NationStates Jolt Archive

Some threads in the past got me wondering.... Yes, sure, we all know that parents who beat their kids are abusing them (come to think of it, even that is debatted sometimes), but what about other abuse? Emotional abuse, physical abuse, mental abuse? Where does it start? And how much responsibility do parents have towards their children?

Is it enough to provide food, clothing and shelter? I recently read about feral children, being kept from human contact altogether. It's not physical harm, but I would range that under child abuse.
There's a thread at the moment about a woman just having had the 6th child while living on welfare, without even trying to find employment. Now, this most certainly qualifies as tax payer abuse, but would you think it's abusing the children as well?
A good while back, I swa a program about a Christian family with 14 children, homeschooling them to prevent them from being taught anything that might possibly contradict Christian morals, not getting any sexual education at all, being taught that their bodies are sinful and not allowed to even take a bath naked. Is indoctrination that reaches such levels abuse?

A good while back, I swa a program about a Christian family with 14 children, homeschooling them to prevent them from being taught anything that might possibly contradict Christian morals, not getting any sexual education at all, being taught that their bodies are sinful and not allowed to even take a bath naked. Is indoctrination that reaches such levels abuse?
No, as long as they release them into the real world and let them think of themselves as soon as they are old enough, it's not abuse. As long as no grave harm happens to the children, it's not abuse.

The OP is full of relative terms. Expect a lively (and maybe flamish??) debate.

At conception.

No, as long as they release them into the real world and let them think of themselves as soon as they are old enough, it's not abuse. As long as no grave harm happens to the children, it's not abuse.

The OP is full of relative terms. Expect a lively (and maybe flamish??) debate.

Well, when would you say they are old enough? The eldest was a 19 year old boy, who lived at home and helped raising his siblings....

The whole issue seems very relative to me, that's why I'm asking in the first place.

Well, when would you say they are old enough? The eldest was a 19 year old boy, who lived at home and helped raising his siblings....

The whole issue seems very relative to me, that's why I'm asking in the first place.
I have no problem with that 19-year-old boy living at home helping raise his siblings - as long as he is doing it out of his own choice.

I have no problem with that 19-year-old boy living at home helping raise his siblings - as long as he is doing it out of his own choice.

And that's why I wonder if that can be classified as abuse. How can he choose if he's been told all his life that there are no other options?

At conception.

At conception.

Too late :P

At conception.


like InsertQuipH says.

Too late :PI gave the credits.. but thanks for the attention.. :fluffle:

BTW what are you wearing this morning sexy girl?

A good while back, I swa a program about a Christian family with 14 children, homeschooling them to prevent them from being taught anything that might possibly contradict Christian morals, not getting any sexual education at all, being taught that their bodies are sinful and not allowed to even take a bath naked. Is indoctrination that reaches such levels abuse?

Yes, because they aren't preparing their children to think for themselves.

And that's why I wonder if that can be classified as abuse. How can he choose if he's been told all his life that there are no other options?
Oh, I seriously doubt that. Even if he's been told all his life that crap, heck, doesn't he would be exposed to other ideas/options. It's either he shuts it out or he doesn't think about it.

Oh, I seriously doubt that. Even if he's been told all his life that crap, heck, doesn't he would be exposed to other ideas/options. It's either he shuts it out or he doesn't think about it.

Possibly as a result of the teaching of his parents

Possibly as a result of the teaching of his parents

Then again, for how long can you blame your problems on your parents, as an adult? I know a good few of my issues are down to my father's shrewed ideas of how to raise strong children, but they are my problems now and I'm the one who has to deal with them...
How long can you claim you didn't know any better cause your parents never told you?

I think in that boy's case, it was either genuine ignorance and total belief in what his parents told him (which would make him inexcusably stupid and slow), or else he valued family harmony higher than his individuality...

I gave the credits.. but thanks for the attention.. :fluffle:

BTW what are you wearing this morning sexy girl?

Heh... it's almost evening and I'm at work. What do you think? ;)

Possibly as a result of the teaching of his parents
If indoctrination is your concern, all of us undergone some kind of that. Whether if it's the notion that the eldest is expected to help raise the siblings or that aborting a teenage pregnancy is perfectly fine, it's all a matter of perspective. What others might think objectionable is the content of the indoctrination, but for me, as long as they don't cause proximate direct grave harm, it is not abuse.

I know a good few of my issues are down to my father's shrewed ideas of how to raise strong children, but they are my problems now and I'm the one who has to deal with them...
Hmm... them damn Soricomorphs... ;) Peace, CW.

Then again, for how long can you blame your problems on your parents, as an adult? I know a good few of my issues are down to my father's shrewed ideas of how to raise strong children, but they are my problems now and I'm the one who has to deal with them...
How long can you claim you didn't know any better cause your parents never told you?

I think in that boy's case, it was either genuine ignorance and total belief in what his parents told him (which would make him inexcusably stupid and slow), or else he valued family harmony higher than his individuality...

In the specific case you mentioned I would say that the boy didn't really have a chance to properly think for himself while he was living under their roof. Personally I used to blame my parents for a lot of the problems i've had in the recent past but i've decided that since i've been living away from them for a relatively large amount of time it is time to start taking a little bit more responsibility for them (although I would say that our experiences growing up mould us for life. I don't personally believe that people can change greatly throughout their lives. I feel they can only make small changes over time)

If indoctrination is your concern, all of us undergone some kind of that. Whether if it's the notion that the eldest is expected to help raise the siblings or that aborting a teenage pregnancy is perfectly fine, it's all a matter of perspective. What others might think objectionable is the content of the indoctrination, but for me, as long as they don't cause proximate direct grave harm, it is not abuse.

Since the role of parenting is to help their children develop the abilities necesary for them to make good value judgments in life, I think something done by the parents that directly compromises that ability would constitute child abuse.

Since the role of parenting is to help their children develop the abilities necesary for them to make good value judgments in life, I think something done by the parents that directly compromises that ability would constitute child abuse.
Then again, who determines what "good" means???

Heh... it's almost evening and I'm at work. What do you think? ;)high heels and ...
...
...



No I better not. :D
*cold shower and coffee for me.. black*

Then again, who determines what "good" means???

Well, a clever person once said that a good parent doesn't teach the kids what to think, but how to think.
Then again, independent thought is considered harmful by some...

For me, the question is more about where to draw the line for government intervention.

For instance, I believe it is abusive for a parent to call a child "stupid" all the time. But do I believe a child should be removed from an otherwise-okay home due to being called "stupid" a lot? No. Mainly because it's completely unrealistic to pretend that such laws could be fairly and effectively enforced.

There are lots of shitty, abusive things that parents do to their kids all the time. Like teaching their kids that genitals are sinful and dirty. Or teaching their kids that brown people are subhuman. Or encouraging their boy children to act out and be brats, while teaching their girl children to be doormats and punching bags for future abusers. There are lots of ways a parent can completely and totally fuck up their child.

But I don't think it's possible for the government to prevent all such things, at least not if we want to have a remotely free society.

And, of course, I know some people would say that MY parents "abused" me, too! See, my folks completely ruined me by teaching me that I have individual value, that I don't have to pump out babies, that I'm not destined to be an unpaid domestic servant for my entire life, that I should enjoy and cherish my body, and that I should be a free-thinker and a scientist. According to some people, these teachings will get me sent straight to Hell. What could be more abusive than intentionally directing your child toward an eternity of torture?

If we create a system where the government is permitted to decide which types of "indoctrination" or "emotional abuse" are acceptable and which are not, then we're in a dangerous place indeed. I don't trust ANY government with that much power.

For me, the question is more about where to draw the line for government intervention.

For instance, I believe it is abusive for a parent to call a child "stupid" all the time. But do I believe a child should be removed from an otherwise-okay home due to being called "stupid" a lot? No. Mainly because it's completely unrealistic to pretend that such laws could be fairly and effectively enforced.

There are lots of shitty, abusive things that parents do to their kids all the time. Like teaching their kids that genitals are sinful and dirty. Or teaching their kids that brown people are subhuman. Or encouraging their boy children to act out and be brats, while teaching their girl children to be doormats and punching bags for future abusers. There are lots of ways a parent can completely and totally fuck up their child.

But I don't think it's possible for the government to prevent all such things, at least not if we want to have a remotely free society.

And, of course, I know some people would say that MY parents "abused" me, too! See, my folks completely ruined me by teaching me that I have individual value, that I don't have to pump out babies, that I'm not destined to be an unpaid domestic servant for my entire life, that I should enjoy and cherish my body, and that I should be a free-thinker and a scientist. According to some people, these teachings will get me sent straight to Hell. What could be more abusive than intentionally directing your child toward an eternity of torture?

If we create a system where the government is permitted to decide which types of "indoctrination" or "emotional abuse" are acceptable and which are not, then we're in a dangerous place indeed. I don't trust ANY government with that much power.
QFT.

Then again, who determines what "good" means???

Rational, well though-out. What Cabra West said.

It's hard to say when abuse begins. That's a fine line to draw.

Is it abusive to deny your child dessert if you feel they have been bad or deserving of punishment? This is assuming you fed them the same dinner you ate, giving them the portion that is suited for their age and physical size. After all, dessert is a privilege and not a right, is it not?

Some people might say you're depriving your child of food, while others may see it as an adequate form of punishment because you've taken away something the child likes but doesn't necessarily need. After all, does the child need to eat a cookie or ice cream?

Is it abusive to smack the child's hand if you sincerely believe that in doing so you're preventing them from bringing greater harm onto themselves? If the child is young and doesn't understand words of caution, is smacking the hand to prevent them from touching a sharp object abusive, or smacking the hand if they try and touch the hot stove?

Some people may say yes you're hurting the child, especially if the child should cry but others will say you've taught the child that if they reach for that sharp object, they will get hit. Is it better to have taught the child this or to let them get hurt even worse, as that may be considered abuse because you failed to protect them from something that can harm them.

Is it abusive if you forcefully remove your child from a store when they are having a temper tantrum and screaming? Some people may think ill of you as a parent if you do that while others may believe it is better than letting the child act like a spoiled brat in public.

Is hurting the child? Possibly, but if the child won't listen and calm down, what do you do? Let the child act out or do you teach them that such behaviour has consequences and they include you being authoritarian and escorting them out of the store screaming and kicking, not letting them have their way? Or... do you give in to the child and placate them?

Which is worse, teaching the child that if they have a temper tantrum they can always get their way? Is that not abuse in a strange way because you've failed to teach them how to act like a person who understands that they can't always have it their way?

*waves* Hello Everyone....

I'd like to just point out 3 little things.

1. I find the issues over indoctrination to be a bit..hmm..hypocritical pehaps? I mean many parents homeschool their children to avoid that as much as anything. (Granted, that's not the ONLY reason for it, children in a homeschooled environment generally just do better, and yes I know there are exceptions to every rule). I mean, that IS what the public school system is for, indoctrinating our children...just like the media, and the churches, and the government, etc. etc. But as long as those teachings are slapped with the "Masses seal of approval" everyone is fine with it, when it's something out of the mainstream then people react like this...I find that ironic.

2. Responsability to a child begins at conception...but a parents responsability is not ONLY to the child, but to the entire world. I know that might sound a bit extreme at first, but think about it. When a child is raised in a racist manner..goes out and burns down a few synagogue...is that just the parent and that cild affected? No, it's all of society. Statistics have shown that most of our prisons are filled wtih people from less than perfect homes. Our actions have consequences, not only in our own family, but in the entire community. We shape the world and make it what it is.

3. Yes I know government intereference is a scary thing; however, I have said forever that we despertely need a TeenAger's (and a children's) bill of rights. People talk about kids like they are rocks, mere positions instead of living thinking beings with rights of their own. Many laws are even written that way...in one state a person under 18 years of age is not entitled to their own wages because they virtually property of their parents, therefore, all the products of their labors go to the parent. In another state you can go to jail for loosing your virginity...merely because you are under 18. I don't hear anyone complaining about THAT kind of government interferance.

Abuse, physical and emotional, plagues a child and all those around him, for the rest of his life...maybe even longer. We need to stop worrying if the ideals being taught match our own or not and look more closely at the welfare and happiness of the children...they are precious gifts more fragile, and yet also stronger than we ever realize or give them credit for. They are a part of this world...they are the future of this world...it is time we started acting like it.

No matter what choice you use to raise your own... you will screw it up.
For example, Punishing them for misbehaving, they will resent you, don't, they become spoiled. sometimes a little spanking is needed if the "punishment" does not work (Five minutes time out is a detour for them not a deturrent)

welcome to parenthood.

EDIT: It's what works best for that specific child.

at conception,if Mom or/and Dad are impaired,drunk or smoking.

At conception.

So true :)

I'd like to just point out 3 little things.

1. I find the issues over indoctrination to be a bit..hmm..hypocritical pehaps? I mean many parents homeschool their children to avoid that as much as anything. (Granted, that's not the ONLY reason for it, children in a homeschooled environment generally just do better, and yes I know there are exceptions to every rule). I mean, that IS what the public school system is for, indoctrinating our children...just like the media, and the churches, and the government, etc. etc. But as long as those teachings are slapped with the "Masses seal of approval" everyone is fine with it, when it's something out of the mainstream then people react like this...I find that ironic.

Well everything is technically a form of indoctrination, but where these parents are falling short where "mainstream" parent do not is that they are not teaching their children to recognize indoctrination for what it is. Thus, they are raising children that will grow up ignorant and close-minded.

1. I find the issues over indoctrination to be a bit..hmm..hypocritical pehaps? I mean many parents homeschool their children to avoid that as much as anything. (Granted, that's not the ONLY reason for it, children in a homeschooled environment generally just do better, and yes I know there are exceptions to every rule). I mean, that IS what the public school system is for, indoctrinating our children...just like the media, and the churches, and the government, etc. etc. But as long as those teachings are slapped with the "Masses seal of approval" everyone is fine with it, when it's something out of the mainstream then people react like this...I find that ironic.


I disagree. School is about teaching young people how to think, not what to think. At least, that is what it should be about, it seems that is not always achieved, but it is what my school instilled in me. I think some parents seem worried that their kids might start thinking for themselves and reject their parents' beliefs/opinions, and thus they homeschool/indoctrinate. Clearly not all will have this objective, but to say the point of schools is to indoctrinate is just misguided.

you are abusing a child when you do not respect them as a person, when you do not respect their right to their own body, when you do not provide for them the things they need and cannot provide for themselves and when you do not prepare them for living life in the real world.

For me, the question is more about where to draw the line for government intervention.

For instance, I believe it is abusive for a parent to call a child "stupid" all the time. But do I believe a child should be removed from an otherwise-okay home due to being called "stupid" a lot? No. Mainly because it's completely unrealistic to pretend that such laws could be fairly and effectively enforced.

There are lots of shitty, abusive things that parents do to their kids all the time. Like teaching their kids that genitals are sinful and dirty. Or teaching their kids that brown people are subhuman. Or encouraging their boy children to act out and be brats, while teaching their girl children to be doormats and punching bags for future abusers. There are lots of ways a parent can completely and totally fuck up their child.

But I don't think it's possible for the government to prevent all such things, at least not if we want to have a remotely free society.

And, of course, I know some people would say that MY parents "abused" me, too! See, my folks completely ruined me by teaching me that I have individual value, that I don't have to pump out babies, that I'm not destined to be an unpaid domestic servant for my entire life, that I should enjoy and cherish my body, and that I should be a free-thinker and a scientist. According to some people, these teachings will get me sent straight to Hell. What could be more abusive than intentionally directing your child toward an eternity of torture?

If we create a system where the government is permitted to decide which types of "indoctrination" or "emotional abuse" are acceptable and which are not, then we're in a dangerous place indeed. I don't trust ANY government with that much power.

And it's Bottle with the winning touchdown!

1. I find the issues over indoctrination to be a bit..hmm..hypocritical pehaps? I mean many parents homeschool their children to avoid that as much as anything. (Granted, that's not the ONLY reason for it, children in a homeschooled environment generally just do better, and yes I know there are exceptions to every rule). I mean, that IS what the public school system is for, indoctrinating our children...just like the media, and the churches, and the government, etc. etc. But as long as those teachings are slapped with the "Masses seal of approval" everyone is fine with it, when it's something out of the mainstream then people react like this...I find that ironic.
Then you must have been too worried about being indoctrinated when they tried to teach you what the word "ironic" means.

Well everything is technically a form of indoctrination, but where these parents are falling short where "mainstream" parent do not is that they are not teaching their children to recognize indoctrination for what it is. Thus, they are raising children that will grow up ignorant and close-minded.

Isn't teaching them that idea..that the "mainstream" way is the right way sending a message that is just as "ignorant and close minded"? It is obviously teaching an intolerance to any viewpoints outside of the ideology. Parents (at least the good ones who actually try) instill the values in their children with the morals and values that they feel will make them the best person possible....once they approach adult hood there is a world of information available and we are each responsable for developing our own ethical and belief system as an adult. But it seems teaching the masses are right is just as damaging if not more so, than a narrow point of view.

Is indoctrination that reaches such levels abuse?Dawkins has gone so far as to suggest that indoctrination into any religion qualifies as child abuse--that's a bit extreme, I suppose, but the problem is that there's no clear point at which to draw the line, which is why I imagine he said what he did. I think you do your children no favors by shoving religion on them when they're having trouble discerning the difference between the real world and magical thinking, but I hesitate at the word abuse, simply because I think cheapens true physical and emotional abuse. It's certainly damaging, though, to a child to teach it that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that when there's a conflict between the Bible and science, the Bible wins.

Then you must have been too worried about being indoctrinated when they tried to teach you what the word "ironic" means.

ironic-Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended

if someone says they are against indoctrination and then proceeds to teach you only one view and tells you that all the others are wrong without giving you any means to find out why.......

hmm......

Dawkins has gone so far as to suggest that indoctrination into any religion qualifies as child abuse

Dawkins is a bigot.

ironic-Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended

if someone says they are against indoctrination and then proceeds to teach you only one view and tells you that all the others are wrong without giving you any means to find out why.......

hmm......

It means they're hypocritical, as he originally said.

Hypocritical =/= ironic. Nor does coincidental for that matter.

It means they're hypocritical, as he originally said.

Hypocritical =/= ironic. Nor does coincidental for that matter.

yeah......true.

I find a lot of things ironic that actually are and it annoys me when people misuse that word.

I thought it was ironic last summer when a lifeguard drowned.

ironic-Poignantly contrary to what was expected or intended



*sighs* The word WAS used correctly if you were paying attention to what I was actually saying.

Isn't teaching them that idea..that the "mainstream" way is the right way sending a message that is just as "ignorant and close minded"? It is obviously teaching an intolerance to any viewpoints outside of the ideology. Parents (at least the good ones who actually try) instill the values in their children with the morals and values that they feel will make them the best person possible....once they approach adult hood there is a world of information available and we are each responsable for developing our own ethical and belief system as an adult. But it seems teaching the masses are right is just as damaging if not more so, than a narrow point of view.

I think you misunderstand "teaching" and the point of schools. They are not teaching you to believe the mainstream is right, and they are (or at least should) not be imprinting any values on you.
Their purpose is to provide a large scope of knowledge and opinons, and it's up to you to think and decide what you make of that.
It's not teaching you that anyone is right.
Well, ok, maybe in religious education.

Dawkins has gone so far as to suggest that indoctrination into any religion qualifies as child abuse--that's a bit extreme, I suppose, but the problem is that there's no clear point at which to draw the line, which is why I imagine he said what he did. I think you do your children no favors by shoving religion on them when they're having trouble discerning the difference between the real world and magical thinking, but I hesitate at the word abuse, simply because I think cheapens true physical and emotional abuse. It's certainly damaging, though, to a child to teach it that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that when there's a conflict between the Bible and science, the Bible wins.

To be fair, I agree with him to some extend.
Indoctrinating - providing only one opinion, one view, one set of values and having the child believe it's the only correct one - is a form of child abuse, no matter if you do it with Christian ideas or Communist ideals. You are not behaving responsibly, and you are denying the child the opportunity to decide for themselves by not showing the alternatives.

I found the example he provided very intersting. There was a test done with 1000 Israeli school children aged between 10 and 14 : The kids were being presented with the story of Joshua and the battle of Jericho, in which Joshua, on orders from above, has the entire town leveled to the ground, everybody killed and all the food destroyed. The kids were asked if they thought Joshua did the right thing there, and 66% agreed that it was the right and moral thing to do. Because god had ordered it. Although some argued that maybe it would have been ok if Joshua hadn't destroyed the food.
Another 168 Israeli school children were presented with a very similar story, about an attacking army and a town being destroyed on the orders of a god, this time set in ancient China. Again, the hero follows god's orders and kills all men, women and children, destroys the town and burned the food.
This time, 75% disagreed with his actions and thought they were highly immoral. (Summarised from "The God Delusion", pages 289 - 292)

I think an education that can produce thinking like that is ... well, frankly, dangerous.

To be fair, I agree with him to some extend.
Indoctrinating - providing only one opinion, one view, one set of values and having the child believe it's the only correct one - is a form of child abuse, no matter if you do it with Christian ideas or Communist ideals. You are not behaving responsibly, and you are denying the child the opportunity to decide for themselves by not showing the alternatives.

I found the example he provided very intersting. There was a test done with 1000 Israeli school children aged between 10 and 14 : The kids were being presented with the story of Joshua and the battle of Jericho, in which Joshua, on orders from above, has the entire town leveled to the ground, everybody killed and all the food destroyed. The kids were asked if they thought Joshua did the right thing there, and 66% agreed that it was the right and moral thing to do. Because god had ordered it. Although some argued that maybe it would have been ok if Joshua hadn't destroyed the food.
Another 168 Israeli school children were presented with a very similar story, about an attacking army and a town being destroyed on the orders of a god, this time set in ancient China. Again, the hero follows god's orders and kills all men, women and children, destroys the town and burned the food.
This time, 75% disagreed with his actions and thought they were highly immoral. (Summarised from "The God Delusion", pages 289 - 292)

I think an education that can produce thinking like that is ... well, frankly, dangerous.

I very much agree with you. I think it is the duty of any parent to teach their kids to think logically and to rationally evaluate different possibilities, so that they can form their own political and religious ideas.
Any parent who attempts to push their beliefs on a child is, in my opinion, an inherently bad parent-- even if they do everything else well. It might sound extreme to some, but because the mind is the most important part of a person, corrupting it by denying it the ability to think and evaluate is just as abusive as any physical abuse.