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 can understand accepting violence in parents as an abusive belief and parenting but I disgree with the others. For example a parental hierarchal structure with the parents in control over the child rather than the other way around is regarded as a healthy and necessary setup for parents.
The hierarchy that exists within a family serves as one of the essential building blocks that helps to build the foundation upon which a family is constructed. With a strong foundation that has distinct boundaries between the hierarchical levels, the family can be a stable force with a strong edifice. But, without clear boundaries and with a weak hierarchical structure, the family unit can crumble and collapse under the pressure of the diffuse boundaries.
Hierarchy in Family Systems Theory
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.
But we don't do it like your saying. The first go to model for understanding behaviour and the beliefs and thinking behind it is the eteological model with is a multilevel view of individual, family, community and the wider societal determinants that influence behaviour.
We don't just look at belief. It doesn't tell us anything apart for its a negative belief. It doesn't tell us how people come to believe in these things which is vital to understanding the issues. This can only be done with risk factors or determinants of behaviour.
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.
I think we do as parents can hold the same beliefs and not have irrational thinking and not abuse ie both parents hold the belief in CP but one abuses and one doesn't.
The abuser distorts the legal restrictions believing that what they are doing is good for the child when in fact its destructive. They are in denial, percieving things as unrealistic. To be seeing things unrealitically requires cognitive distorted thinking and that requires some psychological problem going on ie over anxious making things worse than they really are.
Sorry, but it really doesn't. People who hold these attitudes and beliefs will abuse no matter what their situation.
Well the evidence clearly contradicts this. Abuse happens in the vast majority of the time where risk factors have gathered. People can hold the same beliefs without the risk factors and not abuse.
No, I'm refuting what you are saying.
If the beliefs are about the mindset and psyche then you must agree that the mindset and psyche of abusers is distorted to believe such things. They go hand in hand.
But the main determinant that drives these beliefs is social and cultural norms; not the sorts of things you've been talking about.
But if they are driven by social norms which everyone follows then how is this abusive. There are no such social norms as abusive CP is acceptable. There is however a norm that we should discipline our kids and CP is part of that. So actual belief of the abuser is taking the social norm and distorting it.
So if society has the same norms and abusers are distorting these we cannot say its the norms themselves but rather we can determine abusers by the distortions they make about the norms and acceptable and normal beliefs society holds.
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.
Thats why I keep reminding you that it is not good to single out hierarchies or certain setups as abusive themselves but rather qualify things by naming exactly what they are "abusive and controlling hierarchies and roles or whatever the situation is like relationship, marriage ect.
Otherwise when you say the structure of a hierarchy is inherently abusive your being misleading because they can also be beneficial and healthy. Its like attributing positive and negative behaviours to a car. The car is just the structure and has no 'will' to abuse. These structures only become a weapon or tool of abuse or of benefit by the humans that occupy them.
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."
Yes and we do that, we have internal checks and balances to reduce abuse of power or abuse fullstop like anti descrimination laws. In fact DEI law and policy has become an industry in itself and we have become hyper vigelant regarding equality even to the point of reverse desrimination with affirmative action.
But I am saying the systems and setups that we do these checks on are already hierarchal and they are not abusive in themselves but rather a necessary setup to exist and function as a society and even give everyone some sense of who they are and where they fit in to society so they can participate with rights.
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.
I think this is the biggest issue facing society today. The determination of what is harm or not and the complex problem of balancing the many conflicting rights of identity politics. One groups rights is another groups abuse. Like I said determining which beliefs are best is not so straight forward.
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.
I am not talking about every micro situation. I am talking about the basic idea of a society have law and order which means giving a trained set of law enforcers certain powers. It means giving the department powers. Not just police but also polititians. health professionals, people working in vital industries that run society.
But the police have the most power. So what other way but law and order can we run a society. The Woke want to defund the police but are the first to call them when in trouble. Should we have stress vigelantes or maybe turn a blind eye and let people run wild. NOt sure what these many options are.
Wouldn't totalitarianism be the exact opposite of no one having an advantage over another?
Totalitarianism basically takes peoples rights away, opportunities away. Basically most totalitarian nations the people live in poverty and are oppressed. Some more than others like certain political or religious beliefs. Thats sort of happening in western nations today.
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.
I mean apart from the obvious I think this is impossible because much of the differences in power and control are just a natural consequence. If we start policing nortmal behaviour which is sort of happening now then this is only going to make matters worse by dividing people are making then resentful towards each other.
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.
Well actually my main basis for supporting hierarchies as not inherently abusive is the general use of hierarchies, hierarchies as a concept and not in any particular example. If anything I have focused on society itself, hierarchies in organisations, Insitutions to help society function. Or in social settings in how we generally rank others in hierarchies of competence.
It's the topic of the flipping thread.
What hierarchies in marriages.
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.
Its not about being heard but about engaging in debate, arguing against evidence with evidence rather than just making unsupported claims. Its hard to even have a debate if there is no way to determine facts from personal opinion or beliefs.
I have forgotten how many times you have just skipped over evidence I have linked, without a word about them. I mean whats the use of even providing evidence if its ignored.
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.
No we don't. Acceptence of hierarchies is not violence or abusive. Acceptence of rigid roles is not inherently violent or abusive. You keep conflating these neutral setups as abusive when they can also be normal, beneficial and healtthy. I have given you the evidence.
LIke I said acceptence of violence and abusive control, power and rigid roles yes as it qualifies that its abusive. But hierarchies and even rigid roles as in chain of command and organisations is not violence or abusive.
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.
Therefore beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles like CP is not inherently abusive if it doesn't meet the legal definition of abuse.
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,
That is not a sign of abuse. All parents see the need to control their childs behaviour, to point out the misbehaviour and discipline when necessary to teach a child to be a responsible adult.
and pursue that with an authoritarian style, do run the risk of tipping over into abusive behaviours.
The authoritarian styleparenting is also not abusive. I mean this was one of the accepted parenting methods on that parenting show so its obviously a recommended alternative and successful form of parenting. Like anything its the management and maturity of the parents to use these methods properly. You can even make a case that non disciplinary method is abusive in that it causes poor behaviour and problems.
And yet the research results have been very clear and consistent.
No they havn't as we have seen the line between what is abuse or not is blurred. You were even arguing that abusers have a rational basis for their beliefs. I have just shown that the difference between someone who believes in CP and doesn't abuse and someone who does have similar beliefs in CP. Its just a matter of distorting the same belief.
I have also said that there are current examples of beliefs which are abusive which are being promoted right now in policy which shows as a society we are incapable of identifying potential beliefs that will lead to abuse and violence. I have also shown that beliefs in hierarchies and rigid roles or Trad marriages which may have rigid roles are not inherently abusive. So the same beliefs about the same things can be both abusive and not abusive. Theres not clear stock standard determination of the core belief itself as to be abusive or not.
That is not what I asked for.
You asked for natural beliefs in hierarchies. If people naturally behave in ways that promote and support hierarchies then they believe in them. Otherwise they would not behave that way.
That is also not what I said, nor is it true.
What did you mean then.
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.
BUt that is what most hierarchies are, thats how they are formed based on differences in competence, accomplishments and being successful. Successful people occupy the top of the hierarchy and they accumulate advantages over others.
These differences in competencies is how we structure society, our institutions, systems of law, health education into hierarchies of competence. This helps make things run smoothly but also ensures effeciency and sorting out problems better and quicker and not ending up in chaos.
I am talking about the power one person has to control another, and that is quite a different thing than being naturally better or working harder at something.
OK I thought prevention, well at least your article on prevention was talking about prevention as in equalizing society. By equalizing society we reduce the imbalances where some rise above others which presents opportunities for people to take advantage and control and abuse others.
Therefore womens rights, improvements in % of work, equal pay, gender, race and sex equality, improving the power of the disempowered such as the disadvantaged so they have more say, more control over their lives and are not in a position where they are subject to others, to the law, the system.
I mean we know when abuse happens, we know the end result but the idea is to nip it in the bud before it develops into abuse. So prevention is about equalizing society, changing beliefs that deny the equalization of society regardless of differences. Restructuring society where those situations of inequality and more equalled out including the insitutions and systems within.