Clobber a child? Pope Frank says "Yes"

jank

robindch wrote: »

It's not a "bastardised version of eugenics". Instead, it'd be closer to "murder of humans justified using an 'ought' (fallaciously) derived from a 'is' (which happened to be false anyway)".

See David Hume's "Is–ought problem":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

Quite apart from the Is-Ought fallacy, Stalin, Hitler and the rest of the usual had views which were broadly Lamarckian, not Darwinian.

As I said, bastardised. Thanks for agreeing.

Moving on, at the time many of those 'teachings' was accepted as scientific fact by many. Sure if wasn't until the 80's that the American Medical Association dropped its claim that homosexuality was a 'condition'. Hindsight is wonderful.

You made reference to religious groupings using natural law by their own definition. I just made the clarification that this is not unique to religious groupings with ample evidence from history may I add with disastrous consequences for those Untermensch.

MayoAreMagic

Brian Shanahan wrote: »

Yes you were trying to put atheism and science on the same low level as religion and I called you out on it.

No actually you were just trying to put words in my mouth for the sake of having a comeback (that was mindful not to actually be relevant to the point).

Dades

volchitsa wrote: »

Humans are not identical to mammals, largely because of our capacity for self awareness and also our level of complex speech. We can explain to our offspring what we want them to do, and they can understand.

And that's why we live in a utopia! Because you can explain right and wrong to humans and they understand and abide by it without the need for prisons, police, courts, penalties, fines etc.

Surely slapping is a deterrent, not an aid to explanation.

robindch

jank wrote: »

As I said, bastardised. Thanks for agreeing.

Well, perhaps my clarification wasn't quite clear enough - the eugenic programs carried out by Hitler et al were not "bastardized". They were "lethal".

jank wrote: »

I just made the clarification that this is not unique to religious groupings with ample evidence from history may I add with disastrous consequences for those Untermensch.

Indeed - religions are one instance of a more general human tendency to create distinct outgroups, the demonization of which can be used to reinforce ingroup unity.

It works the same whether it's Hitler and the jews, Mao and the intellectuals, religious people and competing religions (or the gheys and other groups which reject religious rules for baby-production).

One eyed Jack

Dades wrote: »

And that's why we live in a utopia! Because you can explain right and wrong to humans and they understand and abide by it without the need for prisons, police, courts, penalties, fines etc.

Surely slapping is a deterrent, not an aid to explanation.

Reminds me of this programme airing tonight on Channel 4 at 10pm, may be of interest to some posters here (bold emphasis my own) -


Channel 4 to explore life behind bars of America's Kid Criminals

In America at any one time there are over 70,000 children behind bars. In Kid Criminals, an extraordinary two-part documentary from an award-winning production team, Channel 4 will explore some of the toughest juvenile prisons in the US and meet the child inmates, some of whom have committed the most shocking crimes imaginable.

In the US state of Indiana, children as young as 10 can be tried within the adult criminal justice system if the crimes are deemed serious enough or if they are repeated offenders. Most juveniles will have indeterminate sentences.

Produced by Plum Pictures and with unprecedented access, this two-part documentary will deal with the different aspects of these juvenile prisons, following them from the intake unit at Logansport Correctional Facility where all juveniles in the state are processed to the male inmates at maximum security Pendleton Juvenile Correctional Facility and the female juveniles at Madison Juvenile Correctional Facility.

There are currently 233 juveniles serving sentences for crimes which include battery, armed robbery, arson and murder.

With extraordinary insight into the crimes and their aftermath, both guards and inmates give poignant and candid interviews on life on the inside.

Clutter (14) and McNair (14) are best friends and roommates held together at Pendleton Correctional facility. They are also sex offenders. Most offenders in Indiana have non determinate sentences. The teens have to complete a sex offender’s programme before they are eligible to be released.

William McConnell is Pendleton Juvenile's most notorious sex offender. At 18 years old this is his third time in the department of corrections. This time he's spent eight month on the segregation unit where staff can keep a close eye on him so he doesn't attempt to groom the younger juveniles. In the programme he says: “I don't like hurting people. Sometimes I have a click in my head that says; you know what, they wouldn’t mind if I hurt them.”

At the girls prison, Madison Correctional, we meet Artyamsoal (17) who has been in and out of prison since the age of 12 years old and is now serving time for an arson which killed three children.

The film follows the daily routine in the three high security prisons, and witnesses the effect their crime has had both on the children and their families.

Clutter commented: “I'm just going to be honest; I lie, steal and manipulate people both outside and in here. I know right from wrong, I just choose to do wrong.”

Ms Prince, the prison counsellor: “Some of these kids have been gone so long the parents don't even know them anymore... They're growing up before my eyes.”

In some cases, it was the families themselves who introduced their children to a life of crime, as one mother reveals her own criminal and violent past to her son on a prison visit where he is serving time for breaking into an apartment and stealing a handgun.

This hard-hitting documentary also looks at the work of the counsellors, superintendents and case workers who deal with the day to day issues around working with children whose crimes are so serious it could see them spend most of their adult lives inside.

There's a thread currently running in After Hours that also discusses using smacking as a means to instill discipline in children. I personally think that people who are so focussed solely on smacking itself, are actually missing the wider picture of actual abuse of children which can take many forms, as any method of discipline can be used to abuse -

One eyed Jack wrote: »

The problem is Streetwalker that I wouldn't think it's made up, and stories like that should be taken seriously. The thing is that they're not, because some people are more concerned with passing judgment on parents who use smacking as a method to discipline their children, and they miss obvious signs of non-physical abuse such as emotional and psychological manipulation, bullying and abuse of children.

That "seven whatever of highly effective people" guy, only one poster spotted the choking hazard of chewing gum, nobody seems to have spotted the bribery techniques, and then he fluffs out the anecdote with window dressing about human beings wanting to share.

All these time-out techniques, naughty steps, withdrawal of toys, grounding, isolation, I could name 100 other child discipline techniques that would never require a person to lay a hand on a child, but they can all be classified as psychological and emotional abuse of a person, and people are right when they say that children are little people, because by that standard, I've met plenty of adults whose parents never laid a hand on them, but they are all sorts of emotionally and psychologically stunted, unable to function as adults.

If you talk to enough people, including children and adults, you gain a much better understanding of abuse and abusive relationships between people, and just what constitutes an abusive relationship that can lead to long term emotional and psychological damage in a person long after any physical scars have healed.

Using smacking as a method of instilling discipline in a child isn't abuse IMO, using ANY method of discipline with a child is not harmful in and of itself to instill discipline (what some people classify as 'reasoning' with a child can also be classified verbal, emotional and psychological abuse); what IS harmful however, and what can leave a long lasting impression that's much harder to overcome, is when I meet people that can't tell the difference between discipline and abuse.

Discipline is about instilling a sense of responsibility in a person towards themselves and towards other people, teaching them to exercise self-control and set boundaries for themselves and to recognise and respect other people's boundaries, to care for and respect themselves and other people.

Abuse is just using any tool or technique at your disposal to get your own way, to fulfill your own selfish needs and desires. It'd be nice if people could learn the difference instead of talking about nonsense campaigns and ineffective legislation that would do SFA to tackle the issue of smacking children, when it's not the smacking that's the problem. It's the abuse of people is the problem, whether that be physical, mental, emotional, psychological, verbal, and even written abuse and online abuse. That's where the real underlying issue is. The way in which it presents itself is only a symptom of the underlying cause or causes that contribute to the pervasive narcissistic, self-centred, insecure, insular, anxious and selfish attitude more evident in society now than at any time before in human history. We may not beat each other with sticks any more, but who needs do that when psychological manipulation is so much more efficient, effective, and less obvious, in enabling us to get our own way with other people, whether they be children or adults.

volchitsa

Dades wrote: »

And that's why we live in a utopia! Because you can explain right and wrong to humans and they understand and abide by it without the need for prisons, police, courts, penalties, fines etc.

Surely slapping is a deterrent, not an aid to explanation.

1) I don't think it's proven that slapping is an effective deterrent, that's kind of the point!

2) Children are not normally treated like criminals within their own families, so the treatment used for people who have already been tried and convicted probably isn't best adapted to child rearing. Not that prisoners get slapped either, come to that.

So really I don't see your point.

Dades

volchitsa wrote: »

1) I don't think it's proven that slapping is an effective deterrent, that's kind of the point!

Neither is a very occasional slap shown not to work, or that it will inevitably traumatise a child. We are in the realm of opinion here - nobody should be bringing up proof of anything.

volchitsa wrote: »

2) Children are not normally treated like criminals within their own families, so the treatment used for people who have already been tried and convicted probably isn't best adapted to child rearing. Not that prisoners get slapped either, come to that.

So really I don't see your point.

My point was that people - adults and children - don't always act like they know they should, which is why we have punishments for both as a deterrent.

For adults we have prison, fines, criminal records, etc. For kids there's scolding, confiscation, the naughty step, grounding - and some suggest - the odd slap.

robindch

Dades wrote: »

Neither is a very occasional slap shown not to work, or that it will inevitably traumatise a child.

Can't speak for any other parents, but for myself, I see slapping a child as a breakdown of trust between the two. Yes, it may have a short-term deterrent effect in terms of stopping a child doing whatever it is the child was slapped for, but longer-term, I think it'll also encourage the child to avoid being caught doing it next time. Nor am I denying that there are good reasons why a child should acquire "not getting caught" skills too, just as a child should acquire skills in deceit :rolleyes:

But when it comes down to it, I'd prefer my child trust me as much as possible, and if that means that I'll avoid slapping her and therefore having to put up with crappy behaviour from time to time, then that's the bearable cost I'll put up with.

That's separate, btw, from the "protection from danger" situations, where I usually leave her get into as much danger as I know I can safely yank her back out of without much harm. And if she looks like she's going to harm herself, whether she realizes it or not, I'll do frequently overreact to reinforce inhibition next time around.

Swings and roundabouts really.

equivariant

Dades wrote: »

..We are in the realm of opinion here - nobody should be bringing up proof of anything.

This is a good point which should be applied to almost every single thread on this forum

My point was that people - adults and children - don't always act like they know they should, which is why we have punishments for both as a deterrent.

For adults we have prison, fines, criminal records, etc. For kids there's scolding, confiscation, the naughty step, grounding - and some suggest - the odd slap.

There are many things that probably will not traumatise a child in any long lasting way. However, that doesn't mean that they are 'right'. Since as you correctly pointed out, we are discussing opinions, I will offer one.

I was slapped as a child (by a grandparent) - I don't think that I suffered any real pyschological distress (although, just because I think that doesn't make it so). However the thought of ever slapping one of my own children is repulsive. I occasionally find myself raising my voice in frustration and every time it happens I feel a sinking sense of failure. Any kind of aggression (verbal/physical/..) from a parent to a child is a sign of complete failure on the parent's behalf.

I also have to say that comparisons with the penal system are far-fetched. Familial relationships are based (or at least should be IMO) on completely different premises. The thought of applying even the most mild form of physical aggression to someone whom I love is just appalling to me. I can see how it can happen (loss of control) but if I ever found myself doing something like that, I think that I would immediately seek the help of a counsellor or a psychiatrist.

Dades

robindch wrote: »

Can't speak for any other parents, but for myself, I see slapping a child as a breakdown of trust between the two. Yes, it may have a short-term deterrent effect in terms of stopping a child doing whatever it is the child was slapped for, but longer-term, I think it'll also encourage the child to avoid being caught doing it next time.

I'm not sure why you'd draw that conclusion, tbh. If a child decides to avoid getting caught to avoid consequences that's simply a conscious decision to continue to disobey but with more smarts.

equivariant wrote: »

I also have to say that comparisons with the penal system are far-fetched. Familial relationships are based (or at least should be IMO) on completely different premises. The thought of applying even the most mild form of physical aggression to someone whom I love is just appalling to me. I can see how it can happen (loss of control) but if I ever found myself doing something like that, I think that I would immediately seek the help of a counsellor or a psychiatrist.

That's a wonderful sentiment, really.

Of course some parents with the very best of intention have really troublesome children. Problems that you, Robin or myself couldn't imagine. I feel for those frazzled parents who might read this thread incredulously and wonder what kind of nerfed world we live in now where something so innocuous as a slap is spoken about as if it were water-boarding.

Also, I'd love to see an opinion poll on this cross rerefenced with who has boys in their family.

lazygal

I said on the first page of this thread, and I'll repeat it again, that slapping did not work on me. I merely resented my parents for humiliating me and vowed to never slap my own children. I would not use physical force on my husband or a friend no matter how frazzled I was, so I don't see any circumstances in which it is acceptable to use it on my children.

ETA I have a son and a daughter. They are very different personalities and present very different challenges. I don't see any physical punishment as innocuous and I will not use it on either of them.

equivariant

Dades wrote: »

Also, I'd love to see an opinion poll on this cross rerefenced with who has boys in their family.

I sense a stonking big can of worms being opened here:eek:

PS Boy and two girls in our family

PPS On the issue of an 'innocuous slap', I would pose the following questions. Is there any situation where a slap of a child from a non parent/guardian would be considered innocuous? If the answer to that question is no (I suspect that it is for most people), then what is it about a parental relationship (eg) that could make a slap acceptable while it is not acceptable from a non parent? I find it hard to imagine a good answer to the second of those questions - but maybe I haven't thought it through fully.

volchitsa

Dades wrote: »

I'm not sure why you'd draw that conclusion, tbh. If a child decides to avoid getting caught to avoid consequences that's simply a conscious decision to continue to disobey but with more smarts.

That's a wonderful sentiment, really.

Of course some parents with the very best of intention have really troublesome children. Problems that you, Robin or myself couldn't imagine. I feel for those frazzled parents who might read this thread incredulously and wonder what kind of nerfed world we live in now where something so innocuous as a slap is spoken about as if it were water-boarding.

Also, I'd love to see an opinion poll on this cross rerefenced with who has boys in their family.

I have both. One of my boys was very difficult. The other had quite a loot of the same personality traits, but in the meantime I had honed my parenting skills and didn't need to slap him. He's strong willed but always able to discuss things. It helps that they're intelligent and can express themselves easily (I don't mean that to be boastful, but it does matter for boys, who sometimes arent as verbal as girls.)

I will say that I do sometimes see a problem for single mothers with boys, but I don't think physical punishment helps, because the problem only becomes acute when the boy gets as big or as strong as his mother.

In fact recourse to physical punishment when small is more likely to lead the mother to have problems with those same teenage boys later on, IMO.

Dades

equivariant wrote: »

I sense a stonking big can of worms being opened here:eek:

Just threw that in to liven things up!

equivariant wrote: »

PPS On the issue of an 'innocuous slap', I would pose the following questions. Is there any situation where a slap of a child from a non parent/guardian would be considered innocuous? If the answer to that question is no (I suspect that it is for most people), then what is it about a parental relationship (eg) that could make a slap acceptable while it is not acceptable from a non parent? I find it hard to imagine a good answer to the second of those questions - but maybe I haven't thought it through fully.

I tried to address a similar question earlier.

It's not something you'd readily entrust to someone else's judgement. And if a slap was only something for exceptional circumstances (at the very most) then it isn't something to delegate.

Neyite

My child is in crèche for about 10 hours a day, 5 days a week give or take.

In those 50 hours his minders manage not to slap him. And I'm pretty sure that like any other toddler, he tests them well on that. And if they can managed not to slap him in order to correct behaviour then surely I as his parent, should be able to manage it.

I slapped him once. He kept running away from me in a large busy supermarket despite repeatedly asking him not to. He was 2. So I managed to catch up and smacked his hand to give out. He looked momentarily puzzled at his hand, and at me, and took off again. I slapped his hand - (likely an automatic reaction because that was the example I had grown up with) because I was getting worked up and frazzled and not in control, not to teach him a lesson and I knew the moment I did it it was the wrong thing to do.

What DID work a charm was to bodily carry him out screaming to the car telling him firmly we were going home because I was very very cross with him running away, and that he was NOT coming shopping ever again. By the time we got to the car, he was saying sorry and wanting hug and kiss me. We went home regardless, as that was the punishment. Since then I always use a trolley and he now happily sits in there while I can shop more or less at leisure. We both learned. He learned that if he runs away, we abandon the outing and there is no treat at the end for him, and I learned to corral him!

volchitsa

Neyite wrote: »

My child is in crèche for about 10 hours a day, 5 days a week give or take.

In those 50 hours his minders manage not to slap him. And I'm pretty sure that like any other toddler, he tests them well on that. And if they can managed not to slap him in order to correct behaviour then surely I as his parent, should be able to manage it.

I slapped him once. He kept running away from me in a large busy supermarket despite repeatedly asking him not to. He was 2. So I managed to catch up and smacked his hand to give out. He looked momentarily puzzled at his hand, and at me, and took off again. I slapped his hand - (likely an automatic reaction because that was the example I had grown up with) because I was getting worked up and frazzled and not in control, not to teach him a lesson and I knew the moment I did it it was the wrong thing to do.

What DID work a charm was to bodily carry him out screaming to the car telling him firmly we were going home because I was very very cross with him running away, and that he was NOT coming shopping ever again. By the time we got to the car, he was saying sorry and wanting hug and kiss me. We went home regardless, as that was the punishment. Since then I always use a trolley and he now happily sits in there while I can shop more or less at leisure. We both learned. He learned that if he runs away, we abandon the outing and there is no treat at the end for him, and I learned to corral him!

Exactly, good post.

That's just the sort of anecdote that illustrates my point about parenting being a learned skill. I know now that I could have managed to bring up my eldest without slapping him, but I don't beat myself up (ha!) over it. I started out with the parenting techniques I'd been "taught" by my parents - who weren't violent people, but we were hit because everyone was hit back then (I'm 50).

I was luckier than my parents that we had access to contraception, so we had three children, not seven, so I wasn't permanently frazzled for the first decade or more of motherhood. So unlike my mother, I had a little more time to think about things and maybe learn from my mistakes faster than she did. Though now I think of it, I seem to remember my youngest brother probably didn't get slapped much either, so maybe I'm not even right that we did any better than my parents did.

But I know we did a lot better than my o/h's parents, who were very free with a clip around the ear, something ours never had.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

Exactly, good post.

That's just the sort of anecdote that illustrates my point about parenting being a learned skill.

I know they do robot babies in the States as a sort of parenting "apprenticeship", but it's not like there are any qualifications a person has to meet before they become a parent, so IMO calling parenting a skill, or making like it's a test where people use terms like "failing as a parent" and so on are utterly meaningless really, because they are completely unquantifiable. How does one "succeed" as a parent then, and when does one know they passed, before they pass away themselves at least?

These are the kinds of loaded and emotive terms used by other people to pass judgment on people and they really don't help IMO. They may make the person passing judgment feel better about themselves, but they do nothing to help the parents experiencing distress, and they don't change the circumstances of the children in their care.

I think people who are averse to using physical methods to instill discipline in their children, would baulk and raise eyebrows at the suggestion that they are using psychological and emotional manipulation techniques to raise their children. Sounds rather insidious when it's expressed like that, and yet that's what these people consider should be socially acceptable!

Should we be teaching children how to be emotionally and psychologically manipulative? Because if that's the sort of skills children are learning from their parents, then I really don't think they're in any position to judge people who are averse to using such techniques in raising their children to be mature, emotionally and psychologically well balanced adults.

There really is no one size fits all method to raising children, and there's no failing as a parent or passing as a parent. There's simply being a human being and being aware of other people who may need your help, and offering them that help, instead of judgment.

lazygal

I do judge people for making bad decisions about parenting, like not vaccinating their children thereby putting others at risk. I think the idea that every single parenting choice is valid because people are all entitled to do things differently is bull****. Hitting your children so they'll behave or not behave a certain way is something I do judge parents on. I judge my own parents for hitting me. I hated being hit as a child and I won't play into the 'never did me any harm' camp. Hitting me happened because my parents weren't able to control themselves and use non violent methods to teach me to behave differently. I guess I am affected by it still, because even now I remember how much I hated them when they hit me. If there are child care workers who care for children without needing to resort to physical means of punishment or chastisement, there is no reason why parents can't do the same. I don't think any parent would allow someone else to hit their child, so there is no valid reason for them doing it to their own children. None.

volchitsa

One eyed Jack wrote: »

I know they do robot babies in the States as a sort of parenting "apprenticeship", but it's not like there are any qualifications a person has to meet before they become a parent, so IMO calling parenting a skill, or making like it's a test where people use terms like "failing as a parent" and so on are utterly meaningless really, because they are completely unquantifiable. How does one "succeed" as a parent then, and when does one know they passed, before they pass away themselves at least?

These are the kinds of loaded and emotive terms used by other people to pass judgment on people and they really don't help IMO. They may make the person passing judgment feel better about themselves, but they do nothing to help the parents experiencing distress, and they don't change the circumstances of the children in their care.

I think people who are averse to using physical methods to instill discipline in their children, would baulk and raise eyebrows at the suggestion that they are using psychological and emotional manipulation techniques to raise their children. Sounds rather insidious when it's expressed like that, and yet that's what these people consider should be socially acceptable!

Should we be teaching children how to be emotionally and psychologically manipulative? Because if that's the sort of skills children are learning from their parents, then I really don't think they're in any position to judge people who are averse to using such techniques in raising their children to be mature, emotionally and psychologically well balanced adults.

There really is no one size fits all method to raising children, and there's no failing as a parent or passing as a parent. There's simply being a human being and being aware of other people who may need your help, and offering them that help, instead of judgment.

There is a lot of straw manning in there, in fact Id say you're pretty practised at the old emotional or psychological manipulation yourself!

Did I say anything about passing or failing as a parent? I did not.

However to say there is no such thing as being a bad parent is patently nonsensical. There are child abusers - you can't say they are good parents, can you? And some, apparently, genuinely believe that they are teaching their children how to cope with life's hard knocks and the like.

Even without reaching the extremes of child abuse, there are also parents whose lives are disorganized and whose children suffer from that, despite the parents' desire to help their kids. And so on.

So while there are no pass or fail grades in parenting, not all parenting techniques are of equal value.

Oh, and there's a difference between judging someone's skills in order to help them improve, and judging them as a person, or as a parent.

One eyed Jack

lazygal wrote: »

I do judge people for making bad decisions about parenting, like not vaccinating their children thereby putting others at risk. I think the idea that every single parenting choice is valid because people are all entitled to do things differently is bull****.

Passing judgment other people whose opinion differs from your own is never a very useful way to encourage them to see an issue from your perspective. Naturally any opinion that differs from your own is bullsh!t, but then from the other person's perspective, well, they're seeing the same thing in you and there's a stalemate, unless one of you then decides to force your opinion on the other person, and we both know that leads nowhere good. I personally think it's much more useful to reserve judgment and listen to their perspective, then put forward your own perspective and let the person judge for themselves. If you don't respect their opinion, then they're likely to offer you the same in return.

Hitting your children so they'll behave or not behave a certain way is something I do judge parents on. I judge my own parents for hitting me. I hated being hit as a child and I won't play into the 'never did me any harm' camp. Hitting me happened because my parents weren't able to control themselves and use non violent methods to teach me to behave differently. I guess I am affected by it still, because even now I remember how much I hated them when they hit me.

Well FWIW I don't buy into the 'never did me any harm' nonsense either. Of course hitting someone does them harm, but it's how harmful is really the more important question. Obviously it's given you a complete aversion to physical violence in any form, and by that same token, I imagine you have an aversion to emotional and psychological manipulation. Hate is a pretty strong emotion, and I imagine you don't use the word lightly.

For myself the physical scars have long healed, the emotional and psychological scars definitely took a bit longer to process, but I've learned to forgive my parents as I understand that they made mistakes. My parents were well able to control themselves btw, they managed to beat me black and blue on a daily basis and never once broke a bone, though there were a few close calls when I would use my hands to try and defend myself, and they managed to avoid my face. If that reads in a somewhat facetious tone, it's because I developed a somewhat warped sense of humour to alleviate the tension when experiencing suffering as a way to cope. Detailing the emotional and psychological manipulation would turn this into a rather lengthy post, but suffice to say that compared to the physical discipline, the emotional, mental and psychological manipulation left a far more detrimental and long lasting mark, just not on the outside. My parents knew what they were doing, and were in complete control at all times.

If there are child care workers who care for children without needing to resort to physical means of punishment or chastisement, there is no reason why parents can't do the same. I don't think any parent would allow someone else to hit their child, so there is no valid reason for them doing it to their own children. None.

Childcare workers aren't infallible either as I'm sure you're aware of the numerous exposés in recent years that have shown institutional abandonment of their training and failing to meet procedural standards. They're held to a higher standard than parents because the children in their care aren't their own. Recently introduced legislation has actually tried to clamp down on black market childcare that fails to meet standards set by the State. Parents haven't had to do four years study in childcare or social studies before they can be deemed qualified to raise their own children, and the same is true of any other professional that has contact with children. They are held to a much higher standard than parents. That's why they're not allowed to use physical methods to discipline children. It doesn't automatically follow though that they wouldn't use emotional or psychological techniques to discipline children, but they're supposedly socially acceptable to use. I personally don't think they are, and wouldn't use them myself, but they're much harder to detect when other people are using them.

One eyed Jack

volchitsa wrote: »

There is a lot of straw manning in there, in fact Id say you're pretty practised at the old emotional or psychological manipulation yourself!

Honestly it wasn't meant to read as strawmanning, sometimes I'll just pull out a post and I'll be referencing back to previous posts in the thread (the animal comparison stuff was wack!), and of course not to blow my own trumpet here or anything but of course I'm quite well practised in emotional and psychological manipulation, I learned from some of the most skilled practitioners from an early age. I just choose not to use the techniques I know on other people, be they a child or an adult because I see it as exploitation. Exploiting other human beings isn't really something anyone should be proud of, and it sure as hell ain't clever.

Did I say anything about passing or failing as a parent? I did not.

No volchista, you didn't, but it's an often bandied about trope, utterly meaningless to most people, other than those people who judge themselves and judge other people by their own standards.

However to say there is no such thing as being a bad parent is patently nonsensical. There are child abusers - you can't say they are good parents, can you? And some, apparently, genuinely believe that they are teaching their children how to cope with life's hard knocks and the like.

There really isn't any such thing as bad or good parents. There are only different standards. There's a lot more to parenting and raising a child than simply how a person or people instill discipline in their children. The thing about that 'child abusers' label is that it's also becoming a meaningless term, because anyone can use it now to label someone who disagrees with their perspective on raising a child. Just look at discussions in this forum alone around issues such as education, religion, same sex marriage, medical issues, etc with regard to children. You're doing well if you make it to the second page without someone screaming "child abuse!!!". Meaningless, and makes that person's opinion all that much harder to take seriously.

Even without reaching the extremes of child abuse, there are also parents whose lives are disorganized and whose children suffer from that, despite the parents' desire to help their kids. And so on.

Yes, again - different standards. The State gives parents a ridiculous amount of leeway in this regard, because it regards keeping the family together as more important than imposing a minimum standard of welfare that must be met. The minimum standard is there, but the State has neither the will nor the means to enforce it on parents, so the whole idea of making smacking a criminal offence as was mentioned in another thread is simply a non-starter. It'd simply be a pointless waste of resources, and would be impossible to police, let alone provide any meaningful punishment for the crime.

So while there are no pass or fail grades in parenting, not all parenting techniques are of equal value.

Well it's easy to say that, but clearly that's more idealistic than it is realistic. It's fine in theory, but it's a theory that has no value in practice. To illustrate an example - say we legislate against smacking. How does that address emotional or psychological abuse? It doesn't. A person can, and is still free to emotionally and psychologically abuse their own children, and as hard as it is to police physical abuse, emotional and psychological abuse has no definite place where we can draw a line and say to parents "there's the boundary, you do not cross it".

Oh, and there's a difference between judging someone's skills in order to help them improve, and judging them as a person, or as a parent.

Of course there is, that's possibly the only thing I imagine we're going to agree on. I have no issue with judging someone's behaviour in order to help them improve themselves and fulfill their potential that I see in them as a person; it's the judging them as a person or as a parent with no interest in helping them that I have an issue with.