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: 77655655" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>I'd dispute that they're "natural." They're chosen. </p><p></p><p>That said, just because something is normal doesn't mean it's good. We've normalised many harmful things. </p><p></p><p>As long as we see people only as resources to be "utilised," rather than human beings whose abundant life ought to be nurtured, that might be enough. But rigid roles limit the fulness of life. Hierarchies which disempower limit the fulness of life. These are not conditions which promote human flourishing. </p><p></p><p>Only if you see all situations in life as being limited by social constructs of power. </p><p></p><p>No, I am not limiting my statement in that way. Control is not just about the denial of rights. </p><p></p><p>There is a difference between the kind of power that comes with a different scope of work, and the kind of <em>power to control another person</em> that is abusive. </p><p></p><p>It's not about the way the power is gained. It's about the way it is used. If someone gains power and uses it to coerce or limit the choices of others, that's abusive. </p><p></p><p>No, if they can change that agreement at any time, it is not what we mean by "rigid roles." Any of us might choose particular roles or habits, and as long as they're freely chosen (and we have the freedom to make different choices at a later time), that's not what we're talking about here. </p><p></p><p>No, that is not an accurate statement. I would say that being in the role of a housewife with a breadwinner husband is a <em>vulnerable position</em>, and I would urge every woman in that situation to at least make sure she remains employable to reduce that vulnerability, but feminists do not claim that this situation is abusive if it is voluntarily chosen. </p><p></p><p>I'm sorry, but it is. Limiting people's agency and autonomy and coercing (controlling) them to conform to particular rigid roles is abusive. </p><p></p><p>And to do otherwise might be rude. But even so, people are (or should be) free to be rude.</p><p></p><p>I'm not saying there are no social consequences for one's choices. But that is a different matter from social coercion. </p><p></p><p>Well, no. The actual problem is the abuse. Identifying the very specific drivers of the abuse is more accurate, and more helpful, than identifying less specific cognitive conditions which may or may not ever give rise to abuse. </p><p></p><p>Again, it is the<em> cluster</em> of beliefs - acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power, control, and rigid roles - which is pertinent. If someone only believes in hierarchy, absent the other beliefs, they're unlikely to abuse. If someone believes in trad marriage, (and they don't mean by that a dynamic of hierarchy and control), they're unlikely to abuse. </p><p></p><p>No. But if you want a strong, reliable predictor of abuse, then someone holding the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse is about the best you're going to get. </p><p></p><p>I'm not even suggesting it's a question of "diagnosis." Nor am I suggesting that these are not "normal, good people" (you might recall that I rejected the idea that an abuser is necessarily not a "good person"). But I am suggesting that identifying that someone holds strongly to this particular cluster of beliefs is the best indicator we could have that they are likely to abuse. </p><p></p><p>The cluster of beliefs - the acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power and control, and rigid roles - translated into action, do become abusive, though. A person with such beliefs will need a very great deal of support in order not to abuse. </p><p></p><p>I've asked you before for evidence of people who hold this cluster of beliefs to a significant degree and yet don't abuse. </p><p></p><p>We've done that work. We know which beliefs they are. This is very well established. </p><p></p><p>But we have identified which beliefs drive abuse. We can measure the degree to which people hold those beliefs. We are not without helpful clinical possibilities here. We do not need to fall back on the much less directly related measure of "irrational beliefs." </p><p></p><p>I don't believe in "innate" cognitions and beliefs. You'd need to provide very robust evidence for any such claim. </p><p></p><p>But we can look at the actual beliefs held by people, and how strongly they measure for the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. That is the most accurate way available. And far more directly relevant than measuring much vaguer "cognitions and emotional dysfunction."</p><p></p><p>It's not an unsupported assumption! We know this as a result of studying large cohorts of abusers, and examining their belief profiles, and comparing them to those of people who don't abuse. This cluster of beliefs is the difference between those who abuse, and those who don't. </p><p></p><p>But I am not saying that a belief "is abusive." Behaviours are abusive; but we choose our behaviours on the basis of our beliefs. </p><p></p><p>And that is why it's not directly relevant to the likelihood that someone will abuse. </p><p></p><p>But the beliefs which underpin abuse aren't necessarily irrational. Again, there's only a small area of overlap between what is measured by clinical scales of "irrational beliefs," and the beliefs which drive abuse. </p><p></p><p>I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would think that a one-size-fits-all approach to every problem would be likely to be the most accurate or effective, when each problem is quite distinct in what drives it.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77655655, member: 386627"] I'd dispute that they're "natural." They're chosen. That said, just because something is normal doesn't mean it's good. We've normalised many harmful things. As long as we see people only as resources to be "utilised," rather than human beings whose abundant life ought to be nurtured, that might be enough. But rigid roles limit the fulness of life. Hierarchies which disempower limit the fulness of life. These are not conditions which promote human flourishing. Only if you see all situations in life as being limited by social constructs of power. No, I am not limiting my statement in that way. Control is not just about the denial of rights. There is a difference between the kind of power that comes with a different scope of work, and the kind of [I]power to control another person[/I] that is abusive. It's not about the way the power is gained. It's about the way it is used. If someone gains power and uses it to coerce or limit the choices of others, that's abusive. No, if they can change that agreement at any time, it is not what we mean by "rigid roles." Any of us might choose particular roles or habits, and as long as they're freely chosen (and we have the freedom to make different choices at a later time), that's not what we're talking about here. No, that is not an accurate statement. I would say that being in the role of a housewife with a breadwinner husband is a [I]vulnerable position[/I], and I would urge every woman in that situation to at least make sure she remains employable to reduce that vulnerability, but feminists do not claim that this situation is abusive if it is voluntarily chosen. I'm sorry, but it is. Limiting people's agency and autonomy and coercing (controlling) them to conform to particular rigid roles is abusive. And to do otherwise might be rude. But even so, people are (or should be) free to be rude. I'm not saying there are no social consequences for one's choices. But that is a different matter from social coercion. Well, no. The actual problem is the abuse. Identifying the very specific drivers of the abuse is more accurate, and more helpful, than identifying less specific cognitive conditions which may or may not ever give rise to abuse. Again, it is the[I] cluster[/I] of beliefs - acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power, control, and rigid roles - which is pertinent. If someone only believes in hierarchy, absent the other beliefs, they're unlikely to abuse. If someone believes in trad marriage, (and they don't mean by that a dynamic of hierarchy and control), they're unlikely to abuse. No. But if you want a strong, reliable predictor of abuse, then someone holding the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse is about the best you're going to get. I'm not even suggesting it's a question of "diagnosis." Nor am I suggesting that these are not "normal, good people" (you might recall that I rejected the idea that an abuser is necessarily not a "good person"). But I am suggesting that identifying that someone holds strongly to this particular cluster of beliefs is the best indicator we could have that they are likely to abuse. The cluster of beliefs - the acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power and control, and rigid roles - translated into action, do become abusive, though. A person with such beliefs will need a very great deal of support in order not to abuse. I've asked you before for evidence of people who hold this cluster of beliefs to a significant degree and yet don't abuse. We've done that work. We know which beliefs they are. This is very well established. But we have identified which beliefs drive abuse. We can measure the degree to which people hold those beliefs. We are not without helpful clinical possibilities here. We do not need to fall back on the much less directly related measure of "irrational beliefs." I don't believe in "innate" cognitions and beliefs. You'd need to provide very robust evidence for any such claim. But we can look at the actual beliefs held by people, and how strongly they measure for the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. That is the most accurate way available. And far more directly relevant than measuring much vaguer "cognitions and emotional dysfunction." It's not an unsupported assumption! We know this as a result of studying large cohorts of abusers, and examining their belief profiles, and comparing them to those of people who don't abuse. This cluster of beliefs is the difference between those who abuse, and those who don't. But I am not saying that a belief "is abusive." Behaviours are abusive; but we choose our behaviours on the basis of our beliefs. And that is why it's not directly relevant to the likelihood that someone will abuse. But the beliefs which underpin abuse aren't necessarily irrational. Again, there's only a small area of overlap between what is measured by clinical scales of "irrational beliefs," and the beliefs which drive abuse. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would think that a one-size-fits-all approach to every problem would be likely to be the most accurate or effective, when each problem is quite distinct in what drives it. [/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