brighid

I would disagree. Adaptation is not devaluation. Where is the proof that stay at home parenting is ipso facto the best choice? There is none. I would say that, in part, it has been devalued because too high of importance was placed on it to begin with. Particularly to absolute subjugation of women as the primary care givers with few other choices in life.

The pendulum has swung from one extreme to another and I see it settling at a happier medium that is probably the healthiest alternative for families. Mothers and fathers are demanding fewer work hours to spend more time with their families. Gender roles are melding and the burdens of work, life and family are shared more equally by both parents/spouses. Fathers are slowly gaining more acceptance as the SAP and their children are benefiting from it. Fathers are gaining the perspective of the traditional female role and through this understanding comes compassion and cooperation. More employers (although not enough) are offering on-site day care, extended maternity leaves, and more family friendly work policies ....

The ideal June and Ward Cleaver family of the 50's was a terrible ideal to force upon the human family. It was a fantasy that fueled dysfunction. The hybrid family will prove and is proving to be a better choice for everyone involved.

Brighid

HelenM

Thanks. Ok, I found it on there:

The current president of the American Psychological Association, Martin Seligman, wrote of his positive experiences at age 9 in the 1950s with a newspaper man he met each day on the way to school. The contact that occurred between them, as Seligman noted, would today be labeled child sexual abuse.

But, for him, it was not abuse. This was the first adult who took him seriously, who was willing to discuss the issues of the world with him (gotten from the newspapers he was selling). Seligman reflected that, had authorities intervened and questioned him about the man, had his parents overreacted, had they forced him to see a therapist who insisted to him that he was a victim, then the whole experience would have become quite negative, when in fact it remains positive for him to this day.

In one of his recent books, Seligman reviewed some of the research on the correlates of CSA and concluded, as we have, that mental health researchers have vastly overstated the harmful potential of CSA. He commented that "it is time to turn down the volume" on this issue that has risen to histrionic proportions. He further noted that children who are really maltreated and who suffer should be seen as victims and need to be helped. But to impose victimhood on those who don't feel victimized is to risk iatrogenic victimization - that is, causing symptoms in them that the actual sexual events did not cause.

So - he doesn't speak positively of all child sexual abuse; he mostly is saying it's unwise to make people feel worse about what happened than they otherwise would. I'm not sure I would entirely agree but I think he has a point, because I do recognize that the way we process events affects how traumatized we are by them.

Exactly! Which supports my case, not yours, since I'm the one saying, don't write off everything someone or an organization says just because you disagree with one thing they say.

I disagree.

Helen

brighid

An interesting article about the effects of caring for an elderly, ill family member:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...alth_stress_dc


Brighid

fatherphil

just a gut feeling.

HelenM

No proof then.

Helen

yguy

I haven't written off everything they say, I've just questioned their level of perception as regards the psychology of interpersonal relationships. Without regard to the intellectual content of Phelps' message, it is just as proper to draw conclusions about the general level of perception of his supporters - as I have no doubt most of you on that side of the issue do whether you admit it or not - as it is for me to draw similar conclusions about the APA.

yguy

Gosh, isn't that comforting. What sort of child sexual abuse WAS he speaking positively about?

The kind that happened to him, obviously; and which would have, had it come to light, justly led to the unceremonious death of the loathesome creature who did it. That Seligman might disagree that such a punishment was warranted I find untterly uncompelling.

brighid

Yes, his opinion was the sexual experience he had as a child was not damaging to him. I don't see what is actually wrong with that claim. I don't believe he has stated that childhood sexual abuse is okay, right, or even moral because his experience was different from the vast majority of children who are abused. Let's not confuse his personal experience with the position of the thousands of dedicated, credible researchers who work independently of AMA but publish through that organization. To do so is illogical and is nothing more then a fallicous appeal to emotion and an ad hominem attack.

Brighid

HelenM

So are you saying that because you object to Seligman's saying that his own relationship with a man who sexually abused him was somewhat positive, overall, that's grounds for dismissing the credibility of everything any member of the APA says?

If so, are you really convinced that's warranted?

Helen

yguy

No, his opinion was that it was a positive experience.

It means that Seligman has no idea what good is - and that the APA was pleased to have someone with such an obvious blind spot at its helm.

If he is correct, on what moral basis would we convict a child molester with a "willing" victim?

It must be assumed that editors have biases which lead them to value some research over others. The trick in interpreting any such research is to be aware of such biases. I submit that the bias of the APA against traditional values is glaringly obvious in light of its overwhelming choice of Seligman as its head.