Should child abuse be allowed?

[Macroscopic]

Let's look who is actually encouraging child abuse right now.

I say if it's a possibility that your parent is stressed and mad at you' date=' give up your dignity to avoide getting abused. But you say "you've got to be kidding me," which intentionnally or unintentionally shows willingness to fight back.[/quote']

How does your post support your first statement?

But you say "you've got to be kidding me," which intentionnally or unintentionally shows willingness to fight back.

1. I would prefer fighting back or being abused over being a slave.

2. How is that an encouragement for child abuse?

[6431hoho]

Coral Rehd, reply to the recent comment

 

1. Parents need power/authority to convince the child that they need to obey them. Without it, it just doesn't work

 

2. If parent gives child away that they are equal as the parent, then the child will disobey more easily. Children will grow up to be ungrateful to the parents.

 

3. We should not fear that our children will grow up to be a criminal. Parents have the every right to stop their child from becoming a criminal. Stop them from the start. With the right atmosphere and hit on their hands, it will do the trick.

 

4. Without strong words and highly assertive attitude, it is close to impossible conving the children. It just doesn't give the right atmosphere to be persuaded by. And impossible to convince when they don't feel like listening.

[6431hoho]

1. I would prefer fighting back or being abused over being a slave.

2. How is that an encouragement for child abuse?

 

You don't get it do you?

 

1) when it say possibility of stressed, it means a possiblility of abuse

2) if you fight back...1)

3) you are encouarging the kids to fight back, so that they can get beat up...or did you mean those macho children?

[Macroscopic]

2. If parent gives child away that they are equal as the parent, then the child will disobey more easily. Children will grow up to be ungrateful to the parents.

Ungrateful for not being treated as an inferior?

You don't get it do you?

 

1) when it say possibility of stressed, it means a possiblility of abuse

2) if you fight back...1)

3) you are encouarging the kids to fight back, so that they can get beat up...or did you mean those macho children?

Then try rewording the rest of your post, because I can't understand your point; if you have one.

[klanger]

My children are fine, they talk with me about a whole array of subjects and always have done. They ARE free to discuss something that I may have done or said without fear of reprisal, if I am wrong about a decision then I am big enough to swallow my pride and admit it, and work with them on it. They are NOT my personal slaves nor do they behave as such.

 

They all have good solid grounding they know right from wrong.

 

I have never measured the time a mark fades, because until recently it was never a issue, and as I said before I haven't smacked them since they were about seven years old some 6 years ago. When they did get a smack it was on the bottom over clothes, I was in control of my anger at all times, my hand never hurt and when I checked there was never a mark. But the point had been made and they didnt do 'whatever' again. Yes there have been times when they have done something that has angered me, my temper has been there in plain view, but I have never launched a smack at them at those time, they can see my anger they dont need to feel it too. I being the adult walk away and calm down before going back to them and discussing it.

 

When they aren't out playing with friends they are cuddled up to us watching TV or playing games with us. They are'nt afraid to speak, to joke to have fun with us or even at us, and we all laugh. None of them have a nervous laugh or a nervous tic or a stutter.

 

Yet according to what you class as abuse I must be an abusive parent. Funny that I had imagined children that are abused to be withdrawn, with no friends and spending undue amounts of time in their own bedrooms. I have never pinched or twisted an arm, never shaken them. When they were smacked as I said before it was on their bottoms over clothes, or on the top of their hands as toddlers. I have never slapped their faces or hit anyother part of their body. I have never played mind games with them, threatening them with another parent or telling them they are stupid and such like.

 

They have never been punished by isolation from me and my love for them, within minutes of any punishment I have always gone to them and told them that I love them and hugged them, and discussed with them why I smacked them, and yes they have been two way conversations.

 

As far as the social services are concerned. Before smacking was banned they were overstretched underfunded and undermanned. Hundreds of children regularly being abused went unchecked, some even died before the social services were able to intervene.

 

The social services are still all of the above, but now.... they have the added lists of kids claiming abuse that are'nt being abused, they just want to try and control their parents teachers and anyone else that is authority over them. Funny how a child that gets into a fight in the school ground doesnt go running to the child lines, yet will threaten their parent with that should they have done something wrong. So what happens? Even more abused children go unattended because the service is swamped with dummy calls, and the people are out questioning none abusive parents instead of focusing on those children that are really in danger of their lives.

[Coral Rhedd]

Coral Rehd' date=' reply to the recent comment

 

1. Parents [u']need[/u] power/authority to convince the child that they need to obey them. Without it, it just doesn't work

 

Of course. However, I don't think you need to hit in order to accomplish this. Body language, consistency, and appropriate penalties work.

 

2. If parent gives child away that they are equal as the parent, then the child will disobey more easily. Children will grow up to be ungrateful to the parents.

 

Yes. Child want their parents to have enough authority over them to guide them. Children of weak parents are unhappy children. But as a child grows older a parent needs to give the child more power and authority over his own life or that child will grown up weak. Sometimes parents resort to hitting not because they are strong, but because they are weak. Not because they have won the argument, but because they have lost it. Eventually children figure this out and it is then that children lose respect.

 

I do not mean that there should not be rules. Children around elementary school grow especially insecure if there are no rules. They want to know the right things to do. They feel protected if there parents set boundaries. They feel whiny, rebellious, or even get sick when there parents do not.

 

3. We should not fear that our children will grow up to be a criminal. Parents have the every right to stop their child from becoming a criminal. Stop them from the start. With the right atmosphere and hit on their hands, it will do the trick.

 

I think some of the most serious criminal behavior have high heritable components so I will not argue this with except to say that the best way to stop your child from becoming a criminal is to teach and model moral behavior. I never hit. I never needed to.

 

4. Without strong words and highly assertive attitude, it is close to impossible conving the children. It just doesn't give the right atmosphere to be persuaded by. And impossible to convince when they don't feel like listening.

 

That depends upon what you mean by an assertive attitude. I will give an example of a weak creature. Down the street is a large Mastiff dog. You never saw a bigger dog. When I walk my German Shepherd past, that dog throws a fit. He has the deepest, loudest bark you ever heard. He jumps up and down and acts crazy. But if you listen carefully, among those very aggressive barks and growls there is an occasional, high-pitched yelp. This dog is a coward and my dog knows it. Once that dog escaped his fence and I saw a female Spring Spaniel -- not so large -- whip his a$$!

 

When my dog walks past that Mastiff, he never barks at the huge dog and he never even raises the hair on his back. This is because he is not fooled by all the noise.

 

Posturing and aggression do not get you much, if you are not confident in your position and authority. Aggression does not prove you are. Confidence and accomplishment does.

[Coral Rhedd]

 

Yet according to what you class as abuse I must be an abusive parent.

 

I think hitting is ineffective. I cannot know you, your children, or your circumstances so I would not presume to judge.

 

I do think leaving marks, bruises, or scars is abuse.

[klanger]

And I think a smack on the hand or bottom is very effective. According to the list of abuse data that Coral posted way back in this thread, bruising is the lowest form of abuse leading up to extremes. A smack doesnt leave a bruise.

 

When you get down to the nitty gritty of it all would you sentence a parent to prison for smacking their child after having been told again and again not to do something dangerous?

 

If the answer is yes then fair enough, but please be aware that that particular parent may well be spending time in the same cell as another parent who for no other reason other than wanting to be big and strong regularly punched burned starved and damaged their child.

 

As far as the other inmates are concerned all they hear is child abuser both parents if released into general population will be killed.

 

I am sorry but that seems as extreme to me as say a mother on very little money going into the local store stealing nappies (diappers?) for her baby being sentenced the same way as a person going into the local bank armed with a gun.

[6431hoho]

Macroscopic, why don't yousay your point? You want the kid to fight back so that they can get beaten up by their parent. No no, aruging back doesn't always lead to getting beaten up. However, those horrible ways of abuse mentioned before wouldn't count right now would it?

 

Then try rewording the rest of your post, because I can't understand your point; if you have one.

 

By thw way, why do you have the word "then" over there? Does it make you seem more sophisticated?

[Coral Rhedd]

By thw way' date=' why do you have the word "then" over there? Does it make you seem more sophisticated?[/quote']

 

Hoho, Macroscopic is not misusing the word "then." It can mean "next" or "and also" or "therefore."

 

But I have been rereading what you are saying and I believe you are saying that in a dangerous situation that he cannot get out of, the child should not fight back.

 

Agree with you. But he should evaluate the possibility of reporting his parent or maybe persuading his parent to let him go live with someone else.

 

Some people and some cultures believe it is deeply wrong to criticize or report one's parents. But if one's life is in danger, then that should be an option.

 

If someone is in a powerless situation and wants to survive, it is brains not muscle that is needed.

[Macroscopic]

You want the kid to fight back so that they can get beaten up by their parent.

I said that I would prefer to fight back, not that everyone should. I stated my opinion, and did not say that anyone else should have it.

 

 

 

No one should beat a child into submission, [u']no one on here is advocating that

 

 

Actually.........

 

 

Originally Posted by 6431hoho

"So, in other words, 'For children to avoid abuse, they must be their personal slave'. Seriously, getting abused for talking back?! You've got to be kidding me!"

 

-Well, if you know your parent well enough and think that it's a possiblity, then you should be a personal slave (that means giving up your dignity? then yes)

Your response:

Let's look who is actually encouraging child abuse right now.

I say if it's a possibility that your parent is stressed and mad at you' date=' give up your dignity to avoide getting abused. But you say "you've got to be kidding me," which intentionnally or unintentionally shows willingness to fight back.[/quote']

You have said you support child abuse, and you say that kids should become their parents slaves to avoid abuse(beating a kid into submission), so, whether you realize it or not, you are advocating beating a child into submission.

 

By thw way, why do you have the word "then" over there? Does it make you seem more sophisticated?

In the word "the", why do you have a 'w' where the 'e' should be?

[6431hoho]

I've made a 5-page commen about child abuse but it had an eroor and exited me out. So I'll just tell you why children owe everything to their parents.

 

Not regarding the fact that children are biologically related to their parent, they are costing parents 10s and thousands of dollars a year. While most children are sitting at home playing with their toy and video games, few even think about helping their parents or getting a job by themselves. And even though they should be thankful just to be entered in this life, they are getting money, clothes, love from their parents with nothing expected back. Most parents don't think it as a waste but that doesn't change the fact that you're receiving all this for free. So heck what if your parents want to discpline you for doing something bad? You're hurting and embarassing your gods while your physical pain is actually going to help and forbid you not to violate the boundaries that your parents clearly marked.

[Macroscopic]

As I said before, brain damage in the future will cancel that debt.

[6431hoho]

Hitting a hand does not damage the brain. May I ask which book or site you got this from? If anything, your friend who tickles you will damage your brain.

[Macroscopic]

Hitting a hand is not abuse.

 

Here is a source that says child abuse can cause brain damage:

 

http://psychology.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http%3A%2F%2Fteacher.scholastic.com%2Fprofessional%2Fbruceperry%2Fabuse_neglect.htm

Read the part titled Traumatic Experiences and Development

[6431hoho]

Koreans, Japanese, Brazilians, Chinese, Indians, Singaporeans...these people all use abuse. They are ahead of most countries. And Brazil, India and China is the next g8. So, are they any more violent or stupider than us? NO! Japanese and Koreans are known for high IT and moral while Brazil and India are culturally developed and continually developoing. India is taking over so many jobs from United States. They are not behind any country.

[Coral Rhedd]

Koreans, Japanese, Brazilians, Chinese, Indians, Singaporeans...these people all use abuse.

 

Hoho, that is a pretty large blanket statement. I know Indians and Singaporeans who would object to that statement, at least as it concerns them. Why don't you provide some evidence?

[6431hoho]

Sorry, I'm using previous-knowledge but I'm positive. Not everyone in these countries are going to use the abuse to discpline of course.

[JohnB]

Any adult can control a three year old by being vigilant, proactive, and present. This is because the adult is bigger. If you tell them to go to their room and they don't do it, take them there.

Just how do you take a screaming struggling 3 yo to the bedroom with at least gripping them tightly? Possibly leaving bruises? How are you going to ensure that they stay in their room? Lock them in?

 

In some states of Australia what you describe is classified as child abuse. In a case in Western Australia, telling the child to clean their room was classed as child abuse.

 

I and probably others appreciate your outlook and would have little problem if you were a social worker. (I know you are, but in a different area) You accept that not all forms of discipline work in all cases. There are however others in the field with very different outlooks. All training but no knowledge.

 

Some of the case workers come out of Uni at say 24 with a head full of theory and no experience with children except for the occasional weekend babysitting. These people then pass judgement on the parents? They decide that the parents need help? I've met some like that and the damage they can cause is immense.

Nonabusive parents have little to fear.

Oh goody, that eases my mind. You mean so long as the investigator has no particular ideological barrow to push and I agree with every thing they say, I'll be fine?

 

I don't know about the US, but the one thing missing in the Australian system is the acceptance of the fact that the social worker might be wrong.

When laws changed that made spousal abuse illegal

When was that exactly?

 

The difficulty with this debate is that one persons discipline is another persons abuse.My father did not smack often, but when I needed a hiding I got one. I think I turned out fine.

 

There is also the dichotomy that those who believe force should not be used on children to "improve" behaviour are quite in favour of force being used on the parents to "improve" theirs. Threats and usage of Legal restraints, physical restraints and imprisonment are quite common.

 

But of course the Social Worker is a "professional" who is acting "for the good of the child" and is therefore immune to repercussions.

 

While I certainly agree with all here that there are evil people who must not be allowed to abuse children. We must also avoid the crusaders who would abuse the system.

Koreans, Japanese, Brazilians, Chinese, Indians, Singaporeans...these people all use abuse.

No, they use Corporal Punishment, which is a different thing entirely.

[Coral Rhedd]

Just how do you take a screaming struggling 3 yo to the bedroom with at least gripping them tightly? Possibly leaving bruises? How are you going to ensure that they stay in their room? Lock them in?

 

1. Bodily. 2. Those fade. 3. Not to shock you but I sat on mine. However' date=' I didn't weight much at the time. 4. What's wrong with locks?

 

In some states of Australia what you describe is classified as child abuse. In a case in Western Australia, telling the child to clean their room was classed as child abuse.

 

You must have a very different system.

 

I and probably others appreciate your outlook and would have little problem if you were a social worker. (I know you are, but in a different area) You accept that not all forms of discipline work in all cases. There are however others in the field with very different outlooks. All training but no knowledge.

 

No. I have never been a social worker. I am now a government contractor working with people with disabilities. My work that you are referring to is in advocacy, in which I have held a paid position and am now a volunteer.

 

Most social workers I know here are overworked, underpaid, and underqualified. I have yet to met one actually in the employ of CPS that I would term proactive. No one is going to take a child away from their parent solely on the basis of room cleaning issues. That would just mean unnecessary paperwork.

 

That said, here on this forum (where no one really knows who I am) that, as a professional group, I don't care much for social workers. It is true that sometimes their power goes to their heads. However, in CPS, they usually control themselves be cause the professional and legal repurcussions of not doing so are great.

 

They are much more likely to err in failing to protect children than overprotecting them. Apparently, in Florida, they lost track of several children in foster care. One may be dead.

 

Some of the case workers come out of Uni at say 24 with a head full of theory and no experience with children except for the occasional weekend babysitting. These people then pass judgement on the parents? They decide that the parents need help? I've met some like that and the damage they can cause is immense.

 

I think here that they are more likely to lack people skills than anything else. People often go into professions for which they are unsuited. However, our system does not encourage extra vigilance. Caseloads do not allow it.

 

Oh goody, that eases my mind. You mean so long as the investigator has no particular ideological barrow to push and I agree with every thing they say, I'll be fine?

 

Please see hoho's post about not fighting one's parent. Should you be investigated, be polite and be cooperative. Jump through the hoops and you will have your kid back -- if indeed the child is ever taken away. In situations where one is dealing with an authority that could ruin one's life forever, it only makes sense to be cooperative rather than combative.

 

Anyway, that is how things work in the U.S. I can't say a thing about elsewhere.

 

I don't know about the US, but the one thing missing in the Australian system is the acceptance of the fact that the social worker might be wrong.

 

In the U.S., there are several layers of protection for parents. The work of social workers is evaluated by Citizen Boards, CASAs, doctors,psychologists, attorneys, and a judge, and a chain of supervisors. We even have watchers to watch the watchers. Nobody rubber stamps anything.

 

When was that exactly?

 

You were referring to spousal abuse with this question. In the U.S. awareness was raised in the sixties. Enforcement has been a slower process, the spouses abused now have legal protections and various social programs that did not exist before.

 

There is also the dichotomy that those who believe force should not be used on children to "improve" behaviour are quite in favour of force being used on the parents to "improve" theirs. Threats and usage of Legal restraints, physical restraints and imprisonment are quite common.

 

What you are overlooking with this statement is the fact that children are not their parents property and are entitled to legal protection. No doubt, different nations and cultures have different definitions of what constitutes illegal force.

 

But of course the Social Worker is a "professional" who is acting "for the good of the child" and is therefore immune to repercussions.

 

No one who is employed and wants to keep their job is immune from repurcussions.

 

While I certainly agree with all here that there are evil people who must not be allowed to abuse children. We must also avoid the crusaders who would abuse the system.

 

LOL! How're you going to avoid crusaders? Annihilate them? Competing interests are part of any system or government that provides a modicum of freedom. Would you slap them in jail? Eliminate their right to free speech? Shall we design a special mark that they must wear on their foreheads that indicates a nasty ole crusader?

[ed84c]

Well there is the sex offender's register........

[6431hoho]

No, they use Corporal Punishment, which is a different thing entirely.

 

Yes, they use Corporal Punishment, but at home, abuse is used as well

[Coral Rhedd]

Well there is the sex offender's register........

 

Yep. And a good thing we have those. I was going to do a job placement for a guy with a "mental disability" by placing him in a high school cafeteria as a lunchroom attendant but his counselor and I became suspicious when he seemed so hostile to both of us and we found he had been fired from his telemarketing job for verbal aggression towards his female supervisor. We checked the sex offender's registry and sure enough, there he was. We like to think the schools would have caught it in a background check, but I have enough to worry about already.