The old Nature Vs Nurture debate

In academic circles this debate is pretty much done and dusted. The debates tend to centre around how much the degree of nature or nurture has life-long effects on individuals. So I was interested to read a passage in our recent readings, title The Parental Fallacy, the following: "But never, ever could the state of your soul be attributed to what your mother or father did to you some thirty years ago!"

I believe this statement is false on several levels, firstly when talking about individuals is it not incredibly short-sighted or narrow minded to use the words "never, ever"? For me, this invalidates the statement straight away. Individuals are too varied to have a "one size fits all" blanket statement to ring true for all people. Secondly, overall I believe that what your parents do and say to you as a developing child, absorbing their knowledge in an unconditional, unequestioning way does leave impressions on our psyche.

So, I was quite interested when a fellow student started to discuss this reading and the "never, ever" statement was brought up. The view was that what our parents did to us thirty years ago was not a basis for any "blame" that may be attributed to them. I didn't think the statement was referring to "blame" and I said so, and asked questions about what she thought "state of soul" meant. I was genuinely interested in wanting to hear her views, as it was different from mine, and hence, the opportunity for me to learn where someone else is coming from. She insisted it was a "blaming" statement and when I brought up the effects of abuse, she still believed that a background of abuse or not, the parents still did not have any part to play in a child's actions or circumstances as an adult. Further enquiries about where she may have got some evidence or such to support her views, resulted in a quick dismissal of the conversation, with her walking off not giving any answers, and finishing with "I fully agree with that statement". End of story.

It was disappointing to see the conversation end as such, but it got me thinking about incidences in our childhood that could and I believe, do, leave us with physiological, biological and psychological hurdles to overcome if we do wish to make a good and happy life for ourselves as adults.

I'll start with the patriarchy style of parenting. It's a hard pill to swallow and quite sobering when a person comes to the conclusion that the majority of the behaviours, decisions, comments, values and beliefs instilled in one by one's parents are actually not made in the child's best interests. In all manner of growing up, there's a hidden agenda that girls are inferior to boys, should not be given the same treatment and that high levels of control are required for the girls while the boy-child is given and taught that he will achieve things with little effort. I have more than one friend who was denied a University education because of the father's attitude, "Oh, you'll only get married and have babies and do nothing more than that in your life." Her dreams of becoming a Doctor dashed at a very young age. Or the girl-child who's opinions are invalidated, told that she is too stupid to know anything about politics, while she watches her brother encouraged to speak up and express his views. The girl-child is told that she must learn how to cook, sew, knit, do washing and ironing and spend inordinate amounts of time on the weekend assisting with household chores, while her brothers spend time with Dad searching the car yards for their next acquisition. At the same time the girl-child is told that she is responsible for the behaviours of boys and men. For instance, she should not dress as to provoke looks from boys. She is responsible for being attacked if she's out at night-time waiting at a bus stop because she should never have been there. She should stay virginal until marriage but if this does not occur and she is violated against her will, it is her fault for attempting to seek a relationship with a boy in the first place. And she is told that the notion of living independently without a husband is "ridiculous and stupid." And what about the boy-child in these types of families? They are taught that they will marry and have rights, their wife will be their possession and will attend to all their domestic needs. The boys are shown by example and emphasised with words they are born with a right to authority and a sense of entitlement, regardless of how unrealistic this may be. And while these values, beliefs and actions are infiltrated into the children, there is a hidden agenda to further the father's role of authority within the family. He's the one that is in charge, and it is to be unquestioned.

So, I ask, in family roles such as this, what "state of soul" erupts from this type of environment? How far does it follow you into adulthood before you realise what the hidden agenda was? It has been my observation that the "patriarchal" style of parenting is believed not to exist by the majority of society, it is denied. So, if you were one of those that was brought up in such a manner, what does that say about your childhood? Are your experiences invalidated, did they not exist as per your own personal observations? If the adult-child, at 50, begins to question the values of the past, if the boy-adult's sense of entitlement has landed him in trouble with the law, or if the girl-adult's sense of playing 2nd best to her husband has left her bereft of any financial status at all, how much of "blame" is on the parents? None? I doubt it. But for many people, they believe this to be the case. I believe, the parents do shoulder some responsibility for their choices of how they conditioned their child to enter into the adult world. For the boys, the sense of entitlement is a state of their soul, and for the girls, the sense that they aren't important is a state of their soul. Can it be changed? I believe so, but it still has it's limitations, they may actually never be free from the limitations on the psych that the indoctrination of their childhood has left them with.

Secondly, I'll take a look at the "uninvolved" style of parenting, which was mentioned in the same article. It can fit in closely with the patriarchal one, in so much as that many behaviours, attitudes and child-rearing practices are in fact, centred around the interests of the parents, but cleverly disguised as being in the best interests of the child. These parents use guilt and shame as their major tools to show the child they really care, but they don't. Because attending a regular sport activity is bothersome for the parents, the minute something does not go right it's the best excuse they have to stop the activity. They will however, tell the child that ballet, or little athletics, or cricket is stopped because of the "nasty" people involved and that the child is best kept away from those "sorts". Hence, almost everything the child wants and looks forward to is unlikely to come to fruition. A long-term exposure to disappointments leaves an indelible mark on the child's soul. They begin to feel they are unworthy of anything, but they are told that it is in their best interests to not continue. School trips and camps provide the only relief for this parented child to achieve an outside activity, but when back home, the child is constantly told how "lovely" the house was without their presence. I've heard my friend's mother scream at her, "You ruined my life, I wish I never had you. Kids ruined everything I wanted to do." Hmmm, now are we going to say that exposure to this type of comment doesn't leave a long-term mark?

Last of all, there's the abusive type of parenting, not that to say the above three aren't abusive, they all are. So my reading has taken me to find Genie, the 1970's discovered 13 year old child, strapped on a potty chair and locked in a bare room for more than 12 years, every single day. Her story, you can Google "Genie abused child" and even find youtube videos that show her, is one of horrendous abuse, deprivation and neglect that's ever been seen in California. It's a tragic story, which has still not ended. And the fact that she never was able to learn grammar (due to synapses pruning in the brain at 6), and that she now lives in a home for retarded adults is testament, in the extreme, of how treatment by our parents can have irreversible life-long effects. Now, if anybody takes the time to read Genie's story, or the Trilogy by Dave Pelzer, A Boy Called It (referred to in this blog archives) and can see the long-term effects on the brain and the psyche of what abuse does, then they'd really appreciate that the statement "But never, ever could the state of your soul be attributed to what your mother or father did to you some thirty years ago!" Is a statement that could "never, ever" be true.

Getting distracted

A recent event on a male-dominated forum has got me thinking. It's not like it was the first time for it to happen so I got to wondering about attitudes that are more common place in our society than we are aware of. The topic was about sharai law and discussion was started about how muslim women are jailed, tortured and even stoned to death for being victims of violence, mostly rape, perpetrated against them. Most comments condemned the actions and went along the lines of: "doesn't have any place in our modern world", "is abhorrent", "glad it doesn't happen here". Replies such as this are dismissive and don't address the real issue, effectively they aren't realistic when one delves a little deeper, and realises these comments provide nothing more than a distraction. One comment in particular, "what about violence perpetrated against men?" was the biggest distraction of all. I question whether a comment such as this is even appropriate in a discussion about violence perpetrated against women - because it isn't appropriate. The acts of violence against men and women are worlds apart. They happen for different reasons and have different consequences. Violence against men deserves it's own discussion thread and should never be used as a distraction to avoid the topic of violence towards women.

As this topic is my passion I wasn't about to let a great opportunity go past by not joining in. Thus I joined in at a level of critical analysis, using some statistics (quantitative study) and peppering it with some experience references (qualitative observations). I did this as another poster (the one who became insulting, no less) had rightly observed that both types of information gives a more complete picture. For my efforts, a return post was full of personal attacks against my character, my thought process, my knowledge, and indeed my worth as a person. Another distraction? It most certainly was. And it succeeded too. Through that one vitriolic post the whole thread got deleted and I never got the chance to really focus in on the topic at hand. Another form of discussion and possible enlightenment for the greater majority to fully realise the extent of violence perpetrated in our society gone and swept, once again, under the carpet, or in this case, the deleted cyberspace heaven.

As this experience replicated an earlier one on a different blog some months prior, I wonder about a prevailing attitude that is a common thread throughout our male-folk thought processes, but women's as well (although I am yet to experience the same vitriol through a female person). I have concluded it is one of not really wanting to acknowledge the extent to which wives, sisters, mothers and particularly daughters, are at risk of being violated in our so-called civilised western society. The prevailing attitude is that things like terrible rapes, beatings, burnings, beheadings (such as what has recently happened to a muslim woman in the US by her husband) and child-murders and pedophilia are things that happen in other countries, miles away.

But it's just not true, it's not worlds away, it's in our own society, the only difference is that we victim blame the woman for her suffering in silence, the only difference with sharia law to our own laws is it's legal to be a pedophile, or sexual offender and here it's not. But exactly how effective is that law?

The point that I really wanted to make in the thread that got deleted, and that nobody got to read is that rape crimes have convictions as low as 1.5%, and that is only on reported rapes. According to the Australian Feminist Law Journal, 2007, of an estimated 5,200 rapes in SA in 2003, only 12 of 786 reported were convicted as charged. That's a miserable low conviction rate, and an indication that crimes of this nature occur with impunity in our own society.

A comment in a recent report issued by the ABS, states, "the level of risk of women being victimised by sexual assault as they go about their daily activities in our society is on par with sexual assaults on men in jail". This says it all and the action of deleting a topic thread, supposedly to stop personal attacks on the person who delivers this information has only served the purpose of sweeping the issue aside and has successfully supported the poster who used insults to distract from the topic and thereby dismissing the fact that "it does happen here."

Just barrelling along

Stephanie's entry into school has been so positive I'm actually a little surprised. Today she wants to attend OSHC (Out of School Hours Care) so I've booked her in early. She was always going to attend on Wednesdays and Fridays starting next week when I go back to Uni, but her insistence has her now booked in 1 week earlier and for Monday, Wednesday and Fridays after school. And she really, really, really wants to read. Last week she finished her homework, designed to last 5 days in the first night, and she did it 4 times!!! She also gets a new book out of the library every single day. And she's adamant that she's not to get on the "Consequence Chart" at school at all! Ever!

She's also going to Little Nippers that David booked her into on Saturdays, which is the Surf Life Saving Club, and she's now attending swimming lessons on Thursday nights with him. To say she's keen is an understatement, as the pic shows.

I start Uni next week and so looking forward to it.

New School

Well, I've had a whisper in my ear that it's about time I updated my blog. The biggest news is Stephanie starting school, of course. She just loves it! Her teacher is now called Mrs Ritchie and she's Stephanie's idol. She's so keen that she gets herself ready and demands breakfast (boy, is that a new one for me!) and is no trouble at all to get ready. The compulsory blister on her heel with her new school shoes, they have to wear lace-ups, being the only minor downside. For the first week she finished at 12.45pm, of which by Friday, there were a few grumbles from the littlies about wanting to stay longer, for this past week they finished at 2pm and this coming week will be the normal finishing time. I'm really impressed with how she's been handling herself, and we're already through about 6 books from the library. There's so many rules and instructions though, I think she remembers them all better than I do, I can tell ya, I'm struggling with it all. The real upside to her going to school is that she's eating more (surprise!) and is easier to get into bed at night, with her being fast asleep within seconds of lights-out (no surprises there!). Here's some pics on her first day.

I've been busy with more seaglass collecting which has extended an interest into bottles and old glass making. I've identified 2 very old glass utility jars that I estimate date from the 1850's - 1890's, as well as big beautiful blue jug. I also now have a nice collection of small ink wells, some black glass bottles, again from about 1860 - 1890, including a Woodroofe's bottle which is a South Australian Company no longer in business (no surprises there). So with that, some flower collecting and drying to make up some pot pourri for ebay which has had some reasonable success, I've been very busy.

Lifeline is still going great guns and I love doing my shift.

Deeply saddened by the fires and subsequent loss of life in Victoria. I've tried not to read too much about it, as this type of thing can make me cry and I feel very sad and upset for some time.

Finished Uni

Well, it's almost closing on 2008 and what a fantastic year it has been. To end on a high note I have received my Uni results for 2nd semester and a distinction for each topic! I am so surprised by this, I only expected 2 distinctions at the most. So to end my first year at Uni with 7 distinctions and 1 credit is fabulous. Not only have I got a great result but I've thoroughly enjoyed it too.

I'm looking forward to starting more studies in March 2009, and I've booked Womens Studies as an elective, I'm sure to be able to get my teeth stuck right into that.

Stephanie is all booked in for her new school too. We've decided to go private for her, so it's Woodcroft College she'll being Reception in February 2009, she's so looking forward to going, she's got her uniform already and she's met her teacher, Ms Nagle, who is getting married soon so will have a different name next year, so I'm told.

I've booked myself to do Lifeline shift on Christmas Eve 6 - 10pm and then again on New Years Day starting at midnight through to 6am. I'm looking forward to them as well, it will be interesting to see how they go. Wondering what is happening with other people over the festive season, perhaps a call to Lifeline will help them get their Christmas and New Years into perspective.

Hi-5 Birthday Party!

Well, after many, many months of planning and expectations by Miss S, we finally had the Hi-5 birthday party! We did well. There was hand clappers, Hi-5 plates, cups, placemats, party blowers, hats, serviettes, and Hi-5 Party Street DVD constantly playing. David got some totally fabbo gas balloons, pictured here is a very large Unicorn and a Happy Birthday balloon. He also got about 20 others filled with helium too. All the kids had a great time, with one mother commenting it was the best birthday party she'd been to for kids.

Stephanie totally loved her day. I can hardly believe she's 5! She got some great gifts including a Baby Alive that wets it's nappies! Oh, how wonderful. But Miss S is into all those types of things, she's very caring and mothering type, she doesn't take after me at that age!

I think she was a bit disappointed it was all over, considering how long she'd been planning the Hi-5 theme! Oh, and the Hi-5 cake was a smash too.

She's currently planning her 6th party now, it's to be a fairies one.

Why is this news?

Today, the Daily Telegraph's reporter Kelvin Bissett He's Not my Kid reports that one man who paid $71,000 got ripped off. A further story Paternity Tests Prove Hundreds of Men Duped gives some more details, still by the same reporter that 18 women have orders of about $171,000 against them to pay back wrongful paternity money paid, and that 300 women have had DNA checks of their kids and the wrong father has been cited. So why is this news?

Kudos to the reporter for his tenacious digging into finding these obscure numbers and stories. But surely, there's a much bigger, more newsworthy story in the number of $6 BILLION in unpaid child support? Surely, that's bigger news that's more interesing, no? What about the 6,000 men who have defected to New Zealand to avoid paying child support? Is that not a bigger story? Why didn't the reporter track down the one man who's fathered kids to seven different mothers and has never paid a cent in child support? He just keeps on forgetting to keep it zipped up and carries on regardless of his consequences, goodness knows how many terminations may have resulted from this one man's irresponsible lifestyle.

Why are women singled out as folk devils in the media? What good does it do society to think that incorrect accusations of false paternity are rife? When they are not. 300 is a piddling number in the grand scheme of things. It wouldn't even be comparable to the number of men who have falsely denied paternity. I wish I had that number, now, that would be newsworthy, yes? We could probably add a few noughts to the 300 number.

Good on ya, Kelvin Bissett, are you going to set the record straight and print the opposite side of this gender story?

However, getting to the heart of the story, is that with the Child Support Agency 'forcing' women to pay back will only disadvantage the child/ren in their care. In all of this, it's the kids that are the losers, as well as their Mum's and those who thought they were the Dad. The winners? Perhaps the real fathers that walked away scot free.