|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It may have escaped some peoples attention, however, a school in Russia had naked and semi-naked children in 'need' of touching.
Further, the Black Widows were hardly of the nurturing gender !
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
by Anonymous User on 08:38 AM September 6th, 2004 EST (#2)
|
|
|
|
|
the idea is that teachers are in positions of authority over the students which would make it hard for kids to saying to the teacher they don't want to be touched. so since kids usually won't tell the teacher that their taught to obey to stop touching them if they don't like it. even if it is just touching their back, or a hug or whatever.
but I have also heard that they are told that a hug is okay if the student initiates it.
teachers get offended by this a lot of times and can't understand why they are not allowed to touch these children. but they are really thinking about their own needs and not the child's. it is sometimes hard for children to tell their teachers not to touch them at all.
I myself disliked it very much if anyone touched me. but as kid I went along with it because I thought I had to.
I'm just saying, i don't think teachers should just be allowed to be touching kids outside of the child initiating the hug, or if the child is hurt and needs to be picked up.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was a day care provider for 8 years,and have taught preschool and camps. I have never turned a child away who wanted a hug, and never will. I have had kids who were a little too touchy,(kids with mental disabilities who didn't understand) and have had to create space, but I would never just push them away out of hand. These kids are craving physical contact. There have been studies with primates that show a lack of contact WILL have devistating long term effects. With so many parents foisting their child's care off on a series of strangers, these kids need to know they are loved. I have never had a child in my daycare who didn't freely run up before I went home and hug me goodbye. I even had one child hide in my truck and I didn't find him until I was almost home. The parents chose me because I treated them like my own kids, including hugs and roughhousing.
Now I can read kids pretty well, and I have had kids who, when I patted them on the back, stiffened (I always choose a pat on the back as a first contact, as it is easy to read them stiffening, and is obviously away from any sensitive areas. Like petting the side of a dogs head as opposed to his back or on top of his head) So from then on I would just sit next to them, and give them verbal praise or comfort. It is usually very obvious if you pay attention which kids are not comfortable with physical contact. Ironically, those kids often would respond with initiating contact once they realized I would not push them. Some just never want to be touched, and that is OK too.
I have always kept open dialog with parents, and encouraged them to come to me with any questions. At preschool we always had the doors open and encouraged parents to stop in any time, and I did the same in childcare.
My son's teacher last year was a young man, and he was always putting an arm around the kids and hugging them. I thought it was great, the kids would be smiling, as his enthusiasm for them was contagious. He just loved being a teacher, and the kids responded by being excellent students. I though how wonderful it was that my son was getting such positive feedback.
I am sorry your teachers couldn't read that you were uncomfortable. I am sure it was obvious if they paid attention that you didn't like it. I think that this is a case, however, where it isn't fair to make broad policy over a few cases. Many children will not initiate touching the first time, but once it is given will then freely initiate. I think that teachers need to be more careful to read the kids, but must be allowed to initiate physical contact once to find out.
I think it is so sad that we even need to have policies on this. Obviously the article is right. Common sense is no help when the powers that be want to make more policy.
The Biscuit Queen
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are no more paedophiles around today than there were 50, 100, or 200 years ago. For the last 20 years, the Western world has been in the grip of an anti-child-abuse frenzy which has very little basis in reality. A few high-profile scandals blew up which were immediately siezed upon by greedy media and unscrupulous politicians, and before you know it, there is a full-scale with-hunt in progress.
See these articles :-
'The Great Children's Home Panic' by Richard Webster. http://www.richardwebster.net/child.html
http://www.childrenuk.co.uk/choct2002/choct2002/pr agnell%20cleveland%20abuse.html
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume5/j5_1_ br4.htm
Feminists have always been at the fore-front of the scare-mongering.
As usual, one of the first casualties is the truth. People start conflating 'child abuse' with 'child sexual abuse'. In fact the former is general and includes neglect, beating, mental cruelty etc. Actually, most child abuse is committed by women. If you are under 5 years old, the person most likely to murder you is your mother.
However, feminists have siezed upon the idea of child sexual abuse as another handy way to discredit men and male sexuality. The result is that many innocent men have gone to prison, and families have been torn apart for no good reason.
The current paedophile scare should be seen as part of a wider cultural mvement aimed at (1)promoting radical feminism and (2)distracting attention away from corporate misbehaviour. It is mainly men who are being victimised by this, and it does little or nothing to protect children. We have seen how men have deserted the teaching profession in droves - one of the results of it will be that the 'caring' professions will be entirely female dominated, and therefore degraded, but children will not be any safer.
Feminism=Fascism : Get Wise to the Lies
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
