Abuse and Consequence (Intent of thread restated in post #8) - Page 2

[DevaMajka]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

What would those be? I'm trying to think of an example that would actually help change a rigid person's mind.

Maybe I'm giving people too much credit. Like, they are hitting kids, in the name of discipline, because they simply haven't thought about how ridiculous the entire idea is.

And I'm not talking about coddling, either. I don't think that saying to someone "spanking is hitting. And hitting doesn't solve anything" is coddling. Saying "oh, I can tell that you mean well when you spank your child. There are ways to discipline without spanking" yeah, maybe that's coddling.

I will stand by what I said- that telling someone that they are being abusive by spanking, will only "shut them down" to what you have to say- unless someone who HAS spanked their kids tells me that having that said to them would have made them reconsider spanking. Or knows someone who had that reaction.

I know this has been said before, but if someone told me I was abusing my child by bf'ing him this long, I'd roll my eyes, and continue with the bf'ing- because even if it's abuse to them, its definitely NOT to me. And I'd probably not listen to anything else they had to say- they obviously have very different ideas than I do about what's ok and what's not. I'm not going to stop. But, say, they said something like "kids who are bf'ed that long, don't learn independence." That doesn't turn me off from listening to them. It could be true (not a reason to stop bf'ing though). And it might make me think about other ways I could try to foster his natural inclination toward independence. (not MAKE him independent, but LET him be as independent as he wants to be)

gotta cut this short- ds is having quite the demanding day (and night last night- ugh that's rough!) lol

[ThinkBlu]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

How is it name calling if you are stating a fact?

I think for something to be seen as factual, it needs to be something which can be proven without a doubt, or something which all involved parties can agree on. For example, my parents are Christians and believe somethings to be 'fact' that to me are opinion or faith. In the case of spanking, while true all (I think) GDers see spanking as ineffictive, I'm not sure much beyond that is recognized as "truth"...now bring in the non-GDers and all bets are off!

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

Sometimes people need to be shocked out of their comfort zone and sometimes that shock has to be something that initially angers them, repulses them. Thinking back, I can't recall one major societal shift in the rights of a group of people that began by coddling the dominant group.

I'm glad this came up. I was thinking about this too and I hope this thought spurs more discussion. What does change the views of a society? How do major societal shifts take place? Does it "take all kinds"? Are those who so offend me with their 'offensive ways' doing my 'dirtywork'? While I strongly advocate for being non-offensive and for working in peaceable ways and for working within the legal system for change, I am willing to discuss that may not be enough. I worry sometimes that I am so 'politically correct' that if I lived 150 years ago that I would be one 'advocating' for the 'humane treatment of slaves' without seeing the irony of the stance.

[immortal ambition]

" Plain and simple. Intentionally inflicting pain on someone...whether physical or emotional, is abusive behavior...."

I disagree with that. If that were the criteria for what was or was not abuse than just about everyone in the world would be considered an abuser. How many times have you seen someone say a little comment just to hurt someone else (I see it on the net alot)? How many times have you been frustrated and said something to a spouse or relative just to get to them or fire them up? How many times in an argument have you brought out everything from the past that you could think of to hurt the other person? Most people have done that at least once in their life. That would be intentionally hurting someone, that may be wrong, but it would not be abuse.

also what about people who don't think they are harming another person therefore not making it intentional harm. Is it not abuse then? What about a pedophile who believes that they are just having a consentual relationship with a child?(There are many who believe this) Someone who pierces their childs ears? Many people spank, but they don't believe it is harmful, they believe it is improving their children to make them better stronger people.(I don't believe this myself but I know some who do) So according to your criteria it would not be abuse because they are not intentionally harming. What about people who nurse their 4 year olds. Many people believe that is harmful emotionally bordering on sexual abuse. Do that mean it is abusive because the mother is intentionally nursing...or not because she herself does not believe it to be harmful? What about this situation. My son is allergic to milk, overall we don't eat dairy, but his favorite pizza at the health food store has dairy on it. I buy it for him when he wants it. He knows it will most likely give him a stomache ache, but he wants it anyway. I am buying it knowing it will cause him to suffer. Does that make me abusive?

I stand by my first post. Abuse is based on definition not opinion.

[charmarty]

How many times have you seen someone say a little comment just to hurt someone else (I see it on the net alot)? How many times have you been frustrated and said something to a spouse or relative just to get to them or fire them up? How many times in an argument have you brought out everything from the past that you could think of to hurt the other person? Most people have done that at least once in their life. That would be intentionally hurting someone, that may be wrong, but it would not be abuse.

Not according to this...
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=abuse

I stand by my first post. Abuse is based on definition not opinion.

Something we DEF. agree on.

[captain crunchy]

Okay, hitting a child is not abuse...I'll bite if you can tell me exactly what hitting is?

Love? Respect? A learning opportunity?

I mean, what exactly is hitting or name calling or shaming....what nice, friendly, non-threatening term should we all be using then?

Loving parents who strike their child when they can't be controlled by threats or shame or punishment?

as in...

"I saw some loving, caring parents threaten and shame their child and then when the child wouldn't obey, they hit her/him"...


I know your post was meant for me to sit up and think "heyyyy, I have hurt people in my life...but I am not abusive!!" ...but unfortunately, the people I have hurt knowingly or intentionally (few I hope) have been abused by me. It is abusive behavior to hurt someone...

Um, and I think the whole scenario of the sexual abuser not knowing it is wrong is a moot point. If sexual abusers didn't know they were doing wrong, they would openly touch children or speak openly to other adults about their attraction towards children or whatever and wouldn't threaten or shame or scare or convince the children not to say anything. I think we can all agree those behaviors are ones of premeditation and are acts of someone who knows their behavior is not right or acceptable.

The pizza scenario... I am guessing you don't buy the pizza, NOT tell your child what is in it, then shove it down his throat then laugh when he feels a stomachache. I am guessing you probably say something like -- sweetie, you know dairy makes your tummy not feel right and this pizza has dairy in it... and I am guessing he actively chooses to take his chances and eat the pizza anyway... so that is not considered abuse to me...

I have never heard of a child bending over and choosing to get beat or hit by their parents.

Children who are hit and shamed and yelled at and threatened and basically scared into submission don't have choices. The act of taking away someone's right to live peacefully WITHOUT being hit by another human being is an abusive act. The fact that everyone deserves to live with some dignity and choice over who puts their hands on their body, and that parents left and right violate that choice with a violent act of hitting them may not be abusive by nature, but are committing abusive acts.

....and I stand by that. Abusive is defined by the person being abused, not by the person committing the abuse. If it FEELS like abuse to the person being hit, it IS abuse.... and I haven't met one child in my entire life, who has said that it "felt like love" when their parents were hitting them.

[charmarty]

CC you hit it there girl!

[immortal ambition]

If sexual abusers didn't know they were doing wrong, they would openly touch children or speak openly to other adults about their attraction

Some do not believe it is wrong, they know it is illegal...but those are two different things. Knowing something is illegal and believing it is wrong do not always go hand in hand. Spanking is legal, but many feel it is wrong. Smoking pot is illegal but many feel it is ok. The coersion and manipulation they use to keep the child quite are from the fear of the laws not from the fear they are harming the child.( I am talking about pedophiles here not child molesters).

Have you ever heard of NAMBLA (North American man/boy love assosiation)?

They believe it is consentual for men and boys to have "relationships. They want the laws changed. They are some frightening people as I have delt with some through the court systems. They truly believe that they will eventually get the laws changed.

[captain crunchy]

Okay hold the phone.

Consentual means that BOTH parties are consenting. I am seriously to believe that say, an 8 year old boy WANTS to have sex with grown men? Hmm... I don't buy it...when one party is consenting and the other party is being manipulated, lied to, shamed, and abused...it is not consentual.

[Fuamami]

Originally Posted by Dragonfly

the hitting, belittling, and otherwise treating children as second-class citizens that goes on in many homes, while it may not have the immediate effect that requires emergency action to protect the child's life, does have a slow-burn effect that grows a damaged adult.

I haven't read all the responses yet, but I want to say that I hate this idea. I think it's very offensive to call someone "a damaged adult", especially considering a majority of Americans are raised in a hitting household. Parents who genuinely believe that they're going to raise their children without ever sending the wrong message, responding in the wrong way, or losing their temper are either insane or still pregnant with their first kid. But calling the result of being human "abusive" and the result of being raised by a human "damaged" is unfair and unrealistic.

So I guess I think it's offensive and unhelpful to attack corporal punishers as "abusers". It's easy to get on your high and mighty horse and say that those parents are just lazy, selfish bullies. I know, I've been on that horse before. But I think the truth is that they're just doing the best they can out of genuine love for their children. In fact, I'm thinking right now that it's true, people do sometimes spank out of love, in a way. They love their children and want them to "turn out" and when they see them misbehaving they fear that they won't unless they're punished, or they get angry that they're not "turning out".

[~member~]

Originally Posted by captain crunchy

How is it name calling if you are stating a fact?

Seriously, if I say to someone that I feel hitting is an act of violence, or an abusive act and challenge them to put another word in the place of *violence* or *abuse*, it sounds pretty darn silly.

i.e.

Hitting is an act of love. Hitting is a form of teaching. Hitting is a loving act. Hitting is a mature act. Hitting is an act of caring.

Who's the "nutso" then? I mean, if someone told me hitting was an act of love I would be the one leaving thinking they were "off".

Very well put.

[Talula Fairie]

Originally Posted by maya44

Picture this. A man swats his wife on her backside in anger. No mark left or anything. Do you honestly, in any true way, beleive that if that woman calls the police and describes what happened the man will be jailed? The answer is no.

Actually, in California where I live, almost all reports of domestic violence require the spouse to be arrested and taken to jail, usually only for a night. The state charges all reports of domesic violence, they are required to by law even if the spouse does not want charges filed. It's likely that in the case you speak of the man would be just given a slap on the wrists, so to speak, and given anger management courses or something. And the woman could get a restraining order if she decided to leave on the basis of having been hit; it's not as if there are no punishments for what you speak of. So legally, it's still considered abuse. At least, that's the way the law is here.

To the OP...I do think that hitting, all hitting, is abuse. My mother hit me my entire life, until I was old enough to defend myself and make her stop. She would hit me repeatedly, and even had thrown me to the ground, grabbed my hair then dragged me accross the floor, kicked me, ect. She never left a mark. You can't honestly believe that because I was not injured severely (not visibly bruised usually, not burned, ect) that I was not abused? What she did left serious emotional scars, and has made my own life difficult. I have serious issues with rage (for which I've sought therapy) and it's a struggle to control myself and not hit my child in anger. I don't want to continue the cycle of abuse.

So, in short, I feel that hitting IS abuse. ALL hitting IS abuse. And it's wrong. Would I tell someone who spanks I think they're abusive? Probably not, unless I suspected more severe abuse than just a swat on the butt and I knew them personally. I do see where you're coming from in feeling that if we get too "preachy" with GD that we will turn people away; but it doen't change the facts. Just like saying that formula is inferior to breastmilk is technically offensive to people who use formula; saying that spanking is abuse is offensive to people who spank. But that doesn't make it any less true.

[AntoninBeGonin]

Interesting thread. I read all the posts.

All hitting is abusive. Sometimes what you say to someone else is also abusive. I agree w/a PP that abuse is defined by the person recieving the abuse, not the person dealing it.

As far as calling a parent who spanks "abusive" I also agree that would do more to hurt the situation by offending them to the point of not listening to you. I think it would be better to say something like "I really disagree with you hitting your child. I want to talk to you about this..." Of course, this approach would work best if you (the GD-er) is constantly ready to give a very thorough explanation of GD and maybe hand out some pamphlets.

Just an idea.

ETA: I'm someone who can sound very authorative. If I told someone I wanted to talk to them, they'd know I wasn't screwing around LOL.

~Nay

[velochic]

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?

[WuWei]

Abuse is defined by the perspective of the abused. He who dissents to an action done against him is violated. The pov is determined by the "victim", not the intent of the force.

In a consensual act, there is no possiblity of the abuse/victim/violator matrix. It is the act of dissent which creates the act of violation. Abuse is the event of having no recourse but to consent or accept or experience the violation. An action that is imposed against another's will is a violation.

Just as I can't say what is or isn't abuse "according to GD", the parent can't say what is or isn't abuse "according to the parent". It is according to the individual, who dissents. (before they are indoctrinated to believe "it is for their own good" or because "the parent knows best").

Pat

[captain crunchy]

Damn it, I misspelled consensual ...I put a T in there...

What a dork...

[aira]

I only scanned, but I got the gist of this thread...

Well, if I'm following your logic, Polpot wasn't all that bad. I mean, he wasn't Hitler or anything. Calling those murdered by Polpot victims of "mass murder" sure lessens the term for those who were murdered under Hitler's regime...




If you're so eager to protect the feelings of those "really" abused by keeping the term "abuse" pure, why are you willing to belittle the experiences of those whose power, self esteem, and freedom are stolen from them on a regular basis by their parents?

Just because someone's experience of demeaning, demoralizing behavior inflicted on them by their parents doesn't hit your radar, why would you categorically dismiss the experiences that group of people?

I'm asking you these things as a person who was severely abused as a child. In no way do I feel that "lesser" abuse than what I have seen is "not" abuse. That's a bit silly IMO.


It's a very complicated thing, how children cope with abuse. To the therapist who works with abused children, you should know this.

Some children may have very high threshholds for abuse (as I somehow seem to have), and can be a mostly functional adult. My therapists have all been floored at the level of abuse I endured after they meet me.

Other people have very low threshhold for abuse inflicted on them. It doesn't take much violation for them to lose their grip on reality, and let their coping mechanisms take over permanently.

Why are you or anyone else the judge of what that level of violation is that harms or damages any one person, other than yourself?

Better to call it what it is and work to stop it all.


To somewhat answer your original questions... I think that if someone is offended that we call their hitting of their children abuse, then that's between them and their conscience.

[Dragonfly]

Originally Posted by natensarah

I haven't read all the responses yet, but I want to say that I hate this idea. I think it's very offensive to call someone "a damaged adult", especially considering a majority of Americans are raised in a hitting household.

I call it factual. A person who thinks that it's appropriate to hit a small child who is totally dependent on them and has no means of defending him/herself is absolutely damaged. And I am damaged. It's been quite a chore for me to remove the impulse to hit from myself.

Parents who genuinely believe that they're going to raise their children without ever sending the wrong message, responding in the wrong way, or losing their temper are either insane or still pregnant with their first kid. But calling the result of being human "abusive" and the result of being raised by a human "damaged" is unfair and unrealistic.

I don't know many people who believe that they're going to get their children through to adulthood without ever responding in the wrong way. I'm not sure how that fits into this thread as I've not seen anyone say it. We're talking about violence toward children (or, to use the PC term, spanking). And I don't think that being violent toward a child is a "human" quality. I think it's something that happens to people - it's a value that is perpetuated from generation to generation and becomes so entrenched that it overrides the instinct to protect.

So I guess I think it's offensive and unhelpful to attack corporal punishers as "abusers". It's easy to get on your high and mighty horse and say that those parents are just lazy, selfish bullies. I know, I've been on that horse before. But I think the truth is that they're just doing the best they can out of genuine love for their children. In fact, I'm thinking right now that it's true, people do sometimes spank out of love, in a way. They love their children and want them to "turn out" and when they see them misbehaving they fear that they won't unless they're punished, or they get angry that they're not "turning out".

You're assuming a lot. I wouldn't call many parents who spank lazy, selfish, or bullies. I do think they're confused and either too frustrated or too proud to think outside the box. They're probably also lacking in self-awareness because they're not questioning their own behavior. They're just taking it as a given that they somehow inherently know how to do this very important, very complicated job. I'm sure they love their children, but spanking is never a loving act.

[aira]

I haven't read all the responses yet, but I want to say that I hate this idea. I think it's very offensive to call someone "a damaged adult", especially considering a majority of Americans are raised in a hitting household.

So just because it happens all the time it's OK?

Really?!


Does that mean that it would be helpful to the cause if more people were really traumatized? I mean, that way those who are suffering from a typical upbringing would comparatively not have been abusive. I guess all the effects I still deal with would just vanish if the average level of abuse went up???

[captain crunchy]

Great Post Aira... I especially liked this comment:

I think that if someone is offended that we call their hitting of their children abuse, then that's between them and their conscience.

Again, I ask, where do we draw the line? There was a time not long ago...and even to this day many people think this way... that if a woman invites a man into her apartment, kisses him, lets him fondle her etc... and yet does not want to have sex, that it isn't rape if he goes ahead and rapes her anyway ...because well, we all know that sometimes no means yes right? ....disgusting...

That is the same vibe I am getting from this discussion regarding hitting...the old, *well, if it doesn't leave a mark* and "you have to stop the behavior some way* or *it is a DIAPERED butt, it doesn't hurt" or "the parents DO hit in love, they don't know any better" etc and so on...or a husband grabbing a wife's arm in a moment of anger is not as bad as slapping her face etc...

It is wrong. Striking someone is wrong. It is an act of violence and an abusive act.

It is not up to me to make someone feel really good about hitting their child....if they feel offended perhaps they shouldn't be committing such an offensive act. Yes, instilling fear in another individual by physically striking them with hands meant for caressing and loving them, is offensive to me...

[umami_mommy]

a question for the OP..

what was the point of this thread? i keep looking for it and i can't find it.



as a former therapist i can assure you that many adults severely abused as children will insist that they were not in fact abused and they deserved it since they were such difficult children. many victims of childhood abuse blame themselves.

in a legal sense (in NY state) abuse means that you have put your child's life in danger more than one time. if you have broken your child's arm once, but not twice, it is not abuse. it is neglect.

is that the socially agreed upon definition of abuse? of course not. why is the law like that? my good friend who works for the ABA in their center for children and the law told me that the reason is because so many families would fall into any lesser definiton of abuse, that the state would never have a place for a tenth of the kids who would have to be legally removed from their parents. kinda revolting eh?

but still, i'm scratching my head over what the meaning of this thread is other than trolling.