectations and thinking.

You have shown that many parents with psychological distress, irrational thinking, etc., abuse. I am not disputing that. What you have not done is address the reality of parents without that level of distress, who also abuse.

It seems people are overloading, malfunctioning and breaking down and the main expression of this is pathology through anxiety and depressive disorders which are mainly expressed through aviolence and abuse.

No, they aren't. Most people with anxiety or depression will not be violent or abusive. This is a vile slander of people with mental illness.

 

[stevevw]

Aren't they? Aren't you? I have said multiple times that if someone is participating voluntarily, then that is not so much of an abuse issue. It is when someone is not participating voluntarily - not willingly choosing to be part of the power exchange dynamic - that there are problems. And yet you have kept arguing for systems of hierarchy, power and control without acknowledging the need for voluntary participation.

I have by continually having to seperate out the difference between the same systems being the abuser and not the hierarchy itself for which people voluntarily and naturally participate in.

But there are many examples where the control is also not voluntary. I gave these for example during Covid restrictions. Similar non voluntary controls are throughout society to a lesser and more implicit level. For example social norms where people are forced to behave a certain way or suffer consequences. I mean theres a degree of non voluntary control in controlling people to not abuse through laws and social norms.

So non voluntary control is not necessarily abuse but actually good for society.

This is not, however, what we are discussing as abuse (although there may be a degree of ecomonic exploitation in play).

But are we not also talking about the upstream behaviours and attitudes that may underpin abusive beliefs and behaviour. So if there is a loss of power and control due to others having more power and control then this could be potentially cultivating unequal situations which disempower some and empower others.

Do we? Jesus said: "The kings of the Gentiles lord it over them; and those in authority over them are called benefactors. But not so with you; rather the greatest among you must become like the youngest, and the leader like one who serves."

Of course we do, its only human nature. We look up to someone with resources or competence because they have what we believe is important or needed. Its not about spiritual status but the practical things required in life, food, shelter, the ability to survive which are natural instincts.

If this thinking is hard wired into us then its something we naturally are inclined to see and believe in.

No, it is not. Having someone "in charge," exercising power and control over others (again, excepting that necessary given the developmental immaturity of children) is absolutely not healthy. It is the literal definition of abuse.

I am talking about the fundemental balance of power and control as far as the dynamics of who is in charge and overseeing the family. The healthy setup is parents at the top and children at the bottom of the hierarchy. If its the other way around its unhealthy.

The parents? Together and jointly? Because you didn't specify that before, for a start. You seemed to be arguing for one figure to control the whole household, or extended family.

No that is what you think, perhaps because its something you assume due to your own beliefs. The parents have to work together otherwise they will undermine their own authority. But that doesn't mean that at times one parent will take the lead. Fathers are particulary good at disciplining especially with boys and young males.

In some ways a single parent balance of power is harder as there are not two adults in unison working together. This can be especially hard for mothers and male children especially as they get older and physically bigger and stronger.

Or, a radical idea, we can allow everyone to participate in appropriate ways. Interestingly, the child safe standards in various states now require the participation of children in organisational decision making, for their safety.

Yes participate in appropriate ways means that there are times where the parents need to be in control. In fact the more clear the dynamics of that hierarchy are defined the more able everyone and especially the children can participate and express themselves as they feel safe and secure but also know the boundaries.

The law allows for children to participate in decisions that effect them. But they are not always able to have the final say as they cannopt comprehend all thats involved. Thats when the parents need to step in.

We have seen for example where some professionals are pushing a childs feelings and wants over the parents and giving the child power beyond their ability to make decisions which are later regretted and cause many problems. This is a good example of a hierarchy of control being inverted and out of balance.

That wasn't what I was saying, but I do actually think it is.

But are you talking about the effects of war or the actual discipline and standards of the military way of life. I think there are many positives with learning self discipline and maintaining a high standard of behaviour. Thats not to mention providing security against tyrants. Many people including women learn self defence as a protection against attackers.

And yet, ironically, we live in a democracy, which is not really a hierarchical structure.

Yes it is. We have a hierarchal system of representation from local reps, to state and federal reps. Within each of those ;evels we have systems and representatives who we look to for running society. We base our choices on the competence of these people and levels of governance. Our legal system operates on a hierarchal system as well from local courts to the High court each having a certain degree of power and control.

In fact even within this system we allow differentiating influence and control on outcomes through activism and lobbying and money but also the ability of the person or groups methods and utilization of the system to influence the outcomes. Thuse giving varying degrees of control and influence depending on ability and competence which creates societal level hierarchy within the overall democractic hiearchy of influence.

We could probably find even more hierarchal setups within these going back to the individual level.

It doesn't register as something bad, until we're the one being controlled, perhaps.

Yes and thats why I say that the only and best way to determine abusive and violent control is when its actually abusive and violent control. So having a clear understanding of what that actually means is vital.

That means clarifying the upstream thinking, attitudes and behaviour as to being abusive or not. That includes clarifying when its not and not conflating non abusive situations as abusive as this will undermine also when its abusive. The more we can ground what is actual abuse in facts and reality the better.

That's not a dominance hierarchy. It's a prestige hierarchy. A dominance hierarchy is one in which one person is directly controlling or exercising power over others.

Its more than a prestige hierarchy. This creates a class society in some ways and we know that this can be oppressive. The imbalance of resources and capital can give more abusive control to those with resources if not kept in check.

As if what we have now is "natural," or not according to a previous set of ideological beliefs. There's no pure, perfect, "natural" social structure. Only what we negotiate amongst ourselves.

I thought Christ was the perfect and natural structure. We are all equal and one in Christ. This actually aligns with reality, with nature, Gods order.

So we can know certain truths about how we should be ordered as a society. When we deviate away from this and make humans the gods of social order things go wrong.

What the Woke ideologues are pushing, the social engineering they have been engaging in is opposed to Gods order and is promoting harm and a scary world.

But have they? Or have they actually systematically disadvantaged and disempowered those marginalised within those hierarchies? I'd argue it's much more the latter.

I think for the most part they have served society well. Put it this way we have at least a degree of law and order considering we are dealing with massive populations. Those nations who don't have such systems have chaos, street justice, or the other extreme of tyranny.

Sure the system has been abused and used to descriminate but that is not the system but the lack of necessary checks and balances and transparency. We have managed to refine this over time and still need to do better,

But unlike some ideologues who call to defund the police for example because of that abuse which would completely render society into chaos we need to be more vigelant with ensuring people don't abuse their positions within a system that has proven to help maintain law and order. This is the same for all hierarchal systems like in politics, health, education all our institutions, governance and social interactions.

A good example is online abuse. This is a massive area which is hard to regulate because it involves the social aspect especially social media. The information we recieve, the fake news, the influencers of our young, the images and visuals we fill the heads of people with is very powerful in cultivating hate, violence and abusive attitudes.

Yes, it was so much better when a man could rape and beat his wife, children and slaves with impunity. (/sarcasm).

Its just one scary thing for another in the name of doing good for society or others. Now we sell child for sex, cultivated by a underground world of porn and violence. Now we legalise a form of slavery and sexual exploitations. Now we legalise abuse and violence as though its the right way to be to make a equal society lol. Thats whats scary.

Sure religious fundementalist took Gods word and abused it like they did to women. But the solution to this was not to reject God and the santity of marriage and then replace it with some ideology that makes things worse. That is the whole point of this.

Its not that we did wrong in the past, we need to acknowledge that to change. Its about how we address this and move forward. What I am saying how we as a society are going about making things better is actually making things worse. Its actually cultivating abuse and violence.

This comes back to what I was saying about having to ground beliefs, that right now society is promoting ideas athat lead to abuse and that as you said beliefs is a subjective judgement and its easy for one abusive idea to replace another unless we can have some way of grounding that belief in. I say its reality, physical reality, our actual experiences, the science, and Gods order.

In many cases it is, and historically it certainly was. So we work to make sure that marriages are healthy equal partnerships, rather than relationships of power and control.

The institution may have become an abusive setup where say women were treated like property. But a relationship itself doesn't form a hierarchy. Its a partnership. If there was only one couple left on earth they would not be a hierarchy as there is no above or below to compare with. They would be in a couple relationship or partnership with can also be abusive and controlling.

In fact abuse and control can happen in any situation. Even at a distance online, even when the person is not even involved and uses another, then its like a tri relationship. Abuse can happen in any dynamics so long as theres someone who wants to abuse, manipulate and exploit.

Because you are arguing for "control" as an unqualified dynamic. And not just within households but within society, institutions, politics, etc.

Ok so we need to clarify exactly what the type of control thats involved as there can be healthy and unhealthy forms and levels of control. Control is a fact of life. We just have to be clear and understand when its inappropriate. But we should not also assume control is automatically abusive.

But the point is, the "right balance" is one where power and control are actually qualified, limited, and nuanced. Not one where they are valued or seen as the primary aspect of the parental role.

Its by qualifying, understanding their relevance and importance or not that we place different values on control. We value controlling some behaviours as its dangerous and unhealthy. We value people knowing whjat they are doing being in control over us because we know it takes competence.

We don't value people denying others the same rights as everyone else based on their race or gender therefore we have Human Rights and anti descrimination laws which "control society'.

I think langauge is a good metaphor. The Woke say language is a tool for abuse and violence. Certian words can be offensive and abusive to others. Yet the same words may be normal and natural to those using them. At the same time sometimes we need to control language and thus deny free speech and sometimes we deny free speech when it was justified even if that caused offence.

 

[Paidiske]

I have by continually having to seperate out the difference between the same systems being the abuser and not the hierarchy itself for which people voluntarily and naturally participate in.

No; differentiating between the system and the people in the system, does not answer my point.

But there are many examples where the control is also not voluntary. I gave these for example during Covid restrictions. Similar non voluntary controls are throughout society to a lesser and more implicit level. For example social norms where people are forced to behave a certain way or suffer consequences. I mean theres a degree of non voluntary control in controlling people to not abuse through laws and social norms.

So non voluntary control is not necessarily abuse but actually good for society.

We have agreed that a degree of control to prevent harm is ethically reasonable. But not all Covid restrictions were about preventing harm, or were questionable, and there was room for public debate about those. I would also argue that in a democracy, we all have an ability to participate in the process of law-making, law reform, and so on; and that there is a social contract in which people who are part of a society agree to abide by its laws.

But all of this is not what we are talking about as abuse, or even hierarchy.

But are we not also talking about the upstream behaviours and attitudes that may underpin abusive beliefs and behaviour. So if there is a loss of power and control due to others having more power and control then this could be potentially cultivating unequal situations which disempower some and empower others.

Power, in that situation, yes. Control in the direct way we mean when talking about abuse, not so much.

Of course we do, its only human nature. We look up to someone with resources or competence because they have what we believe is important or needed.

I don't look up to someone just because they're rich; and I'd argue that's a deeply problematic view.

I am talking about the fundemental balance of power and control as far as the dynamics of who is in charge and overseeing the family. The healthy setup is parents at the top and children at the bottom of the hierarchy. If its the other way around its unhealthy.

A healthy setup is also one which minimises dynamics of control, and maximises dynamics of participation, as much as possible.

Yes participate in appropriate ways means that there are times where the parents need to be in control.

Yes; but the point I am trying to get at (and you seem to keep missing) is that control is always limited, nuanced, and in service to some other end. It is not an end in itself. And it is not healthy if it becomes the paradigm for parenting.

But are you talking about the effects of war or the actual discipline and standards of the military way of life.

All of it. I think military life is deeply dehumanising. But that is largely off topic to this thread, so I have restrained myself and deleted the extended amount I wrote about that.

Yes it is.

No, it isn't. In a true hierarchy, we wouldn't be voting for those in government, or able to change them on a regular basis. There is power at the ballot box.

This creates a class society in some ways and we know that this can be oppressive.

That's true, but it is not oppressive in the way of direct control of one person by another.

I thought Christ was the perfect and natural structure. We are all equal and one in Christ. This actually aligns with reality, with nature, Gods order.

How can you say that, and then argue for hierarchy? Surely, "we are all equal and one in Christ," is about as far away from hierarchy as one can get?

Its just one scary thing for another in the name of doing good for society or others.

No, it isn't. We have actually seen real improvement. As a basic example, I have had access to education, employment, vocational opportunities, financial freedom, and a safe marriage that my grandmothers could only have dreamed of. Why on earth should I want to go back to the days when gender hierarchies were more pronounced and rigid, and see my daughter and any granddaughters go back to the way things were?

Now we sell child for sex,

Let me just pause to note that that has always been happening.

Now we legalise a form of slavery and sexual exploitations.

And so has this.

Now we legalise abuse and violence as though its the right way to be to make a equal society lol.

And so has this. All the way back to Roman circusses, and no doubt earlier. Let's not pretend that society has ever had an era where sexual violence, exploitation, and abuse have been absent.

Sure religious fundementalist took Gods word and abused it like they did to women. But the solution to this was not to reject God and the santity of marriage and then replace it with some ideology that makes things worse.

Because arguing for equality in marriage is totally rejecting God and the sanctity of marriage. (Again, /sarcasm).

What I am saying how we as a society are going about making things better is actually making things worse.

And I don't buy that for one second.

The institution may have become an abusive setup where say women were treated like property. But a relationship itself doesn't form a hierarchy. Its a partnership.

That is an extremely recent view of marriage.

If there was only one couple left on earth they would not be a hierarchy as there is no above or below to compare with.

If, say, one of them was required to vow to obey they other, that would certainly be a hierarchy.

We value people knowing whjat they are doing being in control over us because we know it takes competence.

In terms of things like governing society, sure. "In control" in terms of making decisions for my own life - what I may study, where I may work, how I may participate in society, whom I may marry - no, I don't think we do value people being in control over us, whether they know what they are doing or not.

 

[Zaha Torte]

Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
Various sources*


A new study by the Australian Catholic University (ACU) has revealed that children who are smacked repeatedly by their parents are nearly twice as likely to develop anxiety and depression later in life.

The study of 8500 18 to 24 year olds found 61% experienced corporal punishment, as children, four or more times.

Females who were hit as kids were 1.8 times more likely to have a major depressive disorder, and 2.1 times to experience anxiety. Males were 1.7 times more likely to develop depression, and 1.6 times more likely to develop anxiety if they’d been smacked.

Professor Darryl Higgins, a lead researcher for the ACU study, believes it paints a clear picture that even infrequent exposure to corporal punishment puts children at risk of mental health disorders.

Professor Higgins is calling for smacking of children to be made illegal in Australia consistent with laws banning corporal punishment in 62 other countries.

According to the Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children, the evidence that corporal punishment is harmful to children, adults and societies is overwhelming:

“The more than 250 studies included in our review of research on the impact of and associations with corporal punishment show links between corporal punishment and a wide range of negative outcomes, including:​

• direct physical harm
• negative impacts on mental and physical health
• poor moral internalisation and increased antisocial behaviour
• increased aggression in children
• increased violent and criminal behaviour in adults
• damaged education
• damaged family relationships
• increased acceptance and use of other forms of violence”

“The message from research is very clear: corporal punishment carries multiple risks of harm and has no benefits.”​

*Sources:

• Children who are smacked nearly twice as likely to develop mental health disorders later in life (9news.com.au)
• Childhood corporal punishment linked to lifelong mental health issues - ABC Melbourne
• Calls for Aussie parents to be banned from smacking their children | Daily Mail Online
• Shocking impact childhood smacking has on mental health (3aw.com.au)
• Research | Global Initiative to End All Corporal Punishment of Children (endcorporalpunishment.org)

OB

I think the issue comes from inconsistency - rather than the smacking itself.

Parents need to be consistent and disciplined about when and how they discipline.

If a kid always knows when they are going to get smacked - it helps correct their behavior.

 

[stevevw]

No; differentiating between the system and the people in the system, does not answer my point.

No I said I am differentiating and clarifying between when the system is abusive and controlling and when the same system is not.

We have agreed that a degree of control to prevent harm is ethically reasonable. But not all Covid restrictions were about preventing harm, or were questionable, and there was room for public debate about those. I would also argue that in a democracy, we all have an ability to participate in the process of law-making, law reform, and so on; and that there is a social contract in which people who are part of a society agree to abide by its laws.

Yes not all restrictions may be justified and a democracy is designed for people to be represented and have imput into how we are governed. The problem is I think democracy cannot be all things to all people and its not evenly distributed. Often its those with the loudest voices or who have the money or tactics that win.

Minor parties and independents with radical ideology can hold the balance of power thus influencing unpopular policy over the majority.

But all of this is not what we are talking about as abuse, or even hierarchy.

Why. It seems this is all related and upstream in how we setup society to be fair and equal in how we order society.

Power, in that situation, yes. Control in the direct way we mean when talking about abuse, not so much.

But its the upstream beliefs and ideas that cultivate the controlling and abusive situations. That is why prevention is geared towards equalizing society generally as negative unequal situations and power imbalances is what can lead to abuse.

I don't look up to someone just because they're rich; and I'd argue that's a deeply problematic view.

Its not just rich, Its that we percieve people with resources as beneficial to our survival and its an automatic inclination. Not just resources but skill, competence, talent, power, strength ect. We see this in how we reward these people or place them in higher positions.

A healthy setup is also one which minimises dynamics of control, and maximises dynamics of participation, as much as possible.

Yes equal opportunity rather than equal outcomes. But under equal opportunities some people excel more than others and gain more priviledges, power and control.

Yes; but the point I am trying to get at (and you seem to keep missing) is that control is always limited, nuanced, and in service to some other end. It is not an end in itself. And it is not healthy if it becomes the paradigm for parenting.

But control it is nonetheless. Its necessary control and without it society, families and organisations would fall apart. You keep missing my point that control itself is not abusive and can be beneficial.

Sure we need to make it the 'good kind of control' by having checks and balances to stop it becoming the 'bad kind of control,. But control it is that is needed. Thus its easy for some ideologues to make out the 'good control' is the 'bad control' and the 'bad control' into the 'good control'.

All of it. I think military life is deeply dehumanising. But that is largely off topic to this thread, so I have restrained myself and deleted the extended amount I wrote about that.

So what do we do when we need a force to defend ourselves. I see an aweful lot of military persons and they don't seem like they are dehumanised but rather display the best of humans.

How the Military Compels You to be a Better Person

How the Military Makes You a Better Person | CareerProPlus

The military teaches how to be flexible & adaptable while teaching them problem-solving skills and calmness in chaos. Find out how this translates to work!

www.careerproplus.com

No, it isn't. In a true hierarchy, we wouldn't be voting for those in government, or able to change them on a regular basis. There is power at the ballot box.

Yes there would be. Its just the hierarchy is built differently, its determined by the voters. But its still a hierarchy and it will still cause people to be controlled. It will caused some to be controlled by a government they hate or don't want to control them.

But we are still voting for positions within a hierarchal structure from the PM to the local public servants and the organisations within them. Democracy isn't this special disempowering machine. Its very much open to manipulation and control which allows some rather than others to install their ideas over others.

Look at the Greens who link with say Labor. Greens hold a minority of power yet can force the majority to follow their ideology because they ride off the back of the major party.

The democratic legitimacy hierarchy is the skeleton of the ideal of democracy. The democratic legitimacy hierarchy should be seen as an ideal that should be established and protected for the democracy to be strong.

https://ejes.uaic.ro/articles/EJES2022_1302_DOG.pdf

Social hierarchies exist in democracies as well as in authoritarian societies. However, their nature is different. Democratic hierarchies are built bottom- up through election while autocratic hierarchies are built top-down through domination.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/1043463120904051#:~:text=Social%20hierarchies%20exist%20in%20democracies,built%20top%2Ddown%20through%20domination.

That's true, but it is not oppressive in the way of direct control of one person by another.

The point is oppressive and abusive control doesn't happen in a vacume. It is cultivated by the micro upstream beliefs and assumptions about how we should engage with each other, what norms we allow and accept that later may end up causing the oppression.

Its understanding and determining these upstream beliefs and assumptions and how they may effect individuals, groups and society that we will prevent abuse and violence being cultivated in the first place.

A good example is how anti semetism is being cultivated in society by a lack of acknowledgement that people are actually promoting hate, violence and abuse even within our own institutions in the name of Identity politics.

How can you say that, and then argue for hierarchy? Surely, "we are all equal and one in Christ," is about as far away from hierarchy as one can get?

Yes we are all equal as humans regadless of identity but that doesn't mean some have more responsibility or station in life. Look at the Pope and the line of Bishops, priests and nuns. Look at the great Prophets and diciplies, those who hold positions of authority and control over the flock.

Paul mentions this when he writes to the churches to appoint respected members to lead the church in various roles so that there was some structure in managing communities.

No, it isn't. We have actually seen real improvement. As a basic example, I have had access to education, employment, vocational opportunities, financial freedom, and a safe marriage that my grandmothers could only have dreamed of. Why on earth should I want to go back to the days when gender hierarchies were more pronounced and rigid, and see my daughter and any granddaughters go back to the way things were?

And yet society has never been more divided, hateful, intolerant, antagonistic and self centred even to the point of wanting to attack others even calling for their extermination.

Though we have taken great strides in those Rights and Freedoms we are quickly winding them back. Any society that cultivates and allows something like antisemetism to rear its ugly head once again today is not in a healthy situation on many fronts.

Let me just pause to note that that has always been happening.
And so has this.

Yes all these things have happened before but they have increased not only in quantity but in intensity and depravity and this is being mainstreamed where as before it was taboo and pushed to the fringes. Some of the stuff we have heard about that has been covered up for years would rarely happen even 30 or 50 years ago. Its more common and organised.

The scary thing is that its so common that people are not shocked anymore, and just think it part and parcel of modern society and what can we do anyway. It comes off the back of the internet which changed things compared to the past. Its organised now, dark webs, and mainstream.

Sex and porn became mainstream and into kids bedrooms. Generations have grown up within this culture and its permated in all sorts of deranged and deluded thinking and behaviour which is actually influencing mainsteam culture and devaluing it. We see this with young people and the many issues they have around realtionships and mental health.

That is one of the upstream beliefs or norms. That we normalise porn, exploitation of women and males for that matter as objects to be abused. How is that sending the right message about not being abusive. That is one example of what I mean by societal norms are actully cultivating abusive and violent beliefs and ideas.

And so has this. All the way back to Roman circusses, and no doubt earlier. Let's not pretend that society has ever had an era where sexual violence, exploitation, and abuse have been absent.

Of course not but we are much older and wiser to the point of micro agressions lol. Yet we still repeat over and over the same mistakes in different ways, more modern ways and we cannot even recognise it or maybe we deny it because we are motivated by the very thing we are trying to prevent, power. It has this hold over our weak flesh nature.

But we should know better and yet strangly enough we are blind to it. This shows that belief can be a powerful force that causes people to be blinded to reality.

Because arguing for equality in marriage is totally rejecting God and the sanctity of marriage. (Again, /sarcasm).

Equality is inherent in marriage under God. Its not equality itself its how that is achieved that is the problem. You don't break an already good basis for marriage equality under God with another thats under human ideas about what marriage is. In breaking the good basis you also break the only true basis for equality.

Once again another example of how two different beliefs/ideologies are being used to determine how we should order society, marriage and therefore subjective determinations. How do we determine which one is best. I suggest that is through the facts and reality. How each of these pans out rather than take the word of ideologues.

And I don't buy that for one second.

Like I said society is more divided and polarised than ever even to the point of abuse and violence. A red flag, a symptom of this underlying problem is the rise of anti semetism in western societies again even being cultivated within our institutions and the State. Any society that is divided will fall and any society that allows antisemetism is not in a healthy state.

That is an extremely recent view of marriage.

Its always been the case. There is the relationship level which doesn't just apply to marriage but can be unmarried, friends, siblings, parents, grandparents and business partnerships. Basically any relationship involving 2 people can be a setup for abuse without belong to a wider societal hierarchy that may insitutionalise the abuse.

If, say, one of them was required to vow to obey they other, that would certainly be a hierarchy.

Or an abusive relationship or partnership. How can it be a hierarchy when a hierarchy has to form a triangular shape with levels. At best the setup is linear one way or the other.

In terms of things like governing society, sure. "In control" in terms of making decisions for my own life - what I may study, where I may work, how I may participate in society, whom I may marry - no, I don't think we do value people being in control over us, whether they know what they are doing or not.

I don't know about that. People are always buying into ideas, cults, fads, identities, schemes which are usually about lifestyle and commiting to a certain way of thinking and behaving. Though they may believe they are freely giving themselves there are often subconscious influences going on where people are controlled to think and believe that in the first place.

Like I mentioned earlier society tends to exentuate the high life, win lotto, be a star, get that car, house and dream holiday or job. Get those things to keep up with others. Most people are slaves to that system. It can actually make you sick and is a form of abusing yourself for the sake of unreal expectations. Yet everyone buys into the system believing its going to set them free and fullfill them.

 

[Paidiske]

No I said I am differentiating and clarifying between when the system is abusive and controlling and when the same system is not.

I would argue that if "the system" is abusive and controlling, it is not the same system as a system which is not. The system itself must change to remove the control and abuse from it.

Why. It seems this is all related and upstream in how we setup society to be fair and equal in how we order society.

In a very broad sense, it's related. But we are concerned particularly with the dynamics in play when one person directly controls (abuses) another.

But its the upstream beliefs and ideas that cultivate the controlling and abusive situations. That is why prevention is geared towards equalizing society generally as negative unequal situations and power imbalances is what can lead to abuse.

I thought you were busy arguing for how good and necessary hierarchies are? Now you concede that power imbalances are part of the problem?

Its not just rich, Its that we percieve people with resources as beneficial to our survival and its an automatic inclination.

I don't agree, but this is well off topic, so I suggest we leave it there.

You keep missing my point that control itself is not abusive and can be beneficial.

I'd argue that control itself, beyond a necessary minimum for particular situations, is the very essence of abuse.

So what do we do when we need a force to defend ourselves.

Again, off topic, so I'm not going to pursue that line of discussion.

And yet society has never been more divided...

I really don't agree. Society has always had division, hatred, intolerance etc. This is nothing new.

Yes all these things have happened before but they have increased not only in quantity but in intensity and depravity...

You'd need evidence, but since this is also getting wildly off topic, I won't ask for it; just note that I don't agree here either.

Equality is inherent in marriage under God.

You might say that, but that has not been the historic understanding even for Christians, nor is it the understanding that many Christians hold today. We are still fighting against a view of female subordination on many fronts (which is why this forum has to have an Egalitarian section; because it gives us one space where those views are not allowed).

Once again another example of how two different beliefs/ideologies are being used to determine how we should order society, marriage and therefore subjective determinations. How do we determine which one is best.

We know that gender hierarchy underpins abuse. That's one way (that's particularly relevant to this thread) that we determine that egalitarianism is best.

Its always been the case.

No, it really hasn't. If you're not aware of that, do yourself a favour and read some of the various church leaders down the centuries on marriage.

How can it be a hierarchy when a hierarchy has to form a triangular shape with levels.

A hierarchy can be as simple as one person controlling another.

I don't know about that.

Well, I'm fairly confident of it. As shown by the determination of those who fought for us all to have access to those opportunities.

 

[stevevw]

I would argue that if "the system" is abusive and controlling, it is not the same system as a system which is not. The system itself must change to remove the control and abuse from it.

In stopping the abuse of the system we change the system. If there is abuse within the legal system such as corrupt police or a corrupt department we get rid of the abusers and ensure the checks and balances are tightened to stop further abuse.

We usually have pretty good checks like independent watchdogs, whistle blower protections, equal representation, internal audits ect. But that still doesn't stop an abuser who will break the law and rules to abuse.

In a very broad sense, it's related. But we are concerned particularly with the dynamics in play when one person directly controls (abuses) another.

That seems to be what I have been advocating. Looking at the dynamics of why abusers believe in and use abusive control. The dynamics being the many factors that contribute to abuse and violence at all levels.

I thought you were busy arguing for how good and necessary hierarchies are? Now you concede that power imbalances are part of the problem?

Then your making unsupported assumptions. Obviously if there is abuse there has to be power imbalances. I have never questioned this as it goes without saying.

The point I was making is that not all power imbalances are abusive and therefore people can confuse non abusive hierarchies and power differences in control as abusive while making out abusive controlling hierachies and situations as non abusive and good. Its all subjective.

There must be a way to determine these upstream beliefs and ideas about how to order society , relationships of differences besides belief itself, besides ideology. They need to be grounded in some facts and reality. Otherwise all we are doing is replacing one set of potentially abusive beliefs and assumptions with another.

I don't agree, but this is well off topic, so I suggest we leave it there.

Your the one who made the claim that the military is harmful.

I'd argue that control itself, beyond a necessary minimum for particular situations, is the very essence of abuse.

And what is that minimum. Who says its a minimum. If we investigated all the ways people are controlled and even buy into being controllede we will find that being controlled is an everyday situation.

I've got to get up for work and I really don't feel like it. Much rather go fishing. I have to slave away to pay for my home even when I feel sick and are not able to. I have many responsibilities that control my life and many I have not chosen freely but out of necessity whenit comes to the reality of modern life.

Though my plan is to get some land away from all that and become more self sufficent and truely be free. But many don't even get the chance to have a home, a basic human right for secure shelter. They are subject to the system and have to pay a premium for it. Modern life is one big controlling machine lol.

I really don't agree. Society has always had division, hatred, intolerance etc. This is nothing new.

That doesn't mean we should just accept this. We would hopefully be moving towards a society as in Christ and not move further away. It seems to me we are moving further away with such division within society today.

You might say that, but that has not been the historic understanding even for Christians, nor is it the understanding that many Christians hold today. We are still fighting against a view of female subordination on many fronts (which is why this forum has to have an Egalitarian section; because it gives us one space where those views are not allowed).

I didn't know that. Nevertheless because bad stuff was done in the name of Christianity and God within marriage, the church doesn't mean the sanity of marriage and the church under Christ should be abandoned. If we are talking about attitudes and beliefs, the right kinds then surelythis is the basis and not ideas created by secular ideologies.

This is part of the problem that we don't santify and uphold marriage under God. This is what leads to human ideas about marriage and equality that end up undermining equality and lead to abuses.

We know that gender hierarchy underpins abuse. That's one way (that's particularly relevant to this thread) that we determine that egalitarianism is best.

What does elgalitarian even entail. Is it exactly the same in all things. Equal outcomes despite differences. Some of the most egalitarian nations have found the more elgalitarian we make society the more the differences between genders comes out because when people are left to freely choose they seem to naturally move towards certain choices and behaviours along gendered lines.

So forcing a complete elgalitarian society is not necessarily the best way to determine equality as it can artificially (socially engineer) society and relationships into something they are not thus being harmful and causing more conflicts between genders.

No, it really hasn't. If you're not aware of that, do yourself a favour and read some of the various church leaders down the centuries on marriage.

I'm not talking about the institution of marriage but the relationship between two people. Their marriage and relationship is between them and no one else. Those same two people could have had the same relationship in Russia, on the north pole, on the moon where there is no church, no society, no hierarchies, and there still can be abuse between those two people.

Its the same situation for any two people including non married couples, friends and partnerships. You don't need the institutional hierarchy of marriage to have an abusive relationship between two people.

A hierarchy can be as simple as one person controlling another.

Then lifes a hiearchy lol as that would make every situation where there are two people where any differences even natural differences, so long at the two are not the exact same on the same level of sameness, it would make everything a hierarchy.

The relationship I have with my pet is a hierarchy as they are not on the same level as the owner simply because they are a dog or cat. That seems an overuse of the idea of a hierarchy.

A hiearchy can also be used for objects. If we have two different objects within a category of objects how do we determine their hiearchal status without many other various objects that will create the hierarchy to make comparisons and differences from. See even something so simple can be misunderstood and thus forming unfounded assumptions.

Well, I'm fairly confident of it. As shown by the determination of those who fought for us all to have access to those opportunities.

I cannot see how anyone would even be aware of the subconscious and subliminal influences on peoples choices and thinking. I think you need to do some research on this. You will be surprised.

I mean if society can have unreal beliefs and everyone follows thoughout our history and there has been many showing how we were actually deluding ourselves then this shows that we are subject to delusing ourselves just being humans.

Many people look back and realise that what they thought they knew as the truth was not and can even be embarassed in how they could have fallen for such things. Thats life. But its more modern life that has so many more dynamics at work manipulating the senses and attention subliminally. We get lost and cannot see the forest through the trees.

 

[Paidiske]

In stopping the abuse of the system we change the system.

It's more than that, though. Some systems are set up in such a way that they are inherently abusive; they disempower some and give control to others.

That seems to be what I have been advocating. Looking at the dynamics of why abusers believe in and use abusive control. The dynamics being the many factors that contribute to abuse and violence at all levels.

I could have sworn only a page or two ago you were arguing that this was not relevant; that it was all down to distress and cognitive distortion.

Obviously if there is abuse there has to be power imbalances. I have never questioned this as it goes without saying.

But you have been arguing that these power imbalances are good, natural, necessary.

The point I was making is that not all power imbalances are abusive and therefore people can confuse non abusive hierarchies and power differences in control as abusive while making out abusive controlling hierachies and situations as non abusive and good. Its all subjective.

No, it's not subjective.

Take the example of a doctor and a patient. We know that there is a power imbalance in that relationship. So we put in place rules - such as that a patient must give informed consent to any treatment - to ensure that that power imbalance is not abused; it is not used by the doctor to exercise control over the patient.

Your the one who made the claim that the military is harmful.

You asked, and I answered. But it's really off topic, so I don't want to explore it in depth.

And what is that minimum. Who says its a minimum.

Well, for the purposes of this thread, which is, after all, about physical abuse of children, I'd be content if we could all agree that physical abuse of children in order to enforce parental control is beyond that minimum.

If we investigated all the ways people are controlled and even buy into being controllede we will find that being controlled is an everyday situation.

Which doesn't make it right.

I've got to get up for work and I really don't feel like it. Much rather go fishing.

You agreed to the work conditions? In which case, your participation in that situation is voluntary. You are, after all, free to resign.

I have to slave away to pay for my home even when I feel sick and are not able to.

Now that is wrong; but it's why we have things like sick leave.

I have many responsibilities that control my life and many I have not chosen freely but out of necessity whenit comes to the reality of modern life.

Responsibilities are one thing. But other people directly controlling your life are another. I'm currently having an argument with my bishop about when I can take my annual leave, because a (frankly stupid) policy restricts my ability to take several weeks at a time. There's no necessity to that, and I'm pushing back against that unnecessary control.

That doesn't mean we should just accept this.

No; but I'm not buying the argument that it's being caused by changing social attitudes. It's always been there, and if anything, the changing social attitudes have made things far healthier than they have ever been.

I didn't know that.

Well, then, honestly, I suggest you do some reading, because if you're ignorant of the basic problems, you're going to have a hard time contributing constructively to the solutions.

Nevertheless because bad stuff was done in the name of Christianity and God within marriage, the church doesn't mean the sanity of marriage and the church under Christ should be abandoned.

But literally nobody here is arguing for that. Marriage is good. The church is good. But both marriage and the church have been deeply abusive institutions at times, and we need to be honest about that, and vigilant against it.

What does elgalitarian even entail.

Let me google that for you... Christian egalitarianism - Wikipedia

In the context of this forum, it's the one place people can't post about how wives should submit, women should be subordinate, any woman who exercises any form of leadership or authority is in rebellion, and so on.

I'm not talking about the institution of marriage but the relationship between two people.

But if they are married, their relationship is shaped by the institution of marriage, and the laws, norms and so on around that.

Then lifes a hiearchy lol as that would make every situation where there are two people where any differences even natural differences, so long at the two are not the exact same on the same level of sameness, it would make everything a hierarchy.

No. It would only be a hierarchy if one is controlling the other.

The relationship I have with my pet is a hierarchy as they are not on the same level as the owner simply because they are a dog or cat. That seems an overuse of the idea of a hierarchy.

It's just about the most valid use of hierarchy I've seen you put forward.

I cannot see how anyone would even be aware of the subconscious and subliminal influences on peoples choices and thinking. I think you need to do some research on this. You will be surprised.

There is absolutely nothing you could post, to convince me that we all subconsciously like and want to be controlled by others. My own life experience shows how radically wrong that is.

We get lost and cannot see the forest through the trees.

Speak for yourself...

 

[stevevw]

It's more than that, though. Some systems are set up in such a way that they are inherently abusive; they disempower some and give control to others.

Can you give me an example as as far as I know most abuse happens with already existing hierarchies that are turned into abusive control.

I could have sworn only a page or two ago you were arguing that this was not relevant; that it was all down to distress and cognitive distortion.

No I was arguing that distress and the unreal thinking and beliefs that follow are a big part of the dynamics you talk about as to why abusers believe what they believe and abuse. When you say dynamics this implies the many influencing determinants for why parents abuse at the individual, family, community and the wider society.

But you have been arguing that these power imbalances are good, natural, necessary.

Once again no and your projecting what your assume is the case. I have clearly argued that hierarchies and control itself can be both positive and negative and depends on the situation. I was arguing against your depiction that hierarchies and control are automatically an abusive form of control when they are not.

Its a matter of balance. If anything I am taking the balanced view which should be the case and not one extreme ie all hierarchies and situations of control are either abusive or not avbusive. Rather sometimes they can be abusive and most of the time natural and non abusive.

When people take the extreme position we need to be concerned as this is more about their own beliefs and assumptions rather than the facts or reality. Just the simple fact that the extreme is taken rather than the balanced is enough to red flag something is wrong with that position.

No, it's not subjective.

Wait a minute weren't you earlier arguing that abusers rationalisations were rational, made sense to them and even social norms. That it wasn't a case of using objective measures to determine their irrationality.

Take the example of a doctor and a patient. We know that there is a power imbalance in that relationship. So we put in place rules - such as that a patient must give informed consent to any treatment - to ensure that that power imbalance is not abused; it is not used by the doctor to exercise control over the patient.

But that doesn't change the fact that theres still a power imbalance in that doctors are in charge of health and wellbing. They recommend and even dictate what is best for you. They control that aspect of society. They have great sway of peoples health in what they promote and advice and it can vary a lot. Then you have the doctors promoting natural remedies as opposed to more and more medications which has become a big addictiopn problem.

It may be all done under informed consent but that doesn't mean they can push certain ideas over others with informed consent and even be wrong individually or systemically as they have been in pushing pills to solve every problem under the sun. Often patients insisting on them and disregarding the consequences.

Well, for the purposes of this thread, which is, after all, about physical abuse of children, I'd be content if we could all agree that physical abuse of children in order to enforce parental control is beyond that minimum.

Of course, PA is PA and we have measures for this today so theres no excuse. But just as important I think is clarifying the upstream beliefs and assumptions that are said to underpin abuse. That if left and allowed to become socially accepted will lead to PA and violence.

Thats because its one thing to stop obvious abuse, we can see it and measure it. But thats the end result of upstream ideology and by understand the dynamics of how abusive beliefs are cultivated, the thinking that goes into it we can then identify all other potential beliefs and thinking that may lead to at least relationship conflicts and at worst PA and violence.

Which doesn't make it right.

The point is it doesn't make it automatically wrong either. We need to come at this with a neutral view and then actually determine each situation as to whether its abusive or not rather than assuming it is because it has the word control in it. That will only lead to wrong assumptions and do more harm than good.

You agreed to the work conditions? In which case, your participation in that situation is voluntary. You are, after all, free to resign.

Not really. If I depend on that job to pay the bills and keep a roof over my families head then its not so easy. Especially if there may be few jobs. See people don't see the forest through the trees.

They say you can resign and maybe get another job you like. But what they don't realize is perhaps the entire system which dictates that they have to get some job and do things a certain way just to participate in the first place may be the problem.

That the dream modern society is selling that dictates we must have that education to get that career, to get that promotion, and money and other stuff may be a false promise of happiness and fullfillment. Which seems to be the very problem people are suffering with high mental illness because what the world tells people they must do and be to find true happiness is a lie.

Now that is wrong; but it's why we have things like sick leave.

Sick leave, yeah thats when people are really sick. But much of the time for people they are not necessarily physically sick but just metally overloaded or not into it. They go through the motions and follow like sheep. Thats all they know and are often stuck because they are so invested in what everyone else is doing the same.

Thats why I think collective societies are good or even co-ops where everyone pitches in and its about community and not so much pressure to earn and perform. Young people are buckling under the expectations. Modern life is making people sick, physically and mentally sick.

The Impact of Modern Life on Mental Health
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/impact-modern-life-mental-health-vermile/

How modern life affects our physical and mental health

Impact of modern lifestyle on health | Pacific Medical ACLS

Explore the impact of modern lifestyle on health. Learn about the factors that influence well-being and discover the benefits of adopting a healthy lifestyle.

pacificmedicalacls.com

 

[Paidiske]

Can you give me an example as as far as I know most abuse happens with already existing hierarchies that are turned into abusive control.

The obvious example I've given you several times already is requiring wives to vow to obey their husbands.

Wait a minute weren't you earlier arguing that abusers rationalisations were rational, made sense to them and even social norms.

Yes. But I have also been saying throughout the thread that we can objectively measure harm. Not irrationality; harm.

But that doesn't change the fact that theres still a power imbalance in that doctors are in charge of health and wellbing.

No; the doctors are not "in charge." That's exactly the point. The patient is in charge of their own medical care, and they make decisions informed by the advice of their doctors.

They recommend and even dictate what is best for you.

They should not be dictating.

The point is it doesn't make it automatically wrong either.

I'd argue that any unnecessary control undermines the dignity and agency of the one being controlled.

Not really. If I depend on that job to pay the bills and keep a roof over my families head then its not so easy. Especially if there may be few jobs.

It's true that you may have few palatable alternatives, but you are still participating voluntarily.

 

[stevevw]

The obvious example I've given you several times already is requiring wives to vow to obey their husbands.

But this is not the creation of a new setup. Husband and wives have existed for millenia. The institution of marriage has been around for a long time. That males abused that institution doesn't create a new insitution. It is exploiting and abusing the existing institution.

You could say the insitution was recreated but recreating the same insitution which is the joining of man and women in matrimony but then changing the power balance and control of each person within the same insitution.

Yes. But I have also been saying throughout the thread that we can objectively measure harm. Not irrationality; harm.

But the point of that arguement about identifying the rationality of the abuser was that the objective measures can prove that the abuser has irrational and unreal thinking and beliefs. Just like we can prove that someone who believes in a unreal objective fact in physics like the earth is flat.

No; the doctors are not "in charge." That's exactly the point. The patient is in charge of their own medical care, and they make decisions informed by the advice of their doctors.

But the doctors, the health system and the treatment options are only as good as whats on offer as to those choices available. For example big Pharma may have a lot of sway over which treatment options are offered. So the choices may be limiting and even not in the best interests for all. Look at the massive problem we have with prescription medication. This is a system problem because the systems has over stated the treatment option of pills rather than alternatives.

So in fact in some ways peoples choices were controlled because the options were limited in the first place by the system patients believed was doing the right thing. At the same time the rise in prescription medications is not all from the health system. Its also driven by individuals and society who demands quick remedies for not sleeping, feeling bad, and stressed.

So its unreal to think the system is as simple as poor old innnocent patient and mean old oppressive system. They work hand in hand.

They should not be dictating.

I agree but the ironic thing Rights based politics has created a monster in that we demanded that individuals have the right to demand their own treatment and how they want to live. This is seen best in consent laws around minors where we now deem that they have a right to make decisions that they may not completely understand that may have long term harm.

So now people expect to recieve the treatment they want, more or less telling doctors what treatment they want and doctors going along. This is a good example of the inverted power imbalance of patients having sway of doctors. So the public is also dictating what they want from the health system and we are accommodating that.

But the other way the system dictates mentioned above is how big Pharma and business influences treatment options and what gets offered over other alternatives thus limiting and dictating health outcomes. But big Pharm is the symptom of other factors like economic control so its not as simple as doctor and patient operating in some vacumn.

I'd argue that any unnecessary control undermines the dignity and agency of the one being controlled.

Yes and the qualifying word there ius "unnecessary". This is very, very important. We need to be clear on what is unnecessary and know when its going to lead to abuse and when its not. I suggest that the best way to determine this is by grounding things in reality, in facts and experience and not the unfounded assumptions of ideologues.

It's true that you may have few palatable alternatives, but you are still participating voluntarily.

Hum sort of but not really. Sometimes you believe its the right thing for you only to later find it wasn't, you could have made a better choice as far as freely choosing minus the biases and unrealities we sometimes hold which lead us down a garden path lol.

I think to really make voluntary choices is to really know yourself. That for many takes time as you get older and wiser. But certainly modern life, with its expectations, stresses enough to make you sick. Many people fall for it and some die as a result believing it was the key to true happiness and freedom. Only to find it actualy bound them up rather than set them free.

Look at the poor students who have to borrow as much as a house just to get a degree and then be bound doing some job unrelated job to make ends meet. I am sure they did volunteer for that when they signed up.

 

[Paidiske]

But this is not the creation of a new setup. Husband and wives have existed for millenia. The institution of marriage has been around for a long time. That males abused that institution doesn't create a new insitution. It is exploiting and abusing the existing institution.

It'd be interesting to know whether there was a time when marriage was not exploited or abusive. Within the span of recorded history, that's be arguable.

But the point of that arguement about identifying the rationality of the abuser was that the objective measures can prove that the abuser has irrational and unreal thinking and beliefs.

I think that's largely irrelevant. Quibbling about whether this or that person or belief is irrational is a waste of time; they believe what they believe, and we need to engage with it in order to bring about change.

But the doctors, the health system and the treatment options are only as good as whats on offer as to those choices available.

But the point remains; the patient is empowered to make their own choices within the scope of what is available.

Yes and the qualifying word there ius "unnecessary". This is very, very important. We need to be clear on what is unnecessary and know when its going to lead to abuse and when its not.

I'd argue that if we cannot clearly show that it is necessary, then control should be limited or removed.

Sometimes you believe its the right thing for you only to later find it wasn't, you could have made a better choice as far as freely choosing minus the biases and unrealities we sometimes hold which lead us down a garden path lol.

That doesn't mean you didn't make a choice, though. Or that you were coerced or forced into something against your will.

 

[stevevw]

It'd be interesting to know whether there was a time when marriage was not exploited or abusive. Within the span of recorded history, that's be arguable.

Its hard to say as males seem to have dominated in the past generally in society. I don't think it was all abusive. Males dominated labor and the systems that it worked within. I don't think that was abusive but rather a natural evolution of society in that much of the work to establish industry was labor intensive which put males at the forefront.

It was from this platform that males then controlled and abused their position by holding onto that power and control and manipulating it to sustain control. As society was very property and wealth orientated it seems marriage became a business contract of sorts. Status was in how wealthy and resource rich families were so marriage became way of transferring property and wealth between people.

In some ways its still that way in that many marriage is now seen as a business contract. Or where some marry for wealth rather than love.

I think that's largely irrelevant. Quibbling about whether this or that person or belief is irrational is a waste of time; they believe what they believe, and we need to engage with it in order to bring about change.

But we need to qualify the belief as being abusive or not especially down stream. As I mentioned its easy to tell that a belief in violent and abusive control and the behaviour that follows is inappropriate. But what about the beliefs that are not necessarily labelled as violently abusive but may still underpin abuse.

How do we recognise these beliefs and attitudes. I already named 2 beliefs that society currently holds which can underpin abuse and yet society promotes these. So its not so easy to identify what cultivates abuse or not unless we have some marker, some clinical measure that the belief is associated and will more likely lead to abuse. That can only be done by measuring the type of thinking, the type of mindset that would cultivate such beliefs.

We do this with identifying radicals who are more supceptible to being influenced to believe such ideas so why not use the same principles for unreal beliefs about abuse as they come from a similar place.

But the point remains; the patient is empowered to make their own choices within the scope of what is available.

Sure but its not true freedom of choice. Freedom of choice to be truely free requires knowledge of all the options and how the current choices available may actually not be good for you. That is not available and the choices are limited which restricts the freedom of patients.

If its about free choice to choose what is best then that choice is not being given by the system and as people rely on that system and have little alternative but to use that system they are more or less controlled by that system.

I'd argue that if we cannot clearly show that it is necessary, then control should be limited or removed.

Well yes that makes sense. But how do we determine if its necessary or not, That is the question that we need to determine.

That doesn't mean you didn't make a choice, though. Or that you were coerced or forced into something against your will.

I think it does by the fact that you did not know you were coersed and you later realised that your choice actually led to something bad and not good, not what you thought at the time because you did not see the pitfalls. Similar to someone who may be influenced to buy into a fad diet or financial scheme. You sincerely believe its the best thing and it will bring good health and happiness.

Only to realise later it was a scam or not as great as you first thought. Because you were taken in and for whatever reason, maybe your experiences, advice from a friend, where you were at, you bought into the idea and didn't see the pitfalls. You believed you were making a free choice but you were actually lured into making that choice and you didn't know it.

Gambling is a good example of being controlled without knowing it. In Australia gambling is big, its advertised, its almost part of the culture such as two up on Anzac Day, We see many people ritually buying into this dream thats being sold spending hugh amounts of scratch its, lotto and pokies.

Yet for many its controlling their life, they have to perform the rituals as part of their gambling routine. They believe they are choosing to buy into the whole idea of gambling to find your dream but they are actually slaves to the gambling and pot of gold god. Life is like that in many different ways where we work to live rather than live to work.

 

[Paidiske]

But we need to qualify the belief as being abusive or not especially down stream.

That's really simple. We identify particular behaviours as abusive; we identify the attitudes and beliefs which drive those abusive behaviours. It doesn't matter whether or not they're particularly irrational; what matters is the behaviours.

How do we recognise these beliefs and attitudes.

We look at the justifications abusers give for their abuse. We look at how the attitudes of abusers and non-abusers differ. This is pretty well established work.

So its not so easy to identify what cultivates abuse or not unless we have some marker, some clinical measure that the belief is associated and will more likely lead to abuse.

But there is no clinical measure. It would be nice if there were, but you're chasing an illusion there.

Sure but its not true freedom of choice.

But nor is it one person controlling another, which really means we're getting well away from the topic at this point.

Well yes that makes sense. But how do we determine if its necessary or not, That is the question that we need to determine.

If we can't show why it's necessary, maybe we ought to test the possibility that it's not.

I think it does by the fact that you did not know you were coersed and you later realised that your choice actually led to something bad and not good, not what you thought at the time because you did not see the pitfalls.

You can make poor decisions without being coerced, though.

 

[stevevw]

That's really simple. We identify particular behaviours as abusive; we identify the attitudes and beliefs which drive those abusive behaviours. It doesn't matter whether or not they're particularly irrational; what matters is the behaviours.

The behaviour is the end result of belief and cognition. So its easy to identify abuse and violence by abusive and violent behaviour. But its the beliefs and thinking well before behaviour that we want to identify because that is what cultivates the abusive and violent behaviour.

That cannot be done unless we can identify some factual evidence that these beliefs and thinking are irrational and signify an abusive and controlling mindset. We cannot say for example belief in hierarchies that occur well before any abusive behaviour will lead to abusive behaviour just be the belief alone because the belief alone does not for the majority of times lead to abusive control.

The only way to identify this is to have some grounding in facts, in reality as to what how that sort of thinking and belief cultivates abuse and violence such as clinical measures or in how the belief misaligns with facts and the reality of lived experiences. This is where the rish factors come in as they are all signposts for the occurrance of abusive and violent behaviour.

We look at the justifications abusers give for their abuse.

Ok if we can identify the justifications as being groundless, not based in facts then we can say these justifications are unreal, irrational. But we can only do this after the abuse has happened. I am talking about beforehand when abuse is yet to occur. What beliefs and thinking that may lead to abuse in the future.

We look at how the attitudes of abusers and non-abusers differ. This is pretty well established work.

But I thought you said that the beliefs of abusers are rational. They are social norms. If they are rational then how can we say they are wrong. We need some independent grounding that exposes the beliefs and attitudes as being unjustified and unreal for people to be holding well before the actual abuse happens if we are to prevent it in the future.

Just saying a belief or attitude will lead to abuse without factual evidence will get things wrong, willfalsely accuse people for having the wrong belief or attitude. We need some factual evidence for which beliefs and attitudes are more supceptible to developing into abusive and violent behaviour and not some subjective determination.

But there is no clinical measure. It would be nice if there were, but you're chasing an illusion there.

Yes there is, one of them is the PIRBS. But there are others such as the general RAIBS, the Attitudes and Beliefs Scales-2 (ABS-2) and the General Attitude and Belief Scale (GABS). All these are based on Ellis's Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). But there is also others.

If these scales can identift the type of mindset that is more supceptible for radical beliefs associated with terrorism and extreme violent and abusive behaviour or in profiling psychopathic and antisocial thinking then they also work for identifying the mindset of those who are more supceptble to abusive and violent beliefs and thinking.

You have yourself just acknowledged that the beliefs and thinking of an abuser is different to a non abuser so therefore we can measure that difference clinically before actual abuse and violence happens. We can also determine what sorts of conditions create thse mindsets that are linked to the determinants that cultivate these beliefs and attitudes as your own link stated.

But nor is it one person controlling another, which really means we're getting well away from the topic at this point.

I thought abusive control and violence ws more than just one on one control but also systemic control as with a abusive and controlling patriarchy. Or abuse and control within say the police dept. Systems that all abusive control.

I don't think its getting away from the topic. These are discussions we need to have to unpack what exactly is or is not abusive control in our upstream beliefs and attitudes generally. Like I said how can we be promoting non abusive control to a mother who is being abused and controlled by her own neighbourhood, economic system or even the State through oppressive policies which oppresses and disempowers her.

We need to address the fundemental basis in how we order society to stop abusive situations being cultivated.

If we can't show why it's necessary, maybe we ought to test the possibility that it's not.

You miss the point. How do we test its necessary or unnecessary in the first place. This seems a subjective determination. One person may believe the control is necessary while the other says its not. A good example is language control. One persons truth statement or factual statement can be another persons abusive language that needs to be controlled and not allowed. We see this with the cancellation of certain words or with pronouns.

This type of conflict involving potential abuse and control happens a lot where different beliefs with different assumptions are conflicting. We have to have some independent basis to sort this out as either way in the eyes of both sides whatever the determination both sides claim that its abuse and control.

You can make poor decisions without being coerced, though.

The point is you don't know you were coersed in the first place when making the decision. Look at people who get scammed. Even astute investors have been scammed. They honestly believe that they are making an independent and free decision based on the information they have. The problem is people are good at presenting information that is not necessarily the truth, and know how to manipulate people ect.

Humans can be gulible and think emotionally rather than rationally. Especially if your younger without experience and wisdom or have your own issues that may cloud your judgement. We may think we are not being coersed but implicitly and subconsciously and by manipulation we are being coersed into all sorts of choices over others. You need to do a bit of research on how humans can be fooled and fool themselves.

 

[Paidiske]

The behaviour is the end result of belief and cognition. So its easy to identify abuse and violence by abusive and violent behaviour. But its the beliefs and thinking well before behaviour that we want to identify because that is what cultivates the abusive and violent behaviour.

Yes; but my point is that the only useful thing for that purpose is the content of the beliefs. Not whether or not they are rational.

That cannot be done unless we can identify some factual evidence that these beliefs and thinking are irrational and signify an abusive and controlling mindset.

Untrue. We can identify the beliefs which underpin abuse without needing to make any judgement about their rationality or otherwise.

We cannot say for example belief in hierarchies that occur well before any abusive behaviour will lead to abusive behaviour just be the belief alone because the belief alone does not for the majority of times lead to abusive control.

No; but we can say that belief in hierarchies is one of a cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. On its own it might only be a red flag; along with acceptance of violence, dynamics of control and rigid roles, that would be much more of a concern.

Ok if we can identify the justifications as being groundless, not based in facts then we can say these justifications are unreal, irrational.

Well, no. That's not really the point. We can look at the pattern; if many abusers all give justifications along the same lines, and we do not observe those beliefs in those who do not abuse, we start to see where the beliefs which underpin abuse are.

I am talking about beforehand when abuse is yet to occur. What beliefs and thinking that may lead to abuse in the future.

Well, yes. We do the research with known abusers, so that we can then apply what we know to others.

But I thought you said that the beliefs of abusers are rational.

Actually, what I was trying to say is that you cannot automatically characterise them as irrational.

If they are rational then how can we say they are wrong.

I have been saying, over and over, that "rational" is not the same as right, and "irrational" is not the same as wrong.

We need some independent grounding that exposes the beliefs and attitudes as being unjustified and unreal for people to be holding well before the actual abuse happens if we are to prevent it in the future.

Not at all. We only need to demonstrate that particular beliefs underpin abuse.

We need some factual evidence for which beliefs and attitudes are more supceptible to developing into abusive and violent behaviour and not some subjective determination.

We have that evidence. That work has been done. We know what those beliefs and attitudes are. This is very well established.

Yes there is, one of them is the PIRBS. But there are others such as the general RAIBS, the Attitudes and Beliefs Scales-2 (ABS-2) and the General Attitude and Belief Scale (GABS). All these are based on Ellis's Rational Emotive Behavior Therapy (REBT). But there is also others.

But they are not measuring likelihood to abuse. Because abuse is not driven by what they are measuring.

You have yourself just acknowledged that the beliefs and thinking of an abuser is different to a non abuser

Yes, but not in the way that you are claiming. Only in that an abuser holds a cluster of beliefs that non-abusers do not.

I thought abusive control and violence ws more than just one on one control but also systemic control as with a abusive and controlling patriarchy.

Systemic oppression is an issue, but it is not what we are discussing in this thread.

I don't think its getting away from the topic. These are discussions we need to have to unpack what exactly is or is not abusive control in our upstream beliefs and attitudes generally.

I think, though, that it takes away our focus from the immediate problem. Sure, we can talk about ideologies of power and control and hierarchy more generally, but we don't even have a basic shared understanding of these as the problem which drive the very particular problem of abuse in the household. We need to build that first.

You miss the point. How do we test its necessary or unnecessary in the first place.

We could relax the restriction and see if harm results. No harm; no need for the restriction.

The point is you don't know you were coersed in the first place when making the decision. Look at people who get scammed.

A scam is not a good thing, but it is not the same as coercion.