I heard it here for the first time. Scotland's slap ban is just the beginning. The dominant group of parenting “experts” who insist on extreme kindness, non-punishment, and counseling are now moving on to the next step. Keep an eye out for the early signs.Articles are starting to appear Elsewhere in the English-speaking world, they claim that “verbal abuse” is just as harmful as sexual abuse, and a ban on yelling is expected to be proposed soon.
The claim is:
- Children are not morally responsible for their actions.
- All evil acts arise from ignorance or abuse.
- Warm words and encouragement help children grow.
- Children are weak beings, so criticizing, scolding, or getting angry will only hurt them.
Therefore, they argue, any action or statement made in response to bad behavior that may make a child unhappy or upset is unfair and harmful. But they are largely wrong.
A looming threat
Like adults, children sometimes act even when they know it's wrong. Motives can range from greed to experimentation to revenge. Children don't stop stealing things that don't belong to them when they know stealing is wrong. Children don't stop hitting each other when they know it hurts. If it were that easy, raising good children would be easy. But it's not.
Just like adults, children can weigh their options and choose what they know to be wrong. I know this because I was once a child (I believe this is what we now call “lived experience”).
Of course, a child's (or adult's) emotional state can influence their behavior. Trauma and anxiety can be powerful factors that undermine personal responsibility. With such understanding, our response can be tempered. But we encourage children to refrain from bad behavior regardless of extenuating circumstances. Even if we believe that in certain extreme situations, children are not responsible for their actions, it is not justified to generalize from such cases.
Now, for a grain of truth in the confusion: Of course, children need warmth, praise, and affirmation. Of course, this helps heal emotional wounds. Of course, a child deprived of love will not thrive.
The next step is where they really go wrong. In other words, child “experts” believe that scolding and frustration are the opposite of love. Even worse, they see children as so weak that harsh words will cause irreparable damage. The artificially soft persona of the typical human-centered counselor every Human interaction. Harsh attitudes and expressions of anger are tantamount to child abuse.
The headlines focus on the “shouting” ban for its shock value, but digging deeper reveals that the campaign is much more far-reaching.Verbal BullyingAccording to the “experts,” this includes:
- Criticize,
- Blame,
- Humiliating,
- Lack of respect,
- Reprimand,
- That's horrible
- Or intimidate.
Proponents of the anti-smacking movement knowingly conflated physical abuse with slapping. The same people are now proponents of the anti-yelling movement, who knowingly conflate abusive bullying with scolding a child or threatening to punish them.
Defend the walls!
They say the role of social conservatives is to give reasons where there are no reasons. And they're right. Parenting and the culture of child rearing have been taken for granted for centuries because they come naturally and they work. So they've never needed to be explicitly justified. Now they do. Read on.
Children need education, training, and discipline to acquire the virtues they need to thrive. They must learn not only to respect virtue but also to reject vice. Appropriate responses to selfish, greedy, hurtful, or rebellious behavior include blame, annoyance, and even anger. Those who never become angry at wrongs have not risen above such base emotions, but have merely artificially distanced themselves from the stirrings of their own conscience. Children need to learn that certain actions provoke anger and that this anger is not necessarily a mistake but may be unavoidable and justified.
Once, as a teacher, I was with a small group of boys, about 10-14 years old. I overheard an older boy asking a younger boy where he lived. When I asked him what part of Edinburgh he and his family lived in, the boy replied, “That's where all the prostitutes are. Your mum must be a real prostitute.” In other words, the boy was saying, “Your mum is so ugly that your dad chose to live near prostitutes so he could have more access to them than your mum.” I was furious, and the boy knew it. He knew it, because I was furious and made it clear to him that his comments were reprehensible.
Those who idealize vulnerability and kindness would argue that two wrongs don't make one right, but it's hard to be offended by such nasty comments. You're not wrong.The boy knew that such a comment would upset me, and by implication others, too. I expected him to think twice before doing it again. I explained why it was a bad comment, and he realized from my behavior that this was not just a little rudeness, but a terrible act.
The verbal excuses left the boy ignorant of the natural human response to such comments. He might be yelled at at school, but in other situations, a similar outburst would get him fired, ostracized, or beaten. I taught him that people will react and get angry. Ideally, he will learn this lesson from someone who expresses it to him in these words. do not have Someone who will hit him, or yell personal insults or abuse at him, and still have a natural human reaction.
voice
Aside from conveying moral indignation, a strong tone plays a role in communication. The next best thing to convincing disobedient people, from parents to police officers, that you are serious is to speak more firmly. That's human nature. Utopians Adorable Whispers always win, but they don't. Communicating some authority through tone and attitude can be crucial in key moments.
Criticizing shortcomings, blaming behavior, speaking harshly and threatening consequences are perfectly acceptable aspects of parenting and education. But the project of demonizing all of this under the definition of “verbal abuse” is already well underway. The philosophy of de-moralization, therapy, children's rights and vulnerability has been dominant for years now. So what is it like? Listening to its advocates, you imagine schools full of timid children who cannot express their feelings and who tremble with fear every time a teacher approaches them. Can you find even one teacher who supports such a view? I doubt it.
The problem is already the opposite. Scottish children more These days they have become rebellious and uninhibited, and are likely making life miserable for other students and teachers. A life without boundaries is hardly the secret to personal happiness. Students are unlikely to feel at ease after a day of hedonistic selfishness and cruelty. But it is a sign of dogma when its adherents persist despite all the evidence, unable to see any way out of the problem other than increasing the dose of the existing prescription.
The prevailing mentality is for parents to hold back when dealing with their children, to refrain from their natural firmness. They internalize rather than express the frustration and anger that their children inevitably provoke from time to time. As a result, their children continually push their boundaries, and the parents eventually lose control and explode. Children need to be nurtured, but they also need a little toning down from time to time.
This may be especially acute for fathers. Broadly speaking, fathers tend to take a firmer stance and speak up, scold and discipline their children. Mothers tend to take a relational or restorative approach. These complementary styles are usually combine To form effective teams. At least, that is my view. The Scottish education, social care, charity and political establishments have a different view. The typically female approach is everytime The best and most characteristically masculine approaches are deemed not just ineffective and ignorant, but dangerous and criminal.
There teeth There are some things you should never say to a child. I don't agree that a single word can torment someone for decades to come, but continued lack of affection, hostility and aggression take their toll. It is important to distinguish between criticism and insult. The balance between warmth and harshness is not a science, but every loving parent instinctively seeks a lenient balance. A certain amount of fear of authority figures is healthy, but it is easy to tell when it turns into unhealthy control or fear.
That is the core of the utopian error. They never leave. To tellTheir argument is essentially, “Something can be done poorly or excessively, so it should be banned.” They are using extremes to demonize something that is perfectly reasonable.
It will be claimed that the study found that “verbal abuse” is the root of all evil. On closer inspection, the study has the following flaws:
- fusion,
- confusing and unnecessary subjectivity,
- Genetic neglect,
- and statistical weakness.
But it will not be subject to intense media or congressional scrutiny.
Outlook
In 2018, the Scottish Government Attempted to redefine Criminalisation of child abuse. This proposal would have criminalised the behaviour discussed here. It seems to have fallen off the government's agenda. Perhaps the government did not want to rekindle the debate over nominees and state intervention in family life. But this juggernaut will not be stopped so easily.
The pressure is mounting. The usual suspects will continue to apply the pressure, with the help of a sympathetic media. The Scottish Parliament will not resist, apart from the Conservative opposition temporarily questioning some finer points. And what about Labour? They will be just as keen to apply the pressure as the SNP.
They won't rest until a father is in court for yelling at his son who just hit his mother.
In Scottish family partyWe will fight for teacher, parent and family harmony and child development. There is nothing wrong with the way almost all adults work with children, so there is no need for the Scottish Government to fix it.
Remember, you heard it here first.
Main article image: Eddie Copp | Unsplash license
