From what we saw in France, I would say this article about parenting style is just about right. The level of violence towards children from their parents was quite shocking.
Hmm...and guess which country in Europe is on a determined run for the bottom of the pile!
55 comments:
You sure you want to form a stereotype from anedoctes observed by a few people?
France is doing so badly in what?
Childhood obesity rates?
I doubt they allow their children to overeat, they just serve the portions they think right and say "no" to any indulgence.
Mental disorder rates?
As the article shows, if children don't turn their heads when their mothers call, they get their ears pinched, not an autism spectrum diagnose.
I am not saying children should be treated like this, no human being should. The prejudice shown against children in that article is horrible. But British children are being turned into public health cases.
re stereotyping...I do have to say that I would need a bit evidence in the opposite direction to convince me that the French weren't much more inclined towards strict discipline and corporal punishment, since every time we have been there in the recent past, I have been repeatedly appalled at the treatment of children at the hands of adults there.
My link between parenting and the state of a country was meant in part to be facetious, but also perhaps to raise the question of whether parenting and an open, well functioning society are actually linked.
I also agree that there are huge problems with giving diagnoses to children whose only fault is to be incarcerated in an inflexible system, but that this may be less of a problem than being told not to step out of line and never question, under threat of physical punishment...and this at every point in a child's life.
I saw numerous examples in France of children being whacked for simple actions that were either inconsequential or simple mistakes, such as the dropping of a glove. I have never seen this kind of behaviour in GB. Hard not to stereotype.
Also meant to say, I don't think you have to say no to a child to prevent them from becoming obese..
You simply make healthy food available in sensible portions, explain the problems of poor or over eating, rely on a child to have some sense of satiation and well being, and let a child make the choices themselves.
(which might be only difficult if your child does have a medically explained diagnosis which eg: destroys sense of satiation, or thyroid deficiency or some such!!)
"Also meant to say, I don't think you have to say no to a child to prevent them from becoming obese..
You simply make healthy food available in sensible portions, explain the problems of poor or over eating, rely on a child to have some sense of satiation and well being, and let a child make the choices themselves."
Parents aren't stupid. 99.9999% of parents would do exactly that.
The idea that people choose to do what is good for them if they have access to that information and the resources to practice it, is fundamentally flawed.
Many people prefer pleasure to health. I know I do. ;)
I'm speaking here as an obese mother of two small daughters - one of a healthy weight, one almost dangerously under-weight.
Older daughter (aged 4) hardly ever eats. I have tried making all kinds of food available to her, but not making a big deal of whether she eats it or not but just leaving her to it. I have tried buying her cooking things and having fun cooking and baking with her. I have tried picnics and posh restuarants. I have tried explaing to her how nurtition works and how we need food to grow and stop ourselves becoming ill. I have tried lots of things, but dd1 still has no interest whatsoever in eating.
Kids are people with their own likes, dislikes, ideas, priorities, desires, and foibles. They're not computer programs - these things are not simply a matter of pressing the right buttons!
But what aspect of France you were referring exactly? Schooling? Politics? Economy? In what are they bottom of the pile? Your opinion or some official statistic?
I doubt a child can easily learn about food (adults don't), before they do any harm to their bodies with their choices. It's not really easy to explain nutrition, especially if the child gets bored of the constant explanations.
At one point is neglect to let them exerce their free will and make mistakes that harm their bodies?
If as a parent you take such poor care of your own health and nutrition, you have little chance to have your child paying any attention to what you have to say on it.
Thinking about this some more...
While there are an awful lot of adults who are stupid enough to assume that a "low fat" label means a) no fat and b) less calories, on the whole, I think most obese people are actually very well-informed about nutrition.
There are so many possible reasons for becoming obese in either childhood or adulthood and most of them have nothing whatsoever to do with ignorance.
Most people accept that anorexia is caused by many complicated fatcors, yet people seem to assume that obesity is connected to ignorance. I don't understand why people think this. I've never met an obese person who is ignorant about nutrition. Never. In thirty years of life.
Some possible reasons for being obese:
1) Person enjoys eating and prioritises pleasure over health.
2) Person has been sexually abused and feels safer when "protected" by fat.
3) Person associates food with comfort and dieting with punishment, and, though capable of undoing the association *intellectually*, cannot undo the emotional aspect of the associations.
4) Person lacks will power and impulse control.
5) Person has health condition that causes, or contributes to causes, of obesity.
6) Person takes medication with side-effects that cause or contribute to obesity.
7) Person finds eating helps them over-come other addictions such as smoking.
8) Person suffers the type of depression that makes them too ill to even get out of bed, so lacks exercise.
9) Person has family problems and hates being at home, so spends as much time out of the house as possible and, thus, eats a lot of takeaways!
10)Person prefers their appearance when fat.
11) Person's partner or parents prefer their appearance when fat and person is overly and unhealthily wrapped up in what the partner or parents think of them.
11) Person lives with people who pressure them into eating a lot and is too meek and mild to do anything other than go along with it.
12) Person has been told so many times that they are greedy and lazy that they dare not believe anything else, so they always act the way that they believe people expect them to.
13) Person hates themselves and wants to look as ugly on the outside as they feel on the inside.
14) Person's pregnancy or menstruation hormones cause insatiable appetites, or cravings for a particular high-calorie food, that are so strong that they over-ride rational awareness that this is unhealthy.
15) Person gets bored easily and finds that eating relieves that boredom better than anything else they've tried.
16) Person has a low metabolism, that, while not medically significant, still makes them gain weight easily.
17) Person feels bullied by the media and people around them into being thin, and they are stubborn enough and proud enough that they would rather watch their health suffer than do what they feel is expected of them!
And these are just a few!
People are very, very, complicated creatures!
The "people will always do the best thing if they have the opportunity and the information about what that is" meme is, quite frankly, ludicrous! People really aren't that simple.
"If as a parent you take such poor care of your own health and nutrition, you have little chance to have your child paying any attention to what you have to say on it."
On the whole, children are far kinder and more open-minded than this. My daughter is not as judgemental, dismissive, or cruel, as this comment is.
My daughter listens to me and pays attention to my words, because she's a nice person who treats people with respect and kindness unconditionally.
I tell my daughter that we need food to give us energy to play, that we need it to help us grow properly, and to help our bodies fight off illness. I really don't think she looks at me and thinks "What would *you* know? You're obese!"
18) Exposure to cruel comments like the one made by anon, can erode a person's self-esteem and make them feel so small and worthless that they can't believe that they are a person worthy of taking care of themselves.
http://www.insee.fr/en/ffc/chifcle_fiche.asp?ref_id=NATTEF07116&tab_id=146
School enrollment for 3 years old is 100%! Does French compulsory education really start at 3 or is this just a parental choice?
I couldn't find statistics on childhood stuff yet. I'd be curious.
Sorry, Carlotta, I got very carried away with an OT subject there!
I'll carry on on my own blog, and leave yours to the original subject matter now! :)
To pick up on something said by Carlotta about witnessing violence towards children when she was on holiday in France, she mentioned that it was a lot worse than the violence she witnessed in the UK.
I, for instance, have seen lots of incidences of irrational, violent smacking of children in the UK, certainly as much as I saw in France.
Let's start doing something about the problem here.
Statistically, it seems, we favour corporal punishment towards children as much as the French.
9 European countries (in 2000 - are there more now?) outlaw spanking. As far as I know, France and England aren't one of them. An amusing comment from the spokesman for the government in the UK in defence of its stand is:
"the government does not want to interfere in the private relationship between parents and their children" Ha ha!
I must say I haven't seen much incidences of spanking in Britain (I saw one spanking in 4 years) but maybe it's a case of "you'll get it when we get home".
I certainly have never seen cases so extreme as a mother kicking their children, but the child abuse cases on the news are very severe, frequent scary. Never in my country I have heard of cases of mothers setting their own children on fire. Maybe it just doesn't make the news?
Parenting can be very cold and bossy but it seems more verbal here. I tend to find the constant coaching a bit unpassionate and artificial sometimes "now do this, now do that, good girl, good boy".
I was about to say a French person I talked with says the stereotype in the article is a stereotype. In France people think British parenting is actually stricter than theirs.
He says parenting there is as varied as anywhere else.
I will have to seek other explanations in that case, but I could honestly swear that in the short periods we have spent in France in the last few years, I have been consistently and completely unexpectedly shocked by the level of violence towards children, even amongst extremely wealthy-looking parents. One of the reasons that I was so unprepared for all this was that I had gone there under the impression that children were highly indulged.
I think most British parents would have been worried that they would overstep the legal right to reasonable chastisement with some of the treatment I saw in France, eg:
We saw one child, who appeared to have a quite bad case of dyspraxia, being kicked and dragged down the street by his ear and hair in one touristy town. The whole population issued out onto the street to watch with what appeared to be approval of parental actions.
My own children were horrified as they had never seen anything like it. I too was appalled. If this violence had been done to an adult, the perpetrator would have been banged up for assault in any European country.
If I want to talk with a friend and my somewhat precocious children are spoiling my fun by talking with them instead I try the following
1. let them chat for a minute or 2 then they usually wander off
2. If they keep talking I might say 'I don't get to see Polly very often and I really want to talk to her about something. Could you have a look at TV/DVD/phone a friend for a bit?'
I have also offered observation that when they have their friends round they don't usually want me to sit on sofa between them and chat.
This makes the kids smile but it is just about some mutual respect and I suppose offering good information.
have just been to France and our trip was mercifully free from ear pinching. In fact we saw very few families, it being term time. We did hear quite a few comments along the lines of 'What a massive family!' (4 children)
SF
I wonder how popular cases like this are in France:
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/pressass/20070618/tuk-man-jailed-over-paedophile-chatroom-6323e80.html
"We saw one child, who appeared to have a quite bad case of dyspraxia"
There we have, the lifetime mental illness label, which you could diagnose from a few minutes observation, instead of traditional discipline.
I was curious about the dyspraxia comment, as I wondered just how possible it was to judge the co-ordination and motor skills of someone who is being dragged down the street by their ear?
Dear Anon,
Dyspraxia may or may not have a neurolgical origin, but this of course, is absolutely not the same as a mental illness. Rather I meant the term to convey a non-specific diagnosis of motor difficulty. It was quite clear that he had contractures of various joints, spasmodic, uncontrolled, jerky movements, etc.
The reason I mentioned it at all was to imply that because of his very apparent extreme vulnerability, he clearly did not have the motor skills to have co-ordinated a deliberate physical attack upon an adult, so this action by the adults could not possibly have been a matter of genuine need for physical self-defence.
(very very sadly, I may add.)
Thanks for that SF.
Yes, I think this sounds like an eminently sensible solution.
You cannot make a diagnose just by looking at a child for a few minutes, no matter how much you have read about it.
There are many different illnesses that can cause motor difficulties and it could be the case of a child just goofing around.
Dyspraxia is not a non-specific diagnosis. It's in the DSM and is not just about motor difficulty. It's even discussed amongst psychiatrists if it's indeed a neurological disorder or a social condition.
You don't see a shy child and call the child autistic, and then go "well, I meant a child with non-specific difficulties in relating with others".
Although violence against children under any guise should not be excused, you are most likely to criticise an ear pull that can be of little consequence than a parent that pathologises their children's human imperfections and makes them dependent on the psychiatric industry and very likely state compulsion for life.
Is it a wise position to have? Food for thought.
Re: Obesity
I think that the best way to avoid eating disorders of whatever kind is to completely remove food from the realm of the emotional. Make sure there are plenty of things around that your children enjoy eating, and that includes crisps and sweets. Make sure that you bring food to them when they are involved in something that may be so wonderfully absorbing that they forget to take time out. You don't wait for pudding, using it as a reward for eating "proper food", you offer it up when it is wanted. My two children eat when they are hungry and what they are hungry for. That may mean they have spring rolls and rice mid-afternoon, or that they have an ice cream first thing in the morning. The ice cream in the morning occurs far less frequently than does the more balanced craving, but that doesn't mean that I shame them or talk about the value of a bowl of cereal over the ice cream when it does occur.
There are genetic tendencies to obesity, that doesn't mean it is inevitable, just that there is some genetic predisposition. It seems, though, that if you make food safe and accessible and varied, people will seek out the things that they are hungry for and will be less likely to seek out food when they aren't hungry to fulfill some sort of emotional need.
And 99.9999% of parents aren't doing that for their children. Really.
Schuyler
David pointed out the article to me when it came out and I raged and shouted and swore at The Telegraph for publishing such a load of clap-trap. Clearly a reactionary piece of rightwing nonsense over the idea that smacking children should be banned. The real problem is that if we honestly believe that the only way to handle a child is by hitting that child or threatening to hit that child than how on earth are we going to be able to defend our notion that humans are relatively intelligent creatures. Hitting, however systematic, is not a good response to behaviour. Hitting is mean and nasty and inappropriate. And I've hit my kids. Not for 5 years now, but that does mean that when I did they were very little. But as soon as I took hitting out of my toolbox, as soon as it was no longer something that I felt was an appropriate "disciplinary action" I found lots of other ways of working with Simon and Linnaea to deal with a situation. They wouldn't line up in a row and politely speak to Tante Jeannine, but they would be able to talk with her, interestingly, openly, about those things that interest them. And since I don't think of Simon or Linnaea as some sort of chattel, some sort of extension of my ego that demonstrates what a valuable and capable person I am, I don't need them to.
I would have enjoyed the 9 year old at her dinner party. I like 9 year olds.
Schuyler
I could not agree more! I find it staggering how short-sighted some parents can be in regard to this!
I do admit that the 99.9999 was an exageration - I wanted to post to say so, but felt I'd already cluttered up Carlotta's blog too much!
I would still like to think that at least 80% of parents do this "lots of choice and no pressure, and keeping emotional associations bland" thing though.
Some people are foolish enough not to think of the emotional "signals" that they give to their children, but I very much hope that such people are in the minority.
Cluttering some more...
I think there's also an awful lot of truth in the idea that many people seek such oral gratification when denied this as a baby. I know it sounds like psychological claptrap, but it actually makes a lot of sense.
As a baby I was bottlefed to schedule (five hourly) and left to cry alone a lot of the rest of the time. Now I always feel very reassured and comforted when there is a sweet taste in my mouth - it makes me feel safe. And I do think a big part of the reason that I feel this way is that I was denied that comfort when I actually *needed* it, so now feel an urge to seek it inappropriately at the wrong time of life.
I am well aware that I don't have to give in to this urge and that the responsibilty for my choices lies firmly on the shoulders of the adult that I am right now, not the baby that I was or the parents that I had. What I am trying to do here is demonstrate how associations can be formed.
My style of over-eating means that I chew on squares of chocolate like many people chew on sticks of gum. I don't eat large portions of food, and I only tend to have one meal a day. I get full-up easily (even when I don't eat chocolate all the time! LOL) and don't gorge. But I don't want to forgo the comfort and pleasure that the chocolate brings to me. I don't care what the "price" is.
I also associate it with home, as we lived near to the Cadbury's factory when I was a child, and my nan used to work there. When I feel homesick or lonely, chocolate takes me back to memories of a time when I felt safe and happy.
I don't "blame" *anything or anyone except for myself* for my eating habits; we are all responsible for our individual life choices. Also I really am happy with my weight on the whole (although I don't like the way it seems to stick a "target" sign on my back...)
What I'm trying to get across (here and in my earlier list of the different possible reasons different people might have for being obese) is that there are many varied and personal reasons people might have for becoming obese, and that destructive eating habits are, as you so eloquently explain, Schuyler, more likely to be down to emotional reasons than to nutritional ignorance.
Obesity is a far closer relation to anorexia than many people seem to realise. Sure people can be obese and emotionally well; people can also be dangerously under-weight and emotionally well. But people are so aware of the problems of anorexia that they usually refrain from criticising and condemning the under-weight, as they understand that the reasons for this may be complicated - society needs to develop the same awareness of, and compassion towards, obesity.
I am very scared to expose such intimate thoughts and feelings in public like this, but I kind of feel a moral duty to offer myself up as a "case study"! LOL!
Seriously though, it is my belief that if more people talked openly about such things, then we would have a more compassionate and understanding society. :)
And *slightly* closer to the original subject (LOL!) -
Hitting children is completely unjustifiable, and probably damaging, but I do think that, on the whole, it causes far less long term harm than many other parental actions might.
"Time outs" for example give a message "act as other people wish you to, or you shall be isolated from society". :(
Diagnosises leave people vulnerable to discrimination in later life, and also give the message that the person is in some way "faulty" and needs to be "fixed" (Not a great way to build confidence and self-esteem!)
Moralising (telling a child that the actions you dislike are independently "wrong") discourages introspection and moral responsibility.
While refraining from offering guidance *at all* can leave a child anchorless and adrift!
Basically, whatever we do as parents, there's a good chance that at some point along the way our actions, intentionally or not, are likely to be harmful to our children in some way or another - if we can remain aware of this fact then we have a better chance of avoiding it or countering it afterwards.
The best parents, imo, are not those who profess to be great (as, chances are, they're lying to themselves) Rather, the best parents are those who keep an open-mind, respond to what they hear from their children, are courageous enough to recognise and admit to their mistakes when they make them, and try to counter or undo any harm that they cause their children.
That is the ultimate demonstration of responsibility and the best possible example to set to one's children. :)
I think this is what a civilised and compassionate society should be aiming for.
Reasons for anorexia are anything but complex. Girls put looks and what other people think of their body before their health. They have a goal and they decide to take risks. Most know they can die, but they rather die than have their boyfriend or girlfriends see them in a bikini.
It's as much as complex psychiatric disorder as causing severe injury by climbing a montain, being a soldier, etc.
Culture decided some risks people take with their health are insane while others are heroic.
Obesity is more about finding comfort in food above anything else. It's probably better compared to alcoholism, drug addition, etc.
There isn't usually a goal like in anorexia. It's a vicious circle of sorts, because the more weight you gain, the less opportunities to find other sources of enjoyment in life you have.
(Am deleting my last three comments, making a few very tiny edits, and amalgating them into one for the sake of clarity! Hope that's okay, Carlotta!)
Do you think anorexia is just about a desire to be thin?
It isn't just about looks. Anorexic's look in the mirror and see something very different to what others see when they look at them. Their self-perception is distorted.
You believe an obese person should lose weight? So do many anorexics, and often anorexics believe that *they* are obese.
It can also be about fear of physical maturity. Starving ourselves of food stops our periods and desexualises our bodies.
Many anorexics (though by no means all) have been sexually abused.
The biggest factor is control. A person feels lost, frightened, and powerless, and they try to take what little control they can by pushing their bodies to the point of collapse.
To say that anorexia is about a person not wanting to be seen in a bikini is ignorant and unfair.
I never claimed that it was a "psychiatric disorder" or "insane" - I said it was highly complex and emotionally based.
"There isn't usually a goal like in anorexia."
True. That's a big difference. Though the anorexic's "goal" is more complex than you accept.
"It's a vicious circle of sorts, because the more weight you gain, the less opportunities to find other sources of enjoyment in life you have."
Again, very true. However many of us are not *gaining* weight - so the circle isn't there! :)
"Obesity is more about finding comfort in food above anything else. It's probably better compared to alcoholism, drug addition, etc."
It's good that you recognise the comfort thing, as I think that's frequently the biggest factor.
But re the alcoholism/drug addiction compasion:
Alcoholics and drug addicts can't "just cut back a little" and obese people can't "go cold turkey".
It is harder for an alcoholic to quit as they have to quit completely. Drinking in moderation is not an option for an alcoholic.
At the same time, the fact that it is not possible to quit eating completely makes it harder for an obese person addicted to over-eating (not all obese people have this "addiction" of course; just talking about those who do) to quit, as for many people it is harder to do something in moderation than to simply stop doing it altogether.
Plus alcoholics and drug addicts have to go through terrible withdrawal symptoms when they quit their addictions. Whereas, the worst an obese person is likely to get is a mild de-tox headache.
An alcholic or drug addict can remove drink and drugs from their environment, so they aren't immediately accessible in moments of weakness or temptation. An obese person can't do that with food.
Thinking on the anorexia/obesity similarity/differences thing some more, I think the control thing is the biggest difference. Many obese people feel out of control so stop trying to gain it. Some anorexics feel out of control so fight even harder to gain it.
I guess society finds the latter excess more palatable than the former?
And, just as an obese person may find comfort in excess; an anorexic may find comfort in control.
On reflection, I do agree there are certainly many differences between anorexia and obesity. The two conditions are actually opposite extremes in many ways, but they can be opposite extremes of the same basic problem that often originates from the same emotional origins.
(Did I *really* just say that something can originate from the same origins?? Not up to my usual high standard of eloquence that... LOL!)
Just to clarify, I am certainly *not* saying any of this applies to all obese people or all anorexics- I hope that's clear.
Oops! I didn't realise it would leave the comments up and mark them as deleted! So sorry for making your comments box look messy, Carlotta! On mine it just removes the comments as though they never existed, and doesn't make such a mess, so I thought it would be the same here - I do apologise!
Don't worry, 33....am enjoying the debate, and will try to do something to eradicate deleted comments permanently, though since blogger went over to google, haven't entirely got a handle on their new comment system, which appears to differ only very slightly, but thoroughly confusingly!
Hi Anon,
"You cannot make a diagnose just by looking at a child for a few minutes, no matter how much you have read about it."
Nor did I, nor would I dream of doing so, and I think it was merely a matter of using words in different ways which may have led you to imagine that I did try to do this.
When I say things like dyslexia or dyspraxia, I personally take them to mean their etymological roots, and do not mean to convey anything more than a difficulty reading or difficulty moving. I certainly would not mean to imply anything more by such designations and hope that this could be generally understood henceforth!
However, as a nurse in a former life, who did have responsibility for triage and history taking, I am pretty sure that I could have been struck off had I not been able to tell the difference between goofing around and genuine contractures and difficulty moving. We are talking of the order of a child with reasonably severe problems, such as one with CP, for example.
"You don't see a shy child and call the child autistic, and then go "well, I meant a child with non-specific difficulties in relating with others".
No, but this is not a fair comparison, as autism is a term which for me does not have a general meaning, though does designate a DSM. Nor would I assume that shyness was anything other than that.
However, if a child demonstrated severe difficulty with co-ordination, severe contractures of wrists, knees and hips, not much evidence of motor control, I think one could the difficulty moving!!! THIS IS ALL I DID. :) Geddit?
"Although violence against children under any guise should not be excused, you are most likely to criticise an ear pull that can be of little consequence than a parent that pathologises their children's human imperfections and makes them dependent on the psychiatric industry and very likely state compulsion for life."
I agree that this would be wrong. However, this is not what I did, as I hope you can understand.
There is another point here too...it can be harmful not to acknowledge neurological differences, since this too can lead to regarding a person as morally deficient, when sometimes, they are simply incapable. I have seen people with a complete and intractable inability to read facial and bodily expressions marginalised and bullied, despite extensive help from parents to get them to understand what people were saying when they didn't say things literally. The bullying and parental pressure stopped almost as soon as the child was labelled ASD and the child was simply allowed to then get on with playing to his strengths.
ie: labelling can have it's benefits too.
Hi Carl,
"When I say things like dyslexia or dyspraxia, I personally take them to mean their etymological roots, and do not mean to convey anything more than a difficulty reading or difficulty moving."
Since they are DSM diagnoses you should avoid using such terminology in a child you don't even know.
"We are talking of the order of a child with reasonably severe problems such as one with CP, for example."
From dyspraxia we moved to cerebral palsy?
You saw a child didn't seem to have much motor control. That's what you saw.
I don't agree about labels being useful because they are for life and those problems might be temporary. You have to believe in the myth of the average child to accept a label judging their ability for this or that.
Having a paper in public databases saying you are not normal, that's quite a big thing.
I think what we're looking at here is an intolerant society that has difficulty with the word "can't".
If people felt more confident to be able to stand up and say "I can't do x, y, or z" without feeling that this reflected badly on them as people, and if others would receive this information as exactly that, make no judgements, accept that people don't use the word "can't" unless they mean it and not try to challenge the person's statement ("Yes, you can! Everybody can! Look it's easy!" etc) then there wouldn't be any "need" for labelling at all.
As it is, labels bring a bizarre kind of prejudiced tolerance, which sounds like a contradiction, yet seems to apply well.
Labels give excuses to normal differences between individuals when *these need no excusing*. Labels excuse a person's identity. Can you imagine living as though you have to excuse who you are? "My personality isn't my fault; I have ADHD" - as though your differences are something to apologise for? :(
If a person has problems reading non-verbal signals or taking things too literally,for example, then they should be able to say "I have trouble reading non-verbal signals, and I tend to take things to literally" and that should be information enough to help others understand where they're coming from without having to muddy the waters with medical terms like ASD.
This is how it *should* be, but, unfortunately this is not the case presently and that reflects very badly on our society. :(
I am fairly certain that I could recieve a diagnosis of dsypraxia if I were inclined to seek one. I have terrible motor skills, hyper-sensitivity to sounds, smells etc, and varying other things that I can't think of off the top of my head. I was constantly in trouble at school for messy and lazy presentation of my work. I would be told that I hadn't taken care in drawing a margin, for example, when in actual fact I had made about twenty attempts to do so. Had I been a child today I would have recieved the diagnosis and the bullying by the teachers would have stopped.
It is this that leads people to mistakenly believe that labels are a good idea, when what we actually need is to understand and accept that different people have different strengths and weaknesses.
Had my teachers been able to do this then the bullying would never have *started* and I wouldn't have needed a label to stop it. People shouldn't have to open themselves up to a lifetime of prejudice and constrictive defintions, in order to be shown respect and understanding.
Adele (tired of being nothing more than a number in a faceless system! LOL)
Seems we cross-posted then, Anon! :)
"From dyspraxia we moved to cerebral palsy?"
Dear Anon,
That is a very poor rendition of what I said for the reason that it is likely to lead to conclusions about what I wrote but which I did not actually write.
eg: I did not say that this child HAD CP. I said that his problems were of a kind that would have been consistent with a diagnosis of CP.
I think we could solve the problems we have been having, Anon, if you made an attempt to read what was written, and in conjuction with this, made an attempt to understand what was meant.
"You saw a child didn't seem to have much motor control. That's what you saw."
Yes, that is what I meant and, as I have already explained, in the etymological meaning of the word dyspraxia, this is what I wrote.
YOU were the one who imagined I meant to imply that I had applied the DSM meaning of the word, which I did not and in fact, would not, use for the reason that I, much like the rest of human kind, have no idea what that term is actually meant to designate.
Dear Carl (or should I call you Otta?)
"were of a kind that would have been consistent with a diagnosis of CP"
You are trying to make yourself sound proper with big words now, but saying exactly the same thing. You can't know how consistent it would actually be. Cerebral palsy is not the only set of neurological disorders who manifests motor problems like spasms, dyskenesia, ataxia, etc.
"I think we could solve the problems we have been having"
The problem I see here is you don't want to admit you made a mistake because it would make you look bad and spoil your popularity.
"in the etymological meaning of the word dyspraxia"
What about the etymological meaning of the word arrogant? Is that familiar to you? :P
"YOU were the one who imagined"
LOL! Brilliant, soon I am going to be pointed out as having a kind of something consistent with a diagnose of schizophrenia.
Of course if I am "diagnosed" with such a "real" illness, anything I will say will certainly be deemed irrational and nothing I say will make any sense. So yeah, poke people with that assumption, that will work.
"You are trying to make yourself sound proper with big words now, but saying exactly the same thing. You can't know how consistent it would actually be. Cerebral palsy is not the only set of neurological disorders who manifests motor problems like spasms, dyskenesia, ataxia, etc."
I am not sure about the merits or otherwise of trying to convey a message in public about the benefits of reading accurately, but the mild irritation that I feel when you repeatedly misrepresent what I write and the meaning of what I write spurs me to continue.
Of course it is possible that your remarks are deliberately obtuse for the purposes of trolling, in which case I write this not for you, but simply to clarify the situation for any other readers who may have made it thus far.
I never said that CP was the only way in which his symptoms could have been explained. I was trying to convey the problems he clearly had by saying that a diagnosis of CP would not have been incongruent. Do you really not understand the difference here?
"I think we could solve the problems we have been having"
"The problem I see here is you don't want to admit you made a mistake because it would make you look bad and spoil your popularity."
No, the problem is one of you, for a reason that is unclear to me, misunderstanding and misrepresenting what I wrote.
You should rest assured, I am fully acquainted with being unpopular as a result of the expression of my views in writing and in person, and I am also fully acquainted with changing my mind when I am convinced by good argument that I should.
"What about the etymological meaning of the word arrogant? Is that familiar to you? :P"
I think it has something to do with "arrogate" and is Latin in origin...so yes, I think so, but how does that pertain to the situation here? Please be aware that ad hominems are a reason for moderation on this blog.
"Of course if I am "diagnosed" with such a "real" illness, anything I will say will certainly be deemed irrational and nothing I say will make any sense."
To take this out of current context and borrow it for the (sort of) original one:
That's the worst thing about labels. The label is always seen first, and the person second (and that's *if* the person gets seen at all).
Mental health labels especially do this. Those with such labels attached to them are no longer permitted to have moods or react to circumstances like the non-labelled population do - every emotion they display is deemed to be a "symptom".
This is, perhaps, the most horrific consequence of accepting a diagnosis - from then onwards everything the person says and does will be attributed to their "illness". Their humanity will no longer be recognised.
This is too high a price to pay to avoid bullying from unsympathetic and ignorant teachers and other such people. Labelling a child might make their life easier in the short term, but in the long term it could well destroy them. :(
Adele
Which brings my chain of thought back to the anorexia/obese thing.
Someone who is killing themselves by under-eating is given the label "anorexic" - a mental health condition.
Someone who is killing themselves by over-eating is given the label "morbidly obese" - a self-inflicted physical health condition.
The differences in society's attitudes to the two groups because of the difference in the labelling in fascinating!
The moribdly obese person is given little sympathy, as their condition is deemed to be self-inflicted. They are assumed to be foolish, ignorant, selfish, lazy, greedy etc but *not* mentally ill.
The anorexic, however, is given a great deal of support and sympathy for an illness that is not their "fault". But they *are* deemed to be mentally ill and will have to carry that for the rest of their lives.
If both the anorexic and the morbidly obese person manage to reach a normal, healthy, weight; the formerly obese person is no longer chained by the prejudices that were associated with their condition. Whereas the former anorexic will bear that label for life - it will always be there - say if they wanted to adopt, their past history of anorexia would certainly be considered in-depth and may even lead to their application being refused, even though they are no longer affected by their condition.
While they have their weight problems, the obese person is treated with contempt and condemnation and the anorexic with support and sympathy. When their problems are over, the obese person is completely free of their history, and the anorexic is "watched", "monitored" and discriminated against.
So what's the answer here?
Perhaps we need to recognise that emotional problems happen and those affected by them deserve our support and sympathy, but that we, as a society, should stop treating a person's feelings and ways of expressing them as illnesses.
And...
That the emotions felt by a "mentally ill" person are not some twisted distortions of a misfiring brain, they are the normal reactions of a normal person to current or past stressful situations.
When a person breaks their leg, we don't assume that the fact they can't walk, and the pain that they suffer, is due to their inability to handle leg breaks, do we?
There is a remarkable lack of common sense in psychiatry...
Observations have been made that depressed people have low levels of serotonin in the brain - from this there has followed a totally illogical assumption that depression is caused by this deficiency.
Did it ever occur to them that the simultaneous manifestion of two different things is not sufficent evidence to presume that one is the cause of the other? Or that it is just as likely that prolonged sadness could cause a temporary lull in serotonin levels that lasts only so long as the emotion does?
They assume the chemical deficiency causes the emotional upset, when it is just as likely to be the other way round! [rolls eyes]
This demonstrates such astounding ignorance and profound prejudice on the part of those involved in mental health research, that it should be enough to invalidate these decidedly UNprofessional and UNscientific opinions altogether!
I can imagine these researchers at home with their families:
Kid: Daddy which came first the chicken or the egg?
Researcher: The chicken did, poppet.
Kid: But, but, but... It's meant to be a riddle!
Researcher: No, pumpkin, the chicken came first. Chickens lay eggs you see.
Kid: But, but... Chickens come out of eggs too!
Researcher: What? Erm... Don't be silly! Anyway, it's past your bedtime.
;)
Adele
I have better things to do than to troll your blog. I read and comment on your blog because I am interested in the topic, not because I detests it.
If you don't value criticism ignore it or don't let it through. Simple.
You are getting awfully defensive and even patronizing because you don't want to admit a mistake! I'll drop it, but let's say I understand beyond what you want me to understand. ;)
Now, to go back on topic...
Doo you want to clarify what you meant by "bottom of the pile?"
Do you mean the Unicef report, where the UK is actually below France? Is this a "we are bottom but you're running there too" thing?
Wouldn't that be making Britain look a bit silly?
I mean, worry about your own country. How can it be better? Do you to be top of the pile in a Unicef report?
Should Britain look up to the Netherlands, which is top of the pile? As Unicef wants them, they forbid spanking. But also as Unicef wants them they made schooling compulsory.
Carlotta,
I apologise if I misinterpreted you.
Thanks, Anon. Are you one and the same as the above poster?
Thinking on what you said yesterday, anonymous (I'll ditch the abreviation, but you'll have to surrender the capital "A" then! :P) this bit:
"Culture decided some risks people take with their health are insane while others are heroic"
is an astute observation.
Is it to do with identification, do you think? If people can imagine *themselves* wanting to do something it's heroic, if they can't it's insane?
The word "insanity" seems to be frighteningly close to being used as synonymous with "minority"...
I bet most people think home educators are insane, for example.
And this:
"Obesity is more about finding comfort in food above anything else. It's probably better compared to alcoholism, drug addition, etc."
is quite true. I got side-tracked thinking about the differences (and, in honesty, I was more than a little defensive for some reason) yesterday, but, on the whole, I think the analogy is a good one. :)
"Is it to do with identification, do you think? If people can imagine *themselves* wanting to do something it's heroic, if they can't it's insane?"
Perhaps it has to do with how much it seems to benefit society as a whole and if it brings new knowledge that helps mankind to evolve.
I was also thinking it might help if obese people indulge in their eating pleasure but learn to do it more rationally. Taste many different foods instead of eating a lot of the same.
Instead of tons of chocolate bought in a supermarket, what about joining a chocolate tasting club?
"Perhaps it has to do with how much it seems to benefit society as a whole and if it brings new knowledge that helps mankind to evolve."
Though extreme sports do none of those things yet they're not seen as insane...
"I was also thinking it might help if obese people indulge in their eating pleasure but learn to do it more rationally."
Undoubtedly. :)
"Taste many different foods instead of eating a lot of the same."
Most people already do this, I think. Not everyone is like I am! :P
"Instead of tons of chocolate bought in a supermarket, what about joining a chocolate tasting club?"
The problem with that is that it would involve a huge change in one's mindset.
It would be a very positive change,of course, but such things can't be switched on like a light. They take time and work.
I try to do this. I try to see food in this way; to take pleasure in sensuality, rather than excess. But it isn't as easy to do it, as it is to think of it.
Often *the excess* is the addiction, rather than the food itself (which is more true in my case than I'd previously realised and I will think about it as soon as I've finished writing this).
There can be a "collecting" mentality in those of us who over-eat, a sense where excess makes a person feel safe. It's the same personality type as those who hoard their posessions and never throw anything away. As though we expect disaster to strike us any second and we are trying to "pack for the crash".
Of course, it *is* irrational. I wouldn't deny that.
The problem there is that, when something is "not rational" we can't address it rationally, as this is not the area where the "problem" occurs.
If a "problem" is an emotional one, chances are it can't be addressed through reason.
When behaviours are governed by the emotions, it doesn't matter how many reasonable and sensible suggestions are given for more sensible ways to behave; the change needs to begin internally.
And, of course, this needs to start with a positive *desire* to change.
If a person has no desire to change then they won't, and nor should they have to.
If they have only a negative desire to change (feeling bullied or pressured into it, for example) it rarely gives a person enough commitment to the idea to do the work (both internal and external)on themselves that is needed to effect the change.
Only a positive desire to change, a really *wanting* this change, can give a person enough motivation and resolve to undo the knots in their heads (both rationally and emotionally) and change their habits accordingly.
If this desire is absent, change is unlikely.
"Though extreme sports do none of those things yet they're not seen as insane..."
Yes, they do. Knowledge on what the human body and technology can achieve in the physical world.
http://www.chocs.co.uk/
Yum, yum.
"Yum, yum."
Is highly subjective. I wouldn't trust the "yum yum"s of a person who eats candy of the nothing-but-sugar-and-additives variety for instance. :P
Just realised what I said earlier could be interpreted as though I think all it takes to change is the desire to.
I *don't* think it's that easy, of course, and I would never patronise anyone who is unhappy with any area of their life by telling them "If you *wanted* to change, you would do it!" because, of course, neither life nor people are that simplistic.
Is the UK doing that good?
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/skynews/20070625/tuk-fury-over-pathetic-sentence-for-chil-45dbed5.html
Post a Comment