Ideas about Abuse-Proofing Children
When we first have children, most of us child-proof the home. We change things around so that our child can't grab stuff that will break or will present a danger to the child.
Its also possible to abuse-proof the child.
All serious and ongoing abuse happens when a child is cornered. Until learned helplessness has been established, children will definitely move out of the way of an unpleasant event. It stands to reason that if emergency exits - simple ways out - exist for any child, in case of painful abuse, they will use them and thereby protect themselves.
I have the idea that the situation of no options or no way out is, in itself, a victimizing situation. No matter how nice mommy and daddy are, no matter if they never hit, never yell, never do anything but "set boundaries", the net result is still: the person feels, and is victimized. By the parent? No. By the situation.
It is all that much worse when there actually are assaults taking place within the home. But simply the experience of having no options is a victimization in itself. At the very least, boredom can take a serious toll.
It is my observation that virtually all children are victimized in exactly this manner. I am interested in creating abuse-proof or non-victimized children and the way I'd like to do this is by joining with other families who share my desire, and then setting up obvious ways to increase options for children.
There are many people who will not want to be involved with this way of abuse-proofing children. And yes, it is true that regarding the children in the worst situations, their parents are not likely to want to do this. But we have to start somewhere. And it makes most sense to start with families where the parents actually do want to do the best by their child.
I see the way lots of people handle their kids. In the name of protecting the children, the parents keep very tight control, expecting absolute obedience as key to the protection. These folks are often righteous about claiming to be doing it all for the child, feeling like good parents through and through. But the very same (controlling) behaviors that pass as "protection" make space for and harbor the worst kinds of parental abuse.
I think a new definition of what it is to be a "good" parent will be necessary to eliminate the extremes of abuse and neglect. In the new definition, a "good" or protective parent takes measures to ensure that children always have "outs" or options, even or especially options to get away momentarily from the people who care for them.
Children are victimized by our normal "good" parenting routines. I want to find other parents to team up with, who also wish to create abuse-proof kids. If you turn out to be one of those parents, fine. If not, also fine. I am past the point of thinking it is a good idea to persuade people. I want to team up with truly voluntary participants.
What I'd like to create for my own children are new options, and a good part of that is the chance to spend lots and lots of time with friends their own age. I think it takes a lot of practice to be in happy peer relationships, and that kind of practice comes in time. I've been having trouble releasing my children into friendships with other children because it always means that my children will have to be in the family home of the other child.
I have certain wellness parameters that I use to increase the likelihood of safety for my children. When I look for places that will be safe for my children, if I am considering another family's home, I look for a style of family - to - family bonding that is like this: parent to parent, (ok) but preferably, father to father, mother to mother, child to child.
In other words, if I notice that the father of the family in question is more interested in my child than in my husband, I take my kids and back off. If a man has a choice about who to be socially interested in, out of all the members of my family, if he doesn't pick my husband, I think: No, not that family.
Not because I automatically assume that a man who is super-friendly to other people's kids must be a predator or pervert... but because I know that perversion does exist - and when it exists - it lives within a relationship. Men who like to get very close to little girls don't always transmit perversion. But if that kind of bonding is not happening, the risk of perversion goes way down.
I believe in "safe social bonding" the same way others promote "safe sex." We don't advocate the practice of "safe sex" only with people who are proven to be HIV positive. The sensible thing is to practice it with anyone who is a sexual partner, knowing that we really can't know, just on sight, who is and who isn't completely healthy. There is no verbal test for HIV or for sexual perversion.
In the same way, just because I don't have "proof" that any man is a deviant, I still expect certain boundaries to be respected. I want to release my children into friendships with children who have parents who agree that it is a good idea to have certain boundaries. I'd like to release my children into spaces where they can spend time with their friends, and not have to be cornered by their friend's parents. And that doesn't mean that I want my kid's friends to always visit in my home, so that I would be the adult who is in the middle of their play.
Sex offenders are notorious for having a "good guy act", and many people are fooled by the niceness and playfulness of some child molesters. I don't want to be fooled anymore by folks who say "you can trust me with your kids" simply because they are charming and seem to be nice. In the same way, I don't intend to tell you to trust me with your kids, just because I can be charming and nice. I want to show and see a behavior that shows plainly that we can respect the privacies of the child. I want the standard for the "good guys" to be agreeing with the other parents that we will let our children be together and we don't have to be in the middle of it.
I realize that there are situations where children hurt each other. I am not suggesting that we just throw a bunch of kids together and then turn our backs. I am suggesting that once a pair of children have decided, between themselves, that they get along well and that they trust each other, then we as parents can back off. We'd still be available, but on the sidelines.
I believe that providing a child-proofed space is sufficient to eliminate the need for vigilant supervision, if the kids are basically "even" in strength and size. I'd like to set up a physical meeting space for kids to be with kids, and not have to be in private situations with other parents to do this.
Its also possible to abuse-proof the child.
All serious and ongoing abuse happens when a child is cornered. Until learned helplessness has been established, children will definitely move out of the way of an unpleasant event. It stands to reason that if emergency exits - simple ways out - exist for any child, in case of painful abuse, they will use them and thereby protect themselves.
I have the idea that the situation of no options or no way out is, in itself, a victimizing situation. No matter how nice mommy and daddy are, no matter if they never hit, never yell, never do anything but "set boundaries", the net result is still: the person feels, and is victimized. By the parent? No. By the situation.
It is all that much worse when there actually are assaults taking place within the home. But simply the experience of having no options is a victimization in itself. At the very least, boredom can take a serious toll.
It is my observation that virtually all children are victimized in exactly this manner. I am interested in creating abuse-proof or non-victimized children and the way I'd like to do this is by joining with other families who share my desire, and then setting up obvious ways to increase options for children.
There are many people who will not want to be involved with this way of abuse-proofing children. And yes, it is true that regarding the children in the worst situations, their parents are not likely to want to do this. But we have to start somewhere. And it makes most sense to start with families where the parents actually do want to do the best by their child.
I see the way lots of people handle their kids. In the name of protecting the children, the parents keep very tight control, expecting absolute obedience as key to the protection. These folks are often righteous about claiming to be doing it all for the child, feeling like good parents through and through. But the very same (controlling) behaviors that pass as "protection" make space for and harbor the worst kinds of parental abuse.
I think a new definition of what it is to be a "good" parent will be necessary to eliminate the extremes of abuse and neglect. In the new definition, a "good" or protective parent takes measures to ensure that children always have "outs" or options, even or especially options to get away momentarily from the people who care for them.
Children are victimized by our normal "good" parenting routines. I want to find other parents to team up with, who also wish to create abuse-proof kids. If you turn out to be one of those parents, fine. If not, also fine. I am past the point of thinking it is a good idea to persuade people. I want to team up with truly voluntary participants.
What I'd like to create for my own children are new options, and a good part of that is the chance to spend lots and lots of time with friends their own age. I think it takes a lot of practice to be in happy peer relationships, and that kind of practice comes in time. I've been having trouble releasing my children into friendships with other children because it always means that my children will have to be in the family home of the other child.
I have certain wellness parameters that I use to increase the likelihood of safety for my children. When I look for places that will be safe for my children, if I am considering another family's home, I look for a style of family - to - family bonding that is like this: parent to parent, (ok) but preferably, father to father, mother to mother, child to child.
In other words, if I notice that the father of the family in question is more interested in my child than in my husband, I take my kids and back off. If a man has a choice about who to be socially interested in, out of all the members of my family, if he doesn't pick my husband, I think: No, not that family.
Not because I automatically assume that a man who is super-friendly to other people's kids must be a predator or pervert... but because I know that perversion does exist - and when it exists - it lives within a relationship. Men who like to get very close to little girls don't always transmit perversion. But if that kind of bonding is not happening, the risk of perversion goes way down.
I believe in "safe social bonding" the same way others promote "safe sex." We don't advocate the practice of "safe sex" only with people who are proven to be HIV positive. The sensible thing is to practice it with anyone who is a sexual partner, knowing that we really can't know, just on sight, who is and who isn't completely healthy. There is no verbal test for HIV or for sexual perversion.
In the same way, just because I don't have "proof" that any man is a deviant, I still expect certain boundaries to be respected. I want to release my children into friendships with children who have parents who agree that it is a good idea to have certain boundaries. I'd like to release my children into spaces where they can spend time with their friends, and not have to be cornered by their friend's parents. And that doesn't mean that I want my kid's friends to always visit in my home, so that I would be the adult who is in the middle of their play.
Sex offenders are notorious for having a "good guy act", and many people are fooled by the niceness and playfulness of some child molesters. I don't want to be fooled anymore by folks who say "you can trust me with your kids" simply because they are charming and seem to be nice. In the same way, I don't intend to tell you to trust me with your kids, just because I can be charming and nice. I want to show and see a behavior that shows plainly that we can respect the privacies of the child. I want the standard for the "good guys" to be agreeing with the other parents that we will let our children be together and we don't have to be in the middle of it.
I realize that there are situations where children hurt each other. I am not suggesting that we just throw a bunch of kids together and then turn our backs. I am suggesting that once a pair of children have decided, between themselves, that they get along well and that they trust each other, then we as parents can back off. We'd still be available, but on the sidelines.
I believe that providing a child-proofed space is sufficient to eliminate the need for vigilant supervision, if the kids are basically "even" in strength and size. I'd like to set up a physical meeting space for kids to be with kids, and not have to be in private situations with other parents to do this.
