I don't remember much discipline took place growing up. First of all I gave very little reason. I was so afraid to break the rules, I even kept to rules that no longer applied, never questioned them or tried to bend them. Temper tantrums I don't recall ever having. Superficially I grew up a very good boy. The only thing I recall ever doing "wrong", was not being home enough. In which case my mother would play the guilt trip as a form of punishment. Asking questions whether I liked it better with other people and stuff like that. At an early age I realized this was her insecurity talking and not me doing much wrong. It was frustrating and tiresome and took the fun out of much what I liked doing. My father I don't recall ever punishing me for anything. He would beat me every now and then, but that was more a kick the cat syndrome kind of thing, being frustrated about work, being angry with my mother he would every now and then take it out on me. My wrong doing usually was wanting some attention, which for him on top of his work and his relationship with my mother was sometimes just too much.
Altogether I grew up very undisciplined. As long as I enjoy doing something I give it my best and fortunately I enjoy many things, cause when I dread like doing something, it's very hard for me to get myself doing it.
Oh, I was spared no expense when it came to rules and regulations and forms of controlling my temper and behavior! If spanking with the wooden spoon or paddle didn't work, then there was a hair brush or my father's hand to fear. If that didn't work, there was being banned to my room, but that was more paradise than punishment because I had books and snacks reserved for myself in there for such occassions. I would get speeches of all torturous kinds, telling me how lying was wrong and how certain people expected certain expectations, whether I liked it or not.
Perhaps the single worst punishment of all, however, was my mother's Silent Treatment. It would go for hours or days, and her blatant ignoring me could be for something as simple as a look or a comment that she didn't like. I never knew what would trigger her and her moody feelings towards me, but I always knew when she was mad at me, she'd look right into my eyes, and then pretend I wasn't even there.
There was no greater torture in the world than being ignored and dismissed by the one who claimed to be my "unconditional loving mommy".
I got beat all the time, by my so-called sibling, but I was told that was just normal typical sibling rivalry and shouldn't think anything of it. I learned to keep quiet about a lot of things as a result. It wasn't until years later that I found out just how abusive the situation really was when a doctor told me to seek therapy about the following condition:
Battered child syndrome: A disease in which children are physically abused. The battered child syndrome is a form of child abuse.
Not until the 19th century were children granted the same legal status as domesticated animals in regard to protection against cruelty and/or neglect. In 1962 the term "battered child syndrome" entered medicine. By 1976 all states in the United States had adopted laws mandating the reporting of suspected instances of child abuse.
Child abuse involves a complex and dangerous set of problems that include child neglect and the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of children.
Child neglect is the most frequently reported form of child abuse and the most lethal. This form of abuse is defined as the failure to provide for the shelter, safety, supervision and nutritional needs of the child. Child neglect can be physical, educational, or emotional neglect.
Physical neglect includes refusal of or delay in seeking health care, abandonment, expulsion from the home or refusal to allow a runaway to return home, and inadequate supervision.
Educational neglect includes the allowance of chronic truancy, failure to enroll a child of mandatory school age in school, and failure to attend to a special educational need.
Emotional neglect includes such actions as marked inattention to the child's needs for affection, refusal of or failure to provide needed psychological care, spouse abuse in the child's presence, and permission of drug or alcohol use by the child.
Physical abuse is the second most frequently reported form of child abuse and is defined as physical injury inflicted upon the child with cruel and/or malicious intent. Physical abuse can be the result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, burning, shaking, or otherwise harming a child. The parent or caretaker may not have intended to hurt the child, rather the injury may have resulted from over-discipline or physical punishment.
Emotional abuse is the third most frequently reported form of child abuse and includes acts or omissions by the parents or other caregivers that could cause serious behavioral, emotional, or mental disorders. For example, the parents/caregivers may use extreme or bizarre forms of punishment, such as confinement of a child in a dark closet. Emotional child abuse is also sometimes termed psychological child abuse, verbal child abuse, or mental injury of a child.
Sexual abuse is the least frequently reported form of child abuse and is believed to be the most under-reported type of child maltreatment because of the secrecy or "conspiracy of silence" that so often characterizes these cases. Sexual abuse includes fondling a child's genitals, intercourse, incest, rape, sodomy, exhibitionism, and commercial exploitation through prostitution or the production of pornographic materials.
Fatal injuries from maltreatment can result from many different acts including severe head trauma (injury), shaken baby syndrome, trauma to the abdomen or chest, scalding, burns, drowning, suffocation, poisoning, etc.
Factors affecting the likelihood of potential abuse and predisposing to child abuse include:
The abuser's childhood: child abusers often were abused as children.
The abuser's substance abuse: at least half of all child abuse cases involve some degree of substance abuse (alcohol, drugs, etc) by the child's parents.
Family stress: the disintegration of the nuclear family and its inherent support systems has been held to be associated with child abuse.
Social forces: experts debate whether a postulated reduction in religious/moral values coupled with an increase in the depiction of violence by the entertainment and informational media may increase child abuse.
The child: children at higher risk for child abuse include infants who are felt to be "overly fussy", handicapped children, and children with chronic diseases.
Specific "trigger" events that occur just before many fatal parental assaults on infants and young children include: an infant's inconsolable crying, feeding difficulties, a toddler's failed toilet training, and exaggerated parental perceptions of acts of "disobedience" by the child.
Children can be neglected and abused by parents, other caregivers, or society.
Child abuse should be reported, investigated and evaluated.
The treatment and prevention of child abuse include a support group structure coupled with visiting nurse home visits to reinforce good parenting skills and monitor the child's well-being. Children's school programs regarding "good touch...bad touch" can provide parents with a forum in which to role-play and learn to avoid potentially harmful scenarios. Parents should make sure that their child's daycare center is licensed and has an open door policy regarding parental visitation. The best strategy is to prevent child abuse.
The speeches I do recall, though they were not really about something I had done wrong, but much more about things I wanted, my parents didn't want me to want. One of the best examples of that is me at the age of ten wanting to play soccer. Soccer being the number one sport where I live it helps to fit in to be good at it. I didn't fit in and I wasn't good at soccer either. Our neighbour at the time, was a director of the local soccer club and I had asked him to get me in the club and he was most willing to help me with the application. So I was very enthusiastic when I told my parents I was going to be play soccer. This, my mother was not all that pleased with. She considered soccer to be a vulgar game and wanted me to play tennis or hockey, any sport with more standing than mere soccer. So I was grilled for hours and hours to give up my want to play soccer and to make sure I would go to our neighbour telling him I didn't want to play soccer anymore, cause my mother didn't want to have the reputation of not allowing me. I recall many more of these incident and they always followed the pattern of grilling and grilling until I was so tired I gave in. It was always two grown ups against one child and I knew I would always lose. So I learned not to have any wants or needs.
I could just picture the horror, and I'm laughing because I know exactly how it would sound in my house!
"How DARE you want to play soccer you little brat! Do you think your mother and father brought you here just so you can get mud in the house, and soil our good reputation? Are you MAD?!? Good lord what were you thinking? I'd say that oughtta cost you a few whippings out by the shed.
Now go repent your sins, and wash before dinner, and make sure you're smiling, too. Can't have neighbors thinking we allow any sulking slobs at the table around here!"
I recently read up on discipline and corporal punishment of children and was pretty shocked by what I read. I already knew corporal punishment in Canada and the US was still common practice, but I had no idea of the extent. The vast majority of parent use corporal punishments. Surveys give different figures as to the percentage, the lowest being 75% the highest claims more than 90%. On top of that, 20 states still allow corporal punishment in schools, a practice that has disappeared in most of the countries around the world.
By now there is a vast body of research that shows what common sense already told us a long time ago, that violence breeds violence. It also shows that corporal punishment is only effective towards immediate compliance and is ineffective in the long run. It's interesting to note that the biggest lessen corporal punishment teaches children is that it is a parental right, which strongly contributes to the continuation of the habit.
Of course it is easy for me to judge the American stance on corporal punishment, being a European, living in one of the many countries here that banned corporal punishment by law. Most European countries don't start wars anymore and as a result violence is seen as something we better get rid of. The American situation is of course very different from that. Due to the high level of violence (the violent crime rate is eight higher than in Europe) there is much more need to unleash that violence by means of war and given that urge to go to war the violence needs to be maintained.
The same reasoning can be applied to law and order thinking. If there is little violation of law and order, there is little need to be all that tough on crime. Corporal punishment has a negative effect on violent crime rates, so in that sense contributes to the desire to maintain a fierce law and order position.
So corporal punishment serves a role in American society, not so much as a disciplinarian measure, because as such it is proven to be ineffective, but to maintain the vicious circle of violence to justify warfare and be tough on crime. The decision to go to war and adhere to a strict law and order mentality is of course the right of a sovereign state and I can't judge the US from doing that. It's just sad that it again happens at the expense of children who didn't ask for it.
I found something just a wee-bit more disturbing than the "spank-debate" taking place at home.
Behold the following statistics reported by CNN:
More than 200,000 children were spanked or paddled in U.S. schools during the past school year, human rights groups reported Wednesday.
Schools in 21 states can use corporal punishment.
"Every public school needs effective methods of discipline, but beating kids teaches violence, and it doesn't stop bad behavior," wrote Alice Farmer, the author of a joint report from Human Rights Watch and the American Civil Liberties Union. "Corporal punishment discourages learning, fails to deter future misbehavior and at times even provokes it."
Corporal punishment in schools remains legal in 21 U.S. states and is used frequently in 13: Missouri, Kentucky, Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee and Florida, according to data received from the Office for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education and cited in the report.
The highest percentage of students receiving corporal punishment was in Mississippi, with 7.5 percent of students. The highest number was in Texas, with 48,197 students.
"When you talk to local school officials, they point to the fact that it's quick and it's effective -- and that's true," Farmer said. "It doesn't take much time to administer corporal punishment, and you don't have to hire someone to run a detention or an after-school program."
As to children:
It should be discipline as being done in love with the child in mind; and punishment is as control with the parent in mind.
My bringing-up was done with neither discipline nor punishment, with a little bit of bizarre meanness thrown in because
they had no clue about raising their one child at home.
If I told the truth there was EVERYTHING taken away... and if I lied no one cared that my lie made no sense with nothing
to back it up which made me know they didn't care.
I remember the one time my mother beat me with a board: she had a new davenport/couch/sofa and I sat down on it
too hard; she got the board and beat me.
I remember the one time my dad beat me with his hand while holding me up in the air by his arm: I had drawn a penis
on a dog-drawing while in church and it triggered in him his nasty self that taught me about a penis.
Where I come from they do not spank in school. I'm glad they don't. If they hit my child then I would have to break
their neck: isn't that what corporal punishment teaches?
"I can be changed by what happens to me, I refuse to be reduced by it." M.A.
One Step Up From Bottom
Teddy
It is interesting to note that after school shooting incidents an immediate response is along this line: If the paddle was still in schools you wouldn't have problems... maybe, if there was disipline, the Columbine High School shooting never would have happened.
If it were true that school shootings were the result of a lack of discipline, it would logically follow that most school shooting incidents would take place in non-paddling schools. The opposite is true;the majority of school shootings take place in repressive schools that use paddling and in some cases the shooting is even in direct response to the paddling.
The states that allow or even promote paddling in school are also the most violent states, have the highest crime rates, the highest teen pregnancy rates, the highest poverty rates, the highest school drop-out rates and the lowest progress towards resolution of these issues.
It is of course a matter of opinion whether this is good or bad. The more Machiavellian inclined will see virtue in this. The more high-school drop-outs, the more cheap labour is available. The more teen-pregnancies the more babies are available for adoption. The more violence there is the louder the call for war. The dumber the population, the more easily they can be manipulated and controlled.
Some of those Machiavellian inclined also base their ideology on a calvinist interpretation of the bible, which says: God rewards the good and punishes the bad, so those that are rich and in power are by definition good and those that are poor and powerless are by definition evil. Since evil needs to be destroyed it is good to punish the poor and the powerless, which in essence is nothing but doing God's work.
It is very much this line of reasoning that also fuels the refusal of the US to ratify the The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Signed by all countries in the world except Somalia ( which effectively has no government ) and the USA.
Much of the opposition against ratification is based on the fact that chilldren are powerless and therefore, accoring to ideology, evil. it's not without reason Focus on the Family's James Dobson calls children: tyrants, terrors, brats, little fat fingers, butter balls, anti-christs.
From the perspective every child is evil and in order to control that evil, parents need absolute authority over children or perhaps even more accurate need to have ownership of children. In line with that thinking it makes sense that any liberty a child has is in direct conflict with the notion of ownership and the abolishment of corporal punishment, which the UNCRC seeks, undermines the absolute authority of parents. As a consequence the UNCRC is perceived as anti-family. Ironically the Vatican was one of the first to sign the UNCRC and much of the treaty was drafted by people from the Reagan administration, which almost invented the term family values.
It is interesting to note that after school shooting incidents an immediate response is along this line: If the paddle was still in schools you wouldn't have problems... maybe, if there was disipline, the Columbine High School shooting never would have happened.
I just posted a blog-piece addressing the increase we are seeing in school violence. ["Are you all packed and ready for school?" , http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/21093]
As you will see, drugs have a huge influence on a child's behavior, and in some cases, a paddle might send an angry child packing (a weapon).
In fact, I'm beginning to think "quick fixes" seem to be the damaging trend and long-term problem far too many children are being forced to face.
Here's a simple question: Does anyone teach "patience" anymore?
Niels said:
"Much of the opposition against ratification is based on the fact that children are powerless and therefore, according to ideology, evil. it's not without reason Focus on the Family's James Dobson calls children: tyrants, terrors, brats,
little fat fingers, butter balls, anti-christs."
I am not a fan of Dobson's but have heard him say that children are "born with a sinful nature" an "Adamic nature"
from original sin. Is this what you are referring to? I'd like to know where you got these statements, please? Thanks.
I am of the Calvinistic beliefs of predestination. I understand how someone could come up with the following thoughts: "Some of those Machiavellian inclined also base their ideology on a Calvinist interpretation of the bible, which says: God rewards the good and punishes the bad, so those that are rich and in power are by definition good and those that are poor and powerless are by definition evil. Since evil needs to be destroyed it is good to punish the poor and the powerless, which in essence is nothing but doing God's work," but am wondering where you got your information that you stated? I have never heard preached, nor have I ever read anywhere such an interpretation. I'm interested in knowing more.
Is this from "Dominionism" by Sara Diamond?
MACHIAVELLIAN:
of, like, or characterized by the political principles and methods of expediency, craftiness, and duplicity set forth in Machiavelli's book, The Prince; crafty, deceitful, etc.
Is this an example:
"An elementary school needs a new roof. Simple as it may seem, much of Machiavelli's theories will be put to use. Money from a budget must be allocated by officials, each of them lobbying for what they think is most important. Even then, if money is allocated towards a new roof, a construction contractor must be hired. One must consistently consider, What is behind this lower estimate for the construction work? Why does this company want this small contract? Many questions must be asked in order to identify deception. In the end, all anyone can ever do is 'strive to make an informed decision based on the best evidence, and then act accordingly, even though the best evidence will never guarantee certainty.' "
"I can be changed by what happens to me, I refuse to be reduced by it." M.A.
One Step Up From Bottom
Teddy
The Dobson phrases can be found in the books of Dobson as several of the reviewers of his books on amazon.com point out. It is also consistent with what you say that according to him children are born with a sinful nature. It was also observed by a commentator of the book "The New Strong-willed Child" on the website stoptherod.net, which claims:
Dobson calls children many insulting names in this book: brat, bratty, pugnacious, spitfires, defiant, confirmed anarchists, hot lava, Goody Two-Shoes, sneaky, horrid, little revolutionaries, defiant, contentious, double trouble, hardheaded as mules, tough-minded, little fat-fingers, defiant, toughie, irritating, pack of adolescent wolves, confirmed revolutionary, Hurricane Hannah, little chameleon, negative, sour, sullen, ill-tempered, prissy, stick of dynamite, flighty, spoiled brat, goof-off, obnoxious, fireball, snippy, defiant, rambunctious, difficult, testy, groaning lump, nasty, all legs, all nose and ears, cantankerous, rude, unruly, stubborn, defiant, hostile, mischievous, gangly legs, foolish, selfish, insane. Did I mention “defiant”?
Sara Diamond in her article Dominionism Theology is one of the sources of a particular calvinist interpretation of the bible. The wikipedia article on Christian Reconstructionism is another more neutral source and then there is the article The Despoiling of America by Katherine Yurica, which links Machiavellian reasoning to an aberrant extension of calvinism.
Don't get me wrong by what I said above. This has nothing to do with religion, it is about the abuse of religion for the sake of power, which has a very old tradition in for example the Catholic Church. I found the website theocracywatch.net another interesting source of information about dominionism.
I read Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy several years ago and it is principle an analysis of power, how successful leaders get into power and how they stay in power and the lessons that can be learned from that. I read Machiavelli as an amoral book and as such I can have an appreciation of it. The application of Machiavelli's lessons to pursue power can easily become immoral, which I very much oppose. The example you give about Machiavellianism doesn't necessarily reflect what I intended. I know it can be found in the article on Machiavellian Intelligence on Wikipedia, but that is not really what I was pointing towards. Here are two quotes from The Prince that come closer to that:
“Alexander VI did nothing else but deceive men, he thought of nothing else, and found the occasion for it; no man was ever more able to give assurances, or affirmed things with stronger oaths, and no man observed them less; however, he always succeeded in his deceptions, as he well knew this aspect of things.”
“Everybody sees what you appear to be, few feel what you are, and those few will not dare to oppose themselves to the many, who have the majesty of the state to defend them; and in the actions of men, and especially of princes, from which there is no appeal, the end justifies the means.” (p. 93)
“Let a prince therefore aim at conquering and maintaining the state, and the means will always be judged honourable and praised by every one, for the vulgar is always taken by appearances and the issue of the event; and the world consists only of the vulgar, and the few who are not vulgar are isolated when the many have a rallying point in the prince.”
Much of what you write reminds me of the C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters"
The Screwtape Letters is a work of Christian satire by C. S. Lewis first published in book form in 1942. The story takes the form of a series of letters from a senior demon, Screwtape, to his nephew, a junior tempter named Wormwood, so as to advise him on methods of securing the damnation of an earthly man, known only as "the Patient."
Screwtape (along with his trusted scribe Toadpipe) holds an administrative post in the bureaucracy ("Lowerarchy") of Hell, and acts more as a mentor than a supervisor to Wormwood, the inexperienced tempter; almost every letter ends with the signature, "Your affectionate uncle, Screwtape." In the body of the thirty-one letters which make up the book, Screwtape gives Wormwood detailed advice on various methods of undermining faith and promoting sin in his Patient, interspersed with observations on human nature and Christian doctrine.
In The Screwtape Letters, C.S. Lewis provides a series of lessons in the importance of taking a deliberate role in living out Christian faith by portraying a typical human life, with all its temptations and failings, as seen from the demon/devil's viewpoint. Wormwood and Screwtape live in a peculiarly morally reversed world, where individual benefit and greed are seen as the greatest good, and neither demon is capable of comprehending or acknowledging true human virtue when he sees it. A preface included in some older publishings of the book included a short dialog on the subject of whether Lewis believed demons to be fact or fiction, exemplifying Lewis' belief that despite the fictional storyline of the book, he believed Satan and demons are not fictional; further, that he held a view that they exist for a decidedly evil purpose which must not be portrayed innocuously in art and culture at the risk of obfuscating their true nature. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Screwtape_Letters
As one who believes we live in a world of many false-gods, I believe there are two types of God-fearing people: those who work with God's Word in-mind, and those who think their words are much like God's, (yet they choose to practice in deceit, instead).
In other words, I strongly believe Religion and Spirituality are two separate things. Assuming any one man should have more power than others can lead to very dangerous thinking.
Kerry, I believe the same: "Religion and Spirituality are two separate things.
I believe we are spiritual beings living inside human bodies, for now. Spirituality, IMO, is our relationship to the Spirit
God that made us.
Religion is a co-dependent enabler of the sins of mankind. It is itself an addiction.
Religion involves absolutism, authoritarianism and activism. There is nothing wrong with absolutes, authority or activity. God is absolute, authoritative and active. But when any man or group of men attempts to establish themselves as the regulators of God's absoluteness, authority or activity, they then begin to "play god," and religion is the result as they impose their perspective of absolute, authority and activity on others.
"I can be changed by what happens to me, I refuse to be reduced by it." M.A.
One Step Up From Bottom
Teddy
Comments
Discipline what discipline?
I don't remember much discipline took place growing up. First of all I gave very little reason. I was so afraid to break the rules, I even kept to rules that no longer applied, never questioned them or tried to bend them. Temper tantrums I don't recall ever having. Superficially I grew up a very good boy. The only thing I recall ever doing "wrong", was not being home enough. In which case my mother would play the guilt trip as a form of punishment. Asking questions whether I liked it better with other people and stuff like that. At an early age I realized this was her insecurity talking and not me doing much wrong. It was frustrating and tiresome and took the fun out of much what I liked doing. My father I don't recall ever punishing me for anything. He would beat me every now and then, but that was more a kick the cat syndrome kind of thing, being frustrated about work, being angry with my mother he would every now and then take it out on me. My wrong doing usually was wanting some attention, which for him on top of his work and his relationship with my mother was sometimes just too much.
Altogether I grew up very undisciplined. As long as I enjoy doing something I give it my best and fortunately I enjoy many things, cause when I dread like doing something, it's very hard for me to get myself doing it.
All sorts of treatments
Oh, I was spared no expense when it came to rules and regulations and forms of controlling my temper and behavior! If spanking with the wooden spoon or paddle didn't work, then there was a hair brush or my father's hand to fear. If that didn't work, there was being banned to my room, but that was more paradise than punishment because I had books and snacks reserved for myself in there for such occassions. I would get speeches of all torturous kinds, telling me how lying was wrong and how certain people expected certain expectations, whether I liked it or not.
Perhaps the single worst punishment of all, however, was my mother's Silent Treatment. It would go for hours or days, and her blatant ignoring me could be for something as simple as a look or a comment that she didn't like. I never knew what would trigger her and her moody feelings towards me, but I always knew when she was mad at me, she'd look right into my eyes, and then pretend I wasn't even there.
There was no greater torture in the world than being ignored and dismissed by the one who claimed to be my "unconditional loving mommy".
I got beat all the time, by
I got beat all the time, by my so-called sibling, but I was told that was just normal typical sibling rivalry and shouldn't think anything of it. I learned to keep quiet about a lot of things as a result. It wasn't until years later that I found out just how abusive the situation really was when a doctor told me to seek therapy about the following condition:
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=8439
Definition of Battered child syndrome
Battered child syndrome: A disease in which children are physically abused. The battered child syndrome is a form of child abuse.
Not until the 19th century were children granted the same legal status as domesticated animals in regard to protection against cruelty and/or neglect. In 1962 the term "battered child syndrome" entered medicine. By 1976 all states in the United States had adopted laws mandating the reporting of suspected instances of child abuse.
Child abuse involves a complex and dangerous set of problems that include child neglect and the physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of children.
Child neglect is the most frequently reported form of child abuse and the most lethal. This form of abuse is defined as the failure to provide for the shelter, safety, supervision and nutritional needs of the child. Child neglect can be physical, educational, or emotional neglect.
Physical neglect includes refusal of or delay in seeking health care, abandonment, expulsion from the home or refusal to allow a runaway to return home, and inadequate supervision.
Educational neglect includes the allowance of chronic truancy, failure to enroll a child of mandatory school age in school, and failure to attend to a special educational need.
Emotional neglect includes such actions as marked inattention to the child's needs for affection, refusal of or failure to provide needed psychological care, spouse abuse in the child's presence, and permission of drug or alcohol use by the child.
Physical abuse is the second most frequently reported form of child abuse and is defined as physical injury inflicted upon the child with cruel and/or malicious intent. Physical abuse can be the result of punching, beating, kicking, biting, burning, shaking, or otherwise harming a child. The parent or caretaker may not have intended to hurt the child, rather the injury may have resulted from over-discipline or physical punishment.
Emotional abuse is the third most frequently reported form of child abuse and includes acts or omissions by the parents or other caregivers that could cause serious behavioral, emotional, or mental disorders. For example, the parents/caregivers may use extreme or bizarre forms of punishment, such as confinement of a child in a dark closet. Emotional child abuse is also sometimes termed psychological child abuse, verbal child abuse, or mental injury of a child.
Sexual abuse is the least frequently reported form of child abuse and is believed to be the most under-reported type of child maltreatment because of the secrecy or "conspiracy of silence" that so often characterizes these cases. Sexual abuse includes fondling a child's genitals, intercourse, incest, rape, sodomy, exhibitionism, and commercial exploitation through prostitution or the production of pornographic materials.
Fatal injuries from maltreatment can result from many different acts including severe head trauma (injury), shaken baby syndrome, trauma to the abdomen or chest, scalding, burns, drowning, suffocation, poisoning, etc.
Factors affecting the likelihood of potential abuse and predisposing to child abuse include:
Children can be neglected and abused by parents, other caregivers, or society.
Child abuse should be reported, investigated and evaluated.
The treatment and prevention of child abuse include a support group structure coupled with visiting nurse home visits to reinforce good parenting skills and monitor the child's well-being. Children's school programs regarding "good touch...bad touch" can provide parents with a forum in which to role-play and learn to avoid potentially harmful scenarios. Parents should make sure that their child's daycare center is licensed and has an open door policy regarding parental visitation. The best strategy is to prevent child abuse.
Common Misspellings: battered child syndrone
Grilling
The speeches I do recall, though they were not really about something I had done wrong, but much more about things I wanted, my parents didn't want me to want. One of the best examples of that is me at the age of ten wanting to play soccer. Soccer being the number one sport where I live it helps to fit in to be good at it. I didn't fit in and I wasn't good at soccer either. Our neighbour at the time, was a director of the local soccer club and I had asked him to get me in the club and he was most willing to help me with the application. So I was very enthusiastic when I told my parents I was going to be play soccer. This, my mother was not all that pleased with. She considered soccer to be a vulgar game and wanted me to play tennis or hockey, any sport with more standing than mere soccer. So I was grilled for hours and hours to give up my want to play soccer and to make sure I would go to our neighbour telling him I didn't want to play soccer anymore, cause my mother didn't want to have the reputation of not allowing me. I recall many more of these incident and they always followed the pattern of grilling and grilling until I was so tired I gave in. It was always two grown ups against one child and I knew I would always lose. So I learned not to have any wants or needs.
"you selfish little bastard!"
I could just picture the horror, and I'm laughing because I know exactly how it would sound in my house!
"How DARE you want to play soccer you little brat! Do you think your mother and father brought you here just so you can get mud in the house, and soil our good reputation? Are you MAD?!? Good lord what were you thinking? I'd say that oughtta cost you a few whippings out by the shed.
Now go repent your sins, and wash before dinner, and make sure you're smiling, too. Can't have neighbors thinking we allow any sulking slobs at the table around here!"
corporal punishment
I recently read up on discipline and corporal punishment of children and was pretty shocked by what I read. I already knew corporal punishment in Canada and the US was still common practice, but I had no idea of the extent. The vast majority of parent use corporal punishments. Surveys give different figures as to the percentage, the lowest being 75% the highest claims more than 90%. On top of that, 20 states still allow corporal punishment in schools, a practice that has disappeared in most of the countries around the world.
By now there is a vast body of research that shows what common sense already told us a long time ago, that violence breeds violence. It also shows that corporal punishment is only effective towards immediate compliance and is ineffective in the long run. It's interesting to note that the biggest lessen corporal punishment teaches children is that it is a parental right, which strongly contributes to the continuation of the habit.
Of course it is easy for me to judge the American stance on corporal punishment, being a European, living in one of the many countries here that banned corporal punishment by law. Most European countries don't start wars anymore and as a result violence is seen as something we better get rid of. The American situation is of course very different from that. Due to the high level of violence (the violent crime rate is eight higher than in Europe) there is much more need to unleash that violence by means of war and given that urge to go to war the violence needs to be maintained.
The same reasoning can be applied to law and order thinking. If there is little violation of law and order, there is little need to be all that tough on crime. Corporal punishment has a negative effect on violent crime rates, so in that sense contributes to the desire to maintain a fierce law and order position.
So corporal punishment serves a role in American society, not so much as a disciplinarian measure, because as such it is proven to be ineffective, but to maintain the vicious circle of violence to justify warfare and be tough on crime. The decision to go to war and adhere to a strict law and order mentality is of course the right of a sovereign state and I can't judge the US from doing that. It's just sad that it again happens at the expense of children who didn't ask for it.
Taking discipline to the schools
I found something just a wee-bit more disturbing than the "spank-debate" taking place at home.
Behold the following statistics reported by CNN:
Punishment versus discipline
As to children:
It should be discipline as being done in love with the child in mind; and punishment is as control with the parent in mind.
My bringing-up was done with neither discipline nor punishment, with a little bit of bizarre meanness thrown in because
they had no clue about raising their one child at home.
If I told the truth there was EVERYTHING taken away... and if I lied no one cared that my lie made no sense with nothing
to back it up which made me know they didn't care.
I remember the one time my mother beat me with a board: she had a new davenport/couch/sofa and I sat down on it
too hard; she got the board and beat me.
I remember the one time my dad beat me with his hand while holding me up in the air by his arm: I had drawn a penis
on a dog-drawing while in church and it triggered in him his nasty self that taught me about a penis.
Where I come from they do not spank in school. I'm glad they don't. If they hit my child then I would have to break
their neck: isn't that what corporal punishment teaches?
"I can be changed by what happens to me, I refuse to be reduced by it." M.A.
One Step Up From Bottom
Teddy
some not entirely random thoughts
It is interesting to note that after school shooting incidents an immediate response is along this line: If the paddle was still in schools you wouldn't have problems... maybe, if there was disipline, the Columbine High School shooting never would have happened.
If it were true that school shootings were the result of a lack of discipline, it would logically follow that most school shooting incidents would take place in non-paddling schools. The opposite is true;the majority of school shootings take place in repressive schools that use paddling and in some cases the shooting is even in direct response to the paddling.
The states that allow or even promote paddling in school are also the most violent states, have the highest crime rates, the highest teen pregnancy rates, the highest poverty rates, the highest school drop-out rates and the lowest progress towards resolution of these issues.
It is of course a matter of opinion whether this is good or bad. The more Machiavellian inclined will see virtue in this. The more high-school drop-outs, the more cheap labour is available. The more teen-pregnancies the more babies are available for adoption. The more violence there is the louder the call for war. The dumber the population, the more easily they can be manipulated and controlled.
Some of those Machiavellian inclined also base their ideology on a calvinist interpretation of the bible, which says: God rewards the good and punishes the bad, so those that are rich and in power are by definition good and those that are poor and powerless are by definition evil. Since evil needs to be destroyed it is good to punish the poor and the powerless, which in essence is nothing but doing God's work.
It is very much this line of reasoning that also fuels the refusal of the US to ratify the The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Signed by all countries in the world except Somalia ( which effectively has no government ) and the USA.
Much of the opposition against ratification is based on the fact that chilldren are powerless and therefore, accoring to ideology, evil. it's not without reason Focus on the Family's James Dobson calls children: tyrants, terrors, brats, little fat fingers, butter balls, anti-christs.
From the perspective every child is evil and in order to control that evil, parents need absolute authority over children or perhaps even more accurate need to have ownership of children. In line with that thinking it makes sense that any liberty a child has is in direct conflict with the notion of ownership and the abolishment of corporal punishment, which the UNCRC seeks, undermines the absolute authority of parents. As a consequence the UNCRC is perceived as anti-family. Ironically the Vatican was one of the first to sign the UNCRC and much of the treaty was drafted by people from the Reagan administration, which almost invented the term family values.
Reset your mind about violence
I just posted a blog-piece addressing the increase we are seeing in school violence. ["Are you all packed and ready for school?" , http://poundpuplegacy.org/node/21093]
As you will see, drugs have a huge influence on a child's behavior, and in some cases, a paddle might send an angry child packing (a weapon).
In fact, I'm beginning to think "quick fixes" seem to be the damaging trend and long-term problem far too many children are being forced to face.
Here's a simple question: Does anyone teach "patience" anymore?
Niels said:
Niels said:
"Much of the opposition against ratification is based on the fact that children are powerless and therefore, according to ideology, evil. it's not without reason Focus on the Family's James Dobson calls children: tyrants, terrors, brats,
little fat fingers, butter balls, anti-christs."
I am not a fan of Dobson's but have heard him say that children are "born with a sinful nature" an "Adamic nature"
from original sin. Is this what you are referring to? I'd like to know where you got these statements, please? Thanks.
I am of the Calvinistic beliefs of predestination. I understand how someone could come up with the following thoughts: "Some of those Machiavellian inclined also base their ideology on a Calvinist interpretation of the bible, which says: God rewards the good and punishes the bad, so those that are rich and in power are by definition good and those that are poor and powerless are by definition evil. Since evil needs to be destroyed it is good to punish the poor and the powerless, which in essence is nothing but doing God's work," but am wondering where you got your information that you stated? I have never heard preached, nor have I ever read anywhere such an interpretation. I'm interested in knowing more.
Is this from "Dominionism" by Sara Diamond?
MACHIAVELLIAN:
of, like, or characterized by the political principles and methods of expediency, craftiness, and duplicity set forth in Machiavelli's book, The Prince; crafty, deceitful, etc.
Is this an example:
"An elementary school needs a new roof. Simple as it may seem, much of Machiavelli's theories will be put to use. Money from a budget must be allocated by officials, each of them lobbying for what they think is most important. Even then, if money is allocated towards a new roof, a construction contractor must be hired. One must consistently consider, What is behind this lower estimate for the construction work? Why does this company want this small contract? Many questions must be asked in order to identify deception. In the end, all anyone can ever do is 'strive to make an informed decision based on the best evidence, and then act accordingly, even though the best evidence will never guarantee certainty.' "
"I can be changed by what happens to me, I refuse to be reduced by it." M.A.
One Step Up From Bottom
Teddy
some answers
The Dobson phrases can be found in the books of Dobson as several of the reviewers of his books on amazon.com point out. It is also consistent with what you say that according to him children are born with a sinful nature. It was also observed by a commentator of the book "The New Strong-willed Child" on the website stoptherod.net, which claims:
Sara Diamond in her article Dominionism Theology is one of the sources of a particular calvinist interpretation of the bible. The wikipedia article on Christian Reconstructionism is another more neutral source and then there is the article The Despoiling of America by Katherine Yurica, which links Machiavellian reasoning to an aberrant extension of calvinism.
Don't get me wrong by what I said above. This has nothing to do with religion, it is about the abuse of religion for the sake of power, which has a very old tradition in for example the Catholic Church. I found the website theocracywatch.net another interesting source of information about dominionism.
There is also a very interesting article The Religious Right and the Opposition to U.S. Ratification of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which is a narrative on why the USA hasn't ratified the UNCRC.
I read Machiavelli's Discourses on Livy several years ago and it is principle an analysis of power, how successful leaders get into power and how they stay in power and the lessons that can be learned from that. I read Machiavelli as an amoral book and as such I can have an appreciation of it. The application of Machiavelli's lessons to pursue power can easily become immoral, which I very much oppose. The example you give about Machiavellianism doesn't necessarily reflect what I intended. I know it can be found in the article on Machiavellian Intelligence on Wikipedia, but that is not really what I was pointing towards. Here are two quotes from The Prince that come closer to that:
For the sake of brevity...
Much of what you write reminds me of the C.S. Lewis' "The Screwtape Letters"
As one who believes we live in a world of many false-gods, I believe there are two types of God-fearing people: those who work with God's Word in-mind, and those who think their words are much like God's, (yet they choose to practice in deceit, instead).
In other words, I strongly believe Religion and Spirituality are two separate things. Assuming any one man should have more power than others can lead to very dangerous thinking.
Religion and Spirituality are two separate things.
Kerry, I believe the same: "Religion and Spirituality are two separate things.
I believe we are spiritual beings living inside human bodies, for now. Spirituality, IMO, is our relationship to the Spirit
God that made us.
Religion is a co-dependent enabler of the sins of mankind. It is itself an addiction.
Religion involves absolutism, authoritarianism and activism. There is nothing wrong with absolutes, authority or activity. God is absolute, authoritative and active. But when any man or group of men attempts to establish themselves as the regulators of God's absoluteness, authority or activity, they then begin to "play god," and religion is the result as they impose their perspective of absolute, authority and activity on others.
"I can be changed by what happens to me, I refuse to be reduced by it." M.A.
One Step Up From Bottom
Teddy