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: 77655691" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>But that's not actually what we're looking for. We're looking for:</p><p>- do they accept violence in parenting</p><p>- do they have a hierarchical, power/control model of parenting</p><p>- do they have rigid role expectations of household members.</p><p></p><p>Each of those would be broken down further with multiple questions looking at different aspects. </p><p></p><p>I mean, we do this kind of thing all the time with other measures of various attitudes, it's not really all that difficult or out of the norm. </p><p></p><p>Will hold the beliefs I've just spelled out. You don't need to measure "irrational beliefs" which largely have nothing to do with abuse, to establish that. </p><p></p><p>Sorry, but it really doesn't. People who hold these attitudes and beliefs will abuse no matter what their situation.</p><p></p><p>No, I'm refuting what you are saying. </p><p></p><p>But the main determinant that drives these beliefs is social and cultural norms; not the sorts of things you've been talking about. </p><p></p><p>That doesn't change the fact that hierarchies are part of the problem, to the degree that they normalise and legitimise relationships of power and control. </p><p></p><p>Well, no. We can look at hierarchies (relationships of power and control) and see how they contribute to social norms around power and control, even if they are not egregious enough to "actually contain proven abuse."</p><p></p><p>No, I'd agree that you'd need to see a certain threshold of harm caused before saying a hierarchy is directly abusive. But below that threshold of harm it can still be contributing to a harmful social norm. </p><p></p><p>Well, they're one option among many. I'm not even particularly criticising the police, but I'm not going to claim that they operate in the very best possible way in every instance. </p><p></p><p>Wouldn't totalitarianism be the exact opposite of no one having an advantage over another?</p><p></p><p>That said, no. The solution is to minimise the power and control one person has over another, to the absolute minimum necessary for harm prevention. </p><p></p><p>Because this thread is about the physical abuse of children (and other forms of domestic violence are very closely related). That's the topic. If you're defending hierarchy in this thread, I gather it's because you see hierarchy within the household as good and necessary. </p><p></p><p>It's the topic of the flipping thread. <img src="" class="smilie smilie--sprite smilie--sprite11" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll Eyes :rolleyes:" loading="lazy" data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /> </p><p></p><p>Well, there's been some of that. But I am attempting to avoid tedious repetition in my own posts. If I've made a point once in replying to your post, I am unlikely to repeat it in the same post. </p><p></p><p>Again, I don't actually owe it to you to respond in the way you want, or even at all. I am free to respond in the way I find constructive.</p><p></p><p>At 83 pages of back-and-forth, I don't think you can really complain that you've not had opportunity to be heard. If I wanted to just end the conversation, I'd log out, and refuse to read or reply to any further posts. </p><p></p><p>I must admit I am wondering at what point that might be the best response.</p><p></p><p>Of course we can. That work's been done. That's why we know that acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power, control, and rigid roles, are the beliefs and attitudes which differentiate abusers from non-abusers, and drive abuse. </p><p></p><p>Please do not misrepresent me. I have not said that all corporal punishment is abuse. I have differentiated between corporal punishment which would not meet the legal definition of abuse, and that which would.</p><p></p><p>Again, it is not abusive to hold a belief. But we choose our behaviours based on our beliefs, and parents who believe that their role as parents is primarily to control their children, and pursue that with an authoritarian style, do run the risk of tipping over into abusive behaviours.</p><p></p><p>And yet the research results have been very clear and consistent. </p><p></p><p>That is not what I asked for. </p><p></p><p>That is not what I said. </p><p></p><p>That is also not what I said, nor is it true. </p><p></p><p>Not what I have said, and complete misrepresentation of my position. I am not talking about differences in advantages, or accomplishment, or success in various ways. I am talking about the power one person has <em>to control another</em>, and that is quite a different thing than being naturally better or working harder at something.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77655691, member: 386627"] But that's not actually what we're looking for. We're looking for: - do they accept violence in parenting - do they have a hierarchical, power/control model of parenting - do they have rigid role expectations of household members. Each of those would be broken down further with multiple questions looking at different aspects. I mean, we do this kind of thing all the time with other measures of various attitudes, it's not really all that difficult or out of the norm. Will hold the beliefs I've just spelled out. You don't need to measure "irrational beliefs" which largely have nothing to do with abuse, to establish that. Sorry, but it really doesn't. People who hold these attitudes and beliefs will abuse no matter what their situation. No, I'm refuting what you are saying. But the main determinant that drives these beliefs is social and cultural norms; not the sorts of things you've been talking about. That doesn't change the fact that hierarchies are part of the problem, to the degree that they normalise and legitimise relationships of power and control. Well, no. We can look at hierarchies (relationships of power and control) and see how they contribute to social norms around power and control, even if they are not egregious enough to "actually contain proven abuse." No, I'd agree that you'd need to see a certain threshold of harm caused before saying a hierarchy is directly abusive. But below that threshold of harm it can still be contributing to a harmful social norm. Well, they're one option among many. I'm not even particularly criticising the police, but I'm not going to claim that they operate in the very best possible way in every instance. Wouldn't totalitarianism be the exact opposite of no one having an advantage over another? That said, no. The solution is to minimise the power and control one person has over another, to the absolute minimum necessary for harm prevention. Because this thread is about the physical abuse of children (and other forms of domestic violence are very closely related). That's the topic. If you're defending hierarchy in this thread, I gather it's because you see hierarchy within the household as good and necessary. It's the topic of the flipping thread. :rolleyes: Well, there's been some of that. But I am attempting to avoid tedious repetition in my own posts. If I've made a point once in replying to your post, I am unlikely to repeat it in the same post. Again, I don't actually owe it to you to respond in the way you want, or even at all. I am free to respond in the way I find constructive. At 83 pages of back-and-forth, I don't think you can really complain that you've not had opportunity to be heard. If I wanted to just end the conversation, I'd log out, and refuse to read or reply to any further posts. I must admit I am wondering at what point that might be the best response. Of course we can. That work's been done. That's why we know that acceptance of violence, hierarchy, power, control, and rigid roles, are the beliefs and attitudes which differentiate abusers from non-abusers, and drive abuse. Please do not misrepresent me. I have not said that all corporal punishment is abuse. I have differentiated between corporal punishment which would not meet the legal definition of abuse, and that which would. Again, it is not abusive to hold a belief. But we choose our behaviours based on our beliefs, and parents who believe that their role as parents is primarily to control their children, and pursue that with an authoritarian style, do run the risk of tipping over into abusive behaviours. And yet the research results have been very clear and consistent. That is not what I asked for. That is not what I said. That is also not what I said, nor is it true. Not what I have said, and complete misrepresentation of my position. I am not talking about differences in advantages, or accomplishment, or success in various ways. I am talking about the power one person has [I]to control another[/I], and that is quite a different thing than being naturally better or working harder at something. [/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