With regards to child abuse: would a comparison to hazing be appropriate at this juncture? Were the hypothesis correct, it would have a certain surface similarity.
I’m not sure I understand what kind of comparison you’re suggesting. I’ve heard numerous attempts to rationalize child abuse by analogy to hazing, I’ve even heard arguments by abusers to the effect that children are “weak” today because kids don’t undergo the same “hazing” that their parents put them through. “It’s nothing my parents didn’t do to me,” etc...
...hmm, I see a cultural divide, here. I disapprove of hazing, and consider it to be perpetuated because the victims feel like they’ve earned the right to revenge—even though said revenge is enacted on the wrong parties (the next incoming group, rather than the previous group that abused them). Therefore—ironically, as it happens—I made the analogy to hazing to indicate a possible pattern in the rationalizations.
consider it to be perpetuated because the victims feel like they’ve earned the right to revenge—even though said revenge is enacted on the wrong parties (the next incoming group, rather than the previous group that abused them).
In my high school, one of my classmates offered pretty much this exact justification for hazing freshmen.
I have always been reasonably intelligent (my current IQ (not from internet tests) hovers somewhere around mensa levels) and I have always been incredibly curious. These two traits has led me to always figgure out on my own, all the things I was supposed to learn in shcool in advance; I have always been at least a year ahead in mathematics and natural sciences, and I still am.
This does of course pose a slight problem when I have not been the same way in many, many other areas, and the kicker is that my parents never ever have heard of motivational psychology.
This has, as of my current analysis, led me to in my childhood and early teens believe that I was a lazy no good slob who was somehow broken in the “free will” department. Not that these beliefs ever were overt, it seems that it makes a lot of sense in hindsight as I have always been prone to dips in my self esteem.
It is only in the recent few months of discovering LW that I have found out: “Hey, I’m not broken, just ignorant.” And fortunately ignorance has a cure.
If my parents had raised me to have a work ethic instead of not having one, I would probably have been in substantially better standing by now. I am a so far a nigh genius who can only barely coerce himself to work with anything not immediately interesting.
A waste? probably. Are there still hope for me? definitely.
Much of it is mitigated by the fact that I am 19 years old and my parents truly are loving and caring, but none the less they raised me suboptimally.
Also, if your parents thought that your being intelligent was extremely important, you may have concluded that you’d only get praise for what you could do easily.
I don’t have a source handy, but it’s kind of a cliche in current popular psychology, followed by a recommendation to only praise children for effort, not talent.
It seems to me that praising for talent and praising for effort both are risks for Goodhart’s law (any measure which is used to guide policy will become corrupt).
some generous interpretation of “very likely”, or something else?
What I mean, roughly, is that if you raised in Western or Eastern Europe, any of the Americas, the Middle East, Asia or Africa, then you probably grew up under some abusive mode of childrearing (childrearing is much more advanced in the Nordic countries). The socializing mode is the most popular these days, although intrusive parenting can also be fairly common too depending on the region.
Does your support for the first hinge on a strict definition of abuse,
Read up on the basic archetypal childrearing modes (infanticidal, abandoning, ambivalent, intrusive, socializing, and helping) for a better idea of what I mean by abuse. You can find information about them in the above link, and even the wikipedia article isn’t too bad.
I’d been operating under the assumption that when you phrased the original claim in the second person, you meant to make a statement about the readers of Less Wrong, who are not from the Middle Ages and most of whom are from developed Western countries, as opposed to the crosscultural, broadly historical swath of parenting strategies mentioned in your link. Even if I go by that (profoundly, deeply disturbing, gee thanks) article, the background common to most visitors to this site marks most of us as recipients of a “socializing” parenting style, and it’s not obvious to me that that includes unambiguous abuse by the parents, although apparently it’s supposed to involve turning a blind eye to abuse elsewhere by authority figures and peers.
It causes me to raise an eyebrow that all of the bibliographical citations are outsourced, so to speak, to four publications all by the same person. It makes it just a little too difficult for me to track down his primary sources (referenced in “over 600” footnotes.)
Edit: I see in another branch of the thread that you count circumcision, in which case unless I outright challenge your inclusion (I’m disinclined to do so) I haven’t a leg to stand on: it’s very common indeed, and most of the people here are male.
the background common to most visitors to this site marks most of us as recipients of a “socializing” parenting style, and it’s not obvious to me that that includes unambiguous abuse by the parents
What would you consider the minimum threshold for ‘unambiguous abuse’?
Deliberately or negligently injurious corporal punishment (e.g. anything that you can still see evidence of five minutes later that was intended to be that hard, or, after several occasions of “unintentionally” being that hard, is continued with no extra safeguards), sexual contact, protracted neglect (of physical needs like food, cultural needs like clothing, safety in the environment like not harboring a dangerous pet or leaving exposed electrical wires around, education [home or non], or of opportunities for social interaction), regular emotional/verbal abuse (I say “regular” because I wouldn’t want to call parents abusive for merely being human and occasionally stooping to yelling or insults), or any combination of the above. I may have forgotten something.
I think only the last item (regular emotional abuse) should really count. But to some extent even that, and certainly everything else (battery of the child, molestation/rape, and neglecting to feed/protect/raise the child) goes way beyond the minimum threshold for abuse and into the territory of strictly evil and even savage parenting.
Injurious corporal punishment
Corporal punishment is legal in all states. It’s illegal to hit an adult, but it’s legal to strike a child. Spanking, in particular is prevalent and has been linked to anxiety, depression, and other psychiatric disorders. And, basically, inducing that in a child is evil and abusive. The prevalence of spanking has been absurdly high throughout the 20th century—it obviously varies by region, but in the U.S. it was as high as 80-90% at times.
So the prevalence of spanking was certainly above 50% throughout the 20th century. And that’s just spanking—it’s fairly easy to find the other saddening statistics concerning the other forms of corporal punishment and physical abuse and their prevalence. Same goes for the disturbing frequency of sexual abuse.
As for emotional abuse, if your parents were socializing it’s likely that you received it. The socializing parent will often withhold love and support for their child if he or she does not conform to their wants/wishes. The love is conditional upon their children reaching prescribed goals (e.g. grades, college, homosexuality, performance in sports, etc.) and that counts as abuse in my book because it diminishes free will, integrity and self esteem.
Most children are abused. And you don’t have to think or know that you’ve been abused to actually have been abused, so just because most people who suffer this kind of abuse won’t come out and admit it doesn’t mean it wasn’t really abuse.
Spanking is typically not injurious by the definition I gave. Non-injurious corporal punishment doesn’t exactly make me want to award the offending parent stickers and Snickers, but I don’t think it’s “unambiguous abuse”, which is what you asked me to define.
I’m willing to believe that unambiguous child abuse is sickeningly common—it would not be the first time I’ve been gravely disappointed in my species—but it’s not down to you to define child abuse into the majority. “Withholding love and support” contingent on the failure to achieve certain desiderata isn’t stellar parenting either, but just what are you expecting here? I think I’ll be a great mother and I’m sure that there are things my kids could get up to that would grievously injure our relationship. Which things it’s okay to react badly to and which things must be taken as neutral and effect-free with respect to the parent-child interactions is a very gray area… it’s hard to label much in that department “unambiguous abuse”.
You’re right, it’s very hard to raise a child completely abuse free. I’m not calling all parents evil (or didn’t intend to anyway). What I’m saying is that we should recognize these practices as abusive maltreatment of children. A crucial part of that is coming to terms with the fact that they were abusive when they were done to you too.
Inevitably an argument over something like this will come to “my parents spanked me” or “my father hit me, and...” It’s already happened in this thread. These people can’t accept the fact that when their parents hit them, it was abuse (talk about absolute denial macro).
The point is to turn it off. It’s not a contradiction to love your parents while also acknowledging the bad things they did, even calling it abuse. If they wielded their power as caregivers in anything less than a helpful way, then it was basically an instance of abusive parenting. That doesn’t imply that in every case they were horrible people or that you can’t love them. It just means you acknowledge it as an abusive practice, harmful to the development of the child.
Spanking is typically not injurious by the definition I gave.
Studies show a linear correlation between the frequency with which a child is spanked and the occurrence of several psychiatric disorders. Also, one in three parents who begin with legal corporal punishment (e.g. spanking) end up crossing the line into criminal abuse (e.g. battery).
The evidence shows that spanking is injurious. You can’t just redefine the word.
we should recognize these practices as abusive maltreatment of children.
I think one obstacle to having this conversation is that, as a society, we think that intervention is called for when a child is being abused. People are modus-tollensing away your declarations of abuse because they don’t think the things you mention warrant bringing in Child Protective Services: if it’s abuse, then it warrants calling CPS. It doesn’t warrant calling CPS, therefore it is not abuse.
By your definitions, I think it would be next to impossible to find someone who was never once abused as a child. That means we have no information about any given sort of abuse relative to an absence of abuse altogether. We can only compare the results of abuse A with abuse B, or more of A with less of A, or A with both A and B, or whatever. There’s no control group. That casts a shadow of a doubt over many of your claims.
I’m curious about how far your absolute intolerance of hitting kids goes. I was hit exactly once by each parent as I grew up. I don’t remember the exact circumstances under which my mother struck me, but I know why my father did it: I was attacking my little sister over some childish upset. There was no way to get me off of her without causing me some pain; he smacked me and I was startled enough to stop. Would you consider that an act of abuse? Wouldn’t letting me attack my sister be an act of abuse towards her?
I think one obstacle to having this conversation is that, as a society, we think that intervention is called for when a child is being abused.
I think this is correct. I personally find the current social model under which children are the chattel-slaves (i.e. the property) of their parents unless and until such time as the parents do something truly egregious*, or until the child turns 18, to be rather revolting.
*That should really read “do something truly egregious, or try to extract economic value”.
I think one obstacle to having this conversation is that, as a society, we think that intervention is called for when a child is being abused. People are modus-tollensing away your declarations of abuse because they don’t think the things you mention warrant bringing in Child Protective Services: if it’s abuse, then it warrants calling CPS. It doesn’t warrant calling CPS, therefore it is not abuse.
I am sceptical of some of the points in the linked text as well. The author mentions that there are cultures in which parents masturbate their children, but that isn’t obviously harmful. Yes, an example was cited where the masturbation in question was done in a harmful and painful way, but that isn’t to say that it must always be so. Young children have been documented to occasionaly masturbate even on their own, so why is it that adults helping is immeaditly abuse? And citing
“co-sleeping,” with parents physically embracing the child, often continues until the child is ten or fifteen
as an example of “abuse” is getting us into the ludicrous territory. Embracing your child is abuse! The author also makes pretty big leaps of correlation and causation:
Boys in many New Guinea groups today, for instance, are so traumatized by the early erotic experiences, neglect and assaults on their bodies that they need to prove their masculinity when they grow up and become fierce warriors and cannibals, with a third of them dying in raids and wars.
Of course, there are also plenty of valid points about real sexual abuse that does take place, or has historically taken place.
As you may have anticipated, I am… unimpressed, shall we say, by Lloyd deMause’s writing; among other things, I simply don’t believe some of his numbers. However, I will agree that, by his standards, I probably have endured at least some “child abuse”. When, as a child, I would hit my father, he would “hit” back, and when I hit my mother, she would tried to immobilize me until I calmed down (which could take a long time, because being immobilized made me angry). I ended up hitting my father a lot less than I hit my mother. Incidentally, at the time, perhaps from watching too many cartoons, I believed that if I learned martial arts, I would be able to physically overpower my parents or teachers in a fight, so they couldn’t drag me off to school or whatever.
Why are you putting child abuse in quotations? And hit? And how could I have anticipated your arrival in this thread, let alone your disapproval of my references?
When you take terms with vile connotations, like rape, murder, child abuse, and racism, and expand them beyond their conventional definition, people use scare quotes around them because they want to make it perfectly clear that they are unwilling to give your use of the term the really, really bad connotations that their use of the term carries. I’m willing to bet that’s basically what’s happening here: what you call “child abuse” is not actually bad enough in his mind to merit being called “child abuse.”
I’m willing to bet that’s basically what’s happening here: what you call “child abuse” is not actually bad enough in his mind to merit being called “child abuse.”
Sorry. Anyway, “child abuse” is in quotes because I don’t think “honest, justifiable actions that nevertheless cause harm” should count as abuse. To quote from what I linked to:
In order for something to count as “child abuse”, the person who performs the action must betray either an intention to harm or a callous disregard for the possibility of harm to the welfare of the child. Even negligence (a form of child abuse) is understood in this way – as the absence of a level of concern for a child’s welfare that would have motivated caution in a concerned individual.
...
Women who took thalidomide while pregnant did significant harm to their children. Yet, this was not sufficient to charge them with “child abuse”. This is because the behavior was motivated by a mistake, not by an absence of concern (or a desire to harm) the child. Calling thalidomide users “child abusers” for actions taken before the harmfulness of thalidomide was known is grossly inappropriate.
Anyway, I don’t think that the infrequent corporal punishment my father inflicted on me was, in the long run, particularly harmful (apart from the moments of pain I endured). It was also effective.
I won’t defend my overall upbringing as “not harmful”, though; the special education school I ended up attending for many years was an awful place, and I learned very little there. The fault lies more with the school system than with my parents, though.
I don’t think that the infrequent corporal punishment my father inflicted on me was, in the long run, particularly harmful (apart from the moments of pain I endured). It was also effective.
Well 62 years of research show that corporal punishment doesn’t work and that your father was an evil man. But because we have people who personally believe that it worked on them, the physical abuse of children is still legal in all 50 states of this modern nation.
If I may ask, what exactly do you think that it was “effective” at doing?
The fault lies more with the school system than with my parents, though.
If I may ask, what exactly do you think that it was “effective” at doing?
It was effective at getting me to stop hitting my father. (I hit him far less than I hit anyone else.) I’m not claiming anything more than that.
To quote one of your links:
The single desirable association was between corporal punishment and increased immediate compliance on the part of the child.
Seriously, though, if a 7-year-old attacks you in a furious rage, punching, kicking, and screaming, and continues to keep it up for hours at a time, what do you do?
Yeah because, hey, you love your parents.
I don’t know if I actually do love them, but I do respect them. Or, at least, I respect them now that I’ve grown up.
I’m not saying they’re blameless (good luck finding a single blameless individual anywhere over the age of one year) but, well, whatever you’ve heard about soul-destroying schooling, I had to live it. After not fitting in during elementary school (I threw a crayon at the principal once) I eventually wound up in special education. There were basically two kinds of children in the special education school I went to from third to seventh grade: those that were retards, and those that were evil. Guess which group I ended up hanging out with? My best friend was basically a young Hannibal Lecter. Once, we tried to kill our teacher with what we thought was a bomb.
To be frank, the only shot I would have had at a decent educational experience would have been if my mother decided to homeschool me. This was way before homeschooling became acceptable, and as the school system seemed bound and determined to find a way to blame my parents for the way I acted (which you can probably blame on my being born with a non-standard brain) to the point where it was like they ought to be bringing a lawyer with them to every meeting with school officials, they really didn’t want to do anything weird.
although I think it is demonstrably untrue, I expect it will draw much reflexive denial.
I’m having trouble reconciling those two statements. I’m even having trouble trying to express just why they seem… inconsistent, or inharmonious? Could you elaborate a bit?
I think he means that it can be reliably argued (demonstrated) to not be true, but many denials will be by people who cannot adequately argue the point, it will just be reflexive for them.
It’s very likely that your parents were abusive while you were growing up.
Also, there is no scientific method.
Does circumcision count?
Yes, as a vestige from instrusive and early infanticidal childrearing modes.
Do you have evidence on that?
Day-um, that was sharp!
With regards to child abuse: would a comparison to hazing be appropriate at this juncture? Were the hypothesis correct, it would have a certain surface similarity.
I’m not sure I understand what kind of comparison you’re suggesting. I’ve heard numerous attempts to rationalize child abuse by analogy to hazing, I’ve even heard arguments by abusers to the effect that children are “weak” today because kids don’t undergo the same “hazing” that their parents put them through. “It’s nothing my parents didn’t do to me,” etc...
Or were you getting at something else?
...hmm, I see a cultural divide, here. I disapprove of hazing, and consider it to be perpetuated because the victims feel like they’ve earned the right to revenge—even though said revenge is enacted on the wrong parties (the next incoming group, rather than the previous group that abused them). Therefore—ironically, as it happens—I made the analogy to hazing to indicate a possible pattern in the rationalizations.
In my high school, one of my classmates offered pretty much this exact justification for hazing freshmen.
Yes, I was abused, but it was mental/developmental and unintentional; namely my parents utterly destroyed my self-motivation.
I am fairly certain I can point at the scientific method and go “yes, it’s right there.” What exactly do you mean?
If you’re willing to explain what went wrong, I’m interested in what went wrong.
I’ve come to believe that a lot of went wrong in my case wasn’t so much the moderate level of emotional abuse as the lack of positive relationship.
I have always been reasonably intelligent (my current IQ (not from internet tests) hovers somewhere around mensa levels) and I have always been incredibly curious. These two traits has led me to always figgure out on my own, all the things I was supposed to learn in shcool in advance; I have always been at least a year ahead in mathematics and natural sciences, and I still am.
This does of course pose a slight problem when I have not been the same way in many, many other areas, and the kicker is that my parents never ever have heard of motivational psychology.
This has, as of my current analysis, led me to in my childhood and early teens believe that I was a lazy no good slob who was somehow broken in the “free will” department. Not that these beliefs ever were overt, it seems that it makes a lot of sense in hindsight as I have always been prone to dips in my self esteem.
It is only in the recent few months of discovering LW that I have found out: “Hey, I’m not broken, just ignorant.” And fortunately ignorance has a cure.
If my parents had raised me to have a work ethic instead of not having one, I would probably have been in substantially better standing by now. I am a so far a nigh genius who can only barely coerce himself to work with anything not immediately interesting.
A waste? probably. Are there still hope for me? definitely.
Much of it is mitigated by the fact that I am 19 years old and my parents truly are loving and caring, but none the less they raised me suboptimally.
Also, if your parents thought that your being intelligent was extremely important, you may have concluded that you’d only get praise for what you could do easily.
That is a very good hypothesis.
I don’t have a source handy, but it’s kind of a cliche in current popular psychology, followed by a recommendation to only praise children for effort, not talent.
It seems to me that praising for talent and praising for effort both are risks for Goodhart’s law (any measure which is used to guide policy will become corrupt).
I am nowhere near introspective enough, nor do I know enough psychology. The only thing I know is that it is fixable.
Does your support for the first hinge on a strict definition of abuse, some generous interpretation of “very likely”, or something else?
What I mean, roughly, is that if you raised in Western or Eastern Europe, any of the Americas, the Middle East, Asia or Africa, then you probably grew up under some abusive mode of childrearing (childrearing is much more advanced in the Nordic countries). The socializing mode is the most popular these days, although intrusive parenting can also be fairly common too depending on the region.
Try The History of Child Abuse if you’re interested.
Read up on the basic archetypal childrearing modes (infanticidal, abandoning, ambivalent, intrusive, socializing, and helping) for a better idea of what I mean by abuse. You can find information about them in the above link, and even the wikipedia article isn’t too bad.
I’d been operating under the assumption that when you phrased the original claim in the second person, you meant to make a statement about the readers of Less Wrong, who are not from the Middle Ages and most of whom are from developed Western countries, as opposed to the crosscultural, broadly historical swath of parenting strategies mentioned in your link. Even if I go by that (profoundly, deeply disturbing, gee thanks) article, the background common to most visitors to this site marks most of us as recipients of a “socializing” parenting style, and it’s not obvious to me that that includes unambiguous abuse by the parents, although apparently it’s supposed to involve turning a blind eye to abuse elsewhere by authority figures and peers.
It causes me to raise an eyebrow that all of the bibliographical citations are outsourced, so to speak, to four publications all by the same person. It makes it just a little too difficult for me to track down his primary sources (referenced in “over 600” footnotes.)
Edit: I see in another branch of the thread that you count circumcision, in which case unless I outright challenge your inclusion (I’m disinclined to do so) I haven’t a leg to stand on: it’s very common indeed, and most of the people here are male.
What would you consider the minimum threshold for ‘unambiguous abuse’?
Deliberately or negligently injurious corporal punishment (e.g. anything that you can still see evidence of five minutes later that was intended to be that hard, or, after several occasions of “unintentionally” being that hard, is continued with no extra safeguards), sexual contact, protracted neglect (of physical needs like food, cultural needs like clothing, safety in the environment like not harboring a dangerous pet or leaving exposed electrical wires around, education [home or non], or of opportunities for social interaction), regular emotional/verbal abuse (I say “regular” because I wouldn’t want to call parents abusive for merely being human and occasionally stooping to yelling or insults), or any combination of the above. I may have forgotten something.
I think only the last item (regular emotional abuse) should really count. But to some extent even that, and certainly everything else (battery of the child, molestation/rape, and neglecting to feed/protect/raise the child) goes way beyond the minimum threshold for abuse and into the territory of strictly evil and even savage parenting.
Corporal punishment is legal in all states. It’s illegal to hit an adult, but it’s legal to strike a child. Spanking, in particular is prevalent and has been linked to anxiety, depression, and other psychiatric disorders. And, basically, inducing that in a child is evil and abusive. The prevalence of spanking has been absurdly high throughout the 20th century—it obviously varies by region, but in the U.S. it was as high as 80-90% at times.
So the prevalence of spanking was certainly above 50% throughout the 20th century. And that’s just spanking—it’s fairly easy to find the other saddening statistics concerning the other forms of corporal punishment and physical abuse and their prevalence. Same goes for the disturbing frequency of sexual abuse.
As for emotional abuse, if your parents were socializing it’s likely that you received it. The socializing parent will often withhold love and support for their child if he or she does not conform to their wants/wishes. The love is conditional upon their children reaching prescribed goals (e.g. grades, college, homosexuality, performance in sports, etc.) and that counts as abuse in my book because it diminishes free will, integrity and self esteem.
Most children are abused. And you don’t have to think or know that you’ve been abused to actually have been abused, so just because most people who suffer this kind of abuse won’t come out and admit it doesn’t mean it wasn’t really abuse.
Spanking is typically not injurious by the definition I gave. Non-injurious corporal punishment doesn’t exactly make me want to award the offending parent stickers and Snickers, but I don’t think it’s “unambiguous abuse”, which is what you asked me to define.
I’m willing to believe that unambiguous child abuse is sickeningly common—it would not be the first time I’ve been gravely disappointed in my species—but it’s not down to you to define child abuse into the majority. “Withholding love and support” contingent on the failure to achieve certain desiderata isn’t stellar parenting either, but just what are you expecting here? I think I’ll be a great mother and I’m sure that there are things my kids could get up to that would grievously injure our relationship. Which things it’s okay to react badly to and which things must be taken as neutral and effect-free with respect to the parent-child interactions is a very gray area… it’s hard to label much in that department “unambiguous abuse”.
You’re right, it’s very hard to raise a child completely abuse free. I’m not calling all parents evil (or didn’t intend to anyway). What I’m saying is that we should recognize these practices as abusive maltreatment of children. A crucial part of that is coming to terms with the fact that they were abusive when they were done to you too.
Inevitably an argument over something like this will come to “my parents spanked me” or “my father hit me, and...” It’s already happened in this thread. These people can’t accept the fact that when their parents hit them, it was abuse (talk about absolute denial macro).
The point is to turn it off. It’s not a contradiction to love your parents while also acknowledging the bad things they did, even calling it abuse. If they wielded their power as caregivers in anything less than a helpful way, then it was basically an instance of abusive parenting. That doesn’t imply that in every case they were horrible people or that you can’t love them. It just means you acknowledge it as an abusive practice, harmful to the development of the child.
Studies show a linear correlation between the frequency with which a child is spanked and the occurrence of several psychiatric disorders. Also, one in three parents who begin with legal corporal punishment (e.g. spanking) end up crossing the line into criminal abuse (e.g. battery).
The evidence shows that spanking is injurious. You can’t just redefine the word.
I think one obstacle to having this conversation is that, as a society, we think that intervention is called for when a child is being abused. People are modus-tollensing away your declarations of abuse because they don’t think the things you mention warrant bringing in Child Protective Services: if it’s abuse, then it warrants calling CPS. It doesn’t warrant calling CPS, therefore it is not abuse.
By your definitions, I think it would be next to impossible to find someone who was never once abused as a child. That means we have no information about any given sort of abuse relative to an absence of abuse altogether. We can only compare the results of abuse A with abuse B, or more of A with less of A, or A with both A and B, or whatever. There’s no control group. That casts a shadow of a doubt over many of your claims.
I’m curious about how far your absolute intolerance of hitting kids goes. I was hit exactly once by each parent as I grew up. I don’t remember the exact circumstances under which my mother struck me, but I know why my father did it: I was attacking my little sister over some childish upset. There was no way to get me off of her without causing me some pain; he smacked me and I was startled enough to stop. Would you consider that an act of abuse? Wouldn’t letting me attack my sister be an act of abuse towards her?
I think this is correct. I personally find the current social model under which children are the chattel-slaves (i.e. the property) of their parents unless and until such time as the parents do something truly egregious*, or until the child turns 18, to be rather revolting.
*That should really read “do something truly egregious, or try to extract economic value”.
Nice. Tying the usage of words to inferences seems to be a generally useful strategy for moving semantic discussions forward.
No.
Yes. It is also a very common form of abuse.
Does that include spanking? Note that it is usually applied to toddlers and you might not remember.
I’m pretty sure I was never actually spanked by my parents, although my grandfather tried once before I escaped.
What she said.
Correlation is not causation. Have you read Judith Harris?
I am sceptical of some of the points in the linked text as well. The author mentions that there are cultures in which parents masturbate their children, but that isn’t obviously harmful. Yes, an example was cited where the masturbation in question was done in a harmful and painful way, but that isn’t to say that it must always be so. Young children have been documented to occasionaly masturbate even on their own, so why is it that adults helping is immeaditly abuse? And citing
as an example of “abuse” is getting us into the ludicrous territory. Embracing your child is abuse! The author also makes pretty big leaps of correlation and causation:
Of course, there are also plenty of valid points about real sexual abuse that does take place, or has historically taken place.
As you may have anticipated, I am… unimpressed, shall we say, by Lloyd deMause’s writing; among other things, I simply don’t believe some of his numbers. However, I will agree that, by his standards, I probably have endured at least some “child abuse”. When, as a child, I would hit my father, he would “hit” back, and when I hit my mother, she would tried to immobilize me until I calmed down (which could take a long time, because being immobilized made me angry). I ended up hitting my father a lot less than I hit my mother. Incidentally, at the time, perhaps from watching too many cartoons, I believed that if I learned martial arts, I would be able to physically overpower my parents or teachers in a fight, so they couldn’t drag me off to school or whatever.
Why are you putting child abuse in quotations? And hit? And how could I have anticipated your arrival in this thread, let alone your disapproval of my references?
When you take terms with vile connotations, like rape, murder, child abuse, and racism, and expand them beyond their conventional definition, people use scare quotes around them because they want to make it perfectly clear that they are unwilling to give your use of the term the really, really bad connotations that their use of the term carries. I’m willing to bet that’s basically what’s happening here: what you call “child abuse” is not actually bad enough in his mind to merit being called “child abuse.”
Indeed.
Well, this is a thread on things people are not supposed to believe, isn’t it?
Also, for why child abuse is in scare quotes, see this.
I still don’t understand, but alright… I’m thinking either you’re somewhat deranged, or that I’ve been the victim of a gag of some sort.
Sorry. Anyway, “child abuse” is in quotes because I don’t think “honest, justifiable actions that nevertheless cause harm” should count as abuse. To quote from what I linked to:
...
Anyway, I don’t think that the infrequent corporal punishment my father inflicted on me was, in the long run, particularly harmful (apart from the moments of pain I endured). It was also effective.
I won’t defend my overall upbringing as “not harmful”, though; the special education school I ended up attending for many years was an awful place, and I learned very little there. The fault lies more with the school system than with my parents, though.
Well 62 years of research show that corporal punishment doesn’t work and that your father was an evil man. But because we have people who personally believe that it worked on them, the physical abuse of children is still legal in all 50 states of this modern nation.
If I may ask, what exactly do you think that it was “effective” at doing?
Yeah because, hey, you love your parents.
It was effective at getting me to stop hitting my father. (I hit him far less than I hit anyone else.) I’m not claiming anything more than that.
To quote one of your links:
Seriously, though, if a 7-year-old attacks you in a furious rage, punching, kicking, and screaming, and continues to keep it up for hours at a time, what do you do?
I don’t know if I actually do love them, but I do respect them. Or, at least, I respect them now that I’ve grown up.
I’m not saying they’re blameless (good luck finding a single blameless individual anywhere over the age of one year) but, well, whatever you’ve heard about soul-destroying schooling, I had to live it. After not fitting in during elementary school (I threw a crayon at the principal once) I eventually wound up in special education. There were basically two kinds of children in the special education school I went to from third to seventh grade: those that were retards, and those that were evil. Guess which group I ended up hanging out with? My best friend was basically a young Hannibal Lecter. Once, we tried to kill our teacher with what we thought was a bomb.
To be frank, the only shot I would have had at a decent educational experience would have been if my mother decided to homeschool me. This was way before homeschooling became acceptable, and as the school system seemed bound and determined to find a way to blame my parents for the way I acted (which you can probably blame on my being born with a non-standard brain) to the point where it was like they ought to be bringing a lawyer with them to every meeting with school officials, they really didn’t want to do anything weird.
Additionally, you might want to look into this.
This author makes me wish I had some way of making it clear my name was derived from Asimov and not something that seems so psuedo-scientific.
Yes. Frankly I think our standards for what constitutes child abuse are, in some areas at least, far too narrow.
These are excellent examples. I don’t see why they’re being voted down.
The second, however, is much better than the first.
I’m blaming it having successfully triggered the “absolute denial macro” in at least a few people :D.
Why’s that?
Clarity. The first depends on the interpretation of “abuse”, and as such I think it’s very likely that many people will agree with it to some degree.
The second is much more precise; although I think it is demonstrably untrue, I expect it will draw much reflexive denial.
I’m having trouble reconciling those two statements. I’m even having trouble trying to express just why they seem… inconsistent, or inharmonious? Could you elaborate a bit?
I think he means that it can be reliably argued (demonstrated) to not be true, but many denials will be by people who cannot adequately argue the point, it will just be reflexive for them.