Quote:
Originally posted by shakran
Funny you should say that, 'cause I have my undergraduate in psychology. Pop psychology - the kind of crap you read in Psychology Today - is all about the "feel good" psychology. Don't tell little Johnny he can't color on the wall because that will stifle his creativity. Don't tell Suzie not to scream her lungs out in the store because that might damage her feelings of selfworth. Don't catch your teenager in the act of breaking rules because that'll scar her for life. I've heard it all and it's all bullshit. Unless there's something that wasn't included in the original post, mom didn't beat her daughter. She didn't tell her daughter she's a slut, or a whore, or any other derogatory term. All she did was catch the daughter in the act of having sex when the daughter was specifically told not to have sex in the house.
|
(To again plagiarize one of my buddys) you missed the point entirely.
I did not say (in any of my messages) that you shouldn't foster and dicipline your chilren. What I am saying is that using too harsh methods of doing it damages your child. Mental abuse has the same longterm affects on the mind as physichal. Proven fact.
Quote:
|
Children have no expectation of privacy, nor should they. As another example, maybe if Dylan Kliebold's parents had "invaded his privacy" by going into his room from time to time, he would have been caught building his arsenal and the Columbine tragedy could have been averted.
|
What would probarbly had happend was that he would have shot them. There was something wrong with that kid in his verry core. Really bad example, she didn't kill anyone, she didn't do anything unlawful, she just broke a rule that her mother had set.
Children do have expectation of privacy, the different peroids of defiance that they have during their upbringing (first around 4 secound aroud 7 the next one around 13 the last one around 17) is the kids need of privacy that manifests itself. (Basic child psychology, i'm sure youv'e had a test or two in this).
Quote:
|
If the kid's breaking the rules, then the kid should accept the consequences. Arguing that mom had no right to come into her room is crap. 1) yes, mom did have the right to go into the kid's room. It's mom's house. Not the kid. If the kid moves out and buys her own house, then the kid can tell mom which rooms mom is not allowed in. 2) now that we've established that mom has the right to enter the kid's room, then the kid should not expect to have privacy when she's blatantly flaunting the rules.
|
First of, I agree that she has a right to state the rules and enforce them, but she doesn't have the right to intrude on her daughters privacy since there was nothing illegal goin on in there.
Quote:
|
Last time I checked the Universal Declaration of Human Rights said nothing about whether children should be allowed to have sex in their mom's house. It also said nothing about whether moms have the right to go into their kids room. Please don't take a document meant to keep people from being tortured and try to apply it to parenting.
|
Just because the document is used to stop people from being torture doesn't mean that it is not valid in other situations aswell. (duh).
Quote:
|
OK, first off are you saying that the daughter wants to and has the means to leave mom's house, but is being held back by society? I didn't get that at all from reading the post.
|
Okay, maybe I didn't explain that enough. A 17 year old has a very slim chanche of making it in the world on her own. That is because the society demands education, experience so forth and so on. Since everyone, to some degree, has the instinct of self presarvation she understand that by living at home she get's a better chance than if the would be alone. Thus she is "forced" to live at home. (Basic social economics).
Quote:
|
They are protected under the law. Child molestation is illegal. Parenting your child is not. Parents have the right to parent their child, which is what mom was doing in this case.
|
Abusing your child is illegal, parenting is not. What her mother did was to use harsher methods of discipline than needed, therfore she was abusing her.
Quote:
|
You seem to be arguing that children can and must enjoy the same freedoms and rights as adults do. According to that, 5 year olds should be allowed to buy and smoke cigarettes. They should be allowed to buy and drink alcohol. They should be allowed to drive cars. They should be allowed to vote, and to hold political office. They should have final say in all medical decisions regarding them (no mom, I don't want braces, so you can't get them for me. No mom, I don't like shots so you can't allow the doctor to give me penicillin to cure my strep throat. And no vaccinations either.) They should be allowed to make all life decisions for themselves (I don't want to eat anything but chocolate and you have to feed it to me.) That argument is patently absurd. The girl is a minor. She therefore is still being rasied by her parents and what they say goes. No-sex-in-the-house is not an abusive rule, nor is it abusive to enforce it.
|
What part of
universal don't you understand? Have you even read the document?
They do not give her or any other minor the
privileges of an adult, the do however give her her the
rights of a human being.
Quote:
|
OK, so you're saying that any time the kid's in her room she can do anything she wants because in order to stop her, mom has to come in the room, which is violating her right to privacy. That's crap. As I've said, it's not HER room, it's mom's room. Mom is letting the daughter use the room. the daughter isn't paying for it. Mom is. Mom has the right to do anything she wants in that room, including opening the door. If the daughter doesn't like it, she should either move out or stop having sex in it.
|
So what youre saying is that property is more important than humans.. hmm... interesting.. I always though it was the other way aound. Odd.. Where ever could I have gotten such an idea? (note the sarcasm)
Quote:
|
Chief among those obligations is to obey her parents, which she wasn't doing. Children do not automatically become slaves just because their parents look at what they're doing. BTW, according to your argument, parents who suspect their 10 year old of using crack can't check the kid's room to see if there are drugs there.
|
Again you miss the point, part of a childs development into a grown human being is to free herself from her parents, that means breaking the rules. This is (and your teacher should have told you this since it is part of the very basics of psychology) normal and the way it should be.
If you suspect your kid of using crack you have an obligation to go into her room and make sure because crack is
illegal, if your 17 year old is having sex on the other hand she is not breaking any law she is just exploring some of the better parts of life.
Quote:
|
Because the daughter is living under mom's roof, eating mom's food, going to mom when she gets in trouble, and generally being fully supported by mom. That is why the hell the daughter should respect her and her rules. As for overdoing it, you're wrong, plain and simple. Parents have the right to raise their kids, and they have the right to catch their kids when the kids are breaking the rules.
|
So a john has the right to abuse a prostitute simply because he's paying?
Quote:
|
It wasn't a personal attack, it was a fact. If you as a parent don't discipline your child for fear of damaging them, then the child will be a monster. It's been proven time and again.
|
Discipline yes, abuse no (very big difference here). My mother and father brought me up on the basis of mutual respect, they respected me and my thoughts and I respected them, their rules and wishes. Nowhere did they use any form of abuse or humiliation. Why do you insist on passing on the abuse and wrongdoings you sufferd as a kid to your own children?
This is my last message, you are obviously not worth having a discussion about human rights with since you apparently can't understand the very basis of them.
Discussion is over.