Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Paidiske" data-source="post: 77666004" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>Over half of Australian parents use corporal punishment; that seems pretty common to me. </p><p></p><p>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. </p><p></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77666004, member: 386627"] 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Over half of Australian parents use corporal punishment; that seems pretty common to me. 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. 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Ethics & Morality
Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health
Top
Bottom