This summer, I had several really great (read: educating and long) conversations about the nature of art, the process of love, what we thought we'd never have to do as counselors, and things we've said entirely too much.
I realise that talking about camp is potentially boring for those who weren't there, and for those who were there, I could never do it justice. Thusly, I shan't (or at least will try not to) talk about camp too much. Tonight's topic should be the nature of love.
Being "of a certain age," we do a lot of thinking about love. Sometimes, we think about love in its specific forms. I know I've devoted a large portion of my web journal to the great "why doesn't he/why does he love me?" debate. (This seems really shallow when you look at it this way.) And there are as many opinions about love as there are people in the world, so one might say that talking about love is like dancing about architecture--it's pointless to analyse it to death. (That's from "Playing By Heart," by the way.)
The thing I figured out recently, though, is that there are as many ways of loving people as there are people as well. And as long as you do it honestly, with your whole being, throwing your soul into your actions, it's a beautiful thing. "Everyone needs to be loved/Everyone needs their own teen-age fan club." (SuperChicks)
Although it's odd, I can now say with some certainty that I will probably get married someday, or at least find my soul mate. Veronica (one of my Swedish friends) believes that a person doesn't just have one soul mate-- a person has three people who would be a perfect fit at different times in their lives. Thusly, the person you were in love with at sixteen isn't necessarily the person you were meant to be with at thirty-five, just as that person isn't necessarily the person you are meand to be with at seventy-five. If you're lucky, you find the person who can evolve alongside you. Sometimes, it's just a reassurance regarding "the one that got away"--he wasn't necessarily the right person for you in the future. And, if he is, I firmly believe he will be back in your life just when you need him.
We can go on forever being bitter about things we can't change--circumstances of our lives, our relationships or whathaveyou. Or, we can choose to see those difficulties for what they are--a change in life circumstance that has shaped the person we have become. This all works out rather well if you like the person you've become (or you think other people like the person you've become--although that's something you might want to reconsider [take it from someone who knows...]), but if you don't like the person you've become, you might have your work cut out for you.
It's amazing how I start talking about love and soul mates and then suddenly make it such a personal issue. I think love is always a personal issue, though. For a while, I was bitter that I didn't have the relationship experiences that other people my age have, because of life circumstances. Then I figured something out. While everyone else my age was trying to hold on to relationships and mold themselves into the person they thought their significant other wanted them to be, during those formative years, I was actually figuring out who I was. This may sound crazy, and a little new age-y, but figuring out who you are before you foist yourself onto another person with his or her own problems is not such a bad idea. Now, granted, I did have to figure some of the other things out as an adult, (about 4 years behind schedule) but I had adult coping mechanisms and social support behind me to help me--something I can honestly say I didn't really have at 16 and doubt that many people do.
Don't get me wrong--I'm not saying that people should wait until their late teens to begin dating, or that I have all the answers. I'm just relating some of my personal experience in the "fix yourself before you try to fix anything (or anyone) else" department. And, if nothing else, these ramblings have just been my opinion. Of course, I could be wrong.
Monday, August 19, 2002
Monday, April 01, 2002
Corporeal punishment
For some reason, I think I've had this rant before in my weblog. But here goes again: I don't believe in corporal punishment. The use of corporal punishment or physical punishment on children (or anyone, for that matter) is something that makes me absolutely furious. All I have to say is this: There is no reason, EVER, for an adult to hit a child in any way, shape or form. Adults are bigger than children and can do more potential damage. Adults have more life experience and should be able to deal with problems in another way. Finally, hitting a child teaches him or her nothing, other than that if you're bigger than someone, you can hit them. This is in regards to any form of physical punishment--spankings, slapping, hitting, beating, whatever you want to call it. It is unacceptable.
Personally speaking, I don't think that child abuse is enough of a social problem. If children are still getting physically or emotionally abused or neglected, we haven't made it enough of a priority to stop it. By permitting "certain types" of physical abuse in child rearing practices, we are condoning child abuse. And it's not just nurses, teachers, social workers and doctors who are obligated to report suspected child abuse--it's everyone with (I can't remember what the legal term is) "appropriate knowledge." As a parent, you know what's normal for children. Children fall down, that's certain. (I still fall down frequently. It's something I'm working on...) But children don't have fingerprint-shaped bruises around their necks or hand-shaped bruises on their backs. And those kinds of bruises are enough to indicate abuse or another serious problem. You're required to report it--legally, in most states, but definitely morally in all. Period. Also, parental rights should never take priority over the physical and emotional safety of a child. My mum's friend Janie had a foster child placed with them a few years ago. The child was placed with them three times. Each time, he was returned to his family. Each time, about four months later, he was returned to Janie's family. And each time, he was further developmentally delayed because of the abuse and neglect he was receiving at the hands of the people who were supposed to love him and take care of him.
If (as a society) we really think children are as important as we say we do, you'd think that we'd put more of an emphasis on children's well-being and safety.
Parenting is hard. It's probably the hardest thing anyone can ever do. (Notice I said 'parenting.' Anyone can be a mother or father (by being genetic material donors), parenting is something different.) And because the job is difficult, you will often have to take routes in discipline that are time-consuming and maddening. The fact is this: It *is* easier to physically punish a child than to deprive the child of television rights, phone calls, et cetera. (By physical punishment, I'm not talking about things that people usually *define* as abuse. I'm talking about smacks on the bottom or smacking a child's hands.) Those other things take time and effort and, arguably, punish the parent just as much as the child, because they require vigilence. When you hit a child, all you teach him or her is that when you love someone, it's okay to hit them. And that big people can hit smaller people. You're depriving the child of his or her dignity, which can be the worse thing a parent can do to a child. (I'm not even going to get into verbally abusing a child, either outright or by witholding affection or anything like that. I'm against that, too, and have more than a little personal experience with it.)
And to all the people who say "I was spanked as a child and it hasn't affected me! I think spanking is a perfectly acceptable way of disciplining.", I have this response: Isn't the fact that you find ADULTS, who may outweigh children by more than 200 pounds, hitting CHILDREN, acceptable, a sign of lasting damage? Remember, adults have a *social obligation* to care for children because children cannot care for themselves. And hitting children teaches them that hitting is a good way to solve your problems.
Personally speaking, I don't think that child abuse is enough of a social problem. If children are still getting physically or emotionally abused or neglected, we haven't made it enough of a priority to stop it. By permitting "certain types" of physical abuse in child rearing practices, we are condoning child abuse. And it's not just nurses, teachers, social workers and doctors who are obligated to report suspected child abuse--it's everyone with (I can't remember what the legal term is) "appropriate knowledge." As a parent, you know what's normal for children. Children fall down, that's certain. (I still fall down frequently. It's something I'm working on...) But children don't have fingerprint-shaped bruises around their necks or hand-shaped bruises on their backs. And those kinds of bruises are enough to indicate abuse or another serious problem. You're required to report it--legally, in most states, but definitely morally in all. Period. Also, parental rights should never take priority over the physical and emotional safety of a child. My mum's friend Janie had a foster child placed with them a few years ago. The child was placed with them three times. Each time, he was returned to his family. Each time, about four months later, he was returned to Janie's family. And each time, he was further developmentally delayed because of the abuse and neglect he was receiving at the hands of the people who were supposed to love him and take care of him.
If (as a society) we really think children are as important as we say we do, you'd think that we'd put more of an emphasis on children's well-being and safety.
Parenting is hard. It's probably the hardest thing anyone can ever do. (Notice I said 'parenting.' Anyone can be a mother or father (by being genetic material donors), parenting is something different.) And because the job is difficult, you will often have to take routes in discipline that are time-consuming and maddening. The fact is this: It *is* easier to physically punish a child than to deprive the child of television rights, phone calls, et cetera. (By physical punishment, I'm not talking about things that people usually *define* as abuse. I'm talking about smacks on the bottom or smacking a child's hands.) Those other things take time and effort and, arguably, punish the parent just as much as the child, because they require vigilence. When you hit a child, all you teach him or her is that when you love someone, it's okay to hit them. And that big people can hit smaller people. You're depriving the child of his or her dignity, which can be the worse thing a parent can do to a child. (I'm not even going to get into verbally abusing a child, either outright or by witholding affection or anything like that. I'm against that, too, and have more than a little personal experience with it.)
And to all the people who say "I was spanked as a child and it hasn't affected me! I think spanking is a perfectly acceptable way of disciplining.", I have this response: Isn't the fact that you find ADULTS, who may outweigh children by more than 200 pounds, hitting CHILDREN, acceptable, a sign of lasting damage? Remember, adults have a *social obligation* to care for children because children cannot care for themselves. And hitting children teaches them that hitting is a good way to solve your problems.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)