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: 77657066" data-attributes="member: 386627"><p>It's not about whether you agree or disagree. It's about the beliefs which abusive parents hold, and non-abusive parents don't. </p><p></p><p>Yes, clearly a degree of control is necessary due to a child's immaturity. But it's about a healthy degree of control, rather than one where there is control for the sake of it, or control is valued above other things such as the child's healthy individuation, exploration, development, and so on. </p><p></p><p>A parent who sees their role primarily in terms of control - rather, than, say, as a guide, a teacher, a nurturer, a protector, an opener of potential - is far more at risk of being abusive. </p><p></p><p>I've come across it in all kinds of areas, not just this one. It really isn't unusual. </p><p></p><p>Please cite a source. </p><p></p><p>I wouldn't say it tells us anything about whether something is "negative." That's a label we apply. But beliefs do tell us a great deal. </p><p></p><p>I would argue it can't be done in that way at all. You can't look at a profile of risk factors and reliably predict people's beliefs from that. </p><p></p><p>I have asked you repeatedly for evidence of someone holding the cluster of beliefs that are understood to underpin abuse, and yet not being abusive. You have not provided it. </p><p></p><p>No, not at all. People can be unrealistic, in denial, or whatever, in all sorts of ways, and yet not have some psychological problem. We do this all the time. (I see it in the life of congregations all the time! I've currently got a good proportion of a congregation in denial about a building safety issue, because they don't want to face the implications).</p><p></p><p>Not any you've provided.</p><p></p><p>It's not the "vast majority." Abuse happens across all demographics. Eg: see here: <a href="https://isb.idaho.gov/blog/child-abuse-in-affluent-families/" target="_blank">Child Abuse in Affluent Families</a></p><p></p><p>But I don't accept your first premise here. I don't agree that "beliefs are about the mindset and psyche." </p><p></p><p>For a lot of people, this is still their normal. We see this view experessed by several posters in this very thread. </p><p></p><p>No, it isn't. A hierarchy is not a car. It is a social structure, one in which we define its powers and limits. And to the extent that we define those powers and limits in ways which allow one person to exercise control over another, that is part of the problem we are talking about here. </p><p></p><p>To the extent that they are taken as normalising relationships of power and control, though, they contribute to the problem. </p><p></p><p>Except for those at the top, making the decisions, which was my point.</p><p></p><p>Again, just because something is "natural" (even if we agree it's natural, and often I wouldn't), doesn't mean it's good, or healthy, or the way we actually want our society to operate. </p><p></p><p>Hierarchies in the household, which underpin abuse. Without hierarchy - without someone in control, and someone being controlled - there is no abuse. </p><p></p><p>And I have explained to you that I am not going to respond in detail to so-called evidence that is irrelevent or off topic or doesn't actually demonstrate the point being made. I could well ask, what's the point of providing so-called evidence that doesn't even relate to the point being made?</p><p></p><p>No; but they are two necessary prerequisite beliefs to being violent and abusive. In that sense, they are not neutral; they are profoundly dangerous. </p><p></p><p>It would certainly be a red flag. </p><p></p><p>Sure. But you can see that necessity without seeing control as the primary task or role of a parent. </p><p></p><p>On its own, no, but it is very close to being abusive, in that it is rigid, controlling, demanding, and so on, and generally has poor outcomes in child wellbeing. It's obvious how closely related this is to the beliefs which underpin abuse. </p><p></p><p>You're taking parenting advice from a show now? Sounds totally robust and sound. (/sarcasm).</p><p></p><p>You've claimed that. I don't agree that it's blurred at all. </p><p></p><p>No. I asked for evidence for your claim that "The same beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles can be shown to not be abusive."</p><p></p><p>I meant that, frankly, the way you are arguing that corporal punishment can be good, power and control can be good, hierarchy can be good, rigid roles can be good, and so forth, you are arguing for exactly the beliefs which underpin abuse. And I find that so dangerous that I feel the need to continue to refute those arguments, because they should not go unchallenged in this forum, even though I find the fact that anyone would make these arguments, and that I would need to argue against them, deeply distressing. </p><p></p><p>That is not what we mean by hierarchies in the context of abuse. We are talking about relationships of power and control, where one person controls or limits the choices and behaviours of another. </p><p></p><p>No, greater equality is not about removing the opportunities for achievement and advancement. It's not about removing all differences between people. But it is about opening those opportunities up to everyone. And that is important when we consider domestic violence, because (for example) an economically empowered woman is harder to trap in a situation of abuse.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Paidiske, post: 77657066, member: 386627"] It's not about whether you agree or disagree. It's about the beliefs which abusive parents hold, and non-abusive parents don't. Yes, clearly a degree of control is necessary due to a child's immaturity. But it's about a healthy degree of control, rather than one where there is control for the sake of it, or control is valued above other things such as the child's healthy individuation, exploration, development, and so on. A parent who sees their role primarily in terms of control - rather, than, say, as a guide, a teacher, a nurturer, a protector, an opener of potential - is far more at risk of being abusive. I've come across it in all kinds of areas, not just this one. It really isn't unusual. Please cite a source. I wouldn't say it tells us anything about whether something is "negative." That's a label we apply. But beliefs do tell us a great deal. I would argue it can't be done in that way at all. You can't look at a profile of risk factors and reliably predict people's beliefs from that. I have asked you repeatedly for evidence of someone holding the cluster of beliefs that are understood to underpin abuse, and yet not being abusive. You have not provided it. No, not at all. People can be unrealistic, in denial, or whatever, in all sorts of ways, and yet not have some psychological problem. We do this all the time. (I see it in the life of congregations all the time! I've currently got a good proportion of a congregation in denial about a building safety issue, because they don't want to face the implications). Not any you've provided. It's not the "vast majority." Abuse happens across all demographics. Eg: see here: [URL="https://isb.idaho.gov/blog/child-abuse-in-affluent-families/"]Child Abuse in Affluent Families[/URL] But I don't accept your first premise here. I don't agree that "beliefs are about the mindset and psyche." For a lot of people, this is still their normal. We see this view experessed by several posters in this very thread. No, it isn't. A hierarchy is not a car. It is a social structure, one in which we define its powers and limits. And to the extent that we define those powers and limits in ways which allow one person to exercise control over another, that is part of the problem we are talking about here. To the extent that they are taken as normalising relationships of power and control, though, they contribute to the problem. Except for those at the top, making the decisions, which was my point. Again, just because something is "natural" (even if we agree it's natural, and often I wouldn't), doesn't mean it's good, or healthy, or the way we actually want our society to operate. Hierarchies in the household, which underpin abuse. Without hierarchy - without someone in control, and someone being controlled - there is no abuse. And I have explained to you that I am not going to respond in detail to so-called evidence that is irrelevent or off topic or doesn't actually demonstrate the point being made. I could well ask, what's the point of providing so-called evidence that doesn't even relate to the point being made? No; but they are two necessary prerequisite beliefs to being violent and abusive. In that sense, they are not neutral; they are profoundly dangerous. It would certainly be a red flag. Sure. But you can see that necessity without seeing control as the primary task or role of a parent. On its own, no, but it is very close to being abusive, in that it is rigid, controlling, demanding, and so on, and generally has poor outcomes in child wellbeing. It's obvious how closely related this is to the beliefs which underpin abuse. You're taking parenting advice from a show now? Sounds totally robust and sound. (/sarcasm). You've claimed that. I don't agree that it's blurred at all. No. I asked for evidence for your claim that "The same beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles can be shown to not be abusive." I meant that, frankly, the way you are arguing that corporal punishment can be good, power and control can be good, hierarchy can be good, rigid roles can be good, and so forth, you are arguing for exactly the beliefs which underpin abuse. And I find that so dangerous that I feel the need to continue to refute those arguments, because they should not go unchallenged in this forum, even though I find the fact that anyone would make these arguments, and that I would need to argue against them, deeply distressing. That is not what we mean by hierarchies in the context of abuse. We are talking about relationships of power and control, where one person controls or limits the choices and behaviours of another. No, greater equality is not about removing the opportunities for achievement and advancement. It's not about removing all differences between people. But it is about opening those opportunities up to everyone. And that is important when we consider domestic violence, because (for example) an economically empowered woman is harder to trap in a situation of abuse. [/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