|
|
 |
|
Getting On : Family
Brutality Against Children | from Jules - Friday, January 30, 2004
accessed 3817 times Today the Supreme Court of Canada voted 6-3 to uphold the spanking law that allows “reasonable force” to be used against children.
http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040130-053003-3369r.htm I have been following this case with interest as the appeal of the century old law is closely linked to a case that was close to home in more ways than one. In 2001 a small religious community in Ontario called The Church of God was raided by social workers. The leader of the community stated that “there has to be pain” for children to be effectively disciplined.
http://www.nospank.net/n-i11.htm
Other members of the community were so outraged over this intrusion into their right to beat their children with flyswatters, belts and switches that they decided to move from Ontario to the more Godly states of Ohio and Indiana.
http://www.nospank.net/n-i27.htm
While under Canadian law any unwelcome touch is considered assault there have been exemptions from this in the past. Under English common law, masters could once legally strike servants and husbands could, in moderation, beat their wives. In 1892, employers could still legally hit apprentices, and prison wardens were justified in flogging inmates with a cat-o'-nine-tails.
Only two exceptions still remain. The law continues to offer a legal defence to ship commanders who use force against sailors to maintain order. Section 43 of the Canadian Criminal Code offers a defence to parents and schoolteachers who hit a child, provided that the purpose is to correct the child's behaviour and that "reasonable" force is used.
The Toronto-based Repeal 43 Committee, says parents are successfully invoking Section 43 as a defence for child abuse. The committee compiled a list of 22 such precedents set between 1990-2001.
In Newfoundland two years ago, a father who struck his 14-year-old daughter with a belt, leaving welts and bruises on her legs, was acquitted under Section 43. In Ontario two years ago, a father who struck his 11-year-old son with a belt leaving a buckle-shaped mark on his thigh was similarly acquitted. In Saskatchewan in 1987 a man and a woman who stripped their two nieces, 13 and 14, to their underwear, tied their hands to a basement clothesline and strapped them across their buttocks, were judged to be carrying out "corrective" and "reasonable" punishment.
What is perhaps most disturbing about the Supreme Court’s ruling is that it comes on the day that proceedings begin against a father and stepmother in one of Ontario’s most horrific cases of child abuse.
On December 7, 1999 the dismembered body of Farah Khan, a five year old little girl, was found in a park in a suburb of Toronto. Her body parts showed two-dozen sets of fresh injuries that had occurred within two days of her death. Old injuries included a fractured skull. The stepmother said that the father had beat her to death with a shoe because she had asked for school photos that cost $10. In his statement to police, the father recounted how he chased his daughter around their apartment, and described how she screamed and how he struck her a number of times with a rolling pin. Farah was 25lbs and tiny even for her age. Farah's father described her as "Obstinate.” “Very stubborn." "Temperamental." The day the parents were arrested, the stepmother stated in regards to Farah's death that "This occurred because God wanted it to happen."
Isn’t it time that we say that children can no longer be physically assaulted and brutalized? Why should children continue to be victimized, beaten to death, have their bodies and psyches scarred by the people who have a responsibility to protect them? The majority of parents love their children and would never dream of hurting them, but when we make exceptions for “reasonable” force, we open the door for the nightmares that many of us have lived through ourselves.
It upsets me immensely that even in a society like Canada, where we claim to be advocates of human rights and non-violence, children will continue to live unprotected from brutality due to the vague notion that some violations of a child's body are considered "reasonable". Brutality and violence against children is never justified, just as brutality towards women, people from other races, those mentally ill or with less economic means or any other human is never ever justified. |
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from Dani
Tuesday, February 03, 2004 - 17:43
 (Agree/Disagree?)
Some people have changed their tune. Look under the article ‘I can’t believe you said that’.
(reply to this comment)
| from Joe H
Monday, February 02, 2004 - 17:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thank you for sparing us the hackneyed and false anecdote that attributes the term "rule of thumb" to an alleged English law that permitted a man to beat his wife with any stick that was thinner than his thumb. No such law ever existed, so this is clearly not the origin of the phrase.
The true etymology of this term comes from the practice of using ones thumb as a measuring device (the distance from the tip to the first joint is approximately one inch - hence "rule" or ruler of thumb)
I agree with the thesis of this article, by the way.
(reply to this comment)
| from Spring
Saturday, January 31, 2004 - 14:22
 (Agree/Disagree?)
I haven't personally looked at this ruling but it was my impression that what the supreme court stated was that spanking is OK, but not hitting other places on the body (ie face and head). The whole "reasonable force" issue comes into play and some parents just don't seem to know where to stop. I doubt these parents would stop hitting their children even if it was made illegal.
But if we made any kind of spanking illegal then that really limits the options for good parents whose kids maybe just need a spanking once in awhile to keep them in line. The good parents are the ones who will obey the laws and possibly end up with bad kids where they wouldn't have otherwise. I'm not saying that there aren't lots of other ways to discipline children that don't involve spanking (and I think spanking should be a last resort) - but if you take away the right of all parents to choose ... I don't think that will make society any better.
JMO.
(reply to this comment)
|  From Christy
Monday, February 02, 2004, 14:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have come to view spanking as the easy way out when it comes to disciplining children. I am not a parent, but I do have to manage a class of 26 third graders. Since I don't have the option of corporal punishment, I have to come up with a lot of creative classroom management strategies. I also have to do everything I can to prevent problems from escalating in the first place. I see children, who have never in their lives been spanked, that are able to respond to many forms of discipline and management. I'm not saying these same kids won't be absolute monsters when they have the chance (try leaving them with an inexperienced sub for the day), I'm just saying that there are effective alternatives to spanking.
As a teen in TF, I did a lot of childcare and yes, I spanked a lot of misbehaving kids. For the better behaved children, just the threat of a spank was enough to keep them in line. For the more difficult children, it really didn't matter how often nor how hard they got spanked, they would misbehave any chance they got. Even back then, I knew that if if the children were out of control, it was probably more my fault than theirs. It takes a lot more work to motivate good behavior and to manage children without the option of spanking them. However, I think it's worth it, because it shows children that you respect them. I know a lot of young adults who were never spanked as children, who have turned out to be well-adjusted, hardworking, caring people, who are respectful of others. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Christy
Monday, February 02, 2004, 14:41
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have come to view spanking as the easy way out when it comes to disciplining children. I am not a parent, but I do have to manage a class of 26 third graders. Since I don't have the option of corporal punishment, I have to come up with a lot of creative classroom management strategies. I also have to do everything I can to prevent problems from escalating in the first place. I see children, who have never in their lives been spanked, that are able to respond to many forms of discipline and management. I'm not saying these same kids won't be absolute monsters when they have the chance (try leaving them with an inexperienced sub for the day), I'm just saying that there are effective alternatives to spanking.
As a teen in TF, I did a lot of childcare and yes, I spanked a lot of misbehaving kids. For the better behaved children, just the threat of a spank was enough to keep them in line. For the more difficult children, it really didn't matter how often nor how hard they got spanked, they would misbehave any chance they got. Even back then, I knew that if if the children were out of control, it was probably more my fault than theirs. It takes a lot more work to motivate good behavior and to manage children without the option of spanking them. However, I think it's worth it, because it shows children that you respect them. I know a lot of young adults who were never spanked as children, who have turned out to be well-adjusted, hardworking, caring people, who are respectful of others. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Monday, February 02, 2004, 09:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
I understand that this is a controversial issue. I find it hard to believe though that if children are not spanked they will become "bad kids". There are many things regarding the welfare of children in which parents do not have the right to choose. Education, right to life, sexual activity with children, neglect, health care, to name a few. It's illegal in most places to beat a pet.
IMO, though perhaps there was some progress made with the clarification of this law, the fact that it still exists says that it is okay to subject children to pain and violence. I do believe that when laws like this are no longer in existence, it will make society better. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Spring
Monday, February 02, 2004, 09:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules - in general I agree with you. I don't think that it's necessary to spank most kids, but it seems to me that occasionaly some "hard nuts" do benefit from it. I don't believe in inflicting a lot of pain or doing it in a violent manner (although I know a lot of people probably spank out of anger). I've always thought that it was more the humiliation of it than anything. But yes, it's a controversial subject. IMO, taking away one of the few choices we have in child rearing isn't going to help, especially when kids are subjected to so much violent behavior on TV, etc., which we don't always have control of.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Holon
Friday, February 06, 2004, 11:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree Spring,Jules and I have been friends for a long time and she knows I spank my kids on occasion ( not the older ones anymore)We have had a few disscutions about this. Now , perhaps like me, you were never beaten as a child and I could see that from a persons point of view who had been beaten, that it is a terrible horrible thing to do.
Before I had kids I also said I would never spank my kids. But sometimes it really is the only way to help them remember not to run out into the street, or try to climb into the pool, or put the kittens in the oven and turn it on, or climb up to the top cubbard where the knives are kept and get the child lock undone and throw the knives down to there twin brother for the 3rd time that week.ect..( all of which my kids have done and have gotten a swat or two on the butt over there pull-up and jean shorts with my open hand) and except for the running into the street thing they havent done the other things again.
But, for fighting or throwing a fit or anything else that is not a very big danger to them I dont do it.But,I would rather spank my child for doing something that could really hurt them or someone else than to have something very bad happen.
At the moment I have no phones in my house Thanks to my 3 year old twins.Yesterday they took both my house phone, and my cell phone and put them into there drinks.And neither one of them work now. Now yes, I was very angry that my $150.00 cell phone was ruined and my $170.00 cordless was ruined aswell. But this wasnt cause for a spanking.After all, they are 3 and they didnt put themselves or anyone else in danger.So , they had time-out in there bedroom with no TV on and a loud talking to.And let me tell you, if I were a person who spanked out of anger than they would have been really sorry.But I'm not. There is a big difference there.
My dear father was a good example to me I think the man only spanked me about 2 or 3 times.One of those times was when I lived with you Spring and we were up in your step brothers room ( the one with the water bed and the door was broken and you couldnt open it from the inside and my father was trying to get us ready to go singing and I didnt want to go so I closed the door with him inside and ran down stairs and waited for someone else to let him out.So I got spanked for that but he was more into giving me " The look".I hated disappointing my Dad I still do.He would tell me that he was disappointed in my actions and it would crush me.My mother was one for spanking out of anger,but thats how her father spanked them so I dont think she knew any other way.Where as my father never mentioned getting spanked as a kid at all.
I do agree that if you have abusive parents that it is important to break the cycle of abuse, but there is a balance and I think that people who have been abused cant see that at all.They have been delt so much abuse that they dont know what reasonable discipline is.And that is very understandable.
My kids are not afraid of me or my husband and we dont want them to be, but we do want them to fear the consequence of there actions.When your an adult you dont want to go to jail so you dont steal or break the law because your afraid of what will happen if you do.Sometimes you can tell your child what will happen but that isnt always enough.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Friday, February 06, 2004, 12:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Holon, you know that I respect your choices and understand and agree with most of what you said. I just wanted to clarify one point. You said:
"there is a balance and I think that people who have been abused can't see that at all. They have been dealt so much abuse that they dont know what reasonable discipline is."
I am certain you didn't mean that the way it sounds but this touches some very loaded issues. Almost everyone I have ever met who was raised in the Family was abused in some way. I strongly disagree that because of this we don't know what normal behaviour is, or that we are in some way "damaged goods". People who were sexually abused know the difference between giving their children a hug and molestation just as people who were physically abused know the difference between discipline that is mutually respectful and violence because of a parent's anger. I think that what can occur is that prolonged and frequent exposure to abuse can create desensitization to certain issues, but I think that as we deal with our own past, it if anything, highlights exactly where and how things went so wrong.
Sometimes when you have seen how bad something can be when it is taken to it's logical conclusion or perhaps more just to the extreme, you have a different opinion than someone who has never experienced that themselves. I think probably all of us have different opinions on certain topics than our non-exer friends, because we have seen issues that may be commonplace in society institutionalized, ritualized and escalated to some horrific extremes. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Holon
Friday, February 06, 2004, 14:36
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok, perhaps that quote was a little too generalized, and I didnt mean that anyone who had been abused couldnt passably know what normal behavior is.I know for myself anyhow, That I am a little to sensitive when it comes to some things like people being to affectionate with my children. I was molested allot as a child by different people so I am constantly on the lookout for inapropreate behavior.
And this my sound too over protective but I just dont like it when my brothers, or brothers- in- law or even my father-in- law holds my daughter on there lap and hug her( My father is a different story I know he would never do anything to hurt her,he is the only man I trust completely)I know this sounds crazy and unreasonable and I wish I didnt have these thought that come to my mind, but I do, and I cant help it.In reality I know they just love her to death and I know theres nothing wrong with your uncles and Grandfathers holding you but because of my childhood it makes me feel uncomfortable and there is always that thought in my mind.
I was talking to one of my friends who was also molested as a child(she wasnt ever in the group) and she feels the same way with her kids.And she feels really bad for even thinking such things.But none the less you cant help it.
I'm just saying that like with me ,there may be people who are overly sensitive to things in that way.Maybe I'm saying this all wrong, I dont know I really didnt mean for that comment to offend anyone.And I honestly didnt mean anything derogatory or condescending by what I said.I try to be careful about what I say but I'm always taken the wrong way on here it seems.I'm just not good at relaying my thoughts. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Wolf
Friday, February 06, 2004, 14:09
(Agree/Disagree?)
“The difference between discipline that is mutually respectful and violence because of a parent's anger.”
There is a third type of discipline that was experienced by many, including myself and my siblings. Discipline administered because of pressure to conform to the cult’s teachings. I think all of my siblings will agree that my father was never violent or angry with us. However, both of my parents were put under pressure when they moved into a combo, other cult members told them they didn’t discipline their kids enough. Consequently, they got into a habit of giving long, hard spankings. These spankings were never accompanied by the other trappings of violence: yelling, pulling limbs or hair, hitting parts of the body other than the hands or buttocks, etc. Nonetheless, they were excessive, as Christy brought out.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Nick
Friday, February 06, 2004, 14:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree with you there. There is a difference corporal discipline and violent discipline.
Different strokes for different folks and what pisses me off is how a bunch of you that are not parents and probably never come in contact with kids for more that 5 min a month, think you are experts on the subject.
I have not had to spank my son in probably over a year now, but when he was younger he got his fair share of swats on his little but and a few slaps on the hand. He has turned out to be a great kid with above average social skills, no violent tendencies and is academically doing well. So that sorta blasts all your theories out the window.
Anyway, I bet my bottom dollar that most of you parents out there that claim you hate corporal punishment have on more than one occasion given your little rascal a good swat on his but for something or other. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Vicky
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 15:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think most child care experts would actually say that the "hard nuts" are the ones who benefit least, if at all, from corporal punishment. They may "behave", at least in the most narrow interpretation of the word, in the short term, but they will be far more damaged for it in years to come.
When children misbehave to an extreme it is either because of some condition such as ADHD or autism, which they have no control over anyway, or because of serious mistakes in their rearing. Children may also temporarily go off the rails as a reaction to trauma such as the death of a parent or abuse of some kind. In each of these cases corporal punishment would do more damage than good. I don't believe it is ever healthy or justifiable to spank stubbornness/aggression/naughtiness out of children. It just doesn't work.
As far as an occasional swat (never on the face or anywhere on the head, and only with the hand) I do not think it will harm the child in the long-term IF it is done very rarely and administered in the right way, without anger or frutration. The problem IMHO is that most parents (including myself), if they are truly honest, would admit that usually they do swat when they are at the end of their tether, and not because it really is necessary.
I have hardly ever used any kind of corporal punishment on my children except during the first two years of my eldest daughter's life when we were still in TF. Even then I was usually able to reason with her and so I didn't spank her often. I am at the point now, and have been for a number of years, where I feel that spanking definitely is the easy way out and I do not see any benefits to children and their social-emotional development from this outdated form of control.
In the case of a young child (1-3) who is determined to continue behaviours that are dangerous to himself or others I suppose it is for the parents to decide if a carefully administered swat is the best way to go. I admit that there may be rare cases where it becomes necessary in order to spare a child from something worse, but these cases are few. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Monday, February 02, 2004, 19:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Spring, although I definitely agree with Nancy on this, I have a number of friends who are parents who do spank their children. They know my views on the issue, but I am not about to tell anyone personally how to raise their own children. I understand that it can seem like it's easy for those of us without children to have grand ideas of how to raise children, but I do understand that parenting is sometimes just basic survival.
There is a great deal of bias in my own opinion because of my own experiences. I was one of those "hard nut" children and my parents were quite brutal with their corporal punishment for most of my childhood. It began with normal (for the Family) spankings when we were very young. The 1-2-3 spank, and "when you stop crying, I'll stop spanking" stuff. The brutality escalated exponentially with the number of children in our family, and probably with the level of frustration my mother and father felt trying to cope.
By the time I was eight, my father would frequently completely lose his temper with me and hold me up against a wall and hit me with his fist. All of us, including my sisters and brothers who were even younger, would be beaten with metal coat hangers bent out into a U, until there was blood. Belts were used buckle out, because the metal hurt more than the leather did. A "spanking" was at least 50 (and sometimes over 100) whacks with the instrument of choice. This was a daily occurrence with most of us. My mother was just as violent as my father, and sometimes more so. I saw her once throw her baby halfway across the room when the baby wouldn't stop crying. Our one reprieve was when my mother got a pair of foam flipflops. They made a huge sound, but we felt nothing. We gave Oscar winning performances of how much it hurt for about six weeks, when she finally clued in, we all were beaten just to make up for what we got away with. When we were big enough to run, we tried that and would be chased around the house by my mother and father, which would only make them more furious, which just made it worse for us when they finally dragged us off.
We were covered in bruises and cuts for most of the time as kids, and when I was ten my little brother (who was then four) went to the school nurse for the first time. She was horrified by the marks all over his little body and the school sent a social worker to investigate. We were all sat down by our parents and told that we had to say that he had fallen down the stairs. It was the only time anyone had ever checked into their behaviour and although we went along with what we had to say, I was so happy to see the fear in their eyes.
I was about six when I realised the hypocrisy of my parents behaviour, and that they were hitting me for hitting my sister. The only difference was that they were bigger. I hated my parents for the way they treated us and it only built the resentment towards them. While they always said that they didn't want to hit me, but it was the only way I would behave, all it really did was teach me to keep my mouth shut while my anger at what they were doing seethed. I got into fights in school on a regular basis and became more and more violent. When I was nine I wrote a poem at school about a dog that was abused by his owners as a pup and came back to rip them to pieces when he was grown (I think I had just read White Fang). I got an A+ for it and my teacher sent the poem home to my parents. They were not impressed and I had to do some very quick talking to explain that of course that was not what I actually thought.
My parent's brutal punishments pitted us against each other as siblings and completely destroyed any loyalty we had for each other. As the eldest most things were my fault according to my parents. However, the only way to get out of being beaten was to put the blame on someone else. The choice for all of us was to be beaten until you broke and begged on your knees for it to stop, or we let someone else take the fall. I hated my parents for this most of all. While usually it was my fault, if it wasn't, I was torn between the pain and shame of being stripped and beaten and ratting on someone I loved and should have protected. I had outside friends and knew that not every child lived like this. I used to dream that someone would do something and take us away from our parents.
My parents have six children still living with them, but they no longer use corporal punishment. I was able to confront them a year or so ago, and we talked things through and I can say I have forgiven them. My father came from an abusive home himself, and he somehow never made the connection between what he was doing and what had made him run away at 16. The rage I still feel scares me sometimes though. I don't know if I ever will trust myself to be a parent. The genetic legacy is not looking good.
I am ashamed to say that I spanked children myself when I was a minor in the Family. While it was never the way my parents beat me and I could use all the excuses of that being all I knew, or whatever, but it is something I will forever regret and will always feel immense guilt over and never really forgive myself for.
I do believe that spanking a child violates their body. It teaches them that people can touch you and hurt you if they have enough power over you. Something I remember about my parents is that they treated their friends and other adults so courteously and respectfully, and yet had no respect for their own children. Although pain no longer frightens me, I still have frequent nightmares that I am trapped into humiliation and degradation even now. Knocks and bruises are part of being an active child, but the humiliation and dominance is perhaps what is most damaging psychologically. It certainly did a number on me. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Wednesday, February 04, 2004, 13:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your story sounds familiar; I would be interested in hearing what your brother(s) think about their childhood. I bring this up because the harsh punishment we received as children didn’t leave any noticeable scars on my life, but my sisters bring the subject up often and it seems to have affected them negatively. I’m actually glad my parents were strict on me, even if excessively so, because I believe it taught me self-discipline which has been a tremendous help in adulthood. I wonder if corporal punishment has a different effect on guys than on girls?
I’m undecided on the spanking issue, and I’m in no hurry to make up my mind since I won’t be having kids any time soon...
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Wednesday, February 04, 2004, 17:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
There is only one brother who is old enough to remember this level of physical abuse from our parents. He is a very private person and rarely talks about the Family at all, so I doubt very much he will discuss this here. His opinion is not something I can talk about, but I can say that of all of us who are grown, I am the one who keeps in closest contact with my parents.
I have nothing against discipline and even strict (non-violent) parenting, but personally my parents taught me nothing about self-discipline. There was no consistency, punishment was arbitrary and almost always out of frustration and anger. If anything they were acting like out of control children themselves, and we knew this and had no respect for them at all because of it. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Christy
Wednesday, February 04, 2004, 15:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
Interesting, Wolf. I remember being seriously disturbed by your parents' discipline of your sisters. I was about 12 at the time and I wrote the area shepherds a long letter detailing my observations. In my family, a spanking consisted of 8 or 9 swats with the hand or a rope belt (neither of which inflicted more than a few minutes of stinging and A LOT of humiliation and anger) so I was appalled when I saw your sisters getting more than 50 swats at a time. Anyways, I did like your parents and sympathized with the difficulties they had controlling so many little ones. Still, this was something that bothered me for a long time. It's interesting that your sisters remember and are negatively affected. At the time everyone involved accused me of exaggerating. Even so, I never regretted speaking up about something I knew was wrong. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Dani
Wednesday, February 04, 2004, 18:20
(Agree/Disagree?)
That's quite a strong statement to make. Don't know if I remember you or not. As bad as he may of been I could name quite a few, including second generation, who were a a thousand times worse. It easy to make general statements with people, as far as family goes it one thing for one's family to talk about things a quite different for another. I sure people could say the same thing about your father. As bad as our life's may have been it could been worse and I think it's important to remember, even if it's few and far between the good times as well. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Tom I.
Wednesday, February 04, 2004, 22:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
It's possible others could say the same about my dad; and I agree, when I looked over it later, it did seem like quite a harsh statement. I have good memories of your dad as well, though. Like the time we were at the pool and this girl was locked out of her car, and he pulled down the window with his hands--I've tried that several times since (unsuccessfully). Your brother and I were buddies when we were 11, so I was hoping to get in touch with him. Can one of you girls give me his e-mail? (reply to this comment) |
| | From jo
Wednesday, February 04, 2004, 18:17
(Agree/Disagree?)
my 2 cents
My Dad also used to sing to us when we went to sleep. Some of the songs I remember best are Streets of London by Cat Stevens, Where Poppies Grow and 'Inch by Inch' dunno by who, when I think about these songs now it always makes me nostalgic. We had a film strip projector and my parents would show us film strips of bible stories in the evenings.
We did get spanked a lot as kids and poor Jules did usually get the worst of it. I do however remember one point when they were trying to introduce alternate methods of discipline, the infamous 'penny off system', for every thing you did wrong you'd have a penny deducted from your pocket money (which if I remember correctly was about 50p a week). Their spankings were often over the top and I'm not sure if we had one hair brush in the house that still had its handle. But I don't think it's really fair to them to only paint one side of the picture.
We could read at a very early age, I went to ballet classes, judo and attempted (miserably) to learn to play the recorder. We used to go camping in the summer time, and while nightmares of postering will always haunt me, yes we did that too. We lived on a council estate in South East London, had cheese on toast nearly every day for lunch and I'm sure times were really hard. My childhood is a mixture of both happy and sad memories.
Our parents definitely believed in corporal punishment, but I'm a mother of two and I don't spank, or swat my kids. They're no angels, but they're kids and I wouldn't want them to be perfect. So I don't necessarily believe that just because a person was treated harshly as a child they will in turn treat others the same. When I took care of children in TF I did spank them, sometimes a knuckle on the head for simple things such as wiggling too much, creating my own little military, poor kids they were just being themselves. This still eats me up today, I feel really guilty and ashamed of my over-use of 'discipline'. But it was never just to be mean or cruel to the kiddies, or out of spite. The pressures of taking care of kids 6, days a week (and often being someone's childcare helper on the seventh ) 23 hours a day, when you're a young teenager is a lot, and we weren't the only ones being used for slave labour in TF. Not that this is a justification for my behaviour, but I think if you took one side of anyone's life and highlighted that, they'd be either an saint or a demon.
I'm not particularly close to my parents, probably due to the fact that I haven't lived with them for most of 16 years now, but I don't hate them. Any bitterness that I have towards them probably lies in the fact that I always felt they cared more about 'serving god' than they did about us.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Wednesday, February 04, 2004, 21:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jo, thanks for your response. I really did not mean to attempt to invalidate your memories, or just be one-sided, and apologize if it seemed that way. I was just trying to talk about what I remember from my childhood. I generally don't write or talk about things that can still hurt me, I wait until I have processed and distanced myself from certain things, and this is actually the first time I've been this raw on this web site.
While I do respect what you brought away from our childhood, perhaps we just have different realities. I think for me the key word here might be nostalgia.
While you were not often the focus of either of our parents' wrath, having myself experienced watching our brother be dragged off by his hair while I was safe right then, I know the fear and powerlessness I felt, and the guilt of the relief that it wasn't me. What I am trying to say is that even if you did not experience the same level of actual brutality I did, seeing this all around one has a similar effect, in my opinion anyway.
When I first left and realised exactly how messed up the Family was, and how deep it all went, I felt incredible shame. The Family will always be a part of me. It's my childhood, where I come from, my hometown, and when people attacked it without really understanding it, I felt that they were attacking me. When I had been out of the Family four or five years, there was a certain amount of nostalgia that kicked in. I remembered the closeness to other people, the instant intimacy that was there, I remembered the sense of purpose, and that I immediately knew what motivated the people I was around. There was one happy time in particular I remembered dearly, I felt that I fit there, right then and I felt that there was where I truly belonged. For the first five years I was not in contact with any current Family people, there were a few exers but we never "went there" and the memories of the emotional turmoil were starting to fade.
Like the idiot I am, I have delved back into all of that, and for the last three years I have been almost constantly reminded of the pain, turmoil and the shame that being a child in the Family entailed. The nostalgia regarding the Family is definitely no more. I have been continually reminded of what they did to me and what they have done to so many of us. Whether that is healthy or not remains to be seen, but at least I know what I know and fully feel what I have experienced. I hope that as I face the demons head on and dare to confront them, I can then move on and conquer them. It's just very very difficult to actually do that. Not going there almost destroyed me, and going there has so far been brutal too.
To get to my point, for the last nine years I have had to deal with the fallout from Mom and Dad's (lack of) parenting almost continually because of all of our siblings that I have lived with. It has been continually in my face. Personally I am proud of being able to be charitable and to only remember the good when we discuss certain things about our parents, but it's been so much easier for me to do that when time or distance removes me from the issue. However, for me now, sometimes things are what they are.
I actually am close to our parents. I talk to them at least once a week. I have confronted them, which was one of the most difficult things I have ever done, but I have also forgiven them. I consider them both Mom and Dad my friends. We will never have the parental relationship I longed for as a child, teenager and even as a young adult, but I finally now know how to take care of myself. I appreciate their creativity and their ideals. What tells me that they have truly changed, apart from their now non-violence, is that they have become involved and taken responsibility for their children at home now, even when those children reach the age of majority.
I guess I no longer need anything from our parents, whether that be support now or a happy childhood, and that to me is the crux of healing. I can see my own childhood for what it was and still move on and know that this does not define me. I can't fix the past, but I can make damn sure it never happens to the others.That, in the end, is what motivates me. I can't protect the child or girl I was, or change what has occurred, but if I can I will give everything to make sure no one else ever has to experience those things.
I guess that's what you do with your kids. You have definitely completely reinvented yourself, and what I said about our genetic legacy of rage and aggression was what about what I fear in myself. Your children are obviously happy and secure. I don't know that I could have survived what you have. You and I have been through things that no one else in this world knows about. You will always be my beautiful, empathic and affable sister, and I hope you know how much I love and respect you. (reply to this comment) |
| | From jo
Thursday, February 05, 2004, 09:47
(Agree/Disagree?)
Hey Jules, I hope you know how much I love and respect you too. You've always been a champion of the underdog and would give anything to help people avoid pain and suffering. You've done loads to help all of us and I know at times this isn't easy. No matter how much one tries to help people avoid the pains of life, it seems that especially teenagers or even young adults, (or any of us for that matter) still do things that inevitably will have dire consequences. You've never been afraid to address things head on and this quality has not always made your life particularly easy (to understate) but I admire that it in you, it takes a lot of strength and guts, I kinda tend to dance around issues.
I didn't mean to try and invalidate your feelings either or your memories because I know that those things did happen, a lot of times you took the flack for things that weren't your fault. I just didn't want only the bad things to be remembered.
I also wanted to clarify that when speaking of nostalgia I don't have any nostalgic memories of TF, not that I don't have any happy memories, although they are few and far between, but seeing as nostalgia implies a 'longing for something past', this is definitely not a word I would use when speaking of TF (somehow it even feels wrong for me to use capital letters here) but more when talking about childhood, kinda like that email 'I resign' that was being circulated a while ago:
http://cheekyd210.tripod.com/resign/
I don't think all of the things listed there are particularly true of our childhood, but it’s a nice place to be. I've always lived in 'Jo's world' most of the time, it's a happy place :), and I like remembering things like eating ice-cream in the park.
It's the way I deal with things, by disassociating myself from them until I'm ready to deal with them. Perhaps not the best way to deal with things because when 'reality' does hit, it always hits hard, but it works for me. I guess we all develop different methods for coping with things.
Not that my issues from early childhood are entirely resolved, neither are they staring me in the face at present. I don't want to only remember the good times and treat the bad as if it never happened, well, I do, but I'd only be deluding myself. As much as I'd like to believe that these things didn't happen and burry my head in the sand, I can't, they did happen. I remember when either you or our brother were treated particularly bad, I'd feel so embarrassed, embarrassed for the person that was in trouble at the time, and also embarrassed for mom or dad, and when it happened to me I was embarrassed as well, or perhaps mortified would be a more accurate description. But in my memories good things happened too.
For me life needs balance, if I ignore all the bad, then I will be lost to La La Land forever, but if I only remember the bad, then I get very down, I dunno.
You’ve done loads to help people come to terms with some of their issues, myself included, thank you. Like my little munchkin says to me ‘never let your fears stop you from dancing on the moon’, whatever that means, and I think I’m waffling now and have drunk far too much coffee.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Nancy
Monday, February 02, 2004, 11:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
I have to disagree. I have a very strong-willed child who is only two years and two months old, so he does not understand consequences as well as an older and more verbal child. I have even taken him to his pediatrician to get some ideas on how to address his behavior. He does not respond well to being told "no." He is in the midst of "the terrible twos," which most parents will admit is some of the most trying parenting, with the exception of a rough teenage period. (Just to note: I have raised siblings during their teenage years, as well.) He was a wonderful baby, just a joy. I could take him anywhere, including a movie, and he would sleep.
Yet, recently he's begun to develop his own independent nature and ego. He is difficult to say the least. I know he will grow out of it, but getting through it has been tough. I've consulted his doctor and lots of other parents and books. I have found that my strong-willed child, who would be a likely candidate for a swat or two from time to time when he's running out into the middle of a parking lot or street, does NOT respond to corporal punishment. It's useless. His doctor has told me not to use it at all as it will teach him that it's okay for big people to hit little people and combined with his temper, he'll be more likely to learn to hit as well. His doctor cares for hundreds of children and has been a pediatrician for more than 20 years. Approximately 350 of his little patients have behavior disorders ranging from ADHD to bi-polar and autism. The research which his office provided me with showed that time out was the most successful form of discipline for children my son's age. Yet, my son will sometimes not stay in time-out. So, I have had to learn to be creative in shaping his behavior. Distracting him and praising him when he does well has been some of the most successful techniques for my very defiant child. Again, spanking does nothing. It serves only to make him more and more worked up. Spanking the strongest-willed children, as those you seem to be arguing need it, is actually the worst form of discipline for them. They will not respond to violence, which is what spanking even in its mildest form is. Violence, swatting and spanking attempts to break a child's will, teaching them to obey out of fear of pain, not out of love and respect and wanting to please their parents. Children treated in that manner will rebel as soon as the controlling, domineering and violent punishment and parent who uses it is gone.
I have seen children raised without any form of physical punishment or yelling. They turned out to be some of the most well-adjusted and well behaved children and young teenagers I have seen. It definitely took a lot more work and creativity on their parents’ part not to hit. It's a lot easier to swat a child than it is to deal with them for a half hour or more when they are having a fit. Yet, in the case of the children I've seen, the investment paid off. The children obeyed because they wanted to please, not out of fear. Those Christian fundamentalists who beat their children which objects in an attempt to break their will are more likely to end up with children who rebel against them when they are older. Look at all of us. We broke away from the oppressive Family as soon as we could. The human spirit will not be oppressed. This includes the spirit of a child. A child is not a belonging. A child is a responsibility entrusted to us until he or she is old enough to care for himself or herself. We will be responsible for how we care for that responsibility when the child is grown. I think abusive and harsh parents are in essence very shortsighted. They, like the Family, do not foresee the day when that child will be a man and remember how fairly or unfairly you attempted to shape their character.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From merrily
Monday, February 02, 2004, 10:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I agree, I don't think poping a kid in the butt is really going to hurt a child for the rest of it's life. I talked to my pediatrition when my first baby was young as the best way to discipline her and if or when I should spank her. And she suggested the only time a child really should be spanked is when it endangers his/her life or someone else's life. Like a sibling. Some kids just don't get the point. Of course I think trying to spit at me is potentially life threatening as well. So I guess it's for a parents discression. I don't think past the age of eight is really going to benifit from a spank as it will just serve to make them more rebelous. And harder to deal with in the future. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From I remember
Monday, August 09, 2004, 09:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
It disgusts me that kids as young as 5 mths old were spanked for wetting the bed- at that age "PUT A BLOODY NAPPY/DIAPER ON" morons! Also they caused the bed wetting as it was so frightening having to get up in the night or I'd be so afraid to go to sleep for fear of wetting + spanking that if I needed to get up I'd be too tired and would have a dream that I was on the toilet..whoops!(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From merrily
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 12:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
What is a spank? To me a spank is an open handed swat on a childs clothed bottom. I will have to say anything else consitutes abuse. I do by no means spank as my only means of punnishment and I do not do it very often. But there simply are times as a parent when the other options do not work. A wilful child is not going to sit down for time out. Or go to their room, or discuss why they are behaving the way they are. I have to admit that I did let my kids get away with a lot when they were younger and I did not discipline them when I should have. The main reason was because I hated being disciplined when I was a child, therefore a lot of their bad habits are a result of not saying no sooner. The bottom line is I Love my kids and I'm going to raise them the best way I know how so they can be successful adults in the future.
My question for all of you is, how do you keep your relatives from spanking your kids. My folks have been out as long as I have. And out of nessesity they have watched the kids and finnaly after many years do they respect the fact that I do not want them spanking or swating my kids. They feel since they are watching them they should discipline them the way they want to. My opinion is I am the parent you need to follow my guidelines. Or you cannot watch them.Give me your feed back. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From ChrisG
Wednesday, February 04, 2004, 20:28
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would never let my parents touch my little girl. Just the fact that they used to be part of an abusive cult, even if they're not anymore, is enough to tell them that they do not have sound judgment when it comes to corporal punishment. I told my parents not to correct her at all, as I feel their standards are still shaped in some ways by TF standards, since they raised their own kids in the TF. Thankfully, my parents agreed, and they do not discipline her at all, but leave that part of her upbringing to me. (reply to this comment) |
| | From katrim4
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 13:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Absolutely merrily!! No way in hell my parents or anybody else is going to use any sort of corporal punishment on my daughter. My boyfriend once threatened to beat up my uncle (who is still in the family and happened to be visiting my parents at the same time we were) if he so much as tried to give her a swat. I think she was only about 7 months old at the time as well. My uncle tried to give us some big talk about how important the "rod of correction" was. What an idiot!
I would also not hesitate to cut off any usupervised visits with either set of grandparents if I found out that they were spanking my daughter. A zero tolerance policy is the only way to go on this one IMO.
While we may be more lenient as parents and think that our children are more spoild than we were as kids, so what. So long as they are happy and well adjusted, why not let them get away with stuff that isn't going to hurt them or someone else. I always thought it was so hypocritical how these Family adults would spend hours and hours a day reading the Rais em Right or some such book jus to turn around and spank their child. Whatever happened to the natural consequence idea? If you don't finish dinner you may be hungry later. If you don't share your toys the other children may not want to play with you. But no, not these bright brains, just spank them, or better yet, put them in the corner until they can quote Matthew 24 from memory.
(reply to this comment) |
| | from Pangloss
Friday, January 30, 2004 - 21:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
This is indeed disturbing news from Canada. It seems to me that the definition of "reasonable force" can be somewhat subjective and I doubt some parents are capable of rationally defining or employing it. In the communitiy I live in, even highly educated and trained police officers have difficultes with the concept of "reasonable force." Sometimes, I think the best solution is to require formal training and education (and perhaps a license or certificate) before people are allowed to raise children.
Nevertheless, here in Central Texas, the local prosecutors occasionally take child abuse seriously. Recently, there was the case of an 11-year old boy who was severely beaten with a tree branch at a evangelical vacation bible school for "being unruly and not memorizing his verses." His parents were actually the ones who requested that he be "disciplined." However, upon discovering the extent of his injuries (the boy was hospitalized in critical condition and has permanent kidney damage), the parents reported the matter to the police. His assailants, the Thompson brothers (the preacher's sons), were eventually sentenced to 10 and 7 years. Although, they will probably get out earlier for good behavior or in the unlikely event their appeals are successful, I think justice has been partially served. The parents also filed a civil suit against the church and the Thompson brothers. However, I'm sure for every case with a relatively positive outcome like this one, there are many more that are not even reported or investigated. On the other hand, there is the Lacresha Murray/Jayla Benton case which is a quite bit more complex to analyze.
While I think the risk of child abuse in TF has decreased dramatically over the past few years, the fundamental problem is that TF policy apparently requires the reporting party to be at least temporarily reclassified (excommunicated) if they feel obligated to report it.
(reply to this comment)
| From Jules
Saturday, January 31, 2004, 01:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Sometimes, I think the best solution is to require formal training and education (and perhaps a license or certificate) before people are allowed to raise children."
I think I might be agreeing with a Texan.
Before Immigration Canada deports me, and the hordes of Canadian Liberals send me via the US to Syria to be tortured, let me clarify that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child states that children have the right to not be tried as adults, but to be given the chance to be rehabilitated. (Only two countries in the world have not ratified this treaty. One is Somalia. Please look up the other one.)
Before any Republicans jump down my neck regarding Lacresha Murray, let me just say that I believe that children should be children. When children kill it is symptomatic of a sickness in our society. Children should not be exposed to violence or sexuality (whether it be Jacob Cartoon, Grand Theft Auto or Britney Spears). When children are precocious you have to wonder why. Children are all born innocent. What is it that corrupts that? What teaches innocents that it is okay to kill, that their bodies are commodities, that life must be a battle or a bartering process?
We do as adults. I get a lot of grief on here for being a feminist from people who have no idea what that means. Well I actually do know what that means. I first learned it from a book in a brothel (long story). I went from the mentality of the 1800’s (and where was the best I could hope for was being barefoot and pregnant), all through the 1900’s in what is coming close to 10 years.
I saw an interview the other day on CBC with a woman called Toni Morrison. I had never heard of her before but when I saw this interview, something about her gripped me. She was talking about her latest book “Love”. There is a scene in this book where the protagonist marries an eleven year old girl. She was being asked about this and what she said haunted me.
She said that she has seen (she is in her 70’s) women in subsequent generations give up all that they have gained. Women turn themselves out to the pimps of the beauty market when there is nothing but commercialism to make them do this. Women abdicate their moral ethics and turn to rudimentary violence when Hollywood says this is what you must do now to be attractive. We have fought for so long to be free from violence, and yet we glorify Uma Thurman when she can slash and dash. We have fought for so long to be more than our bodies and yet Christina Aguilera’s albums sell among preteen girls.
Women have voluntarily given up what our previous generations have fought for. What does Post-Feminism even mean? You are free to buy Pamela Anderson(TM) Xtreme makeovers(TM), Ally McBeal(TM) dieting products and designer suits, just like Metro-Sexuals can now buy Swiffer(TM), beauty products, shop at the GAP(TM) and douse themselves in unisex fragrances? That sure is freedom. When brands like Kotex(TM) and Nike(TM) patent what individuality used to mean, what even is individuality anymore? Buying something at Banana Republic because you don’t know what else to get?
What angers me is that everything is marketed, without consideration for the long term implications. Violence is sold in a game or film. Art should push boundaries, make us think, but what is packaged to us does neither. It exploits the worst about us for the sake of maximizing sales. "Reality Shows" show us what we want to see, (society distanced from us and shockingly enough so that we feel better about our own failings) not what we should see (that our children, ourselves and our siblings are being brainwashed by the commercialism and moral depravity we turn a blind eye to). This is the legacy we bring to ourselves and our children, and this is why the cynicism goes so deep. I wrote an eight page article sometime back on this, but didn’t have the guts to post it. Sir Rantie is doing a good enough job so far (not that I agree with him on everything, but he sure can rant).
Intellectually, scientifically and anthropologically we should be more evolved. We are supposed to be moving forward. Is that actually the case? We are hoping for life on Mars. Will we patent that as well?
When we are so afraid of life in the Middle East that we feel we must invade and dominate it, do we really think that any other life out there would risk contact with us? Why are we are so embroiled in our own navel gazing? It is the depth of winter here in Canada and the time when I re-evaluate my life and perspective (and-usually-also up my anti-depressants).
I do believe that we will as a global society continue to evolve and progress past our own paranoias and the greed we are driven by now. I do regret that it seems that in my lifetime the gains will be small at best. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Benz
Sunday, February 01, 2004, 23:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
Don't let any one tell you you're not creative Jules. - You employ symbolism, metaphor, and with a certain lean toward fantasy-fiction (sent to Syria for torture – I mean…..really??!!).
I have just one question, which, if answered without bias, may go some way to dispelling my current view that your comment/ article employs a hopeless dose of circular logic.
On one hand you seem to imply that not enough is being done for the “rights of women” yadda yadda, and on the other hand you disapprove of recent wars fought at least partially on the premise of providing more rights to women, as in Iraq & Afghanistan.
How is it that you “Feminists” (and I am generalising here) seem to want people to fight for your rights, yet at the same time condemn the peoples/ and or governments who fight the wars??
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Benz
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 00:10
(Agree/Disagree?)
Either I don’t read enough newspaper, or the Maher Arar story just didn’t make news where I am. However if you actually expected someone outside of Canada and perhaps the US to automatically draw a relation between your being sent to Syria, and an event in your local news, I’d say it is you rather, who should be footing the bill for that marvellous bridge!
Your objection to my remark regarding fighting for rights of women in Iraq and Afghanistan, appears to have missed my point as well. I specifically referred to a “premise”, or a purported reason for going to war.
As far as what your personal political opinions regarding “the reason” for the war are, be it oil, Jewish conspiracy, terrorism, weapons of mass destruction, or as you put it simply “domination”, that is not what I was referring to. The fact remains that the reason being chiefly used as the reason for war especially now since the failure to locate “weapons of mass destruction” in Iraq, is that they were “liberating” the people. – And who are right up among the previously “oppressed” – women!! – This is especially true for Afghanistan, where the Taliban were/ are notorious for extreme levels of abuse against women, and which was widely publicised.
Fighting for Women’s Rights was/ is a huge tool used to sway the general population into supporting the war, even when weapons of mass destruction could not be found. – I’m not saying that it was only women’s rights, religious/ ethnic minorities freedoms were also used as a tool to justify public conscience, but you can’t refute that women’s rights have been used to gain public support, and hence a “premise” for war.
I also dispute your implications that women alone should be credited for fighting for their rights. Society as a whole (at least in the western world) has changed with respect to treatment of many different types of minorities, cultures, etc. Yet while the western world has changed to accept and assist those considered disadvantaged, the countries of those whom we call “minorities” rarely if ever equal those standards. – And the same in my opinion with the “rights of women” in the western world, where in custody/ divorce legislation women have been trouncing men for years.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 01:16
(Agree/Disagree?)
Give Americans some credit. Despite current stereotypes most Americans happen to be very intelligent. 9-11 was an act of war and everything the American people have supported has been because they believe they must defend themselves against this horrific aggression and they have trusted their leader/s to guide them through to the best route to do so.
Do you really think anyone in North America was concered about how women are treated in Iraq? We are all aware of the status of women in Kuwait and Saudia Arabia. Note the lack of occupying troops. The email about women in Afganistan is something that has been circulating since 1999 (when I first received it anyways). Do you really think that anyone would support sending their brothers, sons and friends to war to over that? Even if they would, why now and not then?
Perhaps you should read more newspapers and not so much of the spam. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Joe H
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 12:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
"Do you really think anyone in North America was concered about how women are treated in Iraq?" I hate to point out the obvious, but you live in North America, and as far as I can tell, you were/are concerned. I'm "concerned" too, but not to the point of sending my brothers over there to die for them. Let them fight for their own rights, like you say women always have done anyway.
I'm not really sure why you brought up "the email about women in Afghanistan," but it seems odd in the light of your last sentence about ignoring spam, which I consider forwarded emails to be a form of.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Jules
Wednesday, February 04, 2004, 23:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
You see, now there is there is the love. My memory might be coming unblocked.
Sarcasm aside organize is a strong word. How about organise? My thoughts make sense to me because they are organised to me. I am big on organisation. Presenting thoughts at 1:30 am is not something anyone should be doing unless they WANT to sound like our DLF Culti, or they work the philosophy night shift.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Benz
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 01:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
e-mail about Afghanistan? – Come again Jules, if I have received any e-mail’s about Afghanistan they certainly don’t come to mind, unless you’re referring to some of the Bin-Ladin dance clips etc from about a year ago.
I’m sure you’ve noticed the recent resignation of the US weapons inspector and his statements as to whether weapons of mass destruction ever existed. So, you’ve probably also read or heard that what is instead being hyped up is that the war was justified on the premise of “liberating” the peoples of Iraq from a dictator/ tyrannical regime. – Increased Women’s rights/ freedoms are always going to be a part to continuing publicity to show “positive effects” of the war.
As far as Afghanistan goes, the increased freedoms/ rights of women again have been a huge part of the post war positive publicity despite the fact that the country is still practically in the equivalent of the dark ages. – Last year Afghanistan had its first entry in a female beauty contest for at least over 50 years. – That certainly didn’t pass my observant eye.
I’ve never suggested that Americans’ aren’t smart enough to realise various hidden agendas for going to war, but the vast majority of people will certainly be influenced by such “noble causes” as the freedoms and rights of women, even when all else fails and weapons of mass destruction continue to elude.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From clarifying
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 02:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
I think you're confusing a 'premise for war' with a justification after the fact, a premise for war would be something stated as a motive beforehand, ie WMD.
As far as I know women's rights were never mentioned as a justification for war until it became obvious that their stated reason was a load of rubbish, therefore women's rights are an afterthought, not a premise, this may be what is confusing Jules about your argument.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Benz
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 05:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Since historically US politics clearly show that "justification after the fact" is easily rewritten as the "Premise for war", I hardly think that any confusion by either you or Jules should be blamed on me.
All you are doing is emphasising what I've just been saying, US politics are now holding "liberation", and subsequently womans rights as the "premise for war". So while you are right, in that weapons of mass destruction were the initial "premise", the hype is around "liberation", to where it is considered the "premise".
- let me know if this is still confusing for you.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Saturday, January 31, 2004, 04:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
“Children are born innocent”
Maybe, but they are also born intrinsically selfish. A newborn doesn’t give a damn what time of day or night it is, or how tired his mother is. If he’s hungry, he wakes her up. Murder is quite a few decibels down on the scale of selfishness, but it’s based on the same principle.
Let’s face it, we’re all animals, we’re born that way, and life is a constant struggle between letting your animal instincts loose and submitting to society’s controls, whether political, religious, domestic, ancestral, etc.
The violent entertainment you speak of simply makes it easier for children to let the animal in them come out and play.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Infants
Monday, February 02, 2004, 11:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
A newborn is geared, even programmed toward survival. I think you are overlaying babies' behavior with your interpretation based on what you could call that behavior coming from somebody old enough to understand.
You say children "are also born intrinsically selfish. A newborn doesn’t give a damn what time of day or night it is, or how tired his mother is. If he’s hungry, he wakes her up."
I don't think it's right to say that a newborn "doesn't give a damn," I would say that a newborn DOESN'T KNOW!
A baby is not capable of doing what you seem to be suggesting it would if it had a loftier character, i.e., waking up, being hungry/soiled/in pain, thinking "hm, it sure looks dark outside (and that *is* the outside because the curtains are open), so maybe I'll just wait to get Mommy. After all, I have been making her tired, and I'll choose to risk a rash/getting sicker/getting hungrier than is good for the health of my tiny body, because selfishness is bad, and that's what I would be if I cried right now and woke her up/interrupted her activities."
Babies don't have those words to say or formulate intentions. Beyond that, the issue of whether human nature is intrinsically good/bad/neutral is the topic of philosophical inquiry, and statements like yours are not accepted by everybody. They assume an "original sin" or similar kind of attitude. Not even all strains of Christianity impute an evil baseline to children. Those who do, though, certainly provide an easier starting point for those who want to justify their abuse of children.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Monday, February 02, 2004, 14:50
(Agree/Disagree?)
Don't get started on religion -- my post was not remotely religious.
Children may lack awareness of their selfishness but that doesn’t make them less selfish. I think we all agree that they shouldn’t be treated the same way as an adult who knows better. But going on about how “pure and innocent” they are and how they only learn negative qualities from adults is a bunch of nonsense from la-la land. I’ve observed plenty of young children at play, and 90% of the time they are cruel to each other, animals or even inanimate objects until taught otherwise.
There have been at least two recorded cases of children who grew up on their own (sociologists theorize that they were abandoned at a very young age). In both cases the individuals were never able to progress past the cultural level of animals – they never learned a basic sense of right and wrong, they never learned to communicate efficiently in verbal or written form, and they had no moral principles. In my opinion they were good examples of where we’d all be at if we didn’t have adult input as we grew up.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Christy
Monday, February 02, 2004, 18:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
I remember those two particular cases being brought up in some of my sociology, psychology, and child development classes. The argument between nature and nurture continues. There are very few documented cases of humans growing up with so little human interaction, so experts draw extensively on what they can learn from these cases. If I remember correctly, one of the children was kept hidden in the attic (tied to her potty during the day) and the other child was hidden in a basement. In both cases, the children's only contact with the outside world was when a parent would bring in food. The girl who was strapped to her potty was also regularly beaten. Their behavior when they were found and released (even after years of therapy) was definitely inappropriate and immature. Their language abilities were permanently affected but I don't remember anything about how their confinement affected their development of moral principles. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Questions
Monday, February 02, 2004, 18:55
(Agree/Disagree?)
Thanks, Christy, you answered one of my questions to Wolf. Below I asked: "Those 2 who grew up "on their own," what was the context they did grow up in?"
From your post, it seems clear to me that the limited human contact these children had was precisely with abusive adults.
"...If I remember correctly, one of the children was kept hidden in the attic (tied to her potty during the day) and the other child was hidden in a basement." Somebody had to do the hiding.
"In both cases, the children's only contact with the outside world was when a parent would bring in food." Yep, a parent. However limited the contact, it seems the child would perceive, as even a dog would, who is in charge.
Further, if "The girl who was strapped to her potty was also regularly beaten," these two cases prove nothing of the sort that Wolf claims they do.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From frmrjoyish
Monday, February 02, 2004, 17:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Any mammal baby, including humans, need nurturing and caring for longer than almost any other class of species. It must be taught how to behave, and what is normal amongst that particular species. These children never had opportunities to learn from other humans about how to act. That is the reason for their stunted behavior and growth. To compare them to animals, not only misses the point, but it's ignorant.
I'm familiar with the studies you are refering to and am not aware of any behavior problems from these children having to do with harming others, such as, cheating, lying, or any other "negative qualities". It has been shown in studies that such behaviors do stem from a child's interaction with its parents and other members of society as it grows. For example, a child discovers lying is a way to manipulate others and avoid negative consequences around four years old.
It's not "selfish" for a baby to be hungry and for a mother to wake up and feed the baby in the middle of the night, it's instict, and it's in the mothers best interest to get up and care for her baby as well. Biologically speaking, the whole point of life is to reproduce so your genes will carry on to the next generation. Since humans have few offspring relative to other species, extreme care and nurturing is required in order to raise the child to adulthood. The greater the amount of care, the greater the chances of survival for the mother and father's genes.
Many of the awful things you acuse 90% of children of doing were things they learned from society. While "pure and innocent" is a value label we as adults place on children, to a certain extent it's true. Human are not born as developed as many species, so much of what they know is taught to them, they do not learn it without the influence of society. Their minds are, in fact, a blank canvas, so to speak.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 00:35
(Agree/Disagree?)
Your reply is very well written.
My wording isn’t exactly “nice”, but I don’t mean to debase humans by comparing them to animals. After all, there are many magnificent animals. Some non-human animals are capable of working as a team and fairly advanced communication, but they don’t come close to the human level of teamwork and communication which has enabled mankind to advance millions of evolutionary years ahead of the rest of the animals.
I place an emphasis on unselfishness, because I think this is a particular quality that humans are capable of learning and animals are not. Even in the case of animals who work as a team, they are geared towards individual survival, and they will trample on each other to get ahead without the slightest hesitancy. Have you ever tried to explain to a 3 year old why he / she needs to share his / her toys? It’s a very frustrating experience, because a 3 year old just can’t comprehend why they should value the happiness of another person. Young children who hit another person or animal also seem to have difficulty understanding that they are causing that person / animal to feel pain, so they are usually “cruel” to people, animals and things, until adults (or older children) teach then that it’s wrong to inflict pain on others.
In my opinion the positive human qualities that distinguish us from other animals are too advanced to be learned by a human who has no contact with other humans. They either developed through millions of years of evolution, or they were instilled in us by a creator. Unfortunately, however, many negative qualities seem to come naturally.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From katrim4
Wednesday, February 04, 2004, 18:14
(Agree/Disagree?)
So big whoopee for you. You loaned your CD walkman out to someone. It was your choice to do so. Why force a three year old to share? What is gained? You can ask him to share the toy with a play mate, you can even reward him if he does share the toy. But in the end, the only natural consequence for not sharing a toy is really not all that bad and would not, in my book, warrant corrporal punishment.(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Joe H
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 12:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wolf, I seriously hope you never have children. Calling a crying baby selfish is the most patro-centric thing I've ever heard of (yes, I made that word up). It reminds me of when I was 12 years old and I had to take care of my baby sister, and told my mother that she had a real murmuring problem.
If animals are so damn selfish, then how do you explain the scorpion, which will normally sting itself when you light it on fire, but will slowly burn if its babies are on its back? Granted, the babies die anyway, but the mother willingly suffers a slower, more painful death to avoid stinging its own babies(this experiment was not my idea!). We've all heard the story about the hen protecting its chicks from fire, though unfortunately, I can't find any proof that this actually takes place (though I have seen the scorpion example with my own eyes, an alleged quote of Jesus' is all I have to go on that the chicken story is true) Other examples of animal altruism include:
-Vampire bats will regurgitate and feed blood that they have collected from their prey to a hungry conspecific(Wilkinson, 1990)
-Ground squirrels will warn others of the presence of a predator, even though making such a call may draw the attention of the predator to itself (Sherman, 1977).
-In many species of social insects, workers forgo reproduction entirely (they are sterile) in order to help raise their sisters (Wilson, 1971).
But let's quibble about semantics for a minute: can you really describe someone who doesn't know any better as "selfish" or "cruel." I think selfishness is when you KNOW that your behavior is self-serving even to the detriment of others, but you just don't care. I see the term "cruelty" the same way. A toddler squeezing a kitten isn't being cruel, just clumsy. The very reason why it's possible to teach a child to share is because they DO care about others' feelings. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 15:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let’s get one thing straight, I have nothing against babies crying when they’re hungry. I’m not dissing children, I was one myself just a few years ago, and I sure was one selfish, cruel bastard, though I guess I didn’t really know any better.
You gave good examples of animals looking out for each other. I’m guessing they do so to protect their race and thereby themselves (or their offspring), but maybe some are capable of thinking beyond their own survival.
I’m game for quibbling semantics, but I think I’ve made it pretty clear already that I’m not speaking of children being intentionally selfish or cruel. What word would you use to describe a person who is only concerned about personal gratification, albeit without the knowledge that it is possible to be concerned for others? And what word would you use to describe a person who causes pain or distress, albeit unintentionally?
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Banshee
Monday, February 02, 2004, 17:39
(Agree/Disagree?)
You use the word "cruel" to describe the behaviour of young children? I have worked with many, many, many children, cared full time for nearly as many, and have some of my own. I have never, ever seen a young child do anything that I would remotely describe as "cruel." The behaviour, for an adult or older child/teen who is in complete possession of their rational mind, would be considered cruel--because they know better. But to a young child WHO DOES NOT KNOW how to behave, who must be taught EVERYTHING, their heart is not cruel. They never do things out of cruelty or evilness or hatred. Those are not things they are born with. They ARE pure and innocent in the sense that they react and behave out of necessity and emotions, not out of cruelty and hatred. It only becomes cruel, hateful, or selfish once a person KNOWS such behaviour to be cruel or hateful or wrong, and yet still chooses to do it. And yes, your post was religious because that whole theory of being born inherently evil IS religious. It is used by religion because it gives them a basis for which to claim all men need salvation regardless.(reply to this comment) |
| | From Wolf
Monday, February 02, 2004, 23:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
I’ve really stirred up a hornet’s nest on this one…
You’re right, children are “innocent” because they don’t know better. They aren’t cruel out of a cruel “heart”, it just comes naturally … but if you consider my view religious, your view is just as religious in the assumption that a person’s “heart” (inner self?) is either “good” or “bad”.
Let me reword my post so you understand it (and I admit using the word “innocent” was a mistake): children do not intend to be cruel, they just are. It comes naturally. It’s very true that they are not to blame. But it’s just as true that they can only learn unselfish positive qualities such as sharing, giving, and loyalty from adults. Expressing emotion, on the other hand, does seem to come naturally.
Talk of “being born inherently evil” is a misinterpretation of what I wrote. I wrote that humans are like animals when born, incapable of the qualities that separate humans from animals, until taught those qualities by other humans. Every sociology textbook brings out the same point, are they religious as well?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Wolf
Tuesday, February 03, 2004, 00:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Selfish: overly concerned with one's own welfare or interests and having little or no concern for others; self-centered. I didn’t say they were “intentionally” selfish; obviously they don’t know any better.
One of the cases in question was a girl who was brought up in a dark room alone, like Christy said. The other one was a young man who was found in the forest, “jungle book” style. It wasn’t clear how much (if any) of his life he spent with humans as an infant, but he was never able to learn the human qualities I listed above. The second case happened in the 19th century so we don’t know as much about it as we do about more recent incidents. Apparently there were several reports of individuals who grew up in the nature, but this was the only well-documented one.
Of course, different sociologists have different theories about the learning process. I agree with those who hold that humans are not capable of learning moral judgment or advanced communication on their own.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]