On Minority Rights and on Beliefs | 546 comments (546 topical, editorial, 0 hidden)

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

As usual you miss the point, which is that gay sex is morally trivial compared to species survival, human predation, and a culture of abuse and violence.

As usual you miss the point of what human rights are: they can't be divided into trivial and not trivial.

ThatBritGuy:

Do you have an explanation for that?

Sure. They concern family relations. In an industrial society without unemployment and with public welfare you are free to choose your family relations and to give them up again, because they are not vital for physical survival. In a society that is not yet industrialised or in a industrial society that is falling apart sexual relations must be strictly regulated to stabilise family relations that carry economic meaning. Immigrants bring pre-capitalist values that disregard personal freedom, the rising fascist movements fight personal freedom too. And on ET I am told that this is either trivial, or that the way out is fighting the personal freedom of immigrants (and they can't complain, because "try and open a pub in Saudi Arabia", eh?)

by Katrin on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 06:47:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

As usual you miss the point of what human rights are: they can't be divided into trivial and not trivial.

Unless they're atheist rights, in which case they're 'sectarian' - and therefore not actually rights, but privileges.

Oh - and for context, I'm still not understanding why religious people need to obsesses about gay sex when the planet is dying, and they could be obsessing about that instead, to rather greater effect.

In a society that is not yet industrialised or in a industrial society that is falling apart sexual relations must be strictly regulated to stabilise family relations that carry economic meaning.

And how does this explain the continuing obsession with Teh Gay and sexual morality among the majority of religious people in countries that do have a welfare state, and have had one for a good few generations?

At best you can say there's a bit of a context problem happening there.

Incidentally, when I say 'morally trivial' I mean - obviously - that (e.g.) gay marriage doesn't exercise the imaginations of non-religious people to anything like the extent it exercises those of the religious.

If it's not morally trivial in this culture - i.e. self-evidently a non-issue that shouldn't even need to be debated among civilised people - it's almost entirely due to the strenuous efforts of our established religions, not because yours truly thinks it's not that important actually.

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 07:57:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

ThatBritGuy:

Unless they're atheist rights, in which case they're 'sectarian' - and therefore not actually rights, but privileges.

This is offensive. I have never said anything like what you put into my mouth there. You make that up.

ThatBritGuy:

Oh - and for context, I'm still not understanding why religious people need to obsesses about gay sex when the planet is dying, and they could be obsessing about that instead, to rather greater effect.

So far I have understood you in the way that you oppose religious communities to conduct marriages of gays, they should fight the climate change instead. So you are not opposed to gay sex, inside or outside civil or religious marriage. How nice, a point of agreement. When religious people obsess about gay sex, as you deplore, why is that worse than non-religious people obsessing about gay sex?

ThatBritGuy:

And how does this explain the continuing obsession with Teh Gay and sexual morality among the majority of religious people in countries that do have a welfare state, and have had one for a good few generations?

You may not have noticed, but the welfare state is in danger. That might explain some obsession of the non-religious and the religious.

I doubt very much that it is a majority, though. Official Catholic doctrine is "obsessing", but who cares? "Majority" implies that this is uncontroversial. In Germany the Catholic Church has just commissioned a poll on sexual mores, and found out that its members find the official views on sex and partnership irrelevant. Detailed results are kept secret, though. I wouldn't be surprised if the attitudes in other European countries were the same, but I have no data for them. You obviously have, because you made the claim. Why don't you share your data?

by Katrin on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 09:32:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

Katrin:

Detailed results are kept secret, though.

haha.

churches should perhaps face the fact that people need churches for totally dissimilar reasons then the ones projected on them by the churchmen, ie a peaceful place to meditate, a social nexus, and a refuge for the desperate, rather than a place to soak up dogma and unquestioned 'Higher Truth'.

right now those secret results scream institutional denial.

but let's not forget this thread was about protecting young moslem girls from authoritarian states, not religion in toto. sorry for the intellectual drift!

'The history of public debt is full of irony. It rarely follows our ideas of order and justice.' Thomas Piketty

by melo (melometa4(at)gmail.com) on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 11:28:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

This is offensive. I have never said anything like what you put into my mouth there. You make that up.

Sigh...

You used the word 'sectarian'. You also used words like 'privilege' and 'Stalinist.' It's in the archives.

If you don't want to people to quote your own words back to you, don't say this stuff. It's not rocket science.

You may not have noticed, but the welfare state is in danger. That might explain some obsession of the non-religious and the religious.

With the welfare state, yes. With gay marriage - huh? Are you saying people believe gay marriage will undermine free healthcare or their pension plan?

In Germany the Catholic Church has just commissioned a poll on sexual mores, and found out that its members find the official views on sex and partnership irrelevant. Detailed results are kept secret, though. I wouldn't be surprised if the attitudes in other European countries were the same, but I have no data for them. You obviously have, because you made the claim. Why don't you share your data?

There's a useful survey here: YouGov poll.

Generally members are more liberal than leaders, which is interesting in itself. Also:

The section of religious people most opposed to same-sex marriage is made up of those who both (a) believe in God with certainty and (b) make decisions primarily on the basis of explicit religious sources - God, scriptures, teachings and religious leaders. This `moral minority' of strict believers amounts to almost 9% of the population, and is spread across religious traditions, with a greater concentration among Baptists and Muslims.

Although in practice I'd suggest this boils down to 'liberals are liberal, non-liberals aren't.'

Wasn't the point originally that religious attitudes tend to lag secular ones rather than lead them, and that if you embed religious attitudes in a secular culture they will eventually become less extreme? I do believe it was.

I have no idea what European-wide attitudes are. I doubt it's possible to generalise when - for example - Poland is staunchly Catholic, while Finland very much isn't.

I look forward to further responses that tell me I'm disgusting and full of shit, by the way. Have you considered that perhaps name-calling is not the most persuasive of tactics in this context?

by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 02:22:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

ThatBritGuy:

You used the word 'sectarian'. You also used words like 'privilege' and 'Stalinist.' It's in the archives.

Yes, but I did not use them for saying what you say I said.

ThatBritGuy:

With gay marriage - huh? Are you saying people believe gay marriage will undermine free healthcare or their pension plan?

I am saying that family gets a significance that it had already lost. People will depend more on family than they used to. Ask all those young people in Greece and Spain why they are still living with their parents. My generation will get a very low pension, much lower than what my parents had. Right wing ideologies emphasising family relations do make sense when the social net is cut. Successful ideological strategies always connect somehow with real fears or interests.

ThatBritGuy:

Generally members are more liberal than leaders, which is interesting in itself.

That contradicts your claim that "the majority of religious people" was obsessed against gays, doesn't it?

ThatBritGuy:

I have no idea what European-wide attitudes are. I doubt it's possible to generalise when - for example - Poland is staunchly Catholic, while Finland very much isn't.

Good. Then it would be very helpful if you no longer claimed to know the attitudes of "the majority of religious people".

ThatBritGuy:

I look forward to further responses that tell me I'm disgusting and full of shit, by the way. Have you considered that perhaps name-calling is not the most persuasive of tactics in this context?

I have considered a lot, and perhaps you noticed that for a few days I didn't answer any of your posts at all. There is not much I can do with a person who twists everything I say. I have run out of persuasive tactics in this case: the written language of our posts is the only means of communication we have here. If that is twisted, what can one do? By the way, before you develop the next variant of twisting of posts: I did not call you disgusting or full of shit. I called your posts that.

You entered this discussion (on the previous thread) shrugging off the human rights violations Muslims face in Europe with "try and open a pub in Saudi Arabia", which I find atrocious enough (if it really needs pointing out why: you are entitled to human rights no matter if your government violates them.) And you went on by twisting the meaning of every post of mine. No I have never demanded any privileges for the religious or religious organisations. I demand that we aren't disadvantaged though. You have made clear that religious freedom does not exist for you.

Your behaviour is not that of "everyone" here. I have quarrelled with Jake and Eurogreen, and there was unfairness on both sides. I am sorry about that, but I don't know any way how I could have avoided it except by not raising the topic, and I no longer wanted that. Your behaviour, claiming over and over again that I say what in reality I never said, is different and it is offensive. No, I don't think I am treating you unfairly. I understand that you had some very unwholesome experience and generalise, but it is really nothing I am responsible for.

by Katrin on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 03:55:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

Katrin:

Sure. They concern family relations. In an industrial society without unemployment and with public welfare you are free to choose your family relations and to give them up again, because they are not vital for physical survival. In a society that is not yet industrialised or in a industrial society that is falling apart sexual relations must be strictly regulated to stabilise family relations that carry economic meaning. Immigrants bring pre-capitalist values that disregard personal freedom

Very true and cogent.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 10:43:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

You aren't going to suggest a new ban on any clothes, I hope?

by Katrin on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 10:59:55 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

Seriously, Eurogreen, how do you set out to change attitudes if you have a minority that has brought values that are rejected (or at least considered not quite) in their new home? Even if you don't agree with the human rights angle, and only look what can be successful?

by Katrin on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 02:30:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

You start by making sure everyone - and that means everyone, even the gangbanger with a rap sheet longer than most people's arms - can get an honest job at an honest wage, and a roof over their head for a reasonable sum somewhere near reliable public transportation.

Then you make sure everyone has free and equal access to education, and that all kids are taught basic reading, writing, arithmetic and a bit of science and history.

If the problem persists after that, then we will hopefully have a clearer idea of what the actual problem is, because right now a large fraction of the problem is "disenfranchised underclass subculture."

There very probably still will be a problem, but solving that problem is non-trivial, so let's solve the trivial problems first.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 03:47:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

LOL. Can we have a ban on pleated skirts too?

Seriously though: whatever real problems there are with immigrants who might import sorts of illiberalism that the natives do not already hold, they won't be solved in a climate of disrespect and humiliation.

by Katrin on Mon Feb 10th, 2014 at 04:06:32 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

Even if you don't agree with the human rights angle

I would prefer to say : "even if we don't agree on the human rights angle".

The right to wear what your parents want you to wear in school vs the right to experience inclusion in a wider, undifferentiated community.

I have no idea if you agree with, or have understood, my arguments about school as sanctuary, as enabler of choices; because you have taken great care to never acknowledge them. (Do you think your arguments would be weakened if you recognised those of others?)

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 03:57:43 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

eurogreen:

I would prefer to say : "even if we don't agree on the human rights angle".

That's perfectly okay with me.

I understand your argument about school as a sanctuary, as enabler of choices. It just happens to hinge on seeing all girls with headscarves as victims of parental force/pressure/sinister influence. Your argument denies the girls agency. Girls who wish to wear a headscarf simply don't exist in your argument.

You solely focus on girls who are made to wear it against their will. Okay to throw you a bone, let's focus on them. Probably this group of girls exists. The parents who do so have a range of motives, from certain views on the role of women to an emphasis on cultural roots in their country of origin, and perhaps even what seems to drive you: a fundamental enmity to the French state. Okay, to throw you more bones, let's assume that the nexus between headscarf and enmity of the state exists. You want to fight what exactly? A headscarf, not enmity to the state. You really must explain that.

Now let's focus not on the parents, but on the girls: Even for the group of girls who are made to wear a headscarf I don't see any advantage in a confrontation on one piece of clothing between school and parents. It disregards the psychological needs of children, even those who really are abused. If you can't respect the parents, the children can't develop self-respect. Children will almost always choose to side with their parents if you choose confrontation.

And could you explain why girls forced to wear headscarves are entitled to more sanctuary than girls forced to wear pleated skirts? I'd really like an answer to that. If your aim is supporting girls against oppressive parents, why only Muslim girls (who in their majority are immigrants)?

by Katrin on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 06:28:24 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

It just happens to hinge on seeing all girls with headscarves as victims of parental force/pressure/sinister influence. Your argument denies the girls agency. Girls who wish to wear a headscarf simply don't exist in your argument.

There is, obviously, no reliable way of knowing how much compulsion is involved, and how much is free choice (if it were possible to survey the proportion of scarf-wearing girls whose mothers don't wear one, that would be an indication). But my argument doesn't hinge on that at all. Nor does it focus on a denial of state authority by the parents. It's about enabling an environment where a girl's worth is not defined by wearing a headscarf or not, and where nobody has a right to make assumptions about her sexuality depending on whether her hair is visible or not. By extension, it is an environment where she is equal to boys, rather than subordinate to them. My opinion is that, in terms of human rights, this experience outweighs the fact that they are unable to choose their headwear freely.

As for "choosing confrontation" : once the crisis is past (in 2004/5, in France), the situation is normalised and internalised by all. Girls respect the rules at school. Which is not to say that they, or their parents, are necessarily happy about it. I takes two to choose confrontation; and once parents have understood that the rules will not change, by and large they live with it.

(what, exactly, do "pleated skirts" symbolize to you, in terms of ideology, implications about women's role in life etc? Also, what subset of girls, in which country/subculture, are forced to wear them? I'm curious.)

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 06:49:28 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

eurogreen:

There is, obviously, no reliable way of knowing how much compulsion is involved,

Exactly. This doesn't show in your words though, where you always assume compulsion, not free will.

It's your theory that the headscarf is necessarily about a girl's "worth" or assumptions about her sexuality (sexual behaviour). Sometimes it is a statement about her regional roots or a statement of defiance in the face of discrimination. More often it is a statement on sexuality in the sense of physical integrity. Even where it is a statement about restricting women's roles, this message does not need the headscarf (or the pleated skirt in my childhood which symbolised exactly that). Parents who teach their daughters that their place in life is a subordinated one, may choose to impose certain clothes, but these clothes are only a symptom).

My point with the pleated skirts is that the same sexist views that you say you fight by a ban on headscarves exist among the natives too. You still choose to fight the headscarf, and that makes your message morph to something like "sexism is a Muslim problem." That is not only playing into the hands of Islamophobes (I hope I have found a wording that doesn't make you explode again) but into those of native sexists too.

by Katrin on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 07:54:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

The problem about your "pleated skirts" mantra is that it is meaningless to me. I now imagine that if I went to a high school in your region, I could identify the girls who are repressed by their Christian parents? Is that right?

Parents who teach their daughters that their place in life is a subordinated one, may choose to impose certain clothes,

Good to see we agree on that!

but these clothes are only a symptom

They are clearly understood as such. My point is that it is legitimate to ban such "symptoms" from school, because they are harmful to a girl's development.

Or is a constant reminder of one's subordinate status a good thing? I fear it may provoke cognitive dissonance, in a school environment where a subordinate status with respect to males is neither required nor approved of.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 09:09:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

Do you deny that there are "western" dress codes that are imposed where parents impose certain--subordinate--role models? From the pleated skirts of my childhood (and long afterwards. The shop that catered for parents like mine changed ownership in 1998) to the pink Princess-stuff or Barbie stuff: the same thing, only more varied according to class.
eurogreen:

Or is a constant reminder of one's subordinate status a good thing?

You don't take the point that the ban of clothes typical of immigrants is a reminder of immigrants' subordinate status, do you? The debate, and the ban,is only about the headscarf of the immigrants, not the clothes the natives use for similar purposes. I note that the moment these clothes come into the focus you try the next externalisation "girls who are repressed by their Christian parents?" No, girls who are repressed by their "western culture" parents, and who, depending on class background, can be identified by their clothes from pleated skirts to Barbie stuff. I should think a ban on immigrants' clothes in a school environment where a subordinate status with respect to natives is neither required nor approved of.

by Katrin on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 10:57:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

You don't take the point that the ban of clothes typical of immigrants is a reminder of immigrants' subordinate status, do you?

A reminder to whom? Not to an independent observer, because the girls become indistinguishable from their classmates.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 11:15:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

Hm. No visible difference between native French and immigrants? Really not?

by Katrin on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 04:58:45 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

(I wondered if you'd take the bait...)

A large plurality of French Moslems of North African origin are Berbers, i.e. of European rather than Arab type. A large proportion of the others fall well within the range of skin tones etc of "native" French people. Add to that the fact that, in places where some women of North African origin wear headscarves, there are also large numbers of non-headscarf wearing North African women.

So, indistinguishable from their classmates. Really.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 07:40:14 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (4.00 / 2)

There is, obviously, no reliable way of knowing how much compulsion is involved, and how much is free choice

Actually, some of the articles quoted in this discussion interviewed fired girls who insisted on wearing hearscarves at school against the advice of their parents. Maybe in a link from Wikipedia I also read of an example from before the ban in the nineties when a girl became an obvious "born-again Muslim" fundie (the same way boys do), and even rejected a compromise offer allowing her to wear a headscarf but calling on her to attend science and physical exercise classes. This latter case indicates to me that there are other ways to identify forced or voluntary fundies than enforcing headscarf bans with zero distinctions and a threat of expulsion.

It's about enabling an environment where a girl's worth is not defined by wearing a headscarf or not, and where nobody has a right to make assumptions about her sexuality depending on whether her hair is visible or not.

That sounds nice, but by having headscarf-wearers expulsed, the ban assuming all of them to be proselytizing fundies, and switches the onus of neutrality from the state to the citizen (perhaps you missed this).

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Wed Feb 12th, 2014 at 08:12:47 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

Well, choose your anecdata. Obviously, those who considered the headscarf ban an important human rights issue found articulate, outspoken girls who chose to wear a headscarf (or chose to defend it, once it became an issue, whatever their original reason for wearing it). The fact that it was easy to find such cases naturally leads the journalist or blogger (who has a narrative to tell) that this is the prevalent situation.

But consider : those girls who wear scarves because that's what is expected, and what the family wants, are also expected to not put themselves forward, because it's not their place to be in the limelight.

So you get a self-selecting sample, which can not be expected to be representative.

(perhaps you missed this)

No, I must have read it a dozen times since it was published ten years ago.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 07:21:40 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

I don't think I or the article claimed that one example is the prevalent situation. The reason I brought it up was to counter your impression of an exclusive or all-prevalent situation (which was free of any data, anecdotal or not).

I must have read it a dozen times

Yet you ignore it.

_{*Lunatic*, n.

One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

by DoDo on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 07:33:00 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

I neither made nor implied any such claim; on the contrary, I made it clear that, regardless of the different motives that might have inspired girls to want to wear scarves in school, their education would be better served by not wearing it. And that this is within the purview of the schools.

And yes, I remain unpersuaded by the writer's thesis. Sure, the spirit of the law of 2004 is not the same as that of the law of 1905; times have changed. The question was seen as stopping a snowballing situation (the holiest girls wear scarves, others are shamed into joining them...) which ends up with a strongly proselytizing effect.

_{It is rightly acknowledged that people of faith have no monopoly of virtue
- Queen Elizabeth II}

by eurogreen on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 09:29:12 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

If you can't respect the parents, the children can't develop self-respect. Children will almost always choose to side with their parents if you choose confrontation.

That runs counter to the personal experience of some of my childhood friends. So I'm going to ask you to prove it. With data.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 01:36:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

What sort of data do you expect? You can't compare the psychological impact of teacher X's confrontative behaviour towards parent Y with that same teacher X's behaviour towards the same parent, but now in cooperative style. You can only research the situation in certain schools before and after you run a programme teaching teachers to establish cooperation with parents. If you are really interested, I could probably recommend books (in German mainly), both with the angle of teachers' cooperation with parents of pupils, and not unrelated, cooperation between social parents and birth parents. Here respect towards the birth parents is even more vital for the children's self-respect (and more difficult to maintain).

If your childhood friends say something else, I wonder how old they were when the confrontation took place. And did they tell you about it with the distance of adulthood or then, as youngsters compelled to be "cool"?

by Katrin on Tue Feb 11th, 2014 at 05:22:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

Nobody in my circle of childhood friends labored under any particularly burdensome standard of "being cool." And their parents had lost their respect all by themselves.

Yes, there are kids who side with their parents and don't think there's any problem.

There are also kids who put on a brave face and make the best of what they realize is a shit situation.

And then there are also kids who put on a brave face because their experience with society's institutions is that the first, and often only, response is to make mouth-noises at the abusive parent, instead of actually solving the problem.

I don't know which of those three groups is the more prevalent, and it is probably different for different age brackets. But then, I'm not the one who makes blanket statements about the reaction of the vast majority of kids.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Wed Feb 12th, 2014 at 07:20:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 0)

You don't answer my question about age. I can absolutely not fathom at which point of child psychology you disagree or if you simply aren't conversant with attachment theory. Or is your question not meant as nomothetically as it sounds? You baffle me, and I have no idea which sort of material ("data") you need. I was NOT talking about "kids who side with their parents" or "kids who put on a brave face". Additionally you seem to be talking about social services not intervening in cases of abuse. Did you notice that I was discussing HOW social services should intervene in cases of abuse? What do you know about bonding in childhood and adolescence?

by Katrin on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 08:31:48 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: On Minority Rights and on Beliefs (none / 1)

I can absolutely not fathom at which point of child psychology you disagree

I disagree with a lot of points about child psychology as practiced, and I find most of the little psychological theory I have read to be an equal mix of common sense and nonsense, wrapped in far too much polysyllabic jargon.

I also have some difficulty relating the theory-as-written to the actual practice.

And in both theory and practice I far too often for my comfort find myself unimpressed with the answers to simple questions like "do you have any evidence for that?"

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Feb 13th, 2014 at 02:24:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

On Minority Rights and on Beliefs | 546 comments (546 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)

Top Diaries

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

A blog policeman's lot is not a happy one

The Amazing thing that's happening in the US Presidential...

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Recent Diaries

EU War Hawks Competing w US Congress

Seals Special Operations Mali

Dissuader l'Iran? | par Le Monde |

Post WWII: Building a Terror State Inside Europe

Tampered AP-900 Pagers Explode Across Lebanon

Of Childless Cat Ladies and other matters...

Hasbara Content U.S. State Dep't Briefing

Trump's Loomer Agent Provocateur

Dominique De Villepin Se Rend Immortel

Al Jazeera Documentary Egyptian Icon Inji

Jewish Terror and Genocide - Israel Firster

Impunity the New Judeo-Evangelical Coalition

Lest we forget: How extreme violence and division have been...

The EU In Inevitable Economic Backslide

Incoherent On Morals and Law & Order

Dutch Cabinet and Israeli Threats to ICC Prosecutors

Alan Dershowitz the Closet Republican

Israel Murders Peace Activists

GS: MAGA Policy Hits EU Economy Hard

Hoover's FBI: Patriotism, Nationalism, MAGA, Fascism

Occasional Series