It's been one year since the Sandy Hook shooting in Newtown, Conneticut. And here's what's been done to try to stop it from happening again. Anyone following this issue closely will not have to click that link to know that what's been done is nothing. Nothing has been done.
I will add my voice to the growing chorus shouting aloud to seemingly deaf ears: how many more people will have to die before action is taken? It is already far past being far too late. Each death only adds more weight to this contentious issue for those who are concerned and are trying to do something about it. But why isn't everyone in the fight?
It's too easy for a lot of Americans to just forget about it. School shootings and public massacres are sad and tragic, no one would likely say otherwise. But unfortunately they are not uncommon in the United States. It's tragic to me that these events are accepted by many as just a part of life in that country, or as "the price we pay for our freedom," as in the freedom to own a gun, which is not really a freedom, but is defended by so many Americans as a right. For someone to think "I have the right to shoot someone" is alarming to me. You are handing everyday people the right to decide to try to seriously injure or kill someone. That right should not be in the hands of the average citizen. It is not up to us to weigh the value of someone else's life.
Let's have a thought experiment. Imagine there was a country in which every citizen had the right to own syringes containing a potentially toxic poison. The best estimates of the number of guns in the United States are between 262 million and 310 million. So let's go with the conservative estimate and say there are 262 million Americans holding a syringe with a deadly toxin, and that there are multiple outlets to get more once they've used it up. Imagine the odds of dying from this poison were that for every 340 people injected, 1 person would certainly die. These are your odds of dying from a handgun assault. Now imagine everyone in the country (that's about 317 million people) asserting their right to be able to use this potentially lethal injection on anyone they think might hurt them. This is the mindset behind the castle doctrine, or the commonly known "Stand Your Ground" law. If you feel threatened on your own property, you don't have the duty to leave, and you are allowed to defend yourself by any means necessary. There is an almost unlimited supply of these syringes, enough for every single person in the United States of America, and each of these citizens has the ability to potentially kill anyone, at any time, and each asserts their right to do so. And what's more, even after their victim has died, they are entitled to claim absolutely no responsibility for that person's death. It's their word against someone who can no longer defend themselves because they are dead. The injector has the freedom now to state that he thought he was in danger and needed to use deadly force.
Does this sound scary? It should.
(This is probably a good time to add in a disclaimer. A few nights ago in a discussion with friends, we got onto the topic of gun control through remembrance of the Sandy Hook tragedy. I started to state my viewpoint about how it pretty much comes down to availability; the more comfortable a culture is with guns, the more accessible they will be and the more there will be around, which ultimately increases the number of people discharging firearms at each other and therefore more death by handguns. I noticed my friend looking slightly uncomfortable when I realized that in her family, hunting is a big thing. I quickly reassured her that I see hunting as different, because I do. When it's done respectfully, and within the laws and boundaries, it's fine and more often than not, a good thing for certain animal populations. She added that her brother keeps his hunting rifles in a safe that requires two different methods of entry, and keeps the ammunition locked up in a different location. This is absolutely how firearms should be treated, always, because they are motherfucking dangerous.)
To say that no one should ever own any gun, EVER, is unrealistic. I respect the need for access to firearms for law enforcement and the military. But there are things we can do to gradually make this world a safer place for the average citizen.
Don't keep a gun in a shoebox in your closet, or in the bedside table drawer, or in any accessible place. This overly comfortable attitude towards such a potentially deadly object contributes to accidental shootings. Estimates state that in 2013 there were 259 accidental deaths from discharged firearms. What's more is that it's widely accepted that these estimates are far below actual numbers. (Warning: that link goes to a NYT article that describes some deaths in detail. Not safe for sensitive souls.) That is a lot. Imagine 259 coffins lined up in a row. Imagine 259 households shocked by a sudden, unexpected death that took away someone they loved. That is the official estimate for a single year. And these are just the accidents.
Intentional public massacres should never happen, and yet in America they're frighteningly common. Of the top ten most deadly public shootings in history throughout the Americas, six occurred in the U.S. That doesn't include school shootings. Do you want the whole list of school shootings in the U.S? I'll warn you now, it's a long one. How about just this year? There have been 22 school shootings in America since January 1st, 2013. From those, 18 people died. 18 families had a child or adolescent or teenager taken away from them before their time at the hands of someone else with a gun and some anger. Sandy Hook is not included in that number since it happened December 14, 2012. A total of 28 people died in that one school shooting. A person got four guns and used them to kill his mother, 20 children, six staff members and himself.
How do we not get that this needs to stop?
Americans against any form of gun control love to cite the U.S. constitution's right to bear arms as justification for owning a handgun. At the time that right was enacted, guns were a very different thing. They were extremely slow to reload. They were pretty inaccurate. At the time you were more likely to die from the infection you got from the wound rather than the shot itself, because they didn't really have the full grasp of what bacteria was back then. Now we have guns that hold far more rounds. Scary numbers of bullets should not be in the hands of everyday citizens. Automatic weapons make it far too easy to shoot multiple people at a time. And increased numbers of guns make it far too easy to just grab another once your clip is empty and keep going.
People against gun control love to complain that "responsible gun owners should not have to suffer for the actions of a few crazed idiots!" Firstly, it is not just a few as specified above. Secondly, how could you even possibly compare your "suffering" to that experienced by those who have had a loved one taken from them because of a gun? How exactly are you going to "suffer?" By not being able to have the potential to shoot at anything you want, at any time? OH NO LET ME GET A BOX OF KLEENEX FOR YOU. Imagine the person you love being shot by that gun you so desperately want to cling to. Now weigh what you would rather have: a loved one, or a gun. And if you need any more time than a split second to consider those options, you have some serious thinking to do.
One last argument that I can't stand is the notion that guns are only dangerous "in the wrong hands." Oh okay, so when the right person picks up a gun it turns to rubber and is no longer a danger except as a slightly blunt object? No. Think of the accidental shootings. These weapons are dangerous in any hands.
Let's just stop the insanity please. Yes, even when handguns are illegal, such as they are in Canada, anyone who really seriously wants one can probably obtain it. But consider the fact that in Canada, there have been 14 school shootings since 1902. Just fourteen in 111 years. Compare that to 18 school shootings in the past year alone in America. We cannot ever absolutely eliminate such massacres, but Americans should at the very least be putting pressure on their government to enact measures that will make these tragedies less common, and to make it so that less people will end up dying because someone who got angry or upset was able to find some guns. Let's make them harder to find.
(Come on America, you can do it. Send letters to your members of Congress and tell them to get their fucking heads out of their asses already. Everyone should be concerned about everyone's safety and not just their own, end of story.)
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Sunday, December 8, 2013
An Essay on Child-Rearing
Studying what I've been studying over the past few months has been difficult. Another word for it is "trying" but it's gone as far as downright terrifying. I did not expect this information to hit me as hard as it did. Being able to personally identify with a lot of what we're learning about has been scary as fuck, since I've been avoiding thinking about these things as much as I could for as long as I could. I finally started to address it and it's been the best thing that I ever did (but at times has felt like the worst thing that's ever happened to me) but this is a topic for another post.
In my current voluntary-distraction-from-exams phase, I've discovered and have been reading extensively The Worst Things For Sale -- which is hilarious, and I highly recommend it. I do this in stores often, especially when visiting the States; I pick up items and scoff at whoever thought a particular item would be a good and necessary thing for people to have. I usually take pictures. And I am usually the only one who finds it funny. But now I know I'M NOT ALONE. I'm digressing here.
In perusing this hilarious website I happened upon an entry regarding a book about "discipline" entitled How To Raise Up A Child. I was a bit scared of what I would find in the reviews. But I am glad I decided to look into it, because this is the exact reason I am getting into the profession of social service work. Reading the reviews on the Amazon item page was also something I dreaded -- thinking there would only be reviews from those singing its praises, testifying about how fantastic the Pearls' methods were, and how it worked for them. To my relief, there seemed to be more warnings to not purchase the book than there were reviews advocating its use. Faith in humanity slightly restored.
Then in one review someone mentioned Lydia Schatz. I looked it up and was amazed that I didn't hear about this story -- or maybe I had, and never looked into it further and simply forgot. Either way, stories like this will now stick in my mind forever as evidence to bring forth whenever someone naively expresses the belief that child abuse doesn't happen anymore. That people have moved past it. Or that everyone knows it's wrong.
Anderson Cooper (bless his gorgeous heart) and another reporter from CNN profiled the Schatz case as Lydia's adopted parents were being sentenced. They spoke with an attorney as well as the authors of the aforementioned ridiculous book, Micheal and Debi Pearl, in this news segment.
What infuriates me is their insistence that abuse can be helpful. That it's beneficial to break a child's will. To hit a toddler until they stop whimpering, for as long as that may take. This is the mindset that killed Lydia Schatz; why? Because she mispronounced a word for fuck's sake. A great blog post with quotes from the book can be found here.
This book is dangerous material for anyone who isn't familiar with child development, which is unfortunately the reality for a lot of fundamentalist religious people. When the only education you get is Bible-based, you get a very ancient methodological basis for your life. We've learned a lot about people since the Bible was written, and this needs to be taken into account. A parent needs to know what behaviours are appropriate for children from ages 0-10 at the very least. They need to know what to expect as normal, childish behaviour -- that which any child of their age would do. Certain behaviours are exploratory, or for fun -- because that's what children do. They explore their fucking worlds by reaching for things or putting things in their mouths, and we should only stop them when their safety is in jeopardy (or maybe when we don't want them drooling on our $600 phones). And that's just it -- you can stop them, and explain why you stopped them. Kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Explain your reasoning in a way they can understand. Distinguish this behaviour from purposefully defiant behaviour -- that which is meant to test your boundaries. Or if they're older, it might be to purposefully piss you off (some kids think this is really funny, and can you blame them? You probably look hilarious when you're mad).
A few years ago I was shopping in a large store with a friend and her then 3-year-old son. As a single mother she was able to be very precise in her disciplinary methods (not abusive, for the record). She could practice consistency and control to an amazing degree because she was always with her son, all the time as a mom who worked from home. When she and I stopped to look at something, her son took off running at full tilt towards the far end of the aisle. I of course expressed some slight concern, but she didn't look bothered -- she just said "Oh, he knows to stop where I can see him." I looked over and was astonished to see him stop abruptly at the end of the aisle, turn around and smile his adorable huge smile at us both. This kid is three years old and he knows to stop running before he gets into an area in which his mother cannot see him. How did he know this? She explained it to him. It's about safety. If she were to not explain that part to him, and just do the whole "because I said so!" then it becomes about control. Then, of course he is going to run away where you can't see him and watch you freak the fuck out because it's hilarious. Don't just expect your kids to listen to you about everything, all the time, without explaining why. Again, kids are pretty fucking smart and a lot smarter than we give them credit for. It starts early, too -- when your kid throws a toy off his high chair onto the floor and watches you pick it up for him, over and over? That is hilarious, and he realizes he can control you in that way. Don't slap him for it -- just don't pick up the toy, and he will eventually learn that when something falls off of a surface, it's then out of his reach, so maybe he shouldn't throw it away if he actually wants to play with something while he's in his high chair.
I'm rambling now, but I'm trying to make a point -- there is a better way to make your child understand the world than hitting them. Spanking was not a disciplinary method in our household. From a young age my mom tried her very best to instill favourable personality traits in us through basic Christian teachings (to me they're just basic guidelines for being a good person, but whatever): be nice, treat others how you would wish to be treated, don't do things that are self-serving/don't be selfish, share and give back to others, don't be concerned with things like revenge, practice unconditional love and forgiveness, and other basic things that amount to: don't be an asshole, and do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. And while these traits may have led to me being a timid doormat who took a whole lot of shit from other kids growing up, I'm glad I got past that stage to become a person who actually cares about others (and increasingly, myself).
Spanking was a rare thing for my mom -- it usually happened when she was not okay, and only when we did something really bad, and when we were at the age where we could be snotty, purposefully talking back and occasionally being jerks to each other and her as well. She hated that because it showed disrespect, and probably made her think she didn't do a good enough job raising us, which was probably a scary thought for her. We always were still sent to our rooms, and we always talked about it after. And we didn't just get the "it's for your own good, so quit your fucking whining" spiel. I got the "it hurt me to do that to you, but your actions were hurtful to me too. When you talk to me like that it feels like you don't care about me, and that you don't love me. If you love me, act like it in everything that you do." This still is something I practice today. Don't say something that can hurt someone's feelings even when you're angry. Saying what you mean and meaning what you say is a big deal that sounds a lot simpler than it is. If we're fighting and you are so frustrated with me that you (for example) tell me to just go, get the fuck outta here, then I'm fucking leaving end of story. But later when you say "Why did you leave? Well I only said that because I was so mad..." So if you didn't fucking mean it, don't say it motherfucker! Anyway.
In short, abuse still happens. And it is usually because a parent does not know of any other method of discipline. Or they may have half-heartedly tried a more gentle method that didn't produce results that they were satisfied with. Probably because they tried it too late, or weren't consistent enough. Good disciplinary basics dictate that the consequence must come directly after the unwanted behaviour, and it must be consistent. Otherwise the child cannot connect the two events as being related and therefore it will be pretty fucking hard for them to learn that a certain behaviour will have certain consequences. You can't let them sometimes get away with it. Explanations for your discipline are always necessary -- make it perfectly clear why what they did is wrong or unacceptable behaviour.
There is always a better way than hitting/spanking/striking with objects. It should absolutely not be your go-to method of discipline for everything. Regardless if the Pearls have had what they measure as "success" in their methods, and regardless if they don't think that they take it too far, it is a dangerous line to skirt. You're potentially creating so many more problems in this little person that they will carry for the rest of their lives. To recommend that you hit a child until you break their will is not okay. Should we hit grown-ups until their wills are broken? No. So let's not do it to our kids, alright?
In my current voluntary-distraction-from-exams phase, I've discovered and have been reading extensively The Worst Things For Sale -- which is hilarious, and I highly recommend it. I do this in stores often, especially when visiting the States; I pick up items and scoff at whoever thought a particular item would be a good and necessary thing for people to have. I usually take pictures. And I am usually the only one who finds it funny. But now I know I'M NOT ALONE. I'm digressing here.
In perusing this hilarious website I happened upon an entry regarding a book about "discipline" entitled How To Raise Up A Child. I was a bit scared of what I would find in the reviews. But I am glad I decided to look into it, because this is the exact reason I am getting into the profession of social service work. Reading the reviews on the Amazon item page was also something I dreaded -- thinking there would only be reviews from those singing its praises, testifying about how fantastic the Pearls' methods were, and how it worked for them. To my relief, there seemed to be more warnings to not purchase the book than there were reviews advocating its use. Faith in humanity slightly restored.
Then in one review someone mentioned Lydia Schatz. I looked it up and was amazed that I didn't hear about this story -- or maybe I had, and never looked into it further and simply forgot. Either way, stories like this will now stick in my mind forever as evidence to bring forth whenever someone naively expresses the belief that child abuse doesn't happen anymore. That people have moved past it. Or that everyone knows it's wrong.
Anderson Cooper (bless his gorgeous heart) and another reporter from CNN profiled the Schatz case as Lydia's adopted parents were being sentenced. They spoke with an attorney as well as the authors of the aforementioned ridiculous book, Micheal and Debi Pearl, in this news segment.
What infuriates me is their insistence that abuse can be helpful. That it's beneficial to break a child's will. To hit a toddler until they stop whimpering, for as long as that may take. This is the mindset that killed Lydia Schatz; why? Because she mispronounced a word for fuck's sake. A great blog post with quotes from the book can be found here.
This book is dangerous material for anyone who isn't familiar with child development, which is unfortunately the reality for a lot of fundamentalist religious people. When the only education you get is Bible-based, you get a very ancient methodological basis for your life. We've learned a lot about people since the Bible was written, and this needs to be taken into account. A parent needs to know what behaviours are appropriate for children from ages 0-10 at the very least. They need to know what to expect as normal, childish behaviour -- that which any child of their age would do. Certain behaviours are exploratory, or for fun -- because that's what children do. They explore their fucking worlds by reaching for things or putting things in their mouths, and we should only stop them when their safety is in jeopardy (or maybe when we don't want them drooling on our $600 phones). And that's just it -- you can stop them, and explain why you stopped them. Kids are a lot smarter than we give them credit for. Explain your reasoning in a way they can understand. Distinguish this behaviour from purposefully defiant behaviour -- that which is meant to test your boundaries. Or if they're older, it might be to purposefully piss you off (some kids think this is really funny, and can you blame them? You probably look hilarious when you're mad).
A few years ago I was shopping in a large store with a friend and her then 3-year-old son. As a single mother she was able to be very precise in her disciplinary methods (not abusive, for the record). She could practice consistency and control to an amazing degree because she was always with her son, all the time as a mom who worked from home. When she and I stopped to look at something, her son took off running at full tilt towards the far end of the aisle. I of course expressed some slight concern, but she didn't look bothered -- she just said "Oh, he knows to stop where I can see him." I looked over and was astonished to see him stop abruptly at the end of the aisle, turn around and smile his adorable huge smile at us both. This kid is three years old and he knows to stop running before he gets into an area in which his mother cannot see him. How did he know this? She explained it to him. It's about safety. If she were to not explain that part to him, and just do the whole "because I said so!" then it becomes about control. Then, of course he is going to run away where you can't see him and watch you freak the fuck out because it's hilarious. Don't just expect your kids to listen to you about everything, all the time, without explaining why. Again, kids are pretty fucking smart and a lot smarter than we give them credit for. It starts early, too -- when your kid throws a toy off his high chair onto the floor and watches you pick it up for him, over and over? That is hilarious, and he realizes he can control you in that way. Don't slap him for it -- just don't pick up the toy, and he will eventually learn that when something falls off of a surface, it's then out of his reach, so maybe he shouldn't throw it away if he actually wants to play with something while he's in his high chair.
I'm rambling now, but I'm trying to make a point -- there is a better way to make your child understand the world than hitting them. Spanking was not a disciplinary method in our household. From a young age my mom tried her very best to instill favourable personality traits in us through basic Christian teachings (to me they're just basic guidelines for being a good person, but whatever): be nice, treat others how you would wish to be treated, don't do things that are self-serving/don't be selfish, share and give back to others, don't be concerned with things like revenge, practice unconditional love and forgiveness, and other basic things that amount to: don't be an asshole, and do the right thing because it's the right thing to do. And while these traits may have led to me being a timid doormat who took a whole lot of shit from other kids growing up, I'm glad I got past that stage to become a person who actually cares about others (and increasingly, myself).
Spanking was a rare thing for my mom -- it usually happened when she was not okay, and only when we did something really bad, and when we were at the age where we could be snotty, purposefully talking back and occasionally being jerks to each other and her as well. She hated that because it showed disrespect, and probably made her think she didn't do a good enough job raising us, which was probably a scary thought for her. We always were still sent to our rooms, and we always talked about it after. And we didn't just get the "it's for your own good, so quit your fucking whining" spiel. I got the "it hurt me to do that to you, but your actions were hurtful to me too. When you talk to me like that it feels like you don't care about me, and that you don't love me. If you love me, act like it in everything that you do." This still is something I practice today. Don't say something that can hurt someone's feelings even when you're angry. Saying what you mean and meaning what you say is a big deal that sounds a lot simpler than it is. If we're fighting and you are so frustrated with me that you (for example) tell me to just go, get the fuck outta here, then I'm fucking leaving end of story. But later when you say "Why did you leave? Well I only said that because I was so mad..." So if you didn't fucking mean it, don't say it motherfucker! Anyway.
In short, abuse still happens. And it is usually because a parent does not know of any other method of discipline. Or they may have half-heartedly tried a more gentle method that didn't produce results that they were satisfied with. Probably because they tried it too late, or weren't consistent enough. Good disciplinary basics dictate that the consequence must come directly after the unwanted behaviour, and it must be consistent. Otherwise the child cannot connect the two events as being related and therefore it will be pretty fucking hard for them to learn that a certain behaviour will have certain consequences. You can't let them sometimes get away with it. Explanations for your discipline are always necessary -- make it perfectly clear why what they did is wrong or unacceptable behaviour.
There is always a better way than hitting/spanking/striking with objects. It should absolutely not be your go-to method of discipline for everything. Regardless if the Pearls have had what they measure as "success" in their methods, and regardless if they don't think that they take it too far, it is a dangerous line to skirt. You're potentially creating so many more problems in this little person that they will carry for the rest of their lives. To recommend that you hit a child until you break their will is not okay. Should we hit grown-ups until their wills are broken? No. So let's not do it to our kids, alright?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)