US Politics Mega-thread - Page 1763

We are talking about beating children. Of course this is an upsetting subject.

The best kids I know seem to have a slight fear of authority. They love being treated with respect and respond very well to it, but you can also tell that they have a fear of a slightly raised voice. They're not beaten shells, but it's pretty clear that at some point they learned a little fear of authority and from my perspective, came out a lot better for it. I don't know that they've ever been spanked, but they learned that fear somehow.

On August 17 2019 17:13 xM(Z wrote:
it means they (more readily)change/get influenced by a show of or an example of power.

This study examined relations among sibling conflict, sibling dominance, and peer victimization. Participants were 65 elementary school students and their parents, with additional data provided by teachers and classmates. Structured interviews were used to gather information about children’s relationship with their nearest-age sibling. Findings differed substantially based on parent versus child sibling conflict ratings. Sibling dominance negatively predicted parent-rated sibling conflict. Sibling dominance moderated the relation between child-rated sibling conflict and self-rated peer victimization such that sibling conflict positively predicted peer victimization for dominant siblings, but negatively predicted victimization for children who were submissive to their sibling. The linear and curvilinear sibling dominance terms moderated relations between sibling conflict and peer victimization as rated by teachers and peers, but the nature of interactions varied by parent versus child report of sibling conflict. Children regarded by parents as engaging in frequent sibling conflict were at greater risk of teacher- and peer-reported victimization, but not if the child was dominant over their sibling. The curvilinear dominance term also moderated the relation between child-rated sibling conflict and peer-reported victimization. Child-rated conflict negatively predicted victimization for children in balanced sibling relationships but positively predicted victimization for children in sibling dyads characterized by dominance disparity. Findings are complex, but suggest healthy sibling relationships characterized by balanced levels of social dominance can protect against peer victimization.

The goals of this study were to examine longitudinal changes in perceived control in adolescents’ sibling relationships and to describe the nature and correlates of three distinct control patterns: Firstborn dominant, equal, and secondborn dominant. Firstborn and secondborn adolescents in 184 predominately European-American families participated in home interviews and a series of phone interviews as part of a longitudinal a study of family relationships and adolescent development. Findings revealed changes in control over three years as well as sibling differences. In addition, different patterns of control were linked to qualities of the sibling relationship and to adolescent adjustment. The different roles that firstborn and secondborn siblings assume, and why these roles are linked to relationship experiences and adjustment, are discussed.

On August 17 2019 18:14 xM(Z wrote:
some children are born dominant over their parents, from day 1. it's a state of being not of 'becoming over time'; it's biological not sociological.
there are longitudinal studies(over time) on dominant vs submissive power dynamics between parents and children between siblings and between children and peers.
there are no clear cut conclusions as of yet because the issue is very complicated, but it's clear that the dynamic exists and it affects social interactions between the parties listed above.
or but you can find more out-there if interested.
on the other thing, i've read studies on it but were mostly on animals/mammals/great apes; correlations can be easily drawn because ... lobsters.

Edit: from https://www.researchgate.net/journal/1062-1024_Journal_of_Child_and_Family_Studie generally: + Show Spoiler +

On August 17 2019 18:25 Simberto wrote:
I am amazed at how many people think that spanking children is acceptable in 2019.

On August 17 2019 06:11 Liquid`Drone wrote:


Are those young parents immigrants? Because I know many Norwegian parents but none who live in any fear or terror of them - however I've heard that some immigrant communities are indeed afraid. I also know people who credit barnevernet for them currently being functional adults. And being a teacher I've had some interactions with people working with them / talked to other teachers who were really disappointed that a parent they thought were sexually abusing a child got to maintain custody.

One important thing to keep in mind is that barnevernet is supposed to be an aide to parents. Unless there is suspected abuse, they do not take your kids away from you, they instead try to teach you stuff that might make you a better parent. Like, I get that there is a real issue, as evident by 20-some custody cases or whatever (I don't remember exactly) being successfully appealed in european courts. As mentioned in my previous post, I do think we might err on the side of being too intrusive. But at the same time, I know of many adults who feel that barnevernet saved them, and they are involved in far, far more cases than the ones where custody is removed from the parents. (Those cases however are the ones that get media attention - understandably so as having your kid 'wrongfully' (the interpretation of what that constitutes is the crux of this discussion) taken away from you is one of the bigger crimes a person can experience.. )

Like unless your young parent friends are beating or sexually abusing their children they don't really have anything to fear. They might come on a visit for other cases, they'll get involved if they find out that one parent uses drugs, but then it's a 'hey, try to do these things. It will have a positive impact on your child's development.' kind of thing, not a 'we want to take your kids from you'. I think for immigrants this might be part of the thing because they're used to child protective services in their countries only being involved in more egregious cases, whereas in Norway this isn't the case, and then they feel like they are targeted as a particularly egregious case, which isn't the case by default.

Then, of course, there are individuals involved who make arbitrary decisions based on their best knowledge. It might actually be that something really looks like sexual abuse based on children's behavior that in 95% of cases is a real indicator. Is it better in that case to get one pair of parents wrongfully accused of sexual abuse (obviously a terrible outcome) or is it better than 19 children continue to be sexually abused? Basically I think that yes, there are issues. But it's not an easy 'the norwegian barnevern is worse than other child protective agencies in other countries', and I felt your characterization is a bit hyperbolic (or grounded in fear that I don't think is warranted) - it's more like, it's more intrusive, and that comes with a set of both positives and negatives.

(For americans, there is at least one example of a girl being taken from her mom because of extreme obesity, and this indicating that the parent is unfit. That was a 12 year old girl being more than 100 kg, and there were also other elements, however with the weight being the single biggest one. Dunno how that would fly in the US / doubt you'd have the required foster homes to deal with it. )

On August 17 2019 21:33 plated.rawr wrote:
If youve done something, and you end up getting a beating because of it, how do you react? Do you feel that your action was wrong, and that the person beating you is just?

On August 17 2019 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:


Completely depends on what I did. "Fighting words" are what we call em here in general though to give you an example. No one is endorsing beating children though.

Edit: Pang's too close for me though

On August 17 2019 13:04 ggrrg wrote:


And I think that this reportage does a much better job portraying the systematic issues with barnevernet.
https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/070086-000-A/norway-broken-families/

The first time I heard about barnevernet was after somebody I know was outraged about something they saw shared on facebook that was telling horror stories caused by this institution. As one can imagine I was quite skeptical about the reliability of some random facebook post especially when it claims that unimaginable horrors are happening in a Scandinavian country - the paragon of civilized society. In the ensuing discussion, I decided that the best way to expose your run of the mill bogus facebook scandal is to google the alternative explanation. Imagine my surprise when just searching for barnevernet yields an endless stream of critique about this institution. This in itself is no proof for anything, but then you start watching documentaries from what I would consider highly reputable sources like Deutsche Welle or Arte, you read articles from some of the most renowned media outlets in Germany, Switzerland and Austria (living in Germany google normally yields results in German first) all of which detailed the troubled fates of different families that have had the misfortune of being targeted by barnevernet, slowly piecing together a very dark picture of an out-of-control institution.

You learn about the story of the young Norwegian couple whose newborn was taken away due to concerns about possible dangers to the child stemming from the mother having been treated for depression for a couple of months over a decade ago when she was 16. You learn about the Bulgarian mother whose kids were taken away after the father she was divorcing called barnevernet because she was "too hysterical". You learn about the Norwegian father whose child was taken away after a divorce because barnevernet considered him unfit to raise a child due to working too much and the mother unfit because she had no job. And so on and so forth...
Not only are children being taken away on absolutely arbitrary grounds but the restrictions imposed on the parents are completely absurd. What kind of psychopath rules that a parent should get visitation rights of only 12 HOURS PER YEAR??? And we are not talking about sexual abuse here, in most cases not even physical abuse. And even in the cases of physical abuse, it is not only disproportonately unfair to completely separate a family forever just because a parent slapped their child once for some transgression, but outright crazy. What kind of a sociopathic entity decides that mentally scaring a little child for life by taking it away from the parents they love is a better course of action than say slapping the parents with a fine and imposing regular child service inspections?

After reading and watching a bunch of individual stories you notice that restricting visitation rights to 10-40 HOURS PER YEAR is not a uncommon occurence. And as if this was not outrageous enough, you get to learn about some very creative sentences handed out after the parent(s) went to court... Cases in which after 2 or so years of court proceedings the judge ruled in favor of barnevernet that the children shall not be returned at all because they have accustomed themselves to their foster home (Hey, you weren't the terrible parent we thought you were, but since you effectively did not get to see your children for the past 24 months, they shall remain separated from you!). Cases in which the judge decided that the children should not be given back because the parents "exerted too much pressure on them by releasing the court documents to the media".

Then of course there is the fact that critique about barnevernet can be found in the most reputable media outlets in basically every European country. There is that "tiny" issue that the ECHR has accepted an absurd amount of cases against barnevernet. There is the fact that a notable amount of Norwegian professionals involved with barnevernet called it a “dysfunctional organization that makes far-reaching errors of judgment with serious consequences" in an open letter.

I support children's rights and I completely disapprove of corporal punishment. But what barnevernet is doing is in way too many cases well beyond any reason. There are a thousand ways to get parents to treat their children better, to be more patient, to be more careful, to abstain from corporal punishment and none of those ways involve separating children from their parents for years and, in way too many cases, forever. This measure appears even more barbaric in light of the fact that way too often children are taken away on baseless accusations stemming from "he said, she said" and sometimes solely from arbitrary presumptions some random barnevernet worker made.

You say that:

So how could you possibly support barnevernet's decisions to separate families when these autonomous children cry and beg to be reunited with their parents?

On August 17 2019 21:33 plated.rawr wrote:
If youve done something, and you end up getting a beating because of it, how do you react? Do you feel that your action was wrong, and that the person beating you is just? Of course not. You consider the one dealing the beating a dick, and learn to conceal your actions from said person, or to be sure you can preemptively respond to said violence before it occurs the next time.

Are these values you wish to instill in your child?

There is no excuse to physically reprimand another human. Only acceptable form of non-consensual violence is self-defense.

On August 17 2019 21:52 plated.rawr wrote:

Fair enough, if i for instance started going off on you with belittling racist remarks, i'd have getting decked coming to me. However, I'd not think myself wrong for your reaction (probably instead have my preconceptions strenghtened instead) or think you a better person. My point still stands.

I'd also argue my initial actions would make the violence targeted at me consenting, so it's still within the framing i presented.

On August 17 2019 22:03 GreenHorizons wrote:


How many have you endured or given? Sometimes not thinking something is wrong but just not doing it is good enough as well.

On August 17 2019 22:01 Jockmcplop wrote:



I would disagree with your main point here actually.
In a normal person/person interaction you are correct, but the parent/child interaction involves long term consequences, and the long term consequences of non abusive physical discipline are not to make the child think the parent is an asshole.
Maybe in the short term, but as long as this kind of thing is rare and meaningful when it happens the child will understand (eventually) and the lesson may be remembered for a very long time.
I used to get a little smack on the back of the head maybe 3-4 times in my whole childhood and genuinely learned lessons from it and it didn't negatively effect my relationship with my parents at all.

On August 17 2019 22:09 plated.rawr wrote:

Fights? A handful both ways.

As for your last line - i disagree that the ends justify the means. Stopping someone from doing something isnt neccessarily of much help if it breaks some other part of the person. Short-term gain vs long-time consequence kinda thing.

On August 17 2019 22:20 GreenHorizons wrote:


You only learned that they were wrong and you were right when you got hit first and the people you hit never recognized any wrongdoing to you or otherwise?