Smacking children is illegal in Finland and most of the EU.
I disagree with this. Not because I want the right to smack my daughter, but because I think that it is reasonable in some cases, and taking away that tool from parents has been detrimental overall. Not only that, it hasn't stopped physical child abuse, because the people who would intentionally hurt a child by hitting them, don't care about the law. So the abuses continue and the reasonable measures are taken away as a tool from parents.
We can agree to disagree if that suits you.
I was reading an article today about the possibility that oral hygiene of kids in Finland could be an indicator of abuse, and how thousands of kids who were under school age required to be put under general anaesthetic last year in Helsinki region alone, because of oral hygiene issues. That is incredible, considering that these kids likely hadn't even lost their first milk teeth yet.
I hate child abuse.
But I also question where a lot of the effort is spent on what constitutes abuse and I think that if we are going to spend effort on punishing abusive parents, there are more salient areas to consider. For instance, I don't think there is a good reason for any child (bar true health complication) to be overweight, yet in Finland about 29% of boys and 18% of girls aged 2–16 are overweight. Considering all we know about obesity and the impact it has on the body, mind and emotions, isn't this abuse?
Similarly, what amount of consumptive screen time (gaming, social media etc) is appropriate for the same age group? When my daughter first got a phone almost a year ago, one of her friends started messaging her at 2am. These are nine year olds. My daughter didn't wake up thankfully, but isn't a nine year old up on a phone at 2am messaging, indication of neglect? One of her other friends from school (a boy) is on his phone whenever he isn't in class, gaming. Between class, at home, walking to school... isn't that neglect?
Oral hygiene is likely a good indicator of abuse, because it shows parents don't care enough to keep their children's teeth clean, but in my opinion what parents are feeding their children and what they are letting them do in their free-time, are also indicators and are possibly more impactful than the teeth. And I would suggest that the rate of problem behaviour is far, far higher than it ever was for physical abuse due to smacking, because nutritional and activity abuse is acceptable by society. No one is allowed to say anything when a toddler is kept quiet in public on a screen, or when a sub-ten year old has the body of a heavy-drinking adult.
It is given a "to each their own" category.
But no, it isn't to each their own, because those children have no choice about what they eat or whether their parents are present or not. They are innocent victims of their circumstances and I reckon that these "acceptable abuses" are going to have fundamental and often devastating consequences for these kids as they age, affecting their bodies, minds, emotions and relationships.
If we want to keep children safe from harm, we need to start with the parenting styles that lead to expected harm, and we know that people who are physically unfit, mentally incapable, emotionally unstable, and socially disconnected, are going to struggle. But what is interesting is that for the majority of kids that were smacked occasionally as kids, they never had problems in these areas arise. It seems more that in order to protect a few ineffectually, the majority have now been harmed.
There are many types of people in this world, and many types of parents. Unfortunately, no matter what the laws might be or what is best for children, there are abusive parents out there too. It isn't always possible to know what is happening in the background, but there are visual and behavioural indicators that might indicate a closer look is needed. To each their own doesn't apply when children are being harmed, does it?
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
