post #161 of 204
6/19/09 at 3:18am
No really with the wife beating and slavery issue I am just talking about hitting a child - while yes I have feelings on some of the other issues it seems that these are directly related. It's about every other human and now even animals haven finally been given the right not to be hit against their will, EXCEPT for human children. It's about how just like they aren't protected there was a time where people who are protected now weren't protected either - how people SPOKE UP to change that - how its wrong its done to children and people should speak up to change that too (if they want it changed - obviously men who spanked their wives didnt speak up to put an end to it, and people with slaves didnt speak up to end slavery, etc - but some people DID speak up, or things would not have changed.) Society does not change when everyone sends the message its in an acceptable state of being. By not saying anything when you see a child be hit you are sending implied acceptable - even if its only acceptance of a persons right to hit another person (though in this case its only legal if that other person is a small child). Just because the law says it is their right does not mean it really is. That is not the only American law that protects people's ability to violate another person's right. We've lost sight of what this country was built on. What we need is a non-prejudiced approach to the original laws. Instead we just create laws that take away more rights, and never fully carry out the laws our country was built on.
As for "wife beating: that is not what I was taking about anyway. I was talking about spanking a woman (against her will) which is only considered "beating" today becuse women have rights, but the actions taken are no different then the ones taken against a child who is spanked. Why is it if a man puts a woman over his knee and spanks her (and im not talking about the bedroom kinky stuff, I'm talking about against her will) that it is considered abuse, but when done to a child it is punishment? I mean really, at least a grown woman can choose her spouse. Children can't choose their parents.
In some cultures, women have historically been spanked by the patriarch of the family or the husband. This is now regarded as tantamount to wife-beating and in modern times it has become socially unacceptable and is considered abusive throughout the developed world. Corporal punishment of women by their husbands, however, does still exist in some parts of the third world.
It's really NOT apples and oranges to compare hitting a human to hitting a human, unless one person's status does not count as human because of a factor that has nothing to do with whether or not they are human? This was once color, this was once gender, and it is still age. It's not apples and oranges. It's just some people calling apples oranges to excuse their poor behavior. And even if it were apples an oranges they are both still fruit. Either one can be used as a baseball or served with breakfast, but if you don't want to waste food you eat it. Food is meant to be eaten, even if you don't use it that way.
Hitting another person simply goes again the human rights.
Universal Declaration of Human Rights
Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,
Whereas disregard and contempt for human rights have resulted in barbarous acts which have outraged the conscience of mankind, and the advent of a world in which human beings shall enjoy freedom of speech and belief and freedom from fear and want has been proclaimed as the highest aspiration of the common people,
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
Everyone is entitled to all the rights and freedoms set forth in this Declaration, without distinction of any kind, such as race, colour, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status. Furthermore, no distinction shall be made on the basis of the political, jurisdictional or international status of the country or territory to which a person belongs, whether it be independent, trust, non-self-governing or under any other limitation of sovereignty.
Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of person.
No one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment.
There are 30 articles in total but the TOP ones seemed most applicable to what I am saying here. The ones they felt they should mention FIRST on their list.
There is also something called the 4 freedoms:
1. Freedom of speech and expression
2. Freedom of religion
3. Freedom from want
4. Freedom from fear
Dr. Mahbub ul Haq first drew global attention to the concept of human security in the United Nations Development Programme's 1994 Human Development Report.
Personal security — Personal security aims to protect people from physical violence
(of course, the way this is carried out now hitting your wife or someone on the street in ANY capacity is considered violence and punishable by law, but hitting a child is not considered violence)
It seems that these things are CONDITIONAL not absolute. The only condition being children.
openly advocates four particular children's rights, including the end to juvenile incarceration without parole, an end to the recruitment of military use of children, ending the death penalty for people under 21, and raising awareness of human rights in the classroom. Human Rights Watch, an international advocacy organization, includes child labor, juvenile justice, orphans and abandoned children, refugees, street children and corporal punishment.
Scholarly study generally focuses children's rights by identifying individual rights. The following rights "allow children to grow up healthy and free":
* Freedom of speech
* Freedom of thought
* Freedom from fear
* Freedom of choice and the right to make decisions
* Ownership over one's body
Other issues affecting children's rights include the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography.
You do make a good point Storm Bride- thanks!
I can certainly agree. We wouldn't let our dog or child roam the street (people who do that are definitely neglectful or abusive IMO).
So, fair enough, some rules have to be different. But, protection is what it's all about in both cases. IMO hitting children is not appropriate and they should be protected from it just like they should be protected from roaming the streets or other hazards.
I know it's a slippery slope, but violence of any sort really does upset me a lot.
The only thing I am truly vocal about is smoking in places where there are children everywhere (like the zoo) or within the "law" limits of buildings (here is is 25 feet of a doorway). I don't agree with all that other parents do with their children, but I'm sure they think I'm a whacko hippie too. Just because I do it this way doesn't mean I'm right, and just because it's not socially acceptable doesn't mean it's wrong. KWIM? To each their own, I guess. Smoking is another thing altogether! I don't want my kids breathing in that crap!! I don't smoke and I don't want them exposed to it. I can't make them stop smoking, but I can make them stop smoking around my kids!!
They are all probably very mad that people didn't "mind their own business" but mind your own business is really code word for don't call me out on doing something wrong because I dont want to stop and I think *my* opinion about hurting other people is right, and your opinion about not hurting people is wrong, and you should keep your opinion to yourself.
This is reaching - a lot. And this is also how people who choose things like co-sleeping and homeschooling end up with CPS reports; some busybody is convinced that the parents actions are wrong and speak out. Ask any parent here who homeschools, had uc, doesn't vax or co-sleeps if they think they are harming their child and how they would feel if people chose to lecture them because they were actually wrong. Seriously, this whole thing is getting extreme.
granted i came into this converstation late, but i don't think it was saying that you have cps called on people because you say something to a parent or advocate for children's rights.
At least that is in no way what i said. What i did say was that i have had to deal with more than my fair share of cps involvement and cps treats because of other "well meaning" people not mtob.
I am not a child abuser, but i am a huge red flag in my area because of my homeschoolding, ucing, hbing, nonvaxing, and large number of children. People just automatically assume they can give me all sorts of advice and tell me how to raise my children, and when i disagree or do something that they feel is not right, they make a stink and cause a lot of trouble.
I have had many threats (cps threats) made as well as several dealings with cps because of this.
I really wish people would mtob much more often.
Granted I came into this converstation late, but I don't think it was saying that YOU have CPS called on people because you say something to a parent or advocate for children's rights.
At least that is in no way what I said. What I did say was that I have had to deal with MORE than my fair share of CPS involvement and CPS treats BECAUSE of other "well meaning" people not MTOB.
I am NOT a child abuser, but I am a HUGE red flag in my area because of my homeschoolding, UCing, HBing, nonvaxing, and large number of children. People just automatically assume they can give me all sorts of advice and tell me how to raise my children, and when I disagree or do something that THEY feel is not right, they make a stink and cause a lot of trouble.
I have had many threats (CPS threats) made as well as several dealings with CPS because of this.
I really wish people would MTOB much more often.
It was overreaching IMO to say that standing up for childrens rights is the same thing as causing CPS to take away innocent people's children.
I don't know, IMO and experience, those that don't MTOB "think" they are "standing up for children's rights", and ARE causing trouble. And let me just say that it does not even have to come NEAR taking the children away for it to be a HUGE problem. I have never had my children taken away, no where near that, but I have had several investigations based on some people that should have just MTOB (all unfounded and totally NOT my fault, some even based on lies).
Now, if a person is JUST telling me I am wrong and how I should care for my children, I might get annoyed but I can blow them off, and have. But it is when that person gets into the "standing up for children's rights" over MY rights as the parent and tries to take action. THAT is when it is wrong and they should MTOB.
That is just MO, of course.