So at the moment I can’t sleep (stilla bit ill) and I figured I’d go haunt the only good feminist insanity message board left. I couldn’t remember the link so I did a google search and found myself via some clicks to a new place. Now, I haven’t been through it all yet, but one section caught my eye about “[[wp:Non Coercive Parenting]]”.
On the surface, it almost seems reasonable. One definition starts…
- “Parents should raise children by supporting their autonomy and creativity” – ok, not bad so far.
- “solving conflicts with mutual consent solutions” – a lofty goal for sure
- “never coercion” – and now you are out of your flipping mind
If we look a little deeper, we see that there is more to stuff. Now, remember I don’t mind some of these concepts as a desirable goal when it can be achieved imagine how impractical it woudl be to actually have this be the only resolution you would ever accept to any problem. Read the below, think about your life and see if this is a possibility in common conflict resolution…
“Unanimous Consent: The criterion of decision-making in “consent-based” relationships. That is, wherever there is a disagreement, the parties jointly create a *common preference*. A common preference is a real solution of the problem — not a compromise (where none of the parties really prefers the outcome), not coercion (where one or other party prefers the outcome while the other person still retains an active wish for the outcome to be other than it is), not self-sacrifice (which is self-coercion), but something better: an outcome *created* by the knowledge-building institution under which the decision-making process operates — an outcome which was not in existence at the start of the interaction, an outcome which each party *prefers* to his initial competing theory, an outcome which if someone were to suggest the parties reject in favor of one of their initial competing theories, the party whose initial theory that was would say “No! I prefer the new theory.” See TCS consensus for more information.” – quote in context
Not in this lifetime. It’s simply not always possible. Of course even the people who spout this stuff know that, so they have a few other concepts in place:
TCS advocates certain asymmetries in how parents and children should treat each other. These asymmetries being:
- Parents are morally obliged to support their children, while the children have no ‘balancing’ obligation to obey their parents.
- In the event of failing to find a common preference, parents give way to their children.
There is more. You can’t talk about this without their idea of “coercion” – so here it is, apparently from their list…
“Our definition of coercion makes precise the idea of being compelled to act against one’s own will.
By โcoercionโ we mean
1. the psychological state of enacting one idea or impulse while a conflicting impulse is still active in one’s mind.This leads to some subsidiary meanings:
2. the action of intentionally or recklessly placing someone in a state of enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in the person’s mind;
3. behaviour that is intended, or likely, to do this.
Coerce:
Intentionally or recklessly to place someone in a state of coercion (1); or to behave in a way that is intended, or likely, to do this.Coercive:
likely to place someone in a state of enacting one theory while a rival theory is still active in his or her mind.” – quote in context
This is, of course, a silly definition of the concept ot coercion in many ways. What they are attempting to do then is live a life without doubt, self conflict or competing theories. The result of this, they claim, is going to be enhanced creativity. What it will really be, in the end, is a form of stupid anarchy.
“Limits for children should be defined by and for the individual children themselves in all situations. If parents have theories to share, it is right that they do so but only in ways that do not put the children in a state of coercion.” – quote in context
So… what does this mean? It means if you can’t get your kids to agree with you – oh wait, that’s coercive. Um, I mean if you and your children cannot reach “unanimous consent” then your child’s decision stands. How does this work in practice? Well, if your like some of these people then you let your two year old child stunt their own development and growth by refusing medical help.
“A preverbal 2 year old (April birthday) with a moderate hearing loss has had hearing aids for less than a month. Child is very clear that s/he is uninterested in wearing them. S/he covers ears to avoid insertion or removes them after a few minutes.
Child communicates clearly but is significantly speech delayed. Some sign language is being used in home. Parents are learning it as fast as they are able. Child is interested and spoken/sign vocab has doubled in the last 3 months but is still less than 25 words.” – quote in context
Hmm… you think to yourself that maybe a two year old child might not have all the information needed to make a decision about their health that would last their whole life? Just maybe? MORON?
The final outcome you ask?
“We have chosen for now to return the hearing aids and will try them again in 6 months or a year. It is too bad that he felt so negatively as his hearing loss is ideal for amplification.” – quote in context
Idiocy.