Is force really necessary in order to raise a child?

Nowadays, throughout our lives we are raised to exercise a, mostly, one way view of life.  This, while it might be conceived as beneficial to some, it is not as good as it might appear to our by-standing eyes.  If it’s only forced to conceive things homogeneously, not only are you in denial, but this severely damages the act of rational exercise to point where the initial intention becomes derailed when said values are imposed.  It is important to mention this because there are different ways of how you can raise a child, but, despite of that many choose to raise their descendants in the same manner as they were probably raised as well.  This can either be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the circumstances; nevertheless, I am focusing more on the aspect that such raising method is the only one available, so even if the child feels strongly against something for a good reason, they are still to be forced to it anyways, along with other roles that are designated to children in this society.

One interesting aspect I often find amusing, and hypocritical, to be practiced is the fact of how subjective child abuse (not only sexual) is convinced in general.  (Child Abuse).  Take the website I just linked for example.  According to the Australian Government’s Fact Sheet on Child Abuse, it is to be considered in four categories: 1)physical abuse, 2)emotional abuse, 3)neglect and 4)sexual abuse.

Now let’s consider how all of these categories vary on what it is depending on the place where you are and the level of general social liberation surrounding said civilization.  For example, in my home country, physical abuse is way more common as part of “effectively” raising children; regardless, it is still an act that could be detrimental to a child and, without a doubt, it is also one that is manipulative in an ill way, even if intentions of such ways was to correct them in something…  However, this atrocity is somehow seen in good light in the society I am taking as an example, and in many other.

Emotional abuse is also another component which tends to be ignored and told to the kid to suck it up or to shut up and stop whining about it instead.  It is also one that is present from every level of authority and it is often dismissed when such fellows makes use of this in order to teach the child something they think it is for them to learn the hard way or else they will not learn or grow weak.  But are you not actually making the child adopt to what you conceive as ideal, rather than what by what they personally think about the topics involved?

Neglect is more accurately referenced and often dealt with, but in many times it comes after an extended amount of time that the child involved stays quiet about the circumstances surrounding them.  Sometimes it is noticeable by traits exhibited in the child’s body and/or the visible signs they are demonstrating, like how they act and distancing from other people…

With sexual abuse, it becomes different because, unlike in the latter topics, abuse is not imminent and not always present in the act itself, as it is often documented in studies as non-harmful child sex abuse, even if such is still prosecuted in the same manner.  However, the issue in this classification is that it introduces the element of misrepresenting different cases by lumping different scenarios into being stuck with the same term, hence not allowing throughout researching towards these particular cases of child abuse and not to mention unnecessarily stigmatizing even more acts.

According to the Cambridge Dictionary, force is defined as 1)physical, often violent, strength or power; 2)strong influence and energy, or a person with strong influence and energy; 3)power to make someone do something, or to make something happen, esp. without offering the possibility of choice.

Regardless of the act committed or whether it involves sexual nature or not, force used against children should not be allowed and children should hold a say in regards the activities in which they choose to, or not choose, to engage in.  Using violence and/or manipulation in order to make them believe in something being bad or good does not make you a good person and such methods are not to be used as an excuse to replace fact checking and as an objection against flaws in arguments and to whitewash with the relativity of moral standpoints the ways in which a research is to be taken.

One thing I see with correlation with this is also the aspect of treating children as property, which I entirely go against with for the reason that children are also beings that have the right to enjoy their respective liberties and their own nature and also to explore it without restrictions, with the exception of introducing them to imminent harms, which is the role of a responsible caretaker to watch over and guide them, not indoctrinate them to conform specific belief, though that does not stop you from introducing these belief you withhold, just not the aspect of forcing them to choose that if they show to reject such ideal.  Another thing people tend to skip is how they confuse the effectiveness of beating a child (Because “Hey, it works, you know!  I was beaten but I have grown fine as a functional adult.”), but fail to see the manipulation and harmful aspect introduced when discussing this particular topic regarding the use of force to address children (and heck, anyone in general)…  They disregard that beatings plays the role in teaching a determined notion of what is “always” meant to be “right and wrong”, therefore it fails to acknowledge that such concepts are completely relative.  This methodology also makes a habit of ignoring the conversational aspect of communication by dismissing children’s input into the way they are treated and how they could also have relevant subjects to present that are part of their identity and could be discussed into more depth in order to have a better understanding.

Because of this, beatings and reprehensions end up to be a one-sided thing in to which the child does not initially conceive whatever it is considered bad and why, but knows that they might get beat up if they do something for an unknown reason and that instills cautiousness, fear and authority over them.  In other words, a growing list of, let’s determine them taboos, starts building up but never to be actually explained as why it is so and the core of whether the issue was actually harmful or just disliked by the guardian of the child, which is inflicting on individual rights of the child doing so.  This also discourages the child to defend themselves and be able to hold their own opinions on manner since they are taught to emulate what they are told or else they get beaten (again)…

I say, I see why not more conversational raising methods could be introduced when raising a child instead?  Allowing them to profess their views on manners sometimes becomes interesting when authorities decides to pay attention to children.  Newer members of society tend to not be so indulged in the ways things are on a given environment, so they even pick up details most do not in the first instant, otherwise internalized as the, considered, innocents “Why’s, How’s, Since when’s” that society so gladly likes to respond with  “It is so, so that it is.”, instead of encouraging such curious and analytical behaviours that are common in young humans, for it would promote more rational discussions and more objective insights on their parts, rather than also picking up the slack of merely making assumptions and establishing as “truth” things that often change when refuted with newer evidence.  I think it is essential to allow children to have their own liberty to exercise self-ownership and freedom to the maximum extent possible because the same would allow for more self-growth, self-criticism, as well as self-dependence with themselves, only giving space to intervention in non-forceful ways (unless unknown dangers are present and the child does not consent to them) to allow children to form their own set of values, as well as let others form their own.

 

32 Replies to “Is force really necessary in order to raise a child?”

  1. “I think it is essential to allow children to have their own liberty to exercise self-ownership and freedom to the maximum extent possible because the same would allow for more self-growth, self-criticism, as well as self-dependence with themselves, only giving space to intervention in non-forceful ways (unless unknown dangers are present and the child does not consent to them) to allow children to form their own set of values, as well as let others form their own.”

    I sometimes wonder ppf whether parents have even basic skills necessary to raise offspring. In the UK last year one-third of families with dependent children were managed by a lone parent, 86% of which were women. So about one-quarter of all kids have no adult male presence in the family home. With only a quarter of all UK teachers being men (and who can blame those who have left this utterly thankless and toxic profession), millions of children increasingly have negligible contact with adult males. In many of the single female parent households, there exists high throughput of adult male non blood-relative intimates with attendant lack of interest in the children. Add to this toxic cocktail, the presence of technology doing all the peer to peer communication, you are left with a socially awkward, hapless, de-sensitised and lacking-in-empathy generation of human beings.

    That such hate can be focused on kids that murder, for example, Venables and Thompson, without any thought to the real culprits that created the little monsters in the first place, namely the parent(s), only proves that society is completely beyond repair in my estimation.

    I guess what I am saying is that without nutrient-rich soil for the seedlings to thrive in, you will inevitably get stunted growth and a bitter harvest.

    1. Yes, and add the element of poor management by other entities, like the state, into these situations and it only makes these unfortunate incidents even worse than what they were. If approach to the criminals acts you described were different and those where harm is not necessarily an active agent were handled in a less exaggerated manner then perhaps the situation surrounding children that makes them so vulnerable in the first place would be lessened.

    2. In Brazil, I have seen a lot of fail parents. In fact, I still think that a lot of people build family just because everyone is doing it. You are an outcast for staying single for too long and people who are together are expected to have children. So, yeah, a lot of parents here really don’t have what it takes to raise offspring. I’m thankful for the parents that I have.

  2. I was raised with some punishment and some force, but only where really needed. Most of the times, I was an okay kid. There’s this way of raising children here:

    It’s down to sharing parent belongings to the child; everything that a parent bought with their own money was owned by the parent. That makes sense, so far. So, the well-behaved child can have those properties “lend” to them. If the child was unruly, the parents would take back what was theirs (but that’s only for futile things, such as games or candy, but not to essential things, such as food, water, bed and clothing), because the parent bought them, meaning those do not belong to the child in first place. The degree of the offense determines how much should be taken back. However, the child would have it back for behaving well the next day. If the child did not behave well, the punishment would be extended to another day. Single day increments work better than leaving the kid without videogame for a full month, because staying so long deprived of the toy would desensitize the child to it’s absence and they would lose interest in remaining behaved. Plus, the punishment’s end was always in sight, making the child give their best into ending it quick. Lastly, making it easy to have the game back would keep the child interested in the game, keeping the child’s interest in not losing it. Works better than belting or spanking.

    1. Yes, that is indeed better than spanking a child. My only concern here, however, is the use of said valuable possessions in order to have kids act the way you want, even if the child initially was justified for acting such way, but I guess this is something individual parents would have to one day realize on their own, rather than forcing these on them in order to raise the child they conceived.

      In my home country, everything was solved mostly by threats and violence during general childhood. Other punishments were but a “side-dish”.

      1. I was spanked. And belted. And I was hit with sandals. Sure, it wasn’t common, less than eight times a year. But my behavior was indifferent to that treatment. It hurt, but I don’t think I became any better after being hit. It’s not a good way to educate. In fact, at least for me, that didn’t work and didn’t stop me from doing stuff secretly.

        1. That exactly the part of why I’m even more against using violence as a raising method. It makes children embrace secrecy as their way to be able to perceive any sense of freedom, which exposes them to danger, sets them apart from parents, and doesn’t really help to be a better person, just makes you, more reserved. But actually taking time to teach children and also to let them decide themselves will counter better against those kind of behaviours.

  3. Oh. I wish girls I know could read this. I am just so afraid to reach them and share my knowledge with them. What if they grow upset? What if I get in trouble? What if I scare them?

  4. The ideal way to raise a child to be intelligent, rational and a critical thinker is to allow as much freedom as is safely possible. This is nearly the opposite of what is done now.

    Allowing freedom and allowing decision making stimulates frontal lobe growth.

    Philosophically, children are rights bearing beings. However, they are not quite as capable as adults, so it is prudent they have custodial guardians for at least 14 years. Our current society delays the ability for people to take care of themselves until well into the 20s. Though remember that we evolved to remain together, not to run off alone at adulthood. However, modern society has different values. We are social creatures so we are not just bound to our instinct, which is a good thing.

    Anyway, I treat children with respect. I treat them as equals. I rarely intervene with force and have only done so for the safety of the child, actual safety, like jumping in the deep end of the pool or running in a street, and generally those were only very young children.

    1. Yes. Force should only be limited to those cases and you are right that they need a guardian in order to learn of the things that are not inherent to human nature, like the concepts we have developed over time, etc. The thing many fail at addressing is attempting to use the role of a guardian to gain possession of their child and make them do things like you want because it is how you were taught how to do or you simply like it that way, which many parents tend to do with their child, while also paying no respect to the valid inputs the child might have towards these impositions.

    2. Absolutely AR. https://tomocarroll.wordpress.com/2016/07/27/acceptable-danger-the-sky-is-the-limit discusses the topic of kids and risk-taking. What is staggering is the massive barrier erected by parents within Western societies to keep children and sex (knowledge, play, intimacy, eroticism, relationships, mentoring) apart for as long as possible … this harmful deception being amply aided and abetted by a corrupt media, corrupt lawmakers, corrupt law enforcers and asinine politically correct idealogue-saturated Governments.

  5. Considering the fact that you support innocent child-like animals to be abused, raped, murder and denied their most basics rights like molestation and spanking of cows to make milk and their meat industry and their holocaust of 6 millions of animals killed every 30 minutes, just for your taste, you are a hipocrite and your whole blog is invalid.

      1. No. He is a friend of mine and I understand from where he is coming from by claiming this; however, it seems that he has misunderstood my stance as a meat-eater as in that I support the current overgrown meat industry as well, which I do not.

        1. For him to say: “you are a hipocrite and your whole blog is invalid” and you to call him a friend, strikes me as a baffling paradox.

          1. I know it can be weird, but most of my friendships are like that. xD Then again, perhaps I am the weird one myself, but we treat each other the same way.

  6. I didn’t read your post, to be honest. I came here to correct you on your incorrect usage of the term “pro-contact” on Twitter (and tell you why you should definitely reconsider your usage and tacit support of it): First, the fundamental divining line between our two camps is centered around one all-important question: Is adult-child sex ever morally acceptable or tolerable, and if so, under what circumstances? Point blank, not all “pro-contact” MAPs believe in total abolishment of the age of consent. Secondly, the term is a misnomer—virtually no responsible pedophile, be they for or against pedophile emancipation, is in favor of offending and transgressing the law, for obvious reasons. What’s worse, the term has become indelibly associated with offending for some, becoming a synonym of it.

    My suggestion is to endorse another term. My personal choice is “pro-reform” because it highlights my personal commitment in desiring significant sociocultural and judicial reform, detracting from any plausible mix up with any misguided endorsement of child abuse. It’s clear, concise and not in use by any other important social movement at the moment, like pro-choice is for the abortion debate, or pro-legalization for the decriminalization and legalization of marijuana.

    1. Thanks for these pointers. However, I do not recall using pro-contact as to encompassing everyone believing in total abolishment of AoC. That’s my personal view, perhaps my wording might have looked like I suggested it, but that is not what I meant.

      At the moment, I am simply trying not to use the pro-contact label. I am aware that the community is taking the pro-contact term as antis take the term pedophile and make incredible assumptions about those whom use it. As of a few months ago, I have been using the NOMAP term instead for both personal reasons, as well as to prevent what you just described so that individuals actually pay more focus to my words, rather than what I identify as.

      I have seen you suggesting the use of other terms before, and I essentially agree with you on that one. Pro-reform at least lets the person know that we desire changes, not encourage the breaking of laws.

    2. There is surely scope for using both terms: pro-contact and pro-reform.

      Michaelkennedylozano places too narrow a definition on pro-contact it seems to me, and suggesting one should not use the phrase simply because it only conjures up an image in the public eye of a mortally terrified child in the process of being pinioned by a enormous rock-hard adult penis is ludicrous.

      The UK and its former colonies have exported the infamous British hang-up with sex. The US with its plethora of religious intolerances has ramped up this perverted view of sex to scalar dimensions, aided and abetted by a criminal justice system that’s structurally broken at almost every level. http://reason.com/blog/2017/12/21/sexting-panic-2017 relates: “Whether the police have the right to force your teenage son to masturbate in front of them in order to incriminate himself is a legal question few parents would think they’d have to consider,” Cato policy analyst Jay Schweikert wrote last week at NBC. “And yet Trey Sims’ legal guardians had to do exactly that. In an effort to prosecute the 17-year-old for sexting his 15-year-old girlfriend, Manassas police detective David Abbott obtained a search warrant authorizing him to take ‘photographs of [Sims’] genitals,’ including ‘a photograph of the suspect’s erect penis.'”

      The net result of a stranger-danger rape-fearful sex-phobic society, is the construction of a massive chasm between children and adults. It has become virtually impossible for an adult man to communicate with a child any more. If one cannot use the term pro-contact in its fullest sense any more, then how on earth can we fight for our basic human right to be able to communicate with one another regardless of age?

      Incidentally Michaelkennedylozano, I would be interested to know how proactive you are in bringing about significant ‘sociocultural’ and ‘judicial’ reform? What successes have you had?

      1. 1. My given name is Michael; there’s no need to type out the whole username verbatim. It’s immediately clear that my username is literally just my full real name smashed together.
        2. I don’t see what’s ludicrous about abandoning a term which we (a) had no hand in coining in the first place and (b) has essentially become a byword for “future sexual predator” in both the anti-contact camp and certain media outlets, like Vice.
        3. No offense, but there’s no need to sperg out on me about your veiws. I’m already (sort of) on your side, else I wouldn’t be here giving your boy advice. Your reply is like half conspiracy theory and half misdirected worry. Chill, dude.

        Anyway, in answer to your to inquiry: I suppose I’ve done as much in pushing reform though as you have, which is to say not a whole lot. I’m simply advising the owner of the blog here to adopt a more apt identifier for our ideology, that’s all. There is no “full meaning” to pro-contact: it’s honestly just a poorly thought out misnomer which Ethan Edwards wantonly applied to one half of the online pedophile community. We can and should let it go already, in my opinion.

  7. It’s great to see that you now openly stand as pro-contact on Twitter – earlier you were reluctant to describe yourself as such there. We need more people who are on the side of child liberation, rather than “child protection”.

    I need to add that the self-castigating, obediently conformist stance of VirPeds did not save them from being censored – their main site is suspended:

    http://virped.org/cgi-sys/suspendedpage.cgi

    1. The reason of my reluctant stance on using the Pro-Contact tag is because I want people to focus on what I say, not on what I claim to be, since it often brings up ridiculous assumptions and guesses that people willingly choose to portray of us and therefore completely not get what I’m saying most of the time. Like for example, A. I state any event, whether scientifically accurate, just anecdote, or both; but given my Pro-Contact stance many people do the following as, B. Respond something unbacked and superstitious and/or claim all my opinions somehow have an ulterior meaning to it but refusing to give evidence than that of simple misunderstanding of said tag. I mean, I still get those that can comprehend better than to make such a trivial mistake.

      And yes, I’m aware of VirPed’s page being suspended. Despite my differences with them, it is pitiable their page was suspended.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *