Abuse and Consequence (Intent of thread restated in post #8) - Page 7

[ThinkBlu]

Originally Posted by sledg

So what I think, really, is that you can't help the child without helping the parent.

… And for many people using certain words [added by ThinkBlu – or conveying a judgmental attitude] shuts down the conversation completely…

I am not talking about standing by doing nothing or pussy-footing around talking in mysterious and subtle ways. I am talking about recognizing that whether or not I think it's the way it should be or the way I'd like it to be, many people do shut down (stop listening) when you phrase things a certain way. I would like to create the chance that they will listen to and hear what I have to say. I would like to facilitate communication. Not give a lecture. If I actually want to help I have to be willing to communicate, to listen and to respond and to say what I'd like them to hear.

wanting to speak in ways that allow other people to receive what I want them to hear. For wanting to allow them to feel heard, for wanting to understand what they need to change. For wanting to have a dialogue. It's so much more important to me to get at the reasons people do what they do, and to give them (to the extent that I am able) what they need to look at things in a new way and what they need to do things differently. I want to also be an example, both by how I interact with my children and how I interact with most adults.

Very nice sledg! I hope you are being understood. I’m beginning to convince myself that maybe I am, that though we may still disagree that we all understand that we are trying to advocate as effectively as we can.

Your post also states…

Originally Posted by sledg

I would like to create the chance that they will listen to and hear what I have to say….
Maybe they won't listen if I do this. But I will have tried. And if they aren't a person who will listen…then they aren't someone who would listen even if…
…. I want to also be an example, both by how I interact with my children and how I interact with most adults [added by ThinkBlu – or possibly replace with how I advocate for the helpless]

And to show others who may feel that I am not seeing their message, that maybe I do, I would just like to say that I can see where the above statements apply to all of us.

Originally Posted by sledg

And I guess if it's a person I don't know, some stranger or passing acquaintance or some parent I see at my child's school but don't know well at all, then I think the issue is better addressed by some social activism than by me attempting to sway the parenting practices of a person I don't have any kind of relationship with.

Food for thought. I generally think this too, though I have recently (like in the past day or two) begun to think that maybe there are ways to instantly bond with someone, if your sincere intention is to help. I think some people have a gift for making an immediate connection. I don’t have that gift, but maybe if I work at it, maybe it can be developed.

[ThinkBlu]

Originally Posted by IdentityCrisisMama

I don't think you'll find anyone interested in change who doesn't think that understanding the influences behind people's actions is important. Also, "Meeting people where they're at" is a very common advocacy focus from my experience.

However, I disagree entirely and passionately with the assessment made by a quite few people here that labeling hitting children as abuse or violence is ineffective advocacy.

Furthermore, I do not think using this language conflicts with being thoughtful or gentle.

Understood, and while I am willing to entertain that there are perhaps times when labels such as abuse and violence are the most effective vehicles for advocacy, I think more often than not, that not the case. I guess if I were to propose a compromise, I would suggest recognizing that some do take offense (as many here have attested to) and start soft, escalating only to labels if you think that would be more effective after the soft approach fails. I think it possible to go from the soft approach to the hard approach, but once things have been ‘shut down’ by the hard approach, it’s not easy to go to soft.…Or, we could agree to disagree.

FWIW – I absolutely agree that the language does not conflict with being thoughtful or gentle. While I find it offensive, I also find it technically accurate, even thoughtful. I think I was making an unfounded assumption, assuming that if the words were offensive (IMO) that the delivery would also offensive (IMO).

Also, FWIW, the part in my post about “understanding the influences behind people’s actions” (to use your words) from my original post, was not meant to educate or talk-down, it was meant as a defense as I feel that my attempt to understand has been misinterpreted by some to be advocating or condoning ineffective parenting practices.

[ThinkBlu]

Originally Posted by aira

ThinkBlu, I'm in the middle of reading your recent posts, and I stopped to post in the suggestiong that you read anything by Alice Miller.

I kinda assume that most around here know about her, but from reading what you wrote, it struck me that you might not, and her writing might help you find what you're looking for.

By the way, thanks. I'll check her out.


Must admit, I'm curious to know what you think I'm looking for...not meant as sarcastic, honestly curious. Feel no need to divulge....thanks again. It's nice to know that someone is seeing my intentions as pure, and not just designed to heat things up.

[phathui5]

Well in response to many previous posts, if I had a husband that hit me every night for spilling my milk, or getting into a t.v. show and not listening or not picking up my clothes, I would consider him abusive. Why is the definition different when it's a child?

It is different because children in mainstream America (not here on MDC, I would hope) are normally considered second class citizens. They're what women and blacks were until recently.

[~member~]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Really, it seems to me that people who claim that saying that spanking is not abuse are, themselves, attributing to children a lesser status than adults.

:

[aira]

I was digging through to see where I read something that gave me that idea, but I'm going to be called by DS any minute, and don't have time.

The gist was that I got the impression from a sentence or two that you are sincerely asking about how people who advocate from a child's POV came to our opinions. Not sure I worded that exactly how I really mean, but you get the idea...

[WuWei]

Haven't caught up with reading threads, but happened upon this presentation related to constructing persuasive arguments. The basic premise is that one can argue logic, ethics or emotional imperatives. Each more effective depending upon the subject and audience. The ole' "know your audience" admonition......http://www.public.asu.edu/~macalla/l...hospathos.html

Maybe child advocacy isn't either: tip-toe OR abrasive, but "it depends....."

Pat

[umami_mommy]

Originally Posted by ThinkBlu

By the way, thanks. I'll check her out.


Must admit, I'm curious to know what you think I'm looking for...not meant as sarcastic, honestly curious. Feel no need to divulge....thanks again. It's nice to know that someone is seeing my intentions as pure, and not just designed to heat things up.

i think your intention was (known to you or not) that you would present this issue in a particular way (hence not being direct and up front, but convoluted and highly intellectual) and that would "turn on the light" for those of us that get hot about the issue and change our minds about the topic, ie that the medium *is* the message, and we would be reformed.

if you really meant to simply state the fact that you were offended by the way some approach this issue, then you would have done just that. since you did not, i would have to assume that something else was going on for you.

just because you present someone with an intellectual argument that makes sense, it doesn't mean that they will always be swayed by it, or even interested in seeing another prespective.

i hope i'm making sense.

[ThinkBlu]

Originally Posted by honeybeedreams

i think your intention was (known to you or not) that you would present this issue in a particular way (hence not being direct and up front, but convoluted and highly intellectual) and that would "turn on the light" for those of us that get hot about the issue and change our minds about the topic, ie that the medium *is* the message, and we would be reformed.

if you really meant to simply state the fact that you were offended by the way some approach this issue, then you would have done just that. since you did not, i would have to assume that something else was going on for you.

just because you present someone with an intellectual argument that makes sense, it doesn't mean that they will always be swayed by it, or even interested in seeing another prespective.

I was/am looking for a conversation based on intellect and logic, as opposed to one based on emotion....that is my comfort zone, and that is what 'moves' me, OTOH, I recognize that is not what moves most, so I welcome the emotional arguments as well though I admit, and not proudly, that they tend to frustrate me and I think that much of what is meant to be communicated is lost on me and dismissed as "being emotional". As for being "convoluted" and not being "up front", I disagree. I think my original post did state what I was trying to better understand, though I also recognize that my attempt failed and my message was not clearly received by many.

You have previously questioned why I did not take an "I am offended" approach, and I tried to respond to that in post#93 and I am going to avoid repeating, but I would like to add that I think there is a big difference between the giver of a message being offensive, the giver of a message sending an offensive message, and the reciever of the message taking offense. I don't think I have been in any way secretive about that fact that I have taken offense (in this thread and others) and it generally seems to be directed back as 'my problem'. Earlier in this thread, someone introduced the idea that if someone takes offense, that is between them and their conscience, which in my opinion is a cop-out, and it doesn't address people like me, people who take offense despite a clear conscience. I wasn't looking for discussion about why people take offense to the message, I think that is clear, I was looking for discussion about whether or not people knew that they were being offensive in thier delivery of the message, whether or not they knew they were delivering an offensive message and whether or not they thought it mattered. From the original OP

Originally Posted by OP

Do you think using words like abuse and violence to describe non-GD parenting likely would be offensive to parents practicing non-GD parenting?
[added for this post - i.e, do you recognize the message IS offensive?]

If you use words like abuse and violence in talking about non-GD parenting choices, do you care if others take offense? Would you change your vocabulary if you knew you were causing offense? Is it your intent to cause offense?
[added for this post - i.e, do you recognize the message IS offensive? do you recognize that the delivery of the message is offensive? Does it matter?]

Do you think using words like abuse and violence to discribe non-GD parenting styles does a disservice to GD? What do you think the over-all effect is?
[added for this post - i.e, Does it matter?]

IMO, this is pretty clear. *You* can ask why I didn't use different words, but I chose my words very carefully, particularily to try to avoid people taking offense to the questions. In hindsite, I think this topic ironically 'has a lot of noise' in it, i.e., a lot of emotion, and I'm not sure any words or any delivery can make *you* hear the message that I am trying to send.

I think that many of the messengers who deliver offensive messages (IMO) and who deliver messages offensively (IMO) do so without being aware that they are part of the problem when the message is not recieved. They feel justified that their message was "right" or "accurate" or "truth" or ________, and they turn the fact that it is also offensive back on the receiver, stating that the receiver TOOK offense, rather than realizing that 'I (or the message) GAVE offense'. I don't deny that I was hoping (though NOT hopeful) that some might take that message to heart. I have however long ago realized that my technical-manual style of persuasion, never works on topics with emotional aspects (which is almost all topics!) but I did hope (and it has happened IMO) that some others would also weigh in more eloquently on the topic.

[Trinitty]

Thinkblu,

For what it’s worth, I appreciate what you’re trying to do and the manner in which you are presenting this issue.

Many on this Gentle Discipline board seem to do their best to snip sentences out of thoughtful posts, paste them react to them with overly strong language and kill the discussion - and it’s really frustrating.

I do think the way in which Gentle Discipline is approached here often clouds the issue and turns people off. I’ve managed to scrap some valuable information out of this forum, but, it can be very tedious, especially when I see a mother asking honest questions, doing her best and being attacked. If someone claims that you were unclear in your intentions, they are being wilfully blind.

YES, I am angered when any form or amount of corporal punishment, (or even stern verbal reprimands) are called “abusive”. My parents were/are EXCELLENT parents, and I’m so thankful that I had them to grow up with. I was only spanked twice in my life, but, if I had done something horrible, say, drowning kittens – as my cousins were caught doing – I would have been spanked for certain. When I hit my sisters, I was warned, when I did it again, I was yelled at and sent to my room. Calling my parents abusive for being what I would call “strict” is pointless because I tune out when those methods are labelled in that way.

BUT, I am here, trying to read the Gentle Discipline Board because I think it’s important to learn some alternatives to spanking before I have children, because I don’t WANT to spank my children, and I want to cut down on yelling. There was a lot of it in my house and I don’t want to repeat it, NOT because I think it was abusive, but, because it was pointless in most cases.

So, I’m glad you posted this, ThinkBlu, it’s addressing a problem I was having with much of the discussion that goes on here.

[ThinkBlu]

Originally Posted by scubamama

Haven't caught up with reading threads, but happened upon this presentation related to constructing persuasive arguments. The basic premise is that one can argue logic, ethics or emotional imperatives. Each more effective depending upon the subject and audience. The ole' "know your audience" admonition......http://www.public.asu.edu/~macalla/l...hospathos.html

Maybe child advocacy isn't either: tip-toe OR abrasive, but "it depends....."

Thanks for the link.

I agree with this. I myself am “turned off” by emotional or offensively worded or presented arguments. And generalities (i.e., all Republicans, “men really make me made when…”, Christians believe this / Scientists believe that, etc.) all put me on the defense, regardless of my status as a member of the targeted group. OTOH, my college roommate was “shut down” by ‘intellectual mumbo jumbo’. I think given circumstances (i.e., skills of presenter, nature/mindset of audience, etc.) that different styles are called for. I find myself thinking that I am imposing unrealistic expectations on the “offensive”. Why would *they* be capable of effectively delivering a message in a non-passionate way if that is their ‘nature’, when I have thus far in life not become capable of effectively delivering a message passionately?



Food for thought. I know this is kinda trite, but I heard this on the radio this morning (don’t know the context, didn’t hear the whole story) and I thought I would share. The person talking was advocating for the learning of foreign languages, and made a point to the effect that…

while speaking the same language as someone does not in of itself solve problems, it is a good place to start.

[ThinkBlu]

Originally Posted by phathui5

It is different because children in mainstream America (not here on MDC, I would hope) are normally considered second class citizens. They're what women and blacks were until recently.

Can you elaborate a bit more on this? I am an American and I’m sure that influences my perspective. I don’t know much about American law when it comes to the historical plight of women as second class citizens, but I do know a bit about the plight of slaves, and I know that law was designed to limit their rights and were generally enforceable by all persons of ‘higher status’. I don’t see this as the case with children, quite the contrary (i.e., *you (with some exceptions) have no more rights to discipline my children than you do other adults, I as a parent am legally responsible to provide for my children, etc.), so I have a hard time understanding that argument.

[ThinkBlu]

Trinitty, (regarding post#130)

Thank you. It’s worth a lot!

[WuWei]

Originally Posted by ThinkBlu

Can you elaborate a bit more on this? I am an American and I’m sure that influences my perspective. I don’t know much about American law when it comes to the historical plight of women as second class citizens, but I do know a bit about the plight of slaves, and I know that law was designed to limit their rights and were generally enforceable by all persons of ‘higher status’. I don’t see this as the case with children, quite the contrary (i.e., *you (with some exceptions) have no more rights to discipline my children than you do other adults, I as a parent am legally responsible to provide for my children, etc.), so I have a hard time understanding that argument.

Perhaps the equally emotional argument that "children are treated like property" might or might not make the point more clearly. :

The point is that children (as a group or "class" of individuals), by law, have severely limited ability of recourse about how they are treated as compared to other "groups". Just as the "groups" of women and blacks had limited laws available to protect them from the will of the master. Children are "second class citizens" by law still. Not to mention the laws which *limit* children's rights of recourse, ie. you can't sue your parent for restraint of association, restriant of freedom of speech, restraint of free movement and restraint of other Civil Liberties which are endowed by the Constitution to all but CHILDREN! Ageism is the next equal footing upon which I am working to change. The sad part is that ageism is so pervasive as to be invisible. Just as patriarchy was (is). "It has always been done this way." "This is the way it is done."

Not to mention the right to be free from being physically hit. Of all things, how could that right not be remitted to other human citizens of a "civilized" country. We extended it to prisoners, mental patients, the elderly, animals..... Finally women and minorities. But not children. Is this clearer?:

Legally protected rights NOT to be hit by another =A

Prisoners=A
Mental patients=A
Elderly=A
Animals=A
Women=A
Minorities=A

Children do not = A

(oh, but hitting is "an attempt to discipline" "out of love for he who is hit") Can I say Bull**** on-line?



Ageism is changing, one family at a time. It is changing with me.

Be the change you want to see.~Buddha

Pat

[umami_mommy]

i agree..

thinkblu, i agree with what you are saying in your post to me.

i live with some who think s a lot like you do and so i recognize what you are saying. i (who reasons in a MUCH different way) was not able to quickly clearly find the reason/intention for your thread, to me, it seemed covert. (not "intentionally blind" as someone so rudely put it)

i recognize your intention, but do think that when approching a very emotional issue, an overly intellectual argument clouds the water (for me). just my opinion.

since this thread ended up being about opinions about spanking and abuse, maybe you could try again with an "*is* the medium the message?" thread.

[umami_mommy]

Originally Posted by Trinitty

YES, I am angered when any form or amount of corporal punishment, (or even stern verbal reprimands) are called “abusive”. My parents were/are EXCELLENT parents, and I’m so thankful that I had them to grow up with. I was only spanked twice in my life, but, if I had done something horrible, say, drowning kittens – as my cousins were caught doing – I would have been spanked for certain. When I hit my sisters, I was warned, when I did it again, I was yelled at and sent to my room. Calling my parents abusive for being what I would call “strict” is pointless because I tune out when those methods are labelled in that way.

FWIW, i just wanted to mention that i have heard many times from adults that were abused in the most severe ways, say *exactly* the same thing about their childhoods, parents and how they were "disciplined." why might that be?

i do think that this is significant. i really really do. i think it's really important to think about this and all it's implications.

i can give you example if you'd like.

[WuWei]

Originally Posted by honeybeedreams

FWIW, i just wanted to mention that i have heard many times from adults that were abused in the mose severe ways, say *exactly* the same thing about their childhoods, parents and how they were "disciplined." why might that be?

i do think that this is significant. i really really do. i think it's really important to think about this and all it's implications.

i can give you example if you'd like.

Because for what other reason would the provider of all that is essential to (a dependent child's) life, hurt their child ("me"), but out of love?????? This is "damaged" logic or brainwashing to believe that pain is deserved as discipline. And it is believed. And it is repeated. And it is believed. This is the worst possible (emotional and psychological) abuse: To believe that one deserved to be hit OUT OF LOVE!

I am not saying the parent *intends* the abuse. They too learned (had to *believe*) that pain is deserved as "discipline". This cycle of abuse needs to be broken to change.

Pat

[ThinkBlu]

Honeybeedreams and scubamama,

I too think this topic very worthy of further explaination. I was actually drafting up a spin-off topic this morning based on a previous comment that scubamama made about "indoctrination". I think "Stockholm Syndrom" is a pretty well known concept, which I think has direct ties to this topic....If we see someone as having ultimate contol over us (i.e., we are a dependant) and they show some mercy on us (which could be as thin as sparing our life by having not killed us when they had opporitunity) then we begin to see that our actions CAUSE the actions of others and we begin to take full responsibility for the actions of others. (This is the syndrom often sited in conjunction with Patty Hearst and Elizabeth Smart, The Kidnapped Bank Tellers (Sweden I think) and others who defended there kidnappers as compassionate, defying common logic.)

Anyway, unless someone beats me too it (which might not be a bad idea given how my OP's are thought to death!) expect to see a spin-off.

I think it potentially interesting to explore this topic with the idea that abuse is a climate (as suggested by dharamama) and possibly the debate regarding whether abuse is defined by the recipient, by the intent or by some unbiased objective but I it starts getting really muddy....much as this thread did. Why does everything have to be interwoven and so freaken complicated?!

[umami_mommy]

Originally Posted by ThinkBlu

Why does everything have to be interwoven and so freaken complicated?!

which is why i think people so often retreat into black and white and moralistic thinking. because it doesn't require much analysis or deep thought and certainly no self reflection.

:

[ThinkBlu]

Originally Posted by honeybeedreams

which is why i think people so often retreat into black and white and moralistic thinking. because it doesn't require much analysis or deep thought and certainly no self reflection.

Hear hear! It's easy to defend what you know is "right".