|
Post by journey on Feb 20, 2010 15:49:00 GMT -5
((((((philosophia)))))))
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 20, 2010 15:50:06 GMT -5
One point to consider when talking about mothers being abusive "too" is that, throughout history, women have usually been the ones to handle most of the hands-on, day in and day out, work of childrearing. On the one hand, on another other thread here I talked about how among other mammals, the mother's instincts are more trusted and males don't deign to see themselves as qualified to interfere with a mother's mothering. So I guess it seems kind of contradictory, what I'm saying now. But, in a sense, I feel like other mammal mothers have it easier because they're not hearing the same teachings about how their children's behavior is always a reflection on them. I really feel the patriarchal teachings (including more mainstream "experts" like Dobson), add to many mothers' stresses, because they worry that they are failing their children and dooming them to hell if the children don't learn the "proper" obedient attitude by (I think Dobson says) the age of 6, after which it's supposedly too late. Also, even though other mammal mothers are respected and allowed the space to bond with their babies on their own -- among the species in which the young need a lot of ongoing care (such as elephants and wolves), at some point the mothers are ready for community involvement. Elephant and wolve mothers don't live isolated lives like many human mothers in modern society do. So, evolutionarily-speaking, I think our species (and many other higher-level species) have survived due to the "societies" having both a reverence for maternal wisdom, and a strong community spirit in which no one lives their life isolated or unaccountable to others. So where is the happy medium of Discipline, Love, and Respect...? Well, I think it starts with applying the Golden Rule in our relationships with our children. And, I really like what Dr. Sears has said about discipline meaning doing what you need to do in order to enjoy living with your children. Which of course means the Golden Rule works both ways. We respect our children as human beings -- and, at the same time, we share our feelings and perspectives, and help our children to grow in empathy and consideration for others. At least, that's how I see it.
|
|
|
Post by madame on Feb 20, 2010 16:30:02 GMT -5
I don't understand the distinction you are trying to make between rod chastisement and child abuse. Yes, I know and understand why my parents adhered to NGJ/Pearls. Yes, I know that they were afraid for my soul and that they wanted me to go to heaven. Even now, some part of me says, "my parents did that out of love." Their love manifested itself in a pretty screwed up way--but, because they loved me, they wanted me to be a good, obedient, Christ-like, little girl. And they thought the way help me become such was through rod chastisement. I understand what motivated my parents. I don't think that makes hitting children less abusive. And, I speak--not only as a daughter of fundamentalist parents--but as a daughter of an alcoholic. Is there a difference between the rod and my daddy when he was drunk? yes. Is the difference that one situation was abusive and the other wasn't? no. The difference is that the first, imo, is not just physical abuse, but mental and emotional abuse, because it screws with understandings of love. Wanderingone, I agree with you that both are abuse, even if I don't believe that all spanking is abusive. I see the value in a smack on the hand that is reaching to the oven, or the smack on the bottom of a child who just ran into the road. I see the value of using smacks sparingly and for a very limited period of time. I think the whole philosophy behind it is what makes this type of punitive parenting most harmful, while not necessarily because the parents are abusers. You are right that the approach messes with a child's understanding of love, but it's not the actual spanking that does the most damage, IMO, but the belief that a child is inherently evil, and her will must be conquered. Everything turns into an issue of obedience, respect and compliance. A toddler throwing a tantrum is not viewed as a very frustrated child who didn't get her way and is kicking it out, but as rebellious and in need of being taught who the boss is. A child who asks why he must do something, as disobedient and disrespectful. A child who gave into the temptation of a candy burning in her pocket all the way through recess and the last morning period, and ate the candy instead of taking it home, is disobedient and in need of punishment for breaking the rules. There is no mercy, no understanding that these "infractions" are what normal children do. But there is a difference between being misled and punishing your child too much, and venting your anger and lack of control on your child. Children are not there to be a parent's punching bag. I guess what I'm trying to say is that even if both are abuse, the one is well meant, while misled, and the other is just wrong on every level. Punitive parents can also be trying to make their children perfect, to make up for their own imperfections, or to make them look better. It's all very messed up in most homes where parents believe they must eradicate all "badness" from their children. I hope I made my distinction clear. It doesn't mean I agree with Pearl, Fugate or Reb Bradley (and others with similar philosophies). Just the fact that parents expect their children to conform to such high standards is already abuse, because children need to be allowed to be children.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 20, 2010 17:09:00 GMT -5
[snip] Zimbardo also talks about this in the talk he presents at MIT (in the above link I posted). The Milgram Study showed that people will inflict pain if a situation and an authority figure directs them to do so. There is also a followup study that would never be allowed today wherein college students were directed to shock puppies to train them with negative reinforcement. Now, consider that it was a group of college students and not mothers.... But the findings showed that only 50% of the male students complied, but 100% of that group of female students complied with the directives of the study. There is no ethical way to test these things without risking harm, but I think that there is some basis to suggesting that women can be even more cold than men when it comes to discipline. [snip] I think you are making an unwarranted assumption. Milgram's study, as you noted above was if an "authority figure directs them to do so". I think it is more likely related to women's condition relative to authority figures, not an inherent "coldness" relative to discipline. Men, particularly thirty-odd years ago may have felt more confident about defying authority figures. (puppies? really?? never heard of that one) citation needed. Watch the video and take it up with Zimbardo. That's where I learned of this and it is discussed in his book "The Lucifer Effect." Before the study was performed, experts were asked to project what the results would be. All sorts of people said that people would not go to these lengths, but to the shock of all involved, they did. Disturbing stuff. That's part of what I can't get people to understand. Part of the issue with cults is that we lull ourselves into the idea that we are not as vulnerable to influence as other people. It cannot happen to us because we will know better. But that is precisely what makes us all the more vulnerable. Given the right conditions, we can be easy prey because we have needs and basic human tendencies that can put us in positions of vulnerability I did mention that caveat with the study with the students and the puppy. They were not a randomized group like those in Stanley Milgram's study. They were just college students. Were their grades at risk? Did a male teacher ask female students to do this? Society was far more patriarchal than it was then. So that should be taken into consideration, and I apologize if I did not clarify this the first time around. Zimbardo talks about this also in the MIT ethics video. My point is that you can't really make assumptions about the gender issue. There are too many mitigating factors, and it can't really be studied. But there is some evidence that you can argue that women can be just as ruthless as men. And I don't think you need to go to any evolutionary arguments or that this makes us less than human. If you look at what research we have available in these studies (and in the Asch Experiments), we do have indications about the power of authority and group pressure and charismatic figures. Human nature and tendency can be manipulated. Part of what is so troubling about any kind of admission about getting involved in an idealistic group is something like what the Shadow said on the old radio show: "Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men? The Shadow knows." I know. I was in one of these cultic groups. I'm going to try to get references for the female knight business because I really have no idea how reliable that is. History is not my thing. And please understand, though I've had years to mull this stuff over and come to terms with it, like a dozen or so, I find it just as disturbing. It isn't pretty.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 20, 2010 17:09:15 GMT -5
I don't want you to think I think the Pearls are right because I don't. But neither are people who let their children run them... Because I have seen that and honestly it is just as bad it leads to the a lot of the same negative behaviors. Is it true that children feel more love when they are disciplined properly? From my own experience I would have rather had proper discipline than the verbal abuse that spewed from my mother for no other reason than she didn't know what else to do! So where is the happy medium of Discipline, Love, and Respect...? I don't think we can say it is "just as bad." Being permissive has a lot of drawbacks, but it isn't going to cause kidney failure by *literally* tenderizing your child's muscle's while still on her like a butcher tenderizes a steak. "Just as bad" is often specious, even if there is a strong societal impulse towards "balance" and "both extremes are just as bad" is a terribly common attitude, I just don't think it's correct here. That's not to say that I believe no parental guidance is good, not at all. Just not as bad as killing them like a steak. And... it is true that I have read from child psychology experts that as spanking becomes less accepted socially, like in some countries which have already banned it, literally screaming at a child becomes the alternative that some parents will use. And you are right, it is severely damaging, parents need to be firm, but kind. And that does not require either beating nor screaming, as both of those behaviors are abuse. However, screaming at a child will not cause it's kidney's to break down.
|
|
chloe
New Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by chloe on Feb 20, 2010 17:16:59 GMT -5
Just a quick note, as this is part of my field of study: the story about female knights being too brutal? Complete fabrication. There are some medieval romances about female knights, but they are always disguised as men. In real life, the stories about the "violent" female knights were used to justify various patriarchal rules.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 20, 2010 17:21:06 GMT -5
Ambrosia,
Before you even responded, I called my history buff friend and left a message for her to get back with me with hard sources!
I have trouble catching up with her on the weekend and she's tied up on Mondays, so I might not hear from her until Tuesday evening. I'm going to try to catch her later tonight.
But in terms of the other stuff, Zimbardo is the one who discusses this directly in the MIT lecture as it relates to his lifelong study of why good people do bad things. The Lucifer Effect discussed why Abu Gharib prison situation became such a horrible mess.
|
|
chloe
New Member
Posts: 37
|
Post by chloe on Feb 20, 2010 17:43:50 GMT -5
To be more specific (now that the cat is off of the keyboard):
In the middle ages, there were several kinds of female "warriors." First, and most obviously, women would help defend cities and other structures during an attack, just as everyone else (children, the elderly) would do to the best of their abilities. Second, there were a few noble orders, such as the Order of the Garter, which sometimes allowed female members, especially if a woman inherited control of a significant amount of land. She could, sometimes, receive the designation "knight" (that's a translation; it would be in the feminine "chevaleresse" or something similar). And, finally, there is some not entirely reliable evidence of several fighting bands which either accepted or were composed entirely of women. In the eighties, several scholars (such as Cardinale) attempted to interpret this evidence to figure out whether or not these might be called "female knights" in a modern sense. Personally, I suspect not. Most of the evidence is from the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries and seems pretty weak.
And then, of course, there's Joan of Arc.
These aren't the same as the stories of brutal, uncontrollable female knights that had to be eliminated. That's a fabrication. It might be based on someone's real actions, or on justifications for passing laws to make sure women couldn't join various military orders, but I'd give it about as much credence as Ancient tales of Amazon women who cut off one breast to better use a bow.
Sorry for the digression. None of that proves that women can't be violent, especially toward children. I only wish to note that the idea of female knights is so terribly inviting and romantic (and pervasive in fantastic fiction) that it's easy to let a few historical anomalies inspire an image of the medieval world that is pretty distorted.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 20, 2010 18:14:11 GMT -5
I'm just sharing what I learned in a psych class, in the textbook, that was citing more than one major study. Obviously, killing a child is THE worst. No doubt. But the study was talking about authoritarian-in-general vs. permissive-in-general, and the *outcome* for the children in those situations----ie, what they did and how they felt as adults-----not studying the more isolated incidents of death from abuse, severe injury, etc. The outcome of these studies was that authoritative (as opposed to authoriTARIAN) parenting, which is a type of parenting that provides boundaries and authority where needed, yet respects children's emotions and developmental stages, produced the happiest, healthiest adults. I commented just to say that many parents are unwilling to leave more punitive methods because they think they will have to then adopt permissive methods. I think we can do a great deal to calm their fears if we AGREE with them that permissive parenting is an undesirable outcome, and then, now that their fears are decreased because they see that we understand, present options that are not permissive but also not punitive (options that, prior to that conversation, they probably were completely unaware even existed). I sold that textbook (lol) so can't reference the studies cited, but quickly off of a Google search, here are some appropriate links: www.wellsphere.com/mental-health-article/strict-lax-or-flexible-parenting-styles/520384;jsessionid=CA20D9C5F6CF8E8A6740423F45266675?query=Permissive+Parenting www.freeonlineresearchpapers.com/parenting-styles-authoritarian-permissive-authoritativewww.kon.org/urc/tiller.pdf parenthood.library.wisc.edu/Larzelere/Larzelere.html
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Feb 20, 2010 18:46:37 GMT -5
journey, oh of course, I agree permissive parenting can cause problems too, and is not a good childraising method. The studies you mention seem to indicate that the psychological damage from severely authoritarian or wildly permissive parenting techniques are about the same. However, that does not take into consideration any physical damage-- and the authoritarian method seems far more conducive to causing both psychological AND physical damage, whereas I have not heard so much of that from permissive parenting styles. So that's why I say while both are bad, I don't really think it's a "just as bad" thing, since one is more likely to result in severe injury or death in childhood.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 20, 2010 19:34:22 GMT -5
I'm guessing that by "permissive parenting," you guys mean uninvolved parenting in which parents take no interest in their children? They just let them run wild, buy them whatever they want and let them do whatever they want, no matter how harmful -- and don't care enough to offer any guidance? I just think it's important to make sure we're talking about the same thing. Because, I've sometimes been accused of permissive parenting because I allow my child to throw a tantrum, or wear clothes that don't "go together," or what-have-you. I've lately had some negative feedback because my 4-year-old, for the last several months, hasn't wanted anyone to call her anything but "Baby." After realizing that any discussions about names, such as asking her if she prefers her middle name or some derivative of either name, or some other name entirely, just causes her to strengthen her insistence that she is "Baby" -- I just figured that, hey, she's 4 and it doesn't seem too likely that she's going to want to be called "Baby" for too much longer (unless she's like that girl in "Dirty Dancing," LOL) -- and I decided it was best to just call her "Baby," introduce her as "Baby," and leave it up to her to inform us when she chooses another name that she wants to go by. And if that other name sticks and she wants it to be her legal name, then eventually we'll get it changed. Anyhow, you wouldn't believe the number of people who see it as "catering" to a child to just call her whatever she wants to be called. I don't recall if anyone's called it "permissive parenting" -- but that definitely seems to be the implication. To me, respecting a child's right to be herself and express herself as she chooses (so long as that expression doesn't disrespect others or violate their rights) is just basic humanity. To me, people are born with "permission" to take ownership of their own persons. It's not "permissive parenting" to respect a child's rights in this area -- it's just good parenting. I got similar flack when she was approaching her 4th birthday and still mostly preferred going in her diaper instead of the potty. She did sometimes use the potty, and it was clear from comments she'd make about what she was about to do in her diaper, that her not being "trained" yet wasn't due to any medical disorder. So I just diapered her and didn't make a big deal about it. Like the "My name is Baby"-thing, I knew that I'd never met any 10-year-olds who still wanted to wear diapers, so I trusted that when she was ready she'd make the transition. Then, suddenly, one day just before she turned 4 1/2, she announced that she was wearing her panties and using the potty. And there was literally no turning back. Only occasional accidents here and there ... When she was ready, she was ready and she moved on. But, I guess to some, it's permissive, lazy parenting to decide I'm not going to "lock horns" with my child over her decision that she wants to spend more time in a particular phase, than what society considers "normal." It really is her body and her person. I think life's too short to spend it fighting over stuff that time is bound to resolve. Plus, with my daughter, "locking horns" is likely to increase the length of whatever phase she wants to spend more time in. So it's counterproductive.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 20, 2010 19:37:13 GMT -5
RE. jemand, Yeah...I don't know. The reason I said "just as bad," just to explain it, is that I remember one major study was really shocked to find that their research indicated that if either of the parenting extremes was employed, a child had a slightly better chance at healthy adulthood if he'd gone through the authoritarian(punitive) extreme, vs. the permissive one! I was really surprised to read that, as were the researchers themselves as stated in the study. It was not an expected outcome. This was not a dinky little study, btw, but a really well-founded one and the results really took the whole psychological-parenting-researchers community aback a bit, from what I remember, because the trend had been "when in doubt, err on the side of permissive," at that point. Of course, I also don't remember what the marks of healthy adulthood were, according to this study...nor do I know what their perameters were for gauging what was authoritarian and what was permissive... I think those things would all be helpful to know, and, like I said, I sold the textbook that discussed the whole thing, and so...all I have to go on is my memory of it. ____________________ General musings to all: Btw, when I left the punitive parenting arena, I did "err on the side of permisisve" for a little while. I had to get a feel for what parenting would be, and because I'd been so trained to think in punitive ways, I felt it was important to NOT try to control and to step back and study and think. Read a ton of positive parenting literature during that time and really learned a lot...slowly began stepping back and and figuring out how it would all work with our home....finally found my stride (though parenting is ALWAYS a work in progress) and began to feel comfortable with a good authoritative RESPECTFUL (of everybody in the house, not just the "authority" figures) non-adversarial warm approach that works for me and mine. So for those leaving the more do-it-or-I-punish-you approach, give yourself some time and some grace... You'll find your stride and what works best for your unique bunch....it's just a slow and steady matter of learning how to THINK in a different way about what our job as a parent is. If you are a reading kind of person like myself, I do heartily recommend taking advantage of all positive parenting, attachment parenting, grace-based parenting, love-and-logic parenting, and all similar types of parenting literature...and if you're more of an audio type, get those kinds of books on cd or mp3 and listen, listen, listen......just to wash your brain out of the crap it's been fed and to get some helpful practical "new tools" for helping grow happy and healthy kids.
|
|
|
Post by journey on Feb 20, 2010 19:41:58 GMT -5
Yes, Susan, I agree. AP (or positive parenting or grace-based parenting or whatever a person calls it) is NOT the same thing as "permissive." Sometimes permissive people do AP and the whole thing can get a bum rap that way, but AP is not the same thing as permissive. Permissive is that hands-off kind of parenting that really is more the feel of letting the kid just go completely, no involvement, no attention, very little oversight or interest in the child at all....
Whereas AP and similar parenting styles are totally involved in helping to guide the child into happy and healthy adulthood. They just don't do that in the "do it my way or I'll spank you" approach, but rather in a way that really respects the child and takes into account brain development and the child's unique personality.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 20, 2010 19:46:57 GMT -5
Journey, re: that study you are talking about, if they define permissive parenting as uninvolved, uninterested parenting -- then it actually makes sense that the children with authoritarian parents would fare better. Because at least their parents were interested enough to notice and care about what they were doing.
I also remember hearing about some study that showed that children find negative attention better than no attention: if the only times the adults in their lives take interest in them, are the times when they are getting onto them for acting up, the children will increast the negative behavior to get the negative attention.
No one likes being ignored.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 20, 2010 21:45:52 GMT -5
Re: Kidney Failure One possibility is that the child was dehydrated, possibly from fluid restriction. Another factor could be that the beatings caused so much overuse/abuse of the child's muscles that a huge amount of muscular protein was released into the child's bloodstream. This is a condition called Rhabdomyolysis. It occurs after trauma and after things like seizures and after heavy physical activity like distance running and cross country skiing. If the protein load is too great for the kidneys to filter out, kidney failure occurs. Catching up on the posts I missed... I cannot even comprehend beating a child so much that their muscles rupture and cause rhabdo. That is what happens to ICU patients I've cared for after they've been in car wrecks with bodies mangled.... I love those fine little magical miraculous nephrons -- marvelous things that they are. If anyone finds out exactly what caused the renal failure, I would like to know. Send me a PM or email me. I'd like to think in my idealistic head that there was some freak thing that killed one sister and that there had to just be something else that predisposed this girl to renal problems. I guess it wouldn't make it seem that bad. If they beat that girl so badly that she went into rhabdomyolysis.... My brain just keeps trying to find some way to make this less worse than it is -- just in principle. I don't want to believe that, in the name of Michael Pearl and Jesus, that someone would beat their child so badly. Naive of me, isn't it?
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 20, 2010 21:59:18 GMT -5
And this may seem like a stupid question, but when is someone going to hold Michael Pearl accountable for these things?
I know that there was at least one incident of a boy dying because the parents bound him to a tree and asphyxiated, but Pearl claimed innocence because he only recommends binding of infants. And there was another death where Pearl was implicated.
But why do so few people address these things with the Pearls and this issue of using the Teflon-reinforced water supply hosing that is recommended by Pearl? How can he not be implicated in some of these things. I know when I first heard about this stuff, I didn't believe that any Christian in their right mind would do such a thing. I had to have people explain it to me real slow and a couple of times, and then I think that I had to make sure that I understood things correctly.
Yet there is little more than a mention on a couple of blogs maintained by "silly women," and the issue seems to go away. When will someone of note address this stuff? After there are about 30 kids dead?
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Feb 20, 2010 22:19:22 GMT -5
I think you are making an unwarranted assumption. Milgram's study, as you noted above was if an "authority figure directs them to do so". I think it is more likely related to women's condition relative to authority figures, not an inherent "coldness" relative to discipline. Men, particularly thirty-odd years ago may have felt more confident about defying authority figures. (puppies? really?? never heard of that one) Watch the video and take it up with Zimbardo. That's where I learned of this and it is discussed in his book "The Lucifer Effect." [snip] As it happens, I have read The Lucifer Effect (don't remember the puppy) and I did watch the MIT video, after I made the previous comment. Zimbardo made the same observation. It's at about 49:00 of the presentation. I feel that it is at minimum disingenuous of you to present this result without context. I don't know you, so I have no idea where/if you were in the early 70s. I was there. The puppy study referenced was never published because of ethical issues. It was set in an undergrad class. Being a female in university at that time, unless you were in teaching, nursing or home ec. meant that you had to outperform "the guys". No sentimentality, or female "softness" was permitted. In the Milgram studies in the presentation, at about 36:00 if you look at the graphs, the female participants line is the same as the median, about 60%. He also mentions it midway through the short (TED) video: the results are similar between the sexes. However, his entire thesis is about POWER. Guess who has that most often? All things being equal, men and women, on average perform about the same. The question then becomes, "how often are things equal?" All of that being said, if any of you here have the time and the bandwidth, I urge you to watch Zimbardo's lecture at MIT mitworld.mit.edu/video/459. It's nearly 2 hours well spent. The TED presentation ( www.ted.com/talks/philip_zimbardo_on_the_psychology_of_evil.html) is a shorter version. It covers the main points but it misses some of the salient information. eta: Went through TLE again, and found the reference to the puppy experiment. The last word in the book on that topic: Again, this underscores one of my central arguments, that it is difficult for people to appreciate fully the power of situational forces acting on individual behaviour when they are viewed outside the behavioural context. The Lucifer Effect, 2007; p.276
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 20, 2010 22:54:46 GMT -5
Ambrosia,
I'm sorry that I failed to more clearly explain what I intended to say. I have reviewed the MIT lecture several times and am the person who referenced it here. I've featured it on my own blog since it first became available. I posted a link to it on Jen's Gems years ago. I did clarify with the caveats that Zimbardo offers in the film. I did state that he does make those references and that it something that would be unethical to study today, but he offers it to demonstrate that it is possible that women are capable of abuse. That was my germane point. Women are capable of abuse.
I apologize if I poorly communicated that. I didn't post it here to offend but to encourage people to consider what Zimbardo endeavors to communicate: human beings have human weaknesses that can often make them capable of terrible things if they find it difficult to exit high pressure situations.
I also qualified the other information posted here. People are welcome to contact me so as to get in contact with Corrie Marnett to inquire further about the discussion of Blanket Training and the mother who took delight in spanking infants.
Again, I am sorry if I offended anyone in the posting of that information or if it was posted in a misleading way. (I didn't intend to do such a thing, and if I had intended to distort the truth, I would not have considered posting a link to the source.)
I'm glad to see attention drawn to the lecture however, and it is my heart's desire that every person would review this information. If not the longer video at the MIT website, there is a shorter version of the basic message on the TED website.
Part of what troubles me so much about so many Christians who come out of cultic or manipulative churches is the tendency to tell themselves that they were not as affected as the other guy. They were not as vulnerable as a Moonie or another cultist in another group. I see the same defenses and attempt to preserve oneself through entertaining the idea that women are not as capable of abuse as men or that Christians cannot abuse their children.
I also have plenty of personal experience with a person with a dissociative disorder. If patriarchy attracts wounded people or narcissists or abuser, and I believe that it does to some extent, many of these people are dissociative. Situations that are stressful can become "unreal" feeling or they can depersonalize in these situations. That might well be the case with some of these parents that have been charged with murder of their own children. Dissociation is common in adults who were abused as children as well as those who have certain personality disorders. Empathy centers in the brain on SPECT scans are virtually non-existent in individuals with narcissism and other such disorders.
Lifton talks about such dissociation in his book "The Nazi Doctors." Is that not also the same type of situation that Zimbardo brings out with the Lucifer Effect? People are put into overwhelming situations, and it becomes a perfect storm which promotes the likelihood that good people will perform evil acts.
If women were abused as children, or if they have borderline personalities, or if they have been totally brainwashed by some of these groups, it is understandable in terms of social psychology to consider that women could then be just as capable of abuse as men.
I'm sorry if I have failed or continue to fail to convey that message. I didn't intend to convey anything other than that.
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Feb 20, 2010 23:06:02 GMT -5
cindy; I haven't been following your blog, I just read your postings here. Your earlier post seemed to indicate that you felt that women were more likely to abuse. I'm sorry to have misunderstood your point. OTOH, thank you for bringing those videos to our attention. They go a long way to understanding how true the saying: "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." edit: dammit, can't even get acronyms right. Then multiple typos in the fix.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 21, 2010 0:25:47 GMT -5
Ambrosia, Thank you so much for giving me the opportunity to clarify what I intended to say. (The whole batch of Milgram/Stanford Prison info is horrible, just as the general subject of spiritual abuse is, particularly at the extreme end when these child abuse deaths occur. I can't imagine having been involved in that puppy study. I am also deeply affected by hearing Dr. Z talk about the responsibility/heaviness he still carries over his role in the Stanford Prison experiments. He also thought that this would be safe and beneficial, and it deeply affected many in negative ways.) I didn't have all of my oars in the water earlier anyway, waiting to hear if a loved one was getting admitted into the hospital or was coming home, etc. I'm still half distracted. Disclaimers aside, I have talked to several women who have noted that some individual women in patriarchy tend to be more aggressive than their husbands and tougher on their kids. Some believe that it is the wives who manipulate their husbands into patriarchy, too, like the villian played by Glenn Close in the Stepford Wives remake. But that is a stereotype, and they are usually problematic for the same reasons some of these studies can be. You can never use generalizations to make specific statements about individuals, and though you can be vigilant for certain trends among similar groups, you can't apply statistics from one group and state authoritatively that they will apply to another without specific study. And you certainly can't evaluate statistical significance of people you've known or seen. You can only state what is true about individuals individually. But then we have individuals like Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz that pop up in the wake of others who relied upon the teachings of the Pearls. Looking at the element in my post that drew the most attention, I am surprised that no one has commented on the thing that has me more concerned -- A Christian woman and homeschooler that took pleasure and bragged about loving to spank infants. INFANTS??!! And this was on the Gothard ATIA list. It wasn't Michael Pearl's or Jonathan Lindvall's list. (Gothard is not particularly noted for the hard abuse like some of these other big names.) And that whole blanket training business makes me sick inside (teaching a baby to say on a blanket by terrorizing them and then beckoning or baiting them off the blanket to only hit them with a paint stick to teach them the consequences of crawling off). It is sadistic, but I understand that people do it precisely because they are taught that it is the best thing and for the greater good of the child in the long run. They will be too afraid to sin. (But for the Christian under the New Covenant as opposed to the Law, the motivation not to sin should come from love of God, not fear. He that is forgiven much loves much.) So I now love ambrosia more than I did in the general sense before
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Feb 21, 2010 0:32:21 GMT -5
cindy; oh dear - I was a bit puzzled by your reference and looked back at my comment. holy mangled syntax, batman! I personally wasn't involved in the puppy study, but I was in university at the time. I meant to convey the pressure on young women to be "tough enough to take it". Proofreading is our friend
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 21, 2010 0:45:12 GMT -5
Well, if I'd proofread my initial statement and qualified it better, we'd wouldn't be chatting now.
(And a host of people wouldn't be tempted to watch the MIT lecture which I find very gratifying.)
Do we really have to proofread on a Saturday? It's a weekend after all. I want the day off!
|
|
|
Post by ambrosia on Feb 21, 2010 0:55:03 GMT -5
Well, if I'd proofread my initial statement and qualified it better, we'd wouldn't be chatting now. (And a host of people wouldn't be tempted to watch the MIT lecture which I find very gratifying.) Do we really have to proofread on a Saturday? It's a weekend after all. I want the day off! Slacker!! ;D ;D ;D
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Feb 21, 2010 7:56:25 GMT -5
EDITED TO SAY: Whoopsie! How on earth did I miss all of these posts!? Ambrosia - Chloe - (now I just feel like an idiot ) Cindy – You bring many interesting points to this conversation, as usual , and I’d like to comment on two of them: “But the findings showed that only 50% of the male students complied, but 100% of that group of female students complied with the directives of the study.” Without knowing anything about this study, other than what you’ve related, its conclusion means absolutely nothing to me. However, my first thought is: Do you think this may be because girls are *conditioned* by our patriarchal culture to follow orders above all else? Perhaps especially in an academic setting? And – “There were a few women who were knighted, but the practice stopped because the women were more violent and ruthless in terms of torture. They were brutal, so no more women were knighted.” :: chuckles :: I don’t mean to be rude, but, dear god not that one again… That is classic anti-feminist “proof” that women are more violent than men. A moldy oldie. I always like to keep firmly in mind who writes 96.8% of ‘history’ and conducts 98.3% of ‘studies’. Just for the record everybody – Don’t think that I’m living in some HippyDippyHappyFeminist land where all women are perfect simply because they are women. (Being a woman myself gives me personal insight into what women are like.) I just get a little damn tired of the zero sum game wherein: if one woman does something bad all focus zooms in on her (because she is the aberration!) and the 99 guys who are doing the same thing Every. Single. Day. For. Millennia suddenly vanish from view because, yeah, yeah, we've all seen that before. Boooring. /rant
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Feb 21, 2010 9:42:19 GMT -5
I have an hour to spend, and if I do nothing I'll fall asleep. So here I am getting into trouble again... I didn't mention any of this stuff because I personally believe that women are more violent than men. My point is that individual women can be violent/aggressive/etc, and some people believe that they are. People can believe that the moon is made of green cheese, too. It's America. (At least where I am anyway.) I did qualify the substance of what I offered, but I guess I was too subtle... I know people that do believe that many women in patriarchy are tough and hard, are married to weak husbands, and people make unfair generalizations about their ideas. Actually, pointing out this kind of observation (your wife is out of control or you're not submissive to your husband) was used as a manipulation tactic in my old cult. I guess that the distortion works both ways for people on both sides of the fence. Depending on what kind of loonies you were around, you might have cause to make generalizations about limited populations which mean nothing. People do it all the time, and doctors are the worst. If you didn't go to school and take some kind of statistics or research class, you wouldn't know what questions to ask about the veracity of research findings. Plenty of researchers today clearly don't know what to ask anymore themselves. I sat at a doctoral candidate's presentation at a symposium a couple of years ago, and if I'd presented that data as an undergrad, I'd have flunked my class. But that guy sure believed his own press which was bad, bad, bad. Confirmation bias and all that. And I do have a well educated friend who has mentioned on at least two occasions that I specifically remember where she discussed female knights. Again, I said I knew nothing about the subject myself, and we've never discussed sources of info for her info. We did discuss Abigail Adams in one of the conversations, however, and that is a bit easier to research. But then, I'm somewhat historically impaired and not that interested in the subject. But this friend of mine believes this -- my point being that people do make such arguments. But then, I am the kind of person who will completely disagree with a fellow peer but fight for them and their right to express themselves. It's the American thing again. I can hate your religion or seeming lack thereof, but I'll fight and die for your right to believe whatever you want. I find that this sometimes confuses people. ;D
|
|