![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
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![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
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.
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.
no subject
I'm having trouble finding academic things to back you up, but at least it seems that the finger nuances of telling between happiness, surprise, and pride at above-chance levels at 4 years of age.
I do wonder if surprise, anger and fear (ie, the cues claimed that would be enough to let your child know something is wrong) cluster together similarly and are difficult to tell apart too. And that's without realising a fundamental difference between adults and small children -- you are usually looking at peoples' legs, not faces, unless you're specifically looking upwards.
no subject
no subject
Would you rather some one pull you out of the way of a car or clothesline you out of the way?
no subject
If there is no difference between smacking a child on the hand when they reach for the sharp knife by the blade, and beating them around the head, then there should be no difference between keeping a child in a properly belted booster seat in the car, and keeping them tied to their cot all day. Both are ways of making sure the child is kept out of trouble, but one is more extreme than the other.
For me to point out the every-day use of child restraint, and compare it to the extreme and socially frowned-upon conclusion, is just as simplistic as to compare slapping ones' hand away to beating a child until they're unconscious.
The word 'restraint' can be just as emotionally charged as 'abuse' and indeed, often forcibly restraining a child can be seen as such abuse. To simply replace one form of abuse for another simply isn't the answer. Nor is to simply see the world in black and white, but emotionally charged things on the internet seem to cause it to happen.
no subject
Are you guys all part of some "misrepresent the facts" club?
One person mentioned holds in reference to working in a psych ward, and that they were used to restarain patients from haming other or themselves. One would hope they were trained how to do that, but unless you have information to suggest the people at the facility in question were abusing patients, it's all pointless speculation on your part.
I mentioned holding in reference to stopping children from doing something like running into a street.
Yes it is possible t hurt a child doing that. My brother accidentally dislocated my sister's shoulder roughousing with her when they were little. However you'll not I mentioned holding as a way to remove from danger not as a method of disciplining the child for running into the street. I specifically suggested verbal and body language cuews would let the child know the parent was dismayed.
"If there is no difference between smacking a child on the hand when they reach for the sharp knife by the blade, and beating them around the head"
I never made the claim they were same, in fact I stated they were different several times, what I said was both were wrong. Just like stealing your neigbors purse when she's not looking is not as bad as a home invasion...however both are still wrong.
"then there should be no difference between keeping a child in a properly belted booster seat in the car, and keeping them tied to their cot all day"
Yes actually there is a rather large difference. Booster seats protect the child in case of an accident while you are driving, it is not a disciplinary measure. If you know of anyone locking their kid in a car to discipline them I hope you report them immediately.
"forcibly restraining a child can be seen as such abuse."
I would agree that forcibly restraining a chld can be abusive. That said if you're talking about a situation where a kid is runing into the road I'd rather see a person grab the kid to safet than spank the kid to safety. Of course he wasn't really talking about spanking as a way to keep the kid from danger, he was talking about it as something to do afterward to punish the child for running into the street, and that is a pretty critical point to consider.
"Nor is to simply see the world in black and white,"
Not ebverything is black and white some things are. Using physical violence to coerce a person to conform to your wishes is always wrong imo.
no subject
But, for the person who wanted to know if other primates used physical discipline, the answer looks like it may be yes.
From this article summary:
In social animals, retaliatory aggression is common, individuals often punish other group members that infringe their interests, and punishment can cause subordinates to desist from behaviour likely to reduce the fitness of dominant animals. Punishing strategies are used to establish and maintain dominance relationships, to discourage parasites and cheats, to discipline offspring or prospective sexual partners and to maintain cooperative behaviour.
It is just one article, and what I could find after minutes with Google scholar, but it's a start.
no subject
Yet somehow I doubt you'll justify that behavior in humans.
no subject
Heck, I was curious, which made me try to find some academic information about it.
no subject
Almost right. I was actually talking about doing it to impress upon the child not to do it again, because if they try it again, I might not be close enough the next time.
I would much rather ensure that my child doesn't try to run onto the road than that I take the moral high ground, and end up picking up the pieces.
My children do not run onto the road.
on holds and physical restraints
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.
Re: on holds and physical restraints
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.
Re: on holds and physical restraints
Maybe next time I won't be so subtle?