catsidhe | Oh, save me from the arrogant, ignorant and certain.

Entry tags:

rant

Oh, save me from the arrogant, ignorant and certain.

Save me, Lady, from people who take a good idea and an inability to see reason, and combine them in a whirlwind of slander and bullshit.

Thesis: Hitting children is wrong.
Thesis: Spanking is hitting.
Conclusion: Spanking is morally indistinguishable from beatings, and anyone who has ever spanked their child for any reason, or who tries to suggest that there might ever be mitigating or even condoning circumstances is practically as much a monster as someone who beats their children to sleep at night.

Save me. Save me from people who think that their successes and luck set a minimum moral standard. Who think that a hint of gray is as good as the pitchest black. Who refuse to consider that others might be different.

His hyperbole gripped me. His absolute conviction that a single smack on the bottom is as much child abuse as is a backhand to the face. That context is irrelevant, a trivialising distraction, a craven attempt at excusing something abhorrent. And it made me angry, because he is accusing me of torturing, tormenting, my children. [Ed: by implication.] Of accusing me of saying that “terror is an acceptable way to raise a child.”

He accused me of terrorising my children. How dare he? He really, honestly and deliberately made the claim that my ever having given my child a swat on the bottom if they try to run onto the road is equivalent to keeping my family under a climate of fear and intimidation.

And then, in a hissy fit to put a child to shame, he unfriended me. It's his right. It's his journal. But still: how juvenile! The action of a petulant teenager: who knows that he omniscient, and the existence of an alternative is not something to be argued, but something which is a personal insult just by existing, and the best answer to this is to stick your fingers in your ears and shout. [He now claims that it was because I was becoming hysterical, and he has indeed unscreened all my comments. He is also accusing me of being a liar.]

Well, I hope he enjoys his life, and the company of his echo chamber. Just because I have been known to agree with him and those on his journal, what he has is an echo chamber, if he systematically excludes anyone who disagrees with him, it's an echo chamber. But because he does say things worthy of hearing, I have not unfriended him. [OK, after the way he has insulted every one of thse of my friends who expressed sympathy or support, and then insulted my wife, he has earned contempt. I've unfriended him and if he wants to say something here he has to wait for me to grant him the right.]

Me, that exchange left me shaking. So I drove home, and gave my daughters, my treasures, the pulse of my heart, a hug goodnight and somehow completely failed to hit them in any way whatsoever. But because of

sammaelhain, for the first time in my life, I couldn't get the image out of my head of me hurting my own children. I hope he's happy. [He claims that this is because I have a guilty conscience. I respond that it is because it is a deeply disturbing thought, of which nightmares are made.]

He has done to me the same thing that people like Hetty Johnstone have done: he has made me second-guess every interaction I have with my children. He has made me look for evil in every innocent interaction. He has done his little bit to murder the joy I feel with my children. I hope I get over it, but the scar will twitch for a long, long time. I shouldn't let it, but it will.

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Bloody hell. They are our kids. Our kids say that we are the best mummy & daddy in the world. We are NOT their friends. We are their parents. Our kids love us and more importantly are not afraid of us.

You don't know my husband or me at all.

Oh noes!

"You don't know my husband or me at all."

Ah yes, the Jerry Springer defense to which their can be no counter.

You know nothing of my discipline, but you sure as fuck assume plenty.

I say how your words have disturbed me, and you turn that into evidence ("'But I hope I'm wrong', because adding that makes it less slanderous") that I am one step away from following through with it. That is your own delirious invention.

I will recover from your words. My children are safe.

You do not get the right to insult my wife.

Fuck off.

We don't want to talk to sanctimonious dullards. Go away.

Then don't.

At this point, if you haven't already done so, I'd suggest you ban him from commenting. Either he's a troll, or he's completely incapable of reasoned discussion on the subject. Either way, further discussion is pointless.

In the meantime, take what comfort you can from the certain knowledge that you do have friends who understand your attitude, and have no issue with it. You don't need my approval, but based upon what I've seen so far, you have it anyway.

Thanks. I've set up this post so that he needs my permission to post further. If he attempts to insult my wife or friends any more, the instructions to ban him are at my fingertips.

I'm trying to put off doing anything quite so dramatic, though.

He seems to have fucked off to bask in the admiration of his like-minded, though, so hopefully this shitstorm is over.

Thanks for your support, though. Really.

I've been left ragged from less intense exchanges when no-one has backed me up, simply from the feeling that the verbal beating I'm getting really is representative of how people think of me.

And this was pretty intense. It will take a while for the adrenaline to wear off, and some serious effort to clear my mind of the crap he's put in there (despite what sunshine has been spraying in his charming followup about my inability to do so).

Any time. If I thought you were way off base, I wouldn't hesitate in saying so. :)

Since I don't want to get involved in the thread over there, and the poster seemed genuinely curious as to the use of physical violence to punish other group members, I thought I would pass the information on to you.

Heck, I was curious, which made me try to find some academic information about it.

I think he's seeing the world through a very distorted mirror.

It's a touchy topic, but your arguments in your journal and his are eloquent and considered. I don't know of a one-size-fits-all-situation solution for children, and I don't have children myself, but the fact that all the different techniques I can think of have at least one expert saying it's wrong and bad, and that all of them can be sensationalised into a radical conclusion that would have the police knocking on your door , shows that it's a complex topic. And there are nuances that you're trying to express that he doesn't seem to be able to understand.

(Interestingly, when making a comparison between smacking a child and beating them senseless, and keeping a child in a carrier and keeping them tied to a bed, he can see that the latter is a stupid line of reasoning, but he can't seem to see it with the former.)

I'm only doing this once, and I'm not even sure why I'm bothering now.
Catsidhe's friends can agree to disagree with you, and it seems a fair number of us do. I find your attitude offensive. Feel free to talk in your own journal about what you like, but taking this into catsidhe's journal is really poor form.
I won't be replying to anything else you say. Let it drop.

But the one who claimed to have looked after kids in a psychiatric hospital was under different circumstances: those kids were at an age where reason would work (even through psychosis), and had outgrown the effectiveness of smacking.

I'm afraid that "inability to reason" is one of the many hallmarks of psychosis. Not to mention the fact that at least 1/3 of our clients were ALSO clinically developmentally disabled. Perfect example off the top of my head--"D" was a 6'4" 450 pound 3 year old in a teenage body. He was perfectly fine except for when he didn't get his way, which is the only time discipline would be needed, anyway. And when he threw tantrums, it took half the staff to keep him from hurting himself, the other kids, or the staff. We still managed to make a bit of slow progress over the long-term, without ever hitting him or otherwise impinging upon his own personal integrity (which is what physically striking another human is, BTW). We only physically restrained him after we had exhausted every other option, and to not restrain him would have meant injury to other humans.

So, even though the youngest kids at where I worked were 6yrs old (and still clinically psychotic or they wouldn't be where I worked!), I don't think your argument holds up.

And in those cases where they had looked after small children, these were not their own. It is different when you are looking after someone else's kids:

I will not argue with that in the least.

for one thing, it is not your place to smack: you have other methods you can use.

Why can't parents use these same methods? You seem to be supporting my side, now... ;-)

For another, there is always the knowledge that at the end of the day you're giving them back, and you don't have to live with the consequences of bad discipline.

To an extent, yes. But when kids live at where you work--and you are in contact with them 40 hrs a week, you're only passing them off to your fellow co-workers, who then pass them back to you tomorrow. Working with them 10hrs a day, day in-day out, doesn't really make the ability to "pass the problems on" a very valid argument. As a matter of fact, it was policy to not leave a shift until problems that I was involved with were resolved. This is important for a number of reasons, not the least of which is to re-establish interpersonal bonds with the kids.

I do hope this clarifies things a bit. Unfortunately, given my personal experiences from that job, I can't possibly see anyone convincing me that striking another human being is ever "required", let alone justified morally. Sorry.

It's your responsibility to get lessons through to the kid, _now_. The method you use is up to you, but a smack is quick, immediate (endorphins FTW) and short lasting.

And this is why it's the easiest and most common way of disciplining children. That does NOT make it necessary, desired, or morally correct in any way, however.

I have made a few comments here that are in no way emotionally inflammatory. In the interest of fairness (because I don't get that you would want this to be an "echo chamber" here in your LJ, as you accuse my friend of), it is my hope that you unscreen them ASAP, please. Thank you.

You have, they are not, and I have.

You may have noticed that my reactions to Sammaelhain were emotive. Having my attempt to argue turned into attacks on my morality and fitness to be a father tend to upset me.

When Sammaelhain insulted my wife, I screened this post -- for the first time ever, I might add.

I do not wish to be an echo chamber. I note that after I wrote the above, that other people have also spoken up more or less agreeing with my position, and that is a good thing too.

If you would like, I could even friend you that you may comment here freely. (Or, if Sammaelhain has calmed down, I could unscreen this post. It was only ever meant to be a reversible damage control mechanism.)

Your icon really hurts, by the way. I've developed a headache and flashes of vertigo while writing this.

No, I have trouble with the fact that any physical discipline is wrong, yet the physical restraint of a child, with no qualifiers for duration, severity, or method, is seen as a positive thing by the lack of negative comments made about it.

LOL

First of all, there are countless SERIOUS qualifiers for duration, severity, and method. We had to do constant training to keep us up to date on all the finer points of this. And there is significant oversight specifically put in place to minimize the potential for abuse. The paperwork after a 30 second restraint would take me a minimum of a full hour to complete. Although rare, I've spent entire 10-hour shifts dealing with all the oversight on a single situation that blew up from me saying "No" to a child (which is how most of them start, BTW).

And just to be clear, holds were NEVER, EVER seen as--in any way, shape, form or fashion--"positive". I'm calling you out on a straw man argument, here. Holds were the single thing I hated (and feared, honestly) more than anything at that job--or any other, for that matter. I cried (at home, where I could) more times than I could count that I was forced into the position of physically restraining a child. But given the choice between that and a child--e.g., violently swinging a piece of molding they ripped off a wall with nails sticking out of it, ready to impale someone in the face--I did what I had to to keep everyone safe.

We very much took the same outlook on physical confrontations as does Aikido--neutralizing the physical threat with minimal harm to everyone involved, all the while respecting the dignity and showing compassion for all. This is key.

Railing against the use of restraints, unfortunately, only shows the ignorance from those who have obviously never been in my shoes, or the shoes of my (former) co-workers. Trust me when I say that if there would have been a better way, we would have found it.

This was, I think, meant as a reductio ad absurdam.

She is trying to make the connection between the difference between the abusive restraint of Romanian orphanages and the appropriate restraint of psych wards, to abusive beatings and corrective smacks.

Of course, there is a place for restraint, and there are rightly qualifiers on what may be done, how and when. (May I also add praise for those who do such work, something which is not given often enough.)

Just as there is a place for a smack, and qualifiers for who, how and when that can be done.

I do have to go and work, occasionally, so don't fret if I don't unscreen you immediately... I will get to it.

I do understand what you're getting at, and I have had exposure to mental illness myself, if not to the thorough extent that you have.

Small children (pre-school age) do not reason as older children or adults do. Neither do people under psychosis. But they are also different in their differences.

Small children do not always understand the concept of things which are important for most forms of punitive correction: shame, sorrow, regret, that sort of thing. That isn't to say they can't, but that this is one of those things which is still developing at that age. As they get older, these things come into their grasp, and by the time they start school they should be effective tools in their own right, but for younger children, not always. This varies depending on the child, and for the same child depending on time, circumstance and mood. A child may be devastated by a telling-off at one point, then think it a wonderful game the next.

This is my experience: my 3yo is playful, and enjoys playfighting. (She'll jump on top of me and wrestle, and I will, of course, lose with great drama.) If she tries to run onto the road, after I stop her, she is just as likely to think it a game when I tell her off. If she doesn't, wonderful, job done. If she does, though, she'll try it again, to keep playing. She will start deliberately running onto the road to get a reaction. The second time she does it, she gets told off, more forcefully. This may well just be seen as escalation of the game, though. She tries it again, she gets retrieved and given one short smack on the well-covered bottom. It doesn't hurt, but it does shock. Now it is not a game. Now she knows that running on to the road is not a game, that it is bad.

Children of that age tend to react to punishments much more immediately than older children. An older child, you can take away a favourite toy or set a time out, and they will make the connection to their behaviour (even if they do chafe and curse). A small child will just scream for the return of the toy: they don't, to a great extent can't make the connection yet. It does come, but in the meantime...

Psychotic patients are different. While they are under psychosis, then slapping them is as pointless as is trying to reason with them: they are incapable of changing their behaviour, let alone understanding why it is bad, or else they understand but can't stop doing it anyway. restraint is necessary to prevent harm until such point as the meds kick in, or the psychosis passes and they can function again. There is nothing that smacking can change, and so it is pointless cruelty.

Schools, again, corporal punishment is uncalled for in any way. First, by the time children reach school, the mental attributes required for correction through reason are established. Moreover, the structure of the teacher-student relationship is set up such that students wouldn't dare try things on their teacher that they would pull on their parents all the time. So in that sense, the very aura of authority of any decent teacher is itself a tool which is not available to the parents, should they need it.

Am I making sense?

Thank you for unscreening them so far. Sorry 'bout the headache, but I love the icon. What can I say??? Fortunately for peeps like you, it's not my default ;-)

Agape!

The moral part we could argue until the cows come home. I and others, here and elsewhere, argue that it is morally acceptable, within limits, others argue that it is never acceptable.

As for necessary, I posit that just because someone has been able to do without it, does not mean that others may not find it necessary. The inability to see this indicates, in my opinion, a limitation on imagination and empathy, but that is beyond the remt of the argument.

You are correct as far as it goes, though. Just because it is the easiest and most common method does not make it necessary, desirable or correct.

I would argue that there is nothing about it which should be considered "desirable" in any case, so that's a distraction, and I posit that there are other reasons which make it sometimes necessary, and by that token, morally correct.

Much preferable, gratias ago.

Αγαπε το γνωσις

Threaded | Top-Level Comments Only

Page 3 of 4

Oh, save me from the arrogant, ignorant and certain.

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

Dude, you just don't get it, do you?

Re: Dude, you just don't get it, do you?

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

the former Psych worker, here

no subject

no subject

That icon hurts.

on holds and physical restraints

Re: on holds and physical restraints

no subject

Re: the former Psych worker, here

Is this icon more soothing???

no subject

Re: Is this icon more soothing???