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: 77657979" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>Any beliefs which normalise gender hierarchy contribute to a culture of abuse. </p><p></p><p>You don't have to have any particular cognitive distortion going on to have unrealistic expectations. Again, that's pretty normal for a lot of people, a lot of the time. </p><p></p><p>No, I wouldn't say that, at all. It's not about "positive" or "negative" experiences. It is often just about what is normalised in our environment.</p><p></p><p>Except there is no common cause. Different people form their beliefs through different influences and experiences. </p><p></p><p>This has been my argument; abusers hold a cluster of beliefs which non-abusers do not. But you cannot, from that point, generalise about the underlying "mindset" which gives rise to that cluster of beliefs.</p><p></p><p>The clinical scales of irrational beliefs are not measuring something directly related to abuse. Measures of beliefs which underpin abuse, are. </p><p></p><p>Not directly. Awfulising is not directly about parenting. Downing is not directly about parenting. These things play out in how we parent, but they are not attitudes about parenting. </p><p></p><p>But of the traits measured by the PRIBS, only demandingness relates to the beliefs which underpin abuse. The others do not. </p><p></p><p>And yet, when you scrutinise what it's actually measuring, that is the case. The PRIBS does not measure acceptance of violence, for a start.</p><p></p><p>There is no other way to tell what is abuse or not, than by making a subjective value judgement. </p><p></p><p>We do the best we can with the information we have, based on observed outcomes. </p><p></p><p>Yes, really. We do what we believe to be right or best or necessary in the moment, based on our assessment of the situation, which is filtered through our belief and value systems. </p><p></p><p>You just simply have not demonstrated this to be the case. "Unreal expectations" do not lead to acceptance of violence. "Unreal expectations" do not lead to an ideology of power and control. They might relate to rigid roles, but it's not enough to explain the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. </p><p></p><p>You look for the cluster of relevant beliefs. If all three are there - acceptance of violence; hierarchy, power and control; and rigid household roles - then we know that that person is very likely to act on those beliefs in an abusive way. </p><p></p><p>I keep asking for evidence...</p><p></p><p>No; we are talking about the distinct cluster of beliefs held by those who abuse, and not held by those who don't. </p><p></p><p>You might think so, but that's not what the reserach shows. </p><p></p><p>Yes, yes it is. This is an old article, but it helps explain some of what i am saying: <a href="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-09/harris-submission-to-your-husband-is-a-dangerous-doctrine/6290304" target="_blank">Submission to your husband is a dangerous doctrine</a></p><p></p><p>"But ideas have consequences, and one of these, in any hierarchical relationship (especially one configured on a fixed difference like gender), is an abuse of power." </p><p></p><p>Incidentally, this article makes a nice distinction between dominance hierarchies and prestige hierarchies; I am talking in this thread about dominance hierarchies, but it might be helpful to clarify the difference: <a href="https://www.mandtsystem.com/2021/03/08/hierarchy-status-aggression/" target="_blank">Hierarchy, Status, & Aggression... - The Mandt System</a></p><p></p><p>Belief by itself is not abusive; but it leads to abusive behaviour. </p><p></p><p>Normal, maybe. Natural? I've told you many times, I don't accept the idea of a "natural" belief. And even if it were, that wouldn't mean it was automatically good!</p><p></p><p>What I would say is that I'm someone with an academic background in genetics and human development, who finds the arguments for biological causes to things like complex behaviour scientifically unfounded. </p><p></p><p>Good grief. Do you realise that not even all Christians would accept the idea of a disembodied soul?</p><p></p><p>My point is that "stealing" is entirely a cultural construct, not some sort of universal, instinctive ethic.</p><p></p><p>I'm saying our ideas about what murder or rape or stealing even are, are not consistent. There's no universal, instinctive ethic about any of these things.</p><p></p><p>Except this is clearly false! if we all had that moral sense, nobody would do these things. But they do.</p><p></p><p>Or our consciences weren't formed to recognise these things in the first place. You can't be in denial about a truth you never knew.</p><p></p><p>Because we have majority social agreement that we are better off that way. </p><p></p><p>Not quite. The OHCHR says: "Human rights are <strong>inalienable</strong>. They should not be taken away, except in specific situations and according to due process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a person is found guilty of a crime by a court of law."</p><p></p><p>It's off topic, so I don't want to pursue it at length, but I will just note that I don't accept this claim as true at all. </p><p></p><p>We were discussing whether "merit" would automatically give rise to relationships of power and control (hierarchy), but you seem to have lost track of that point there.</p><p></p><p>Seriously? Here's an example. I'm going to claim that I have some natural talent and work hard (I have a measure of merit). But I've also had the benefit of not growing up in a war zone. Of living in households affluent enough that secure shelter, food, clean water, and access to resources has always been available to me. Of having access to a really good education, through to Masters' level, without crippling debt. Of growing up in a multi-lingual, multicultural home. Of being literate and numerate. Of being born white in a time and place where that gave me incredible advantage. And so on. (I've also had disadvantages, but they're a separate question).</p><p></p><p>There are plenty of people in this world with just as much merit as I have, who don't have the other advantages I've had, and who won't achieve as much in external "success," through no lack of merit or hard work, but through lack of opportunity and privilege. </p><p></p><p>I can recognise that others have had privileges I have not had, (and that I have had privileges others have not had) and that there are systemic oppressions in place, without blaming the individuals concerned or claiming that they, personally, are disadvantaging others. </p><p></p><p>Isn't that what you're trying to claim? That hierarchies are just the normal, natural result of differences in merit?</p><p></p><p>Sometimes surprisingly few.</p><p></p><p>Ahem, well. I think we don't have to look far to see the fruit of a lack of "merit" in many people exercising power.</p><p></p><p>Maybe, but in practice we reward many things other than competence and merit.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77657979, member: 386627"] Any beliefs which normalise gender hierarchy contribute to a culture of abuse. You don't have to have any particular cognitive distortion going on to have unrealistic expectations. Again, that's pretty normal for a lot of people, a lot of the time. No, I wouldn't say that, at all. It's not about "positive" or "negative" experiences. It is often just about what is normalised in our environment. Except there is no common cause. Different people form their beliefs through different influences and experiences. This has been my argument; abusers hold a cluster of beliefs which non-abusers do not. But you cannot, from that point, generalise about the underlying "mindset" which gives rise to that cluster of beliefs. The clinical scales of irrational beliefs are not measuring something directly related to abuse. Measures of beliefs which underpin abuse, are. Not directly. Awfulising is not directly about parenting. Downing is not directly about parenting. These things play out in how we parent, but they are not attitudes about parenting. But of the traits measured by the PRIBS, only demandingness relates to the beliefs which underpin abuse. The others do not. And yet, when you scrutinise what it's actually measuring, that is the case. The PRIBS does not measure acceptance of violence, for a start. There is no other way to tell what is abuse or not, than by making a subjective value judgement. We do the best we can with the information we have, based on observed outcomes. Yes, really. We do what we believe to be right or best or necessary in the moment, based on our assessment of the situation, which is filtered through our belief and value systems. You just simply have not demonstrated this to be the case. "Unreal expectations" do not lead to acceptance of violence. "Unreal expectations" do not lead to an ideology of power and control. They might relate to rigid roles, but it's not enough to explain the cluster of beliefs which underpin abuse. You look for the cluster of relevant beliefs. If all three are there - acceptance of violence; hierarchy, power and control; and rigid household roles - then we know that that person is very likely to act on those beliefs in an abusive way. I keep asking for evidence... No; we are talking about the distinct cluster of beliefs held by those who abuse, and not held by those who don't. You might think so, but that's not what the reserach shows. Yes, yes it is. This is an old article, but it helps explain some of what i am saying: [URL="https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-09/harris-submission-to-your-husband-is-a-dangerous-doctrine/6290304"]Submission to your husband is a dangerous doctrine[/URL] "But ideas have consequences, and one of these, in any hierarchical relationship (especially one configured on a fixed difference like gender), is an abuse of power." Incidentally, this article makes a nice distinction between dominance hierarchies and prestige hierarchies; I am talking in this thread about dominance hierarchies, but it might be helpful to clarify the difference: [URL="https://www.mandtsystem.com/2021/03/08/hierarchy-status-aggression/"]Hierarchy, Status, & Aggression... - The Mandt System[/URL] Belief by itself is not abusive; but it leads to abusive behaviour. Normal, maybe. Natural? I've told you many times, I don't accept the idea of a "natural" belief. And even if it were, that wouldn't mean it was automatically good! What I would say is that I'm someone with an academic background in genetics and human development, who finds the arguments for biological causes to things like complex behaviour scientifically unfounded. Good grief. Do you realise that not even all Christians would accept the idea of a disembodied soul? My point is that "stealing" is entirely a cultural construct, not some sort of universal, instinctive ethic. I'm saying our ideas about what murder or rape or stealing even are, are not consistent. There's no universal, instinctive ethic about any of these things. Except this is clearly false! if we all had that moral sense, nobody would do these things. But they do. Or our consciences weren't formed to recognise these things in the first place. You can't be in denial about a truth you never knew. Because we have majority social agreement that we are better off that way. Not quite. The OHCHR says: "Human rights are [B]inalienable[/B]. They should not be taken away, except in specific situations and according to due process. For example, the right to liberty may be restricted if a person is found guilty of a crime by a court of law." It's off topic, so I don't want to pursue it at length, but I will just note that I don't accept this claim as true at all. We were discussing whether "merit" would automatically give rise to relationships of power and control (hierarchy), but you seem to have lost track of that point there. Seriously? Here's an example. I'm going to claim that I have some natural talent and work hard (I have a measure of merit). But I've also had the benefit of not growing up in a war zone. Of living in households affluent enough that secure shelter, food, clean water, and access to resources has always been available to me. Of having access to a really good education, through to Masters' level, without crippling debt. Of growing up in a multi-lingual, multicultural home. Of being literate and numerate. Of being born white in a time and place where that gave me incredible advantage. And so on. (I've also had disadvantages, but they're a separate question). There are plenty of people in this world with just as much merit as I have, who don't have the other advantages I've had, and who won't achieve as much in external "success," through no lack of merit or hard work, but through lack of opportunity and privilege. I can recognise that others have had privileges I have not had, (and that I have had privileges others have not had) and that there are systemic oppressions in place, without blaming the individuals concerned or claiming that they, personally, are disadvantaging others. Isn't that what you're trying to claim? That hierarchies are just the normal, natural result of differences in merit? Sometimes surprisingly few. Ahem, well. I think we don't have to look far to see the fruit of a lack of "merit" in many people exercising power. Maybe, but in practice we reward many things other than competence and merit. [/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