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 In introduce 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.

 

17 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”.

  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.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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