As much as I believe that a blog is about individual identity and expression, I have to admit that I tailor my post to suit reader interests a bit. That is why I get annoyed at long winded and pointless posts that have no entertainment value. If you are going to rant about how much your life sucks, at least make it interesting. (No, I'm not aiming this in anyone in particular. Its a blanket piss on the whole blog sphere.)
Thats why I hardly ever write about my life in my blog. And even when I do, I put it in fiction, so if you are not in the mood to read a whine about the horrors of my world, then at least you have a story to amuse you.
And it also leads to my blog being updated relatively slowly. Because there is not much blog worth material out there. At least not obviously blog worthy. I could probably take the experience of eating banana leaf rice and write something readable, but that requires a fair bit of effort. I don't like writing that much.
There are lots of things that I want to write here, things that I'm thinking, and are somewhat important to me. The banshee in Starcraft 2. My loyalties to the clubs in the European football leagues. Magic the Gathering nationals. Debating. Friends.
But I don't. Unless it rocked my world to the point where I became speechless, anything that is interest based almost never finds its way to my blog. To an extent, my blog is like one of my debating speeches. First, I ask myself, does what I am saying actually matter. Does anyone care? If I read it, would I be amused, or annoyed to no end? Might I become pensive or will I roll my eyes?
It might not sound important, but it is. Balloons said at the debate camp, when you are making a speech, you are taking up people's time. Are you giving these people a reasonable return to the investment of time they just made when they visited your blog and read your writing?
Call me crazy, but I really do think that if you publish anything at all, it must be worth reading to a majority of your audience. You have a responsibility to ensure that. Following the speech time example I gave just now, how many times have you wished a slow and painful death upon a Malaysian politician who goes up the stage during an event and speaks for half an hour about absolutely nothing? Its the same with blogging.
For the love of God, don't litter the internet with sentences that you pulled out of your ass when you were bored. It actually hurts people to read it.
Tuesday, August 28, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
Indoctrination of children?
More on parenting. I was actually quite taken by Dawkin's argument that there should be no religious indoctrination by parents. I'm not going to elaborate more, largely because I think that anyone who reads this blog is intelligent enough to extrapolate the implications of such a philosophy in this country. I don't like the idea of jail. But what got me thinking wasn't so much the religious imprinting that parents leave on their children. I started wondering about the other values that parents leave on their children.
Two very prominent examples exist for me, one potentially defensible, the other just some biased rant.
The first is racial bigotry. I think this is the most dangerous form of imprinting currently being practiced by Malaysians. I cringe every time a group of Chinese sit down and get talking about politics and eventually start agreeing with each other how lazy all Malays are. Or when the Malays start talking about how the Chinese are always plotting against them, and how the pork eating infidels deserve to die. Or when the Indians are generalized as a bunch of drunkards. I have a very strong suspicion that most of the venom spewed out by the younger generation is just an updated version of the evil that they heard over the coffee table during their parents' gatherings. In the face of such racism, I'm not sure if we ever can truly consider Malaysia to be a truly racially integrated society. The ideas of racial supremacy is likely to be perpetuated through the generations.
The second is self destructive behaviour that cannot be justified. I'm going to use a personal example. I think you might be able to find your own experiences using the same idea.
My mum had an aunt that was incredibly house proud. Her standards were insanely high, and there really isn't any reason for such levels of devotion to cleanliness. The question of what can be considered acceptable levels of cleanliness is in itself debatable and I'm not going to go into that too much. I personally think that if a place doesn't make people sick, then its clean enough. If you want it to be any cleaner, thats your prerogative. It cannot be made into some universal standard of acceptable cleanliness.
But my mum was made to live to such standards. Admittedly, my mum would be considered sloppy by the Aunt's standards. The pressures of a working life does force some compromise. But by my standards, its still a bit nutty.
It might seem like a petty gripe. I have a lot of petty gripes, and most are not blog worthy. But this one isn't petty. My mum is almost religiously devoted to keeping those standards, and its scary. Nothing else matters, not her quality of life, not her health. Even when she is dead tired, the scheduled cleaning must go on. Occasional deviations from the usual cleaning to do something fun is unheard of. The minimum standard takes top priority, and whenever I challenge her to explain why it should be so important, I get brushed away.
There is no explanation. Its cultural indoctrination, and till now, I slightly resent that aunt for imprinting my mum with such a mindset.
I'm not saying that parents shouldn't teach their children their values. Its just that sometimes doing that can be dangerous.
And yes, parents are not perfect. No, we shouldn't have to bow to their every whim in the name of filial piety. Respect must be accorded to them, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and when filial piety gives them the power to dictate all terms without having to be held accountable, there is way too much room for abuse of power, be it a conscious decision or not. (The last paragraph is pretty much unrelated to the bulk of the post. It is meant for you people who think that parents should not have to answer to their children, no matter what they do. You know who you are.)
Two very prominent examples exist for me, one potentially defensible, the other just some biased rant.
The first is racial bigotry. I think this is the most dangerous form of imprinting currently being practiced by Malaysians. I cringe every time a group of Chinese sit down and get talking about politics and eventually start agreeing with each other how lazy all Malays are. Or when the Malays start talking about how the Chinese are always plotting against them, and how the pork eating infidels deserve to die. Or when the Indians are generalized as a bunch of drunkards. I have a very strong suspicion that most of the venom spewed out by the younger generation is just an updated version of the evil that they heard over the coffee table during their parents' gatherings. In the face of such racism, I'm not sure if we ever can truly consider Malaysia to be a truly racially integrated society. The ideas of racial supremacy is likely to be perpetuated through the generations.
The second is self destructive behaviour that cannot be justified. I'm going to use a personal example. I think you might be able to find your own experiences using the same idea.
My mum had an aunt that was incredibly house proud. Her standards were insanely high, and there really isn't any reason for such levels of devotion to cleanliness. The question of what can be considered acceptable levels of cleanliness is in itself debatable and I'm not going to go into that too much. I personally think that if a place doesn't make people sick, then its clean enough. If you want it to be any cleaner, thats your prerogative. It cannot be made into some universal standard of acceptable cleanliness.
But my mum was made to live to such standards. Admittedly, my mum would be considered sloppy by the Aunt's standards. The pressures of a working life does force some compromise. But by my standards, its still a bit nutty.
It might seem like a petty gripe. I have a lot of petty gripes, and most are not blog worthy. But this one isn't petty. My mum is almost religiously devoted to keeping those standards, and its scary. Nothing else matters, not her quality of life, not her health. Even when she is dead tired, the scheduled cleaning must go on. Occasional deviations from the usual cleaning to do something fun is unheard of. The minimum standard takes top priority, and whenever I challenge her to explain why it should be so important, I get brushed away.
There is no explanation. Its cultural indoctrination, and till now, I slightly resent that aunt for imprinting my mum with such a mindset.
I'm not saying that parents shouldn't teach their children their values. Its just that sometimes doing that can be dangerous.
And yes, parents are not perfect. No, we shouldn't have to bow to their every whim in the name of filial piety. Respect must be accorded to them, but the line has to be drawn somewhere. Absolute power corrupts absolutely, and when filial piety gives them the power to dictate all terms without having to be held accountable, there is way too much room for abuse of power, be it a conscious decision or not. (The last paragraph is pretty much unrelated to the bulk of the post. It is meant for you people who think that parents should not have to answer to their children, no matter what they do. You know who you are.)
Sunday, August 12, 2007
Nagging.
Why talk about nagging? I was thinking, since I'm already on the subject of parenting..... why the hell not?
Of all the parenting techniques, I'm probably the most biased against this form of punishment. Probably because I got it the most. I still get it a lot, actually. And it annoys the hell out of me.
I feel the need to distinguish nagging from a genuine explanation and a telling off. The differences between nagging and a yelling are quite obvious. Yelling always comes with a large dose of anger, characterized by raised voices and obvious signs of displeasure. I think that the use of yelling is very much like corporal punishment, it intimidates and uses fear to achieve its aim. Yelling probably leads to corporal punishment anyways.
The line between nagging and a genuine desire to explain a wrongdoing, however, is much thinner. This is particularly annoying because a lot of people (mothers especially) justify their nagging by claiming that they have the best interests of the victim at heart. I suspect that they confuse the two because they are both oral in nature. Here is the difference.
Nagging always comes with a condescending tone. It is mostly applied in situations where the perpetrator thinks that the offense committed is common sense, and should never have happened in the first place. This is particularly glaring when there is a difference in opinion on what is considered normal. In an attempt to normalize the behavior of the offender, nagging is used.
Nagging is also completely immune to all forms of logical reason, which is, I think, the primary distinguishing feature that it has. I think that all forms of nagging probably started as an attempt to explain "the proper way of doing things" but became nagging when it was ignored. It doesn't matter if the original reason that the explanation of "the proper way of doing things" was ignored is the fact that "the proper way of doing things" contained no logic in the first place. In a relationship of equals, rebuttals using reason must be taken into consideration. In a situation where one party has the power to initiate nagging, it doesn't. When someone intends to explain his or her opinion about why something has been done wrong, there is always an avenue for self defense. The explaining party is always open to rebuttals, and always ready to be proven wrong. People who nag think in absolutes. And they are always absolutely right. The have complete control of the argument, and hold veto power over everything. That is exactly where the condescending tone comes from. From the fact that they can tell you something that you are likely to contend, and there is nothing you can do to defend yourself.
Painted this way, nagging sounds like a weapon. It is. Make no mistake about it, the absence of a physical element does not make nagging any less a form of punishment as caning. It has the power of building up frustration and in the face of untouchable authority, the frustrations can boil over and probably cause self harm.
Its quite funny to see how naggers think that they are harmless. I personally think that one of the main rules of parenting is accountability. The parent has to be as accountable as the child, and any form of punishment must have its own reasons. Reasons that are rooted in logic. The apparent lack of elements that traditionally constitute a form of punishment doesn't make a nagger any less liable to explain him/herself when an explanation is called for. And nagging is almost universally done without a second thought. At least parents think twice and weigh the gravity of the offense before using the cane. No such checks are done with nagging.
Of all the parenting techniques, I'm probably the most biased against this form of punishment. Probably because I got it the most. I still get it a lot, actually. And it annoys the hell out of me.
I feel the need to distinguish nagging from a genuine explanation and a telling off. The differences between nagging and a yelling are quite obvious. Yelling always comes with a large dose of anger, characterized by raised voices and obvious signs of displeasure. I think that the use of yelling is very much like corporal punishment, it intimidates and uses fear to achieve its aim. Yelling probably leads to corporal punishment anyways.
The line between nagging and a genuine desire to explain a wrongdoing, however, is much thinner. This is particularly annoying because a lot of people (mothers especially) justify their nagging by claiming that they have the best interests of the victim at heart. I suspect that they confuse the two because they are both oral in nature. Here is the difference.
Nagging always comes with a condescending tone. It is mostly applied in situations where the perpetrator thinks that the offense committed is common sense, and should never have happened in the first place. This is particularly glaring when there is a difference in opinion on what is considered normal. In an attempt to normalize the behavior of the offender, nagging is used.
Nagging is also completely immune to all forms of logical reason, which is, I think, the primary distinguishing feature that it has. I think that all forms of nagging probably started as an attempt to explain "the proper way of doing things" but became nagging when it was ignored. It doesn't matter if the original reason that the explanation of "the proper way of doing things" was ignored is the fact that "the proper way of doing things" contained no logic in the first place. In a relationship of equals, rebuttals using reason must be taken into consideration. In a situation where one party has the power to initiate nagging, it doesn't. When someone intends to explain his or her opinion about why something has been done wrong, there is always an avenue for self defense. The explaining party is always open to rebuttals, and always ready to be proven wrong. People who nag think in absolutes. And they are always absolutely right. The have complete control of the argument, and hold veto power over everything. That is exactly where the condescending tone comes from. From the fact that they can tell you something that you are likely to contend, and there is nothing you can do to defend yourself.
Painted this way, nagging sounds like a weapon. It is. Make no mistake about it, the absence of a physical element does not make nagging any less a form of punishment as caning. It has the power of building up frustration and in the face of untouchable authority, the frustrations can boil over and probably cause self harm.
Its quite funny to see how naggers think that they are harmless. I personally think that one of the main rules of parenting is accountability. The parent has to be as accountable as the child, and any form of punishment must have its own reasons. Reasons that are rooted in logic. The apparent lack of elements that traditionally constitute a form of punishment doesn't make a nagger any less liable to explain him/herself when an explanation is called for. And nagging is almost universally done without a second thought. At least parents think twice and weigh the gravity of the offense before using the cane. No such checks are done with nagging.
Thursday, August 09, 2007
Why we should listen unquestioningly.
This probably doesn't make any sense.
I was reading the God Delusion today, and reached a point where Dawkins explains the reason human civilization needs religion. It somehow got me thinking about my post on parenting.
Dawkins thinks that our need for religion is a byproduct of nature naturally selecting humans that listen without questioning. There are merits to the concept of unwavering faith in authority. People who listen to their elders who tell them not to play in crocodile infested waters ultimately live long enough to breed. So, a lot of us probably have the faith gene in us already. Because our ancestors did.
So my reasoning is, the child should have unwavering faith in his or her parents. At least until the point where the child can make decisions that do not leave him dead in 5 minutes. (see playing on train tracks example)
So if that faith isn't there, we need an alternative. We could sit the child down and explain the dangers of playing on a train track. After which the child will probably laugh and keep playing because he is just incapable of comprehending death.
Or we could use fear of punishment to stop the child. At least until the child is of age and can be reasoned with. The only other real alternative I can think of is to keep the child away from danger, which would mean wrapping him in a woolly blanket and watching him 24/7.
You might say that death on the train tracks is an easy situation to avoid. Well, there are a lot of situations that are much closer to home. The roadside, knives in the kitchen, glass ornaments, heck, even running about the house at high speed could lead to potentially lethal accidents.
What is a parent supposed to do? Sit down and watch it happen?
I was reading the God Delusion today, and reached a point where Dawkins explains the reason human civilization needs religion. It somehow got me thinking about my post on parenting.
Dawkins thinks that our need for religion is a byproduct of nature naturally selecting humans that listen without questioning. There are merits to the concept of unwavering faith in authority. People who listen to their elders who tell them not to play in crocodile infested waters ultimately live long enough to breed. So, a lot of us probably have the faith gene in us already. Because our ancestors did.
So my reasoning is, the child should have unwavering faith in his or her parents. At least until the point where the child can make decisions that do not leave him dead in 5 minutes. (see playing on train tracks example)
So if that faith isn't there, we need an alternative. We could sit the child down and explain the dangers of playing on a train track. After which the child will probably laugh and keep playing because he is just incapable of comprehending death.
Or we could use fear of punishment to stop the child. At least until the child is of age and can be reasoned with. The only other real alternative I can think of is to keep the child away from danger, which would mean wrapping him in a woolly blanket and watching him 24/7.
You might say that death on the train tracks is an easy situation to avoid. Well, there are a lot of situations that are much closer to home. The roadside, knives in the kitchen, glass ornaments, heck, even running about the house at high speed could lead to potentially lethal accidents.
What is a parent supposed to do? Sit down and watch it happen?
Tuesday, August 07, 2007
Parents.
I met my cousins from Canada for the first time. And they prompted me to write this post that has been brewing for quite some time.
How do you discipline a kid? It might be oversimplistic analysis, but I think there are two schools of thought when it comes to getting a child to toe the line. One end is the nice guy negotiator, while the other just wants to beat the hell out of the kid. Parents normally choose to place themselves somewhere on that scale.
My uncle is very much on the nice guy side of things. He tells his children not to do certain things, and then repeats himself ten times after that, largely because his children don't listen to him. My patience when dealing with those two kids wore dangerously thin after about 20 minutes, so I found myself wondering how he managed to deal with them for 10 years.
I believe in corporal punishment, because thats how I was raised, and so were a good number of my friends. I think it works, just as long as the parents know their limits. When I was younger, I used to think that the caning was just a way for the parents to get some measure of revenge on their kids, in the guise of teaching them a lesson. I still think that, actually. But now I feel that the parents deserve to do that. It might sound incredibly irresponsible on the part of the parents, but parents are humans too. They need to let off too. Which lead me to my next idea of equality.
The shortest and simplest way of teaching a lesson is to punish. The best way is to let them make the mistake and then let them learn, but sometimes, that isn't really an option. Like the lesson of not playing on the railway tracks. Telling them nicely not to do it doesn't really have the same effect as giving them a good stiff smack when they are caught doing it. Ultimately, parenting is a task, and people find ways of making their task easier. Caning is just one such shortcut. And I don't really blame the parents for taking such shortcuts. Life sucks, and thats one way of making things just a little bit easier.
Its the same with grown up politics as well. When someone messes up a job for the fifth time in a row, he gets punished. Pay cut or less allowance. If its bad enough, its the sack. Obviously, sacking your kids really isn't an option. But some form of punishment really should be in order when they cross the line. If the punishment comes with a good explanation, or if the explanation is self evident, then I think the kids will see the light. Punishing children just as you would other people is one measure of equality that they will respect.
Edit:
I'm not saying that I am all for beating children when they make mistakes. I have huge problems with child abuse, and I do admit the line between punishment and abuse is dangerously thin. If a proponent of anti-corporal punishment laws does throw that at me, I admit, I'd be without a retort. As flimsy as it sounds, a mechanism in which a jury can decide if a child was loved or abused is the best way, I think.
What would I do with my child? Answering that now is pointless, because I am nowhere near parenthood (nor am I ready) but I do have opinions on what other people can do. (if they don't write me off for not knowing what I'm talking about because I don't have kids) There are a lot of things that I can try before actual physical contact. I could try yelling and making it perfectly clear that I am not happy. Should the bond between parent and child be strong enough, the thought of making the parent upset should be enough to discourage the repeat. Removal of previlages is another option.
I'm probably a little violent by nature (eg : looking for a shooting range to release stress) but I'd like to think that I have the restraint to deal with the urge to beat the head of a child into the ground.
But then again, this post isn't about what I would do. Its for me to tell any parent out there who loves their children, but beat them anyway, to know that I feel for them. I get it.
How do you discipline a kid? It might be oversimplistic analysis, but I think there are two schools of thought when it comes to getting a child to toe the line. One end is the nice guy negotiator, while the other just wants to beat the hell out of the kid. Parents normally choose to place themselves somewhere on that scale.
My uncle is very much on the nice guy side of things. He tells his children not to do certain things, and then repeats himself ten times after that, largely because his children don't listen to him. My patience when dealing with those two kids wore dangerously thin after about 20 minutes, so I found myself wondering how he managed to deal with them for 10 years.
I believe in corporal punishment, because thats how I was raised, and so were a good number of my friends. I think it works, just as long as the parents know their limits. When I was younger, I used to think that the caning was just a way for the parents to get some measure of revenge on their kids, in the guise of teaching them a lesson. I still think that, actually. But now I feel that the parents deserve to do that. It might sound incredibly irresponsible on the part of the parents, but parents are humans too. They need to let off too. Which lead me to my next idea of equality.
The shortest and simplest way of teaching a lesson is to punish. The best way is to let them make the mistake and then let them learn, but sometimes, that isn't really an option. Like the lesson of not playing on the railway tracks. Telling them nicely not to do it doesn't really have the same effect as giving them a good stiff smack when they are caught doing it. Ultimately, parenting is a task, and people find ways of making their task easier. Caning is just one such shortcut. And I don't really blame the parents for taking such shortcuts. Life sucks, and thats one way of making things just a little bit easier.
Its the same with grown up politics as well. When someone messes up a job for the fifth time in a row, he gets punished. Pay cut or less allowance. If its bad enough, its the sack. Obviously, sacking your kids really isn't an option. But some form of punishment really should be in order when they cross the line. If the punishment comes with a good explanation, or if the explanation is self evident, then I think the kids will see the light. Punishing children just as you would other people is one measure of equality that they will respect.
Edit:
I'm not saying that I am all for beating children when they make mistakes. I have huge problems with child abuse, and I do admit the line between punishment and abuse is dangerously thin. If a proponent of anti-corporal punishment laws does throw that at me, I admit, I'd be without a retort. As flimsy as it sounds, a mechanism in which a jury can decide if a child was loved or abused is the best way, I think.
What would I do with my child? Answering that now is pointless, because I am nowhere near parenthood (nor am I ready) but I do have opinions on what other people can do. (if they don't write me off for not knowing what I'm talking about because I don't have kids) There are a lot of things that I can try before actual physical contact. I could try yelling and making it perfectly clear that I am not happy. Should the bond between parent and child be strong enough, the thought of making the parent upset should be enough to discourage the repeat. Removal of previlages is another option.
I'm probably a little violent by nature (eg : looking for a shooting range to release stress) but I'd like to think that I have the restraint to deal with the urge to beat the head of a child into the ground.
But then again, this post isn't about what I would do. Its for me to tell any parent out there who loves their children, but beat them anyway, to know that I feel for them. I get it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)