Parents should ask babies consent to change nappy.

So says a raving self appointed child expert lunatic. And No....this isn't a joke.
This woman is advising others on how to rear children, she was speaking on Australia's ABC taxpayer funded national  TV station.
In her view, and it's one she advises new parents on, they should ask their babies permission before they change their babies nappy....she does recognise baby cant answer, (so I suppose that's something)  

http://metro.co.uk/2018/05/10/expert-claims-parents-ask-babies-permission-changing-nappies-7536453/.

Flipping heck what next, ask their permission to put a bottle or dummy in their mouths. The world's going crazy!

Syl wrote:So says a raving self appointed child expert lunatic. And No....this isn't a joke.
This woman is advising others on how to rear children, she was speaking on Australia's ABC taxpayer funded national  TV station.
In her view, and it's one she advises new parents on, they should ask their babies permission before they change their babies nappy....she does recognise baby cant answer, (so I suppose that's something)  

http://metro.co.uk/2018/05/10/expert-claims-parents-ask-babies-permission-changing-nappies-7536453/.

Hmmm... Well, no harm to it. It will acculturate the youngster in courtesy and consideration.

Sounds like she thinks people don't talk to their babies, maybe thinks they just grap them and change their nappies and drop 'em back in the crib til the next time.

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:So says a raving self appointed child expert lunatic. And No....this isn't a joke.
This woman is advising others on how to rear children, she was speaking on Australia's ABC taxpayer funded national  TV station.
In her view, and it's one she advises new parents on, they should ask their babies permission before they change their babies nappy....she does recognise baby cant answer, (so I suppose that's something)  

http://metro.co.uk/2018/05/10/expert-claims-parents-ask-babies-permission-changing-nappies-7536453/.

Hmmm...  Well, no harm to it.  It will acculturate the youngster in courtesy and consideration.

I don't think that was the point of her telling people to ask permission if they may change their babies nappy though.
She believes that asking consent will in some way prevent a child being sexually abused as they get older.

Just as a matter of interest, when the child gets a bit older and has learned to say NO....what if he/she doesn't give permission to have its nappy changed? Will it be allowed to wear its dirty nappy till baby not parent decides it needs changing?

Vintage wrote:Sounds like she thinks people don't talk to their babies, maybe thinks they just grap them and change their nappies and drop 'em back in the crib til the next time.

Like many so calledchild experts, she is childless.

Native American hunters would give their prey thanks for their sacrifice before killing them, asking for their forgiveness and understanding, (probably still do ?)

Those animals would have been just as uncomprehending and uncommunicative as a newborn babe, as well

Original Quill wrote:Hmmm... Well, no harm to it. It will acculturate the youngster in courtesy and consideration.

Syl wrote:I don't think that was the point of her telling people to ask permission if they may change their babies nappy though.
She believes that asking consent will in some way prevent a child being sexually abused as they get older.

I know, but it was my point. A much more direct effect on the child will be that s/he learns to respect the feelings of others.

Original Quill wrote:

Original Quill wrote:Hmmm...  Well, no harm to it.  It will acculturate the youngster in courtesy and consideration.

Syl wrote:I don't think that was the point of her telling people to ask permission if they may change their babies nappy though.
She believes that asking consent will in some way prevent a child being sexually abused as they get older.

I know, but it was my point.  A much more direct effect on the child will be that s/he learns to respect the feelings of others.

Sorry I don't agree.
Asking a baby or a small child if the parent may or may not do something in the childs interest teaches a kid that they have the control...and unless you want to bring up spoiled brats.....actually the parent has the control.

I think a child learns that when they learn that some things are private, round about toilet training time maybe. I seemed to have learned the lesson as did my friends, we had a village pervert, everyone knew to stay away from him and exactly why. Mind you the children were always with older siblings and friends, these days maybe there's more opportunities to get a child alone. I'm all for a child
realising their body is their own

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:



I know, but it was my point.  A much more direct effect on the child will be that s/he learns to respect the feelings of others.

Sorry I don't agree.
Asking a baby or a small child if the parent may or may not do something in the childs interest teaches a kid that they have the control...and unless you want to bring up spoiled brats.....actually the parent has the control.

Well, neither one of us are early childhood development psychologists.

I just think a basic element of learning is emulation: a child sees a pattern of ritual behavior in an adult, and s/he copies it.  Whether the child gains the upper hand is more a matter of the players, their day-to-day style, and whether the child gains reward by manipulating the parent.

A lot of truth in that, the parent must excerise control though, otherwise its chaos. First and foremost you must be a parent, a rock in the stormy sea of growing up, you can be a friend as well once the child is grown. Its natural that your child doen't like you or even hate you for some decisions you have to make, it hurts but you are the grown up. I'm not a fan of negotiating with very small children to behave, they need to know no means no, you can explain why in a simple way that is.
I think I had a good balanced upbringing, I understood my
parents were in charge, they made my decisions until gradually I was gradually given more important decisions to make myself as I grew older, very safe very secure.
Sorry I think i've gone off on a tangent there.

You don’t ask permission - it’s all bollocks and waffle.
You just chat to them, tell them you’re changing their smelly bum, sing to them, count to them....

Asking their permission wont teach them anything and certainly won’t teach them anything about sexual assault.

The women is chatting absolute shit and sounds desperate for attention.

Vintage wrote:A lot of truth in that, the parent must excerise control though, otherwise its chaos. First and foremost you must be a parent, a rock in the stormy sea of growing up, you can be a friend as well once the child is grown. Its natural that your child doen't like you or even hate you for some decisions you have to make, it hurts but you are the grown up. I'm not a fan of negotiating with very small children to behave, they need to know no means no, you can explain why in a simple way that is.
I think I had a good balanced upbringing, I understood my
parents were in charge, they made my decisions until gradually I was gradually given more important decisions to make myself as I grew older, very safe very secure.
Sorry I think i've gone off on a tangent there.

No, you're right on point. But notice you subliminally draw the distinction between a symbolic ritual, and the day-to-day interaction with the child. You say: "First and foremost you must be a parent, a rock in the stormy sea of growing up..." I agree. Only in that sort of constant interaction does the child learn discipline and obedience.

What we have here ('asking permission to change diapers') is a symbolized ritual, which teaches the child a moral lesson, not day-to-day patterns. It stands out as a singular moment, in which the child grasps a principle, not general attitude or discipline.

Can you imagine how this would thus pan out in court with child abuse?

Judge: "So you allowed your child to become ill, because you interpreted her gurgles, as saying no to wanting her nappy changed?"

Child abuser: "Yes Judge, i did what was advised by someone who has made it that much easier for me not to care for my child. By offering up an excuse to allow them my child to become a new species of human excrement"

Judge: "Do you think that this allows you to deny your child food, if you interpret whether they want to be fed?"

Child absuer: " Yes Judge, when she cries, I take it that as no to being fed and wanting her nappy changed. I am respecting her rights?"

Why are such idiots in this world even given a platform to come out with such crap?

Didge wrote:Can you imagine how this would thus pan out in court with child abuse?

Judge: "So you allowed your child to become ill, because you interpreted her gurgles, as saying no to wanting her nappy changed?"

Child abuser: "Yes Judge, i did what was advised by someone who has made it that much easier for me not to care for my child. By offering up an excuse to allow them my child to become a new species of human excrement"

Judge: "Do you think that this allows you to deny your child food, if you interpret whether they want to be fed?"

Child absuer: " Yes Judge, when she cries, I take it that as no to being fed and wanting her nappy changed. I am respecting her rights?"

Why are such idiots in this world even given a platform to come out with such crap?

Top post. That’s exactly the kind of lunacy this would lead to.

The world's gone fucking mad!

HoratioTarr wrote:The world's gone fucking mad!

Oh no Horatio! Don’t you wait for your dog’s permission before you let him out for a wee?

eddie wrote:

HoratioTarr wrote:The world's gone fucking mad!

Oh no Horatio! Don’t you wait for your dog’s permission before you let him out for a wee?

Actually he does ask to go out for a wee.   He stands there like this....right in yer face






And I'm like....'You wanna go wee wee?'

And he's like...Fuck yeah

Original Quill wrote:

Syl wrote:

Sorry I don't agree.
Asking a baby or a small child if the parent may or may not do something in the ch1ilds interest teaches a kid that they have the control...and unless you want to bring up spoiled brats.....actually the parent has the control.

Well, neither one of us are early childhood development psychologists.

I just think a basic element of learning is emulation: a child sees a pattern of ritual behavior in an adult, and s/he copies it.  Whether the child gains the upper hand is more a matter of the players, their day-to-day style, and whether the child gains reward by manipulating the parent.

Apparently she is a self styled 'sexuality expert', so it seems we can all call ourselves  'experts' if we feel like it. It would be interesting to know what sort of official qualifications she has.


Anyway, qualified to give advice or not, she is talking rubbish.

HoratioTarr wrote:

eddie wrote:

Oh no Horatio! Don’t you wait for your dog’s permission before you let him out for a wee?

Actually he does ask to go out for a wee.   He stands there like this....right in yer face






And I'm like....'You wanna go wee wee?'

And he's like...Fuck yeah

Have you taught him to swear?

Syl wrote:

Original Quill wrote:

Well, neither one of us are early childhood development psychologists.

I just think a basic element of learning is emulation: a child sees a pattern of ritual behavior in an adult, and s/he copies it.  Whether the child gains the upper hand is more a matter of the players, their day-to-day style, and whether the child gains reward by manipulating the parent.

Apparently she is a self styled 'sexuality expert', so it seems we can all call ourselves  'experts' if we feel like it. It would be interesting to know what sort of official qualifications she has.

Yes, that's true.  With cross disciplines these days, a lot of doctorates in physiology are claiming expertise in mental therapy, etc.

Syl wrote:

Vintage wrote:Sounds like she thinks people don't talk to their babies, maybe thinks they just grap them and change their nappies and drop 'em back in the crib til the next time.

Like many so calledchild experts,

she is childless.

 ...   ..  Child-free is a more positive and more modern description.
Some people deliberately choose to be child-free.

Vintage wrote:Sounds like she thinks people don't talk to their babies,




maybe thinks they just grap them and change their nappies and drop 'em back in the crib til the next time.

That's wrong? 



Is it also wrong to yell ...
 ''oi, you scruff you've shat your nappy again aintcha, yer stinking the house out! I guess that crisps-and-sausage roll diet doesn't suit ya." ??  

Look, mums  don't need advice on such basic issues ffs.

As long as a parent is loving and devoted - which surely the VAST majority  are - their natural instincts are spot on, they don't need guidance! They instinctively chat lovingly to their infants all the time, even when tired.


Anyone disagree?

Jules wrote:Look, mums  don't need advice on such basic issues ffs.

As long as a parent is loving and devoted - which surely the VAST majority  are - their natural instincts are spot on, they don't need guidance! They instinctively chat lovingly to their infants all the time, even when tired.


Anyone disagree?

Nope....who could disagree, in fact Vintage said as much as the start of the thread.

I dont like the way this so called self styled expert (in crap) has linked this to child abuse.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:

Vintage wrote:Sounds like she thinks people don't talk to their babies, maybe thinks they just grap them and change their nappies and drop 'em back in the crib til the next time.

Like many so calledchild experts,

she is childless.

 ...   ..  Child-free is a more positive and more modern description.
Some people deliberately choose to be child-free.

PC bullshit. If you have no kids you’re childless. No brains, brainless. No pennies, penniless.
And so on.

The point, is pointless.

Why do we need to change words becauee some people dont like them?

I have never actually heard the term child free used towards anyone who has no children.
PC gone mad.

Syl wrote:I have never actually heard the term child free used towards anyone who has no children.
PC gone mad.

Well, I do hope that when people call others here “brainless” they change it to “brain free”.

But somehow that doesn’t have the same sting to it. Does it?

Syl wrote:I have never actually heard the term child free used towards anyone who has no children.
PC gone mad.

A group of media-based women writers who did not want kids got together and decided to describe theselves as that.
They did not insist on being called that and it's not an official classification. That's why you've never heard of it.

"Childfree" puts a positive & gloriously assertive spin on the status of women for whom this is a lifestyle choice.
Seen women in their midtwenties complaining bitterly that their doctors refuse their request to ''sterilise' them.

eddie wrote:

Jules wrote:
 ...   ..  Child-free is a more positive and more modern description.
Some people deliberately choose to be child-free.

PC bullshit. If you have no kids you’re childless. No brains, brainless. No pennies, penniless.
And so on.

The point, is pointless.

Why do we need to change words becauee some people dont like them?

You don't say "debtless" though, you say "debt free".

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:I have never actually heard the term child free used towards anyone who has no children.
PC gone mad.

Well, I do hope that when people call others here “brainless”  they change it to “brain free”.

But somehow that doesn’t have the same sting to it. Does it?  

But that's different.
Words like brainless, gormless, ruthless etc are inherently negative words, they're meant to really sting.
They should not be swapped for gentler/more tactful expressions.

Jules wrote:

Syl wrote:I have never actually heard the term child free used towards anyone who has no children.
PC gone mad.

A group of media-based women writers who did not want kids got together and decided to describe theselves as that.
They did not insist on being called that and it's not an official classification. That's why you've never heard of it.

"Childfree" puts a positive and gloriously assertive spin on the status of women for whom this is a lifestyle choice.
Seen women in their midtwenties complaining bitterly that their doctors refuse their request to ''sterilise' them.

Why would anyone class themselves as child free, as if that makes it seem like its a desease to have a child?

If people wish to not have children, good luck to them, but such a statement to say child free, is basically a very poor statement.

Would you say "black free"?

"Jew Free"?

And why only the status of women?

It seems such a view, is as about as sexist as it gets with lifestyle

Seems to me that this group of women, have hate issues, that got together and made such a view.

Why did they need to make such a view in the first place?

Nobody is judging them for not having children, so why are they pre judging a view that to be free of children is some how great?

Its like placing a sign on someones head and saying that because you have children, you are not free and they are a burden.

I wonder if any of them told their parents that very same thing?

P.S Anyone who makes a view that its great to say they are child free are gutless, as they do not want to have responsibility. They will always take the easier paths in life, where they do not have to try.

Not someone i would employ in a million years, as they will take the view to put in the minimum effort in anything

It astounds me that someone can think its a good thing to say that a view to claim a concept of "Child free" is a good thing

Apply that to anything, and its always a view as being hostile to something

"Cancer free"

"Aids free"

The above are things that harm people and thus the view being made by such idiots is that to have and raise children, is a harmful experince

Wecome to the world of feminist Nazism

 

He's off!

Jules wrote:  

He's off!

Is that why you cannot respond to my points and look to misdirect?

Do you understand the concept of Juderien?

Where do you think that came from?

How about you actually respond to my points, as i bet, every poster agrees with me here on this, bar you?

Jules wrote:Didge, I hardly know where to even START!!

Didge wrote:Well you could start by answering my points, instead of evading them.

We live in a democracy and believe it or not it's not complusory to HAVE maternal instincts.

Didge wrote:Where did i claim people should have a maternal instincts?
never did.

Women without kids have been unfairly branded selfish all their lives by judgemental people.

Didge wrote:I do not deny that they have, but is that then a reason to also be as utterly dumb and hateful with such a view as stating "child free"?

I sometimes got called selfish cos people couldn't understand why I only had one child. (I love him more than life itself, btw).

Didge wrote:I have no doubt that you do, which is also wrong for people to do to you, but again that is misdirection at the point at hand, is it not?

But it's incredibly selfish & irresponsible to bring a child into this world and not look after them well and many women are guilty of this.

Didge wrote:I agree that it is selfish, but what has that got to do with a person glorifying being child free?.

Remember the tragic cases of Baby P, Daniel Pelka, Victoria Climbie et al

I'll leave it there.

I do remember them, so explain to me, how that makes people come to the conclusion, its okay to say and believe a view that to have children is a bad thing?

Again I ask, how is saying child free a good thing and how does that in anyway help respect the memory of Baby P, Daniel Pelka, Victoria Climbie et al?

Seriously?

Do you not understand Jules, how negative a statement that is to say "child free", as if its a illness?

Seriously?

Can you not see how hateful that is?

Jules wrote:

eddie wrote:

Syl wrote:I have never actually heard the term child free used towards anyone who has no children.
PC gone mad.

Well, I do hope that when people call others here “brainless”  they change it to “brain free”.

But somehow that doesn’t have the same sting to it. Does it?  

But that's different.
Words like brainless, gormless, ruthless etc are inherently negative words, they're meant to really sting.
They should not be swapped for gentler/more tactful expressions.

In that case it must be okay to call a black person a NI@@ER then?
I mean, you need the “sting”, right?

Or am I getting confused?

I guess the term "childless" makes it sound like the person is a bit sad or something, whereas "childfree" is a bit more positive.

By the way, I've never heard anyone else say they wouldn't employ someone without children on the grounds that they wouldn't make any effort. That's an interesting point of view, but a bit discriminatory.

Raggamuffin wrote:I guess the term "childless" makes it sound like the person is a bit sad or something, whereas "childfree" is a bit more positive.

How is it positive to say and mean its good to be without a child?

It then means, that having a child is a bad thing.

There is nothing wrong with being childless and introducing a word that makes it sound like having children is a bad thing, is in no way positive, is it?

Didge wrote:

Jules wrote:Didge, I hardly know where to even START!!


We live in a democracy and believe it or not it's not complusory to HAVE maternal instincts.


Women without kids have been unfairly branded selfish all their lives by judgemental people.


I sometimes got called selfish cos people couldn't understand why I only had one child. (I love him more than life itself, btw).




But it's incredibly selfish & irresponsible to bring a child into this world and not look after them well and many women are guilty of this.




Remember the tragic cases of Baby P, Daniel Pelka, Victoria Climbie et al

I'll leave it there.

I do remember them, so explain to me, how that makes people come to the conclusion, its okay to say and believe a view that to have children is a bad thing?

Again I ask, how is saying child free a good thing and how does that in anyway help respect the memory of Baby P, Daniel Pelka, Victoria Climbie et al?

Seriously?

Do you not understand Jules, how negative a statement that is to say "child free", as if its a illness?

Seriously?

Can you not see how hateful that is?

People who don't want children do think it's a bad thing to have them though. They're entitled to their opinion.

Raggamuffin wrote:By the way, I've never heard anyone else say they wouldn't employ someone without children on the grounds that they wouldn't make any effort. That's an interesting point of view, but a bit discriminatory.

Cathy Newman alert

Did i actually say that?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:I guess the term "childless" makes it sound like the person is a bit sad or something, whereas "childfree" is a bit more positive.

How is it positive to say and mean its good to be without a child?

It then means, that having a child is a bad thing.

There is nothing wrong with being childless and introducing a word that makes it sound like having children is a bad thing, is in no way positive, is it?

To them it is good to be without a child.

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:

I do remember them, so explain to me, how that makes people come to the conclusion, its okay to say and believe a view that to have children is a bad thing?

Again I ask, how is saying child free a good thing and how does that in anyway help respect the memory of Baby P, Daniel Pelka, Victoria Climbie et al?

Seriously?

Do you not understand Jules, how negative a statement that is to say "child free", as if its a illness?

Seriously?

Can you not see how hateful that is?

People who don't want children do think it's a bad thing to have them though. They're entitled to their opinion.

They are and they are also open to criticism for their views, right?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


How is it positive to say and mean its good to be without a child?

It then means, that having a child is a bad thing.

There is nothing wrong with being childless and introducing a word that makes it sound like having children is a bad thing, is in no way positive, is it?

To them it is good to be without a child.

And thus to those with children a bad thing

Hence its a negative view point, towards having children

Correct?

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

People who don't want children do think it's a bad thing to have them though. They're entitled to their opinion.

They are and they are also open to criticism for their views, right?

What kind of criticism? Do you have any right to judge those who think it's good not to have any children? It's not your business.

Didge wrote:

Raggamuffin wrote:

To them it is good to be without a child.

And thus to those with children a bad thing

Hence its a negative view point, towards having children

Correct?

To them, yes. So what?

Raggamuffin wrote:

Didge wrote:


They are and they are also open to criticism for their views, right?

What kind of criticism? Do you have any right to judge those who think it's good not to have any children? It's not your business.

I have every right, just as you did by the above answer

I have not judged them for not having children, have I?

I have judged them for thinking its a bad thing to have children

Can you understand the differnce?