Hm, I thought this was interesting so I'll add some of my own thoughts. It's not going to be a full discussion though, just random ideas.
Also, babies are the focus here, but the idea behind why this is a question, can be applied to others too, like mentally disabled adults, so I'm keeping both in mind / talking about both.
This seems basic, but I always wonder... why can't people just try to work with them? Like if you want someone to do something, and they don't want to do something, why not just talk to them? Explain your side, and understand their side?
A random example, but think of a child who doesn't want to brush their teeth, why is the first and only solution always just,,, forcing them to brush their teeth, instead of trying to work with them? Like, what if the reason they don't want to brush their teeth is because the toothpaste burns? Again, it seems like the answer is just force them to live with the burning, instead of just,,, buying different toothpaste...
I think of my own childhood, and I just don't think I had issues like that. Whenever I was having some 'noncompliance' issue, it's like, there was a solution, I was just never given one / the opportunity for one, and I know this because I found those solutions as an adult.
And like, does it not teach terrible lessons? That pain is something to live with / give up on stopping, rather than address? That you shouldn't form independent thoughts, and disagree with others? Or that if someone wants you to do something that hurts you, you should just do it anyways? Just, disregard your own value in this? It may seem dramatic given the toothpaste example, but it's the same core idea, applicable to many other things, like child abuse, aka 'discipline', you are just not supposed to speak out about it, because children aren't supposed to disagree, or avoid pain, or value themselves...
Same with child sexual abuse, it's always weirded me out how, if a child doesn't want their parents/family/whoever to touch them / hug them / kiss them / etc., they're just supposed to have that happen to them anyways, and the child struggling and disagreeing is seen as 'cute'. Like,,, I don't see people pulling the same shit with adults or nonfamily (approved) memebers, if a some random man was kissing+touching a woman while she repeatedly told him to stop, that's surely abusive? Even if a teacher did the same thing to their child student, that's surely also abusive? But you make it a kid instead of a adult/woman, or a family (approved) member instead of a stranger, and all the sudden it's 'cute'.
I suppose, one idea is, if they're all adults, it's assumed to be sexual. But, well, I disagree with that. Not just on the basis child sexual abuse / assault / etc. is real, but also that harm and consent only matters if it's with sexual intent.
I truly think it matters for everything, and the idea sexual intended actions (regardless of whether or not they are directly about sex, to include fetishes and such) are somehow always inherently evil, and nonsexual actions are always inherently nice (somehow,,, do people forget violence exists when conversations like this come up?), is just ridiculous, and harmful to society. Who is to say what causes more pain? Or what even causes pain? And how could it ever be anyone except the affected individual? Pain olympics, such a peculiar concept. And, controversially, should things not be wrong, solely on the basis it's unconsensual? Does it really need to pass some magic pain threshold for it to warrant stopping / being wrong. Well, my beliefs I think are clear.
It's so peculiar anyways, what's sexual for one person could be unsexual for another person.
Then I guess it's family, or, as I keep saying, family + family approved members. Which I think, just,,, really highlights that,,, this is just a property issue (children being the property here). It's not about certain actions being wrong or sexual, it's just, are you doing something to somebody else's shit? Even if it's the same actions, the negativity of them changes based on the ownership to the child. Strangers are wrong because it's not THEIR child, teachers are wrong because it's only their student, and family and family friends are okay because it's their child + the owners gave consent to interact with their property like that (and it's also how the previous two examples could be excused, if the parents consent (child's consent doesn't matter)).
Call it grim, but it really just seems like a matter of ownership, and owner superiority (so, everyone wants to hurt children, except their parents. Which... is just plainly untrue given the existence of abusive parents (though, the point is the people who think this don't believe in parental child abuse) and also just,, a very peculiar way of looking at things, very,,, possessive. Or some, only the owners know what's right for their property, other's don't get to interfere, type shit.)
The point is, the idea of biological relation lending itself to goodness is just plain untrue, else even the people themselves, who believe this, wouldn't be allowing friends, hired caretakers, or family in-laws to interact with their children. It's just, 'are they doing what I want them to do?' type situation. Ultimate authority and power over a human (what a power trip, eh?)
Even the law, dubious thing. A lot of people have this idea, the law, schools, doctors, and anyone else, shouldn't interfere with children, it should be the parents choice only, they have to get the final say. So very possessive. Like what people do with women/wives, hm?
Well, I guess that's a bit of a tangent, and this was supposed to be a short post...
Again, can you not just work with them though? Even if you end up doing the same thing, I think, there mere possibility of them being allowed to disagree, and do something, is still importantly positive. Also like, why not just explain? People complain to others, kid are the focus here, but it happens with others too, that they should do or think or feel so and so, without any explanation. It's just assuming they have the same knowledge, which, how even? Everybody has to learn everything, and everyone has different lives, how could anybody, just be randomly assumed (without any evidence) that they know the same things you do, when they have different brains?
Like, how would anyone ever know the purpose of teeth brushing is to remove food (remnant), because that causes cavities, which permanently damages teeth, which leads to pain and issues consuming food, as well as general unpleasant tastes and smells of the mouth, so on, if no one ever tells them this? If the only knowledge they are allowed to have is, 'stop arguing with me' and ' know better, you don't' (know better about what? why not prove it?), God forbid, actually agree with these ideas.
Babies, and some other people, can't speak, so options are limited. But again, I think just merely making an effort would do a lot. Why not just pay attention and try to understand them? Babies can typically cry, and that can be quite a clear thing. They want their diaper changed, they cry, diaper gets changed, they stop crying. Why could that same methodology not be applied to anything else? If they cry, or show something that could be interpreted as discomfort, why not just listen to that, and try figure something out (what else the problem may be, or some other way of doing things)? Why give such clear signs of communication so little credit?
And, go minimal right? Listen, but try not to overstep (so try to avoid making unnecessary choices). Some things, like cosmetic surgeries, why not just wait until they're older? Or at least, try to give them the best odds for understanding.
And if you end up making an incorrect choice, well, you made an incorrect choice. It can be reasonable and well intended, and still most certainly wrong, such ideas can coexist. Move on and correct those mistakes, when you're given the opportunity (like, by them being old enough to say something...) (isn't it a fortune, anyways, to have the opportunity to do good / better / stop doing wrong?)
I just feel like, it's not so much ground rules, but rather the sentiment of respect (so, being flexible and understanding to others), and simply just making an effort to be respectful and kind ( actual kindness btw, not just 'I'm right so it's kind (even if you disagree with me)'). Solid rules wouldn't make sense anyways, because what's helpful for one person is harmful for another.
It just seems like, it's less about uplifting people, and helping them make choices (or building them up so they can make choices in the future), and more about controlling people. Uplifting yourself, giving yourself power.
Even, and this isn't the first place I've seen this idea, but everywhere... the way care, that is benefits / good health / etc., is considered to be at the cost of freedom / power / consent / etc. in it of itself telling of a really terrible thing. That getting to live, and getting to live how you want / disagree with others has an inverse relationship, instead of coexisting, or something to increase the other.
Why should, say, shelter, be at the cost of physical safety?
Why should any of these things have a 'price' at all? Can it not just be given because it'd help them?
It just seems like it's a matter of power again, of realising what has value to someone, can be used coerce other's into being useful, in a way they won't choose to be without these forces.
So 'care' is put at the opposite of 'freedom' or some other price, because they know it can be used to benefit themselves. You know, just hold something really important hostage, or make it a 'fair' trade, and you can make a another person a tool.
Like lords and peasants, 'of course you can't live on this land for free! Of course you have to pay me!' Even though it's physically possible, and they could at least try working out some agreement, it's better for the lord this way. They get more for themselves, they don't have to compromise on their power, they don't have to be challenged.
Or threats, 'of course you have to pay me! I'm the one that's keeping you safe!' (they're the ones who are the danger to begin with).
Parents use similar arguments, 'of course you have to do what I say! It's my house! And if you disobey, I'll punish you!'
It's just a power game, get more for yourself, never let yourself be challenged, never give anyone else the opportunity to stop being useful to you.
Maybe I am the metaphorical baby here, for naively believing care is a basic human right, not something to be bought, and that care and power (or freedom, just the word freedom, like you're escaping something oppressive) aren't inherently inverses, only created to be that way. That maybe people can just, help each other, without hurting each other.
(To be clear, I believe selfish / personal gain for doing things is good, but actually hurting people, taking their consent, power, etc. away, that's not a necessity or good. Like you can and should be selfish, AND selfishness shouldn't be defined by hurting other people / taking from them / whatever. Like me and my husband are selfish, but that doesn't mean we're being unconsensual, or lording whatever important things over each others head, we just, are selfish AND help each other, not fundamentally incompatible (or taking) concepts.)
Or something like that...
ellievsbear
origamiaround
kianamaiart
blakekathryn
vaporwave
discoholicmusic
stormborns
andulkaphoto
titsay
