Child Abuse

[DivineIntercourse]

What would you consider as child abuse? (ex. your son is acting like a spoiled brat because you have refused to buy him the thing he insists upon, so you eventually get mad and drag him out of the store by his ear vs. beating him with an electrical cord once you get home - are these two scenarios a form of child abuse? Is one acceptable while the other is not? Does the severity of the intentionally inflicted pain matter in such cases? What if nothing else works? Furthermore, I would argue that the spoiled brat within him is your fault!). More questions: why does child abuse happen? Should it? And what are some of the effects of child abuse (possible advantages and disadvantages)?

Your thoughts?

[Unidian]

Don't hit kids.

[Dan Rowden]

If you have to hit a child, you've already failed. Dealing with children in any irrational way is abuse.

Loving them, for example.

[DivineIntercourse]

Define: "loving them"?

I've heard that infants need love or else they may die, or... etc. How do you know that emotions aren't necessary transferable thingies? Dan, you fail to post anything of substance! I need something to sink my teeth into! Something to mull-over! At least... show me something that will explain your point for me, since you're obviously lazy, or you just don't see the point in repeating yourself, etc... Something... Anything... Hello?

[Dan Rowden]

Define: "loving them"?

Expressing egotistical possession and identification with. That's all parental love is.

I've heard that infants need love or else they may die, or... etc.

I've heard your ears keep growing after you're dead.

How do you know that emotions aren't necessary transferable thingies?

I'm pretty sure I don't know what that means.

Dan, you fail to post anything of substance!

I expect people to think. I know that's cruel and heartless, and that I really should explain everything in minute detail to them, but what can is say, colour me cruel and heartless.

I need something to sink my teeth into!

Try a bagel.

Something to mull-over!

Mull over why you think a child needs love to survive. Mull over how the hell a child can even identify "love". I think you'll find they can't.

[DivineIntercourse]

Expressing egotistical possession and identification with. That's all parental love is.

I don't think that's all it is. No. You first!

I've heard your ears keep growing after you're dead.

Show me. Hmm... Perhaps, if it's true, it would be because of the decay/built-up gases - similar to - when people die they appear bloated for the said reasons. I don't know... But I have noticed that people's ears/noses get bigger as they age, sorta similar to how the skin loses its elasticity. Obviously, after enough time passes, after the person is dead, the gases will continue to be released as the corpse decays, and eventually there will be little more than dust...

How do you know that emotions aren't necessary transferable thingies?

I'm pretty sure I don't know what that means.

It has to do with the unconscious and the how emotions play a part in development...

I expect people to think. I know that's cruel and heartless, and that I really should explain everything in minute detail to them, but what can is say, colour me cruel and heartless.

I'm not cruel and heartless. Dan, I can't think of an appropriate response unless I know exactly what you mean. So far, this seems to be what has been happening: I disagree with something, you'll give me a response, but that response (sometimes) doesn't seem to confirm beyond a doubt that you are correct, so therefore... I need more from you. Btw, getting more from you, will aid in stimulating my own thinking, so it's a win-win for you. That does run according to the agenda, does it not?

Try a bagel.

Seriously, thanks for the idea. I finally got some money and on Mon, I'm going to get a few lbs of the stuff! It'll be great - have you ever tried it? It's great!

Mull over why you think a child needs love to survive. Mull over how the hell a child can even identify "love". I think you'll find they can't.

What if I told you that it's hardwired into them (you'd need evidence, right? Well, what if I provided some compelling evidence, what then? Would that make you reconsider a few things?) Since emotions, as you've stated in the past, are a lower-level trait then wouldn't it make sense to suspect that an infant is more sensitive to these lower-level... instinctual traits (or whatever)?

The problem that I'm starting to suspect is that you've intellectually removed certain components of physical reality from your understanding of this reality, because it seems delusional, or it seems like life would be better off without it (in other words: it easier and more convenient for you to live without emotions, therefore this should be so for everyone). However, it is the way it is for good reason, unless you show me that you understand these reasons, I'll have to refuse to accept your claims, such as: emotions are irrational, etc. Saying that, to me, sounds like your saying that brains/minds are irrational! But than again, it would be really difficult to try and make an irrational understanding of something rational, why bother? ...

[Dan Rowden]

Mull over why you think a child needs love to survive. Mull over how the hell a child can even identify "love". I think you'll find they can't.

What if I told you that it's hardwired into them (you'd need evidence, right? Well, what if I provided some compelling evidence, what then? Would that make you reconsider a few things?)

No, because there can be no evidence against my point. A baby cannot recognise love, because love is a subjectively experienced thing. Even an adult cannot determine its presence with certainty.

Since emotions, as you've stated in the past, are a lower-level trait then wouldn't it make sense to suspect that an infant is more sensitive to these lower-level... instinctual traits (or whatever)?

Infants absolutely require attention and stimulation, otherwise they cannot develop cognitively or physiologically. This doesn't require "love" as such. If it did, we'd have to close down every childcare operation in the world.

The problem that I'm starting to suspect is that you've intellectually removed certain components of physical reality from your understanding of this reality, because it seems delusional, or it seems like life would be better off without it

Yes, life would be better without delusions. No question.

(in other words: it easier and more convenient for you to live without emotions, therefore this should be so for everyone).

I don't find being rational either convenient or inconvenient; I just find it, sane.

However, it is the way it is for good reason, unless you show me that you understand these reasons, I'll have to refuse to accept your claims, such as: emotions are irrational, etc.

Emotions are irrational by definition. If you can't accept that then you can't accept reason itself. You need to argue that the irrational is good and/or necessary.

Saying that, to me, sounds like your saying that brains/minds are irrational! But than again, it would be really difficult to try and make an irrational understanding of something rational, why bother? ...

Our minds are mostly irrational. That doesn't mean they need to be. They are only that way because our reason in undeveloped.

[DivineIntercourse]

No, because there can be no evidence against my point.

I also believe that there can be no evidence against my point. I'm not aware of any, but I'm interested to see if you can find some. However, I'm beginning to suspect that we agree on more than is currently thought. I'm not sure, I haven't gotten it all figured out yet.

A baby cannot recognize love, because love is a subjectively experienced thing.

OK. Truth is also a subjectively experienced thing, the only difference is that we can define truth and reach some sort of an understanding, whereas it appears to be very difficult to define something such as love. Further, relating to the quote, a baby cannot be said to experience love, because we cannot communicate with it, so therefore we cannot determine whether it is true or not. Fine. However, it is different with love in that we can reach some sort of an understanding of what we mean when we use the terms: love/hate (or whatever).

What I meant originally was that the baby does sense something. That sensing is what I meant by love (all along) to the baby (but of course through its lesser developed brain).

Infants absolutely require attention and stimulation, otherwise they cannot develop cognitively or physiologically.

That's what I meant by love!

Yes, life would be better without delusions. No question.

You got that right! The crazy thing is that I need some delusions for the time being (practical matters). It's true.

I don't find being rational either convenient or inconvenient; I just find it, sane.

That's what's so scary about it.

Emotions are irrational by definition. If you can't accept that then you can't accept reason itself. You need to argue that the irrational is good and/or necessary.

The irrational is convenient (very convenient actually). Insanity.

Our minds are mostly irrational. That doesn't mean they need to be. They are only that way because our reason is undeveloped.

It helps to be irrational when faced with problems sometimes.

[Animus]

I have one friend who confides in me with her parental challenges. Most people don't because I have no kids myself and I say "Small taps on an infant are capable of detering undesirable behaviour, but are uneccesary and authoritative parenting involves explaining to the child and guiding the child's behaviour". Her children are all too old for such "taps".

Of course there are alternative means, and people generally look at me weird when I say that. They say I can't know, it doesn't matter what books I've read. Well it all makes sense in the larger picture and I studied so far for a few years, so whatever. Read Shaffer's Developmental Psychology.

Child abuse can be emotional, psychological or physical. A parent saying "Don't talk back" and "Respect your elders" with authoritarian zeal is abusing their child, IMO.

Probably the best guide for the lay-parent is Diana Baumrind's parent classifications.

http://www.parentingmonitor.com/baumrin ... nting.html

I should add, the link covers three classes (Authoritarian, Authoritative and Uninvolved) a fourth class is sometimes used (Neglectful Parenting) which differs from Uninvolved Parenting by a bit, somewhat insignificant, so the three are often used.

[DivineIntercourse]

Child abuse can be emotional, psychological or physical. A parent saying "Don't talk back" and "Respect your elders" with authoritarian zeal is abusing their child, IMO.

That's nothing comparatively. I really don't see a problem with it. Because - for one - that child can cause a lot of harm by saying things which it shouldn't say for many reasons. The parents in that case are being protective.

[Animus]

Child abuse can be emotional, psychological or physical. A parent saying "Don't talk back" and "Respect your elders" with authoritarian zeal is abusing their child, IMO.

That's nothing comparatively. I really don't see a problem with it. Because - for one - that child can cause a lot of harm by saying things which it shouldn't say for many reasons. The parents in that case are being protective.

Protective of what? Their own delusions?

A child cannot learn the importance of a paradigm unless made explicit. It does the child no good to halt their inquiry by stating "Don't talk back" or "Respect your elders" all this does is teach the child to blindly obey people claiming to be authority. Similarly if you smack a child when it reaches for a hot stove, the child will not learn the consequences of touching a hot stove, all it will learn is that you don't want it to touch the stove. In your absence the "coast is clear" to burn themselves and learn directly from experience. A smack doesn't illustrate the real consequences, neither does shutting down a child's curiosity with one-liners from authority.

[Animus]

The three classifications Baumrind constructed have measurable consequences. The "Don't talk back" type of parenting falls into "authoritarian", children raised under these circumstances tend to depend heavily on guidance later in life. They tend to depend on an authority figure to make sense of the world for them. The "don't talk back" method shares some consequences with neglectful parenting, in that the parents never make clear to the child the answers to the child's original inquiry, thus child-development is essentially being neglected for something more personal to the parents.

The "Authoritative" style which produces the most well adaptive individuals is characterized by a genuine interest in the child's development into an adaptive adult. This style involves explaining things to children, answering their questions and confirming their understanding of the subject matter. Unlike Uninvolved or Neglectful parenting, the Authoritative parent does stand their ground when put to the test. A correct judgement is upheld, but an incorrect judgement, by the parent, when challenged, is overthrown. The focus is on what is correct and best for the child's development.

[Animus]

Having read the results from various controlled tests; I've seen how abusive authorian or uninvolved parenting actually is on a psychological level.

The most important thing is brain development. During childhood the brain is pruning away unused synapses. So if you hinder development by shutting down your child's inquiry then you are killing synapses which will have to develop later by a much longer and more difficult process of synaptic plasticity. The child, as an adult, will have many more difficulties thanks to the parent's abusive neglect.

Mild head trauma, say getting backhanded for talking back, can cause real bruising of the brain, it loosens and destroys synapses. See: Mike Tyson.

So what some see as "mild comparitavely" to physical abuse, I see physical abuse masquarading as "psychological". Keep in mind that mind and brain are one and the same, "psychology" is "physical".

[DivineIntercourse]

Protective of what? Their own delusions?

No one is perfect. People don't become perfect right out of the blue. It takes time. Priorities must be set. Children that are too outspoken might become spoiled. This isn't a good thing.

It does the child no good to halt their inquiry

Halt?

by stating "Don't talk back" or "Respect your elders" all this does is teach the child to blindly obey people claiming to be authority.

No, that is not true. But then again, what's wrong with obeying authority? Think of a criminal.

Similarly if you smack a child when it reaches for a hot stove, the child will not learn the consequences of touching a hot stove, all it will learn is that you don't want it to touch the stove.

That's really all it will learn? How do you know?

In your absence the "coast is clear" to burn themselves and learn directly from experience.

This is why children should be left on there own. Parents, school teachers, etc... can only do so much. Afterwards, it's up to the child to learn on it's own. For instance, some children are taught not to play with fire, but they just don't listen. What can you do in situations like this? Take another situation for example: a child needs special needs (disability) how can one person provide all those needs when the parent just doesn't have the time. I had a sister who got cancer at the age of 3 (later died), my mom's priorities shifted, so instead of treating all her children as equals, she payed more attention to my sister. It was difficult for her. I don't blame her. It makes me sad to realize what she had to go through. My grandma told me that my father felt some guilt, because he had hit my 3 year old sister before she became ill (this is probably why he had a nervous breakdown some time after).

shutting down a child's curiosity with one-liners from authority.

Shutting down?

The three classifications Baumrind constructed have measurable consequences.

I don't even know who that is.

Having read the results from various controlled tests; I've seen how abusive authorian or uninvolved parenting actually is on a psychological level.

I guess you probably know more than me. Anyway, sometimes the parents can be classified as the perfect parents only to raise the worst kids imaginable. It sometimes seems like it is the parents' fault, but many times it isn't so. How do we know for certain?

The most important thing is brain development. During childhood the brain is pruning away unused synapses. So if you hinder development by shutting down your child's inquiry then you are killing synapses which will have to develop later by a much longer and more difficult process of synaptic plasticity.

Another theory (if you like) pertaining to brain development is called: "neurogenesis" -- I heard that the brain produces new neurons (maybe where memory is setup - Hippocampus < I could be completely wrong). Anyway, our brains' produce new neurons when challenged (ex. learning a new language, instrument (I'd really like to learn to play the guitar), etc). There have been studies about this. Also, new pathways are created (dendrites) in the parts that are being used for the task (ex. cab drivers have a much more dense memory area).

About the pruning that goes on. I'm aware of 2 critical stages: 1) yearly childhood, and the next 2) late adolesence (this is when I started using drugs). This is why I wish that my parents would have pushed me more to achieve better things. I'd be a genius by now! (I would loved to have gone to University at the age of 15!)

Mild head trauma, say getting backhanded for talking back, can cause real bruising of the brain, it loosens and destroys synapses. See: Mike Tyson.

I was born into a dysfunctional family setting. I was beaten for what I believe were the little things (as little as: running around the house - as kids do). This made me mad at my parents. One time: when I fought back against my father, he got even more pissed off and started giving me hard blows to the head. I was dizzy for some time. That was the last time he ever beat me. Afterwards (I'm not sure how long after), I started making friends with the wrong kind of element. So, yeah, I think I may have suffered some brain damage. Oh well, even though there are things we can't control, there are things we can. It's wiser to focus on the latter.

So what some see as "mild comparatively" to physical abuse, I see physical abuse masquerading as "psychological". Keep in mind that mind and brain are one and the same, "psychology" is "physical".

There needs to be a distinction made between the two.

[DHodges]

Child abuse happens because people have children when they should not. People often have issues from their own childhood that they have not fully resolved, and so can not deal with rationally. Those issues then get perpetuated through the children.

Most people should not have children.

[deathnotewithurname]

I'm a adult survivor of child abuse, so I can say for certain that the consequences of that abuse are far reaching. Being beaten, choked out, degraded and humiliated, I thought is was completely normal, even laughed about it occasionally. It wasn't until I was 20 years old that my friend convinced me that I was abused and more than likely suffered from PTSD. Her sister had hit me with the power cord from her radio and I blacked out. The next thing I remember is my friend trying to restrain me because I have her sister by the neck up against the wall. I am still effected by issues that I considered just another part of my life, but now understand that they shouldn't be, like casually attempting suicide because it just seems like a good day to die. Or that empty feeling I get right before I hurt something or someone, or not sleeping because the memories won't let me. These are things I have to work to control to try and be a functioning and contributing member of society.

I did learn some valuable life lessons, but I am forced to wonder if the ends justified the means. I know the value of hard work, and take pride in it. I know that my success in anything is directly related to the effort I'm willing to put in. I am very aware of the benefits of a strong family and community, and the crucial role communication plays in both. But all of those lessons disappear when I'm hit by an attack.

The present is completely pushed aside by the past, and I feel the carpet under my feet and the coolness of the wall as I'm standing in the corner, while my stepmother snaps me with a wet towel across my back. Feeling my wrist fracture again, knowing the only thing saving it from a break, was the cheap swatch I wore the night my dad took a 2x4 to me. When I hear my screams, crying for my dad to help me even though it was his and my uncle's fault that my knee popped out of place while they were tag team beating me for not getting good enough grades. Feeling the shame when my siblings laughed at me because I had to wait 2 weeks before I could go to the hospital...

And I am reasonably well adjusted! Fuck! Never underestimate the power that abuse has on a child, but in my opinion sparing the rod really will spoil the child. It's called moderation folks.

[Animus]

deathnotewithurname

I read an article a few months back that such abuse can cause a methylation of the gene encoding for CH3 expressing corticosterone that dampens the hypothalmus' stress response. In other words PTSD and they are working on methods for "scrubbing" or acetylating the epigenome.

Something to keep an eye on. But here also it demonstrates the link between psychology and physiology.

[brokenhead]

If you have to hit a child, you've already failed. Dealing with children in any irrational way is abuse.

Loving them, for example.

This is the biggest crock of shit you spout at GF, Dan. You have said the like before.

For a child to learn, he has to learn from someone. That would be the parent. If it's not the parent, then the parent has failed. In order for the child to learn from the parent, he has to pay attention to the parent.

Now, anyone who has spent any time in charge of kids knows that they do not - they cannot - pay attention all the time. They are not capable of it. And yet, there are times when it is more important than others for them to be paying attention. At times, such as in public situations, it is crucial.

Loving a child is as natural a thing as there is. It does not in itself harm the child in any way. Indiscriminate love - oh, everything is just so cute that it is all okay - that can cripple a child's development.

But if you need to whack a kid to get his attention - or yell or punish him - then that is what you do. The key is not to do it out of anger. Anger is what transmits to the child, just as love transmits. You want your kid to be capable of love, and yet not display that least human of traits, anger. Anger makes a dog stop responding and it does the same with kids.

It's all a matter of operant conditioning. Happy, well adjusted kids are the product of loving environments, environments where what is expected of them is consistent and clear. Such environments typically include punishment as well as reward.

Most kids crave approval. Constant approval no matter what they do confuses them as much as constant punishment would. They key to getting their attention is for the parent to pay them attention. That way, you know when to kiss their heads or smack their bottoms - and they know that there is a reason for the carrot or the stick. They'll pay attention if there is something to learn. If it's constant love and acceptance, they learn it doesn't matter how they behave. They want you to be in charge. They are the first to know it when you are not.

To say both love and corporal punishment are signs of failure is ridiculous. You can tell kid who gets neither - he's the one who runs around the grocery store like a maniac and who makes everyone else want to hit him themselves. This instance of parenting is a failure, because the parent does not have the child's respect.

A well-behaved child responds to the inflection in a parent's voice before the parent has to shout or start swearing or using threats. This is because the child pays attention, which is in turn because the parent has paid attention. The child learns this like he has learned everything else, by observation and imitation, that is, by example.

Child abuse happens because people have children when they should not. People often have issues from their own childhood that they have not fully resolved, and so can not deal with rationally. Those issues then get perpetuated through the children.

Most people should not have children.

Hodges is right on this, I think. Not everyone should be a parent. Clearly too many people are.

[Animus]

That's why I said little smacks can be efficient but aren't necessary.

The real key I think is to develop the kind of parent-child relationship where the child wants your approval and guidance. Not the kind of relationship where the child wants you to leave so they can get into stuff. This might be the case if the parents are over-protective or authoritarian.

I have seen very few relationship that are perfectly healthy. But there are a few out there.

Ultimately its us who wants them to learn what we do so they can do it too and conform to our ideals. A bit like boot camp at times.

[brokenhead]

That's why I said little smacks can be efficient but aren't necessary.

The real key I think is to develop the kind of parent-child relationship where the child wants your approval and guidance. Not the kind of relationship where the child wants you to leave so they can get into stuff. This might be the case if the parents are over-protective or authoritarian.

I have seen very few relationship that are perfectly healthy. But there are a few out there.

Ultimately its us who wants them to learn what we do so they can do it too and conform to our ideals. A bit like boot camp at times.

I'd have to agree that no relationship is perfectly healthy. That may simply be because no people in relationships are perfect or perfectly healthy.

Your point is well-taken that if a child does not want you to leave so it can get into stuff, it is more likely to be striving to win your approval. This is really quite a healthy situation. I see it with my brother and sister-in-law and their twin 3-year- olds. The kids are hyper active to be sure, but they are already quite mature when it comes to fessing up to things because they know they will get an explanation instead of a beating, or if they are going to get whacked, they will know why.

My brother and his wife do not enjoy meting out physical discipline, but do not shy away from it. I remember one particular egregious episode by the twins when they were supposed to be napping. When my sister-in-law went in to check up on them, she found the room in a shambles, with BM painted on the walls and little Henry with tattoos all over himself that little Ella had drawn with Mommy's mascara. Shell-shocked, she summoned my brother in to survey the damage. "Well," she said at length, "I think this calls for some capital punishment, don't you?"

As it was, they settled for corporal punishment instead...

[mystex]

But if you need to whack a kid to get his attention - or yell or punish him - then that is what you do. The key is not to do it out of anger. Anger is what transmits to the child, just as love transmits. You want your kid to be capable of love, and yet not display that least human of traits, anger. Anger makes a dog stop responding and it does the same with kids.

My views on corporal punishment are that it's useful and can be very effective. Depends. For one, as you've (broken) mentioned, it should be a fully conscious decision. No question. My dad used to beat me, but he always beat me while he was angry. His anger haunted my dreams. I wouldn't call this good parenting. However, I have no right to call it bad parenting!

This might be the case if the parents are over-protective or authoritarian.

Or both.