flashing ticker
To interact with this page you must login.      Signup

Children Have Agency « Tynamite's blog (this blog has moved)

Parents claiming children have no agency, violate their agency. Teachers who claim that, never take children's abuse allegations seriously.
spacer
tynamite
tynamite's avatar
This article is over 3000 words

Mother: "When my kids are older I will put internet filters on so they can't access adult content"

Me: "That's wrong. Kids should be able to watch whatever they want. Nobody is forcing them to watch it, they are properly warned of what the content is before they go on it or click play."

Mother: "Don't ever have kids. You should never have kids."

Me: "I don't believe in age ratings for content. Every child has watched porn and gore. Every child. They're just not going to tell you about it because it's politically incorrect. The kids in my class were watching porn at 10 and watching gore at 11. Every child does it! I watched porn and gore as a child and look at me! I turned out okay!"

Mother: "You see how stupid he is?"

..................

Mother: "Kids can't make decisions about what they want to watch. Kids don't have agency."


Those adults violate children's agency in arguments

It's funny how the same people who say that children have no agency, are the exact same people who violate children's agency. When they have an argument with a child (particularly their child), they use that as the perfect opportunity to deny them of their agency. If you've had one of these people as a parent or observed them with children, you've seen it all before.
"Don't talk back to me when I'm talking to you" (while they are shouting at you and being insulting.)
"Don't look at me like that" (when they are looking you rudely like that at the same time)
"Don't cry or I will give you something to cry for" (while you are crying)
Often if you deny them their ability to violate your agency, they will be physically aggressive, or send you out the room (if another adult is watching).

So the same adults who say that children have no agency, are the exact same people who get kicks out of denying other people their agency, and as children are physically weaker, emotionally weaker more naive and under rule from adults, children make easy pickings for their bullying behaviour. It's not just about arguments, they also get upset as if they are violated if you tell them that they are wrong. Disagreeing with those adults in any way is a criminal offence that to them shall be striked upon with the harshest possible punishment from the state.


Those adults violate children's private property and online accounts

Mother: "When X gets older, I will read his diary"

Me: "You have no business reading his diary if you're going to get offended by my opinions that I say out loud. What's written in a diary is not appropriate for a conversation. If you can't cope with my opinions that I openly say, how on earth are you supposed to cope with what is written in a diary? You're not mentally equipped to read people's diaries."

Mother: *no comment*
Also the same people who claim that children have no agency who always happen to deny children their agency in arguments, what they also do is the deny their children agency some more by going into their room searching their private property when they are not around, and going into their phone and laptop to read their online accounts when they are not looking.

If you're a child, you might be wondering how this is true if you are not aware that your parents are doing it. Well if your parents do deny you your agency, then I can GUARANTEE that they are searching your room, laptop, phone and online accounts when you are not around not looking. If you don't know now, you'll know it later.

What can be said about that? I know one thing. Every time they read something bad about themselves in their diary that is true, instead of blaming themselves for their bad behaviour, they always get angry at the person who wrote it in their diary. And instead of realising that they should not have read their child's diary if they don't want to be offended, they try to deny the child the agency to write in their diary. But because they know that their child will do it anyway and there's not much they can do to stop it, they then resort to guilt tripping, trying to make the child feel guilty about having a diary.

Some of these parents have favourites, so there will be chidren whose stuff they search more than others, or enjoy searching more than others. These children will gain a (justified) paranoia that they are being watched or snooped on, as others will try to mirror their thinking and often "one up" it afterwards; so they will begin by instinct, to only say things in private or write down things that they would not mind someone else knowing, for their own protection.


Those adults are always virtue signalling about how kind they are when theirs is minimal and mine (or the child in question) changes lives

Another good thing to know, is that those adults are always virtue signalling about how good and kind they are. It is impossible for those adults to do something nice to someone (especially children) without them telling someone else (especially a group of people), about how they did that kind thing so everyone can know how good and kind they are. They are always virtue signalling about how virtuous they are, how good/kind/moral they are, when everyone knows (except them), that the people who virtue signal the most, are the people who are the least moral people.
"I brought my younger sister an ice cream from the ice cream van today"
"I had a nice conversation with my son X about how their day at school was. And I helped him on his homework afterwards."
"My cousin was showing me the stories he wrote at school for english. I read them and told him they were really good."
However if you look at the kindness that those adults do, it is minimal. You could argue that the only reason why they did that kindness, is so that they could tell other people about it so they could virtue signal about it for others to get the most virtue signalling points out of everyone in the room. I do kind things, but I don't tell other people about it when I do it. I only tell people if it's relevant to the conversation or if someone asks me. I can list 5 kind things I have done in my life to people where I got nothing back so it was altruistic.
  1. I helped someone pass their university year retake by doing their coursework for them. After she brought me a meal in a restaurant, we never saw each other again.
  2. I called an ambulance for a family whose mother accidentally drove her car into a lamppost making it bend. After I got no thank you and never saw them again.
  3. I helped a 13 year old girl online from another country with her depression. After she said that she was glad to of "met" me, then we never spoke to each other again.
  4. I helped someone 2 years younger than me with their depression. After she said that I'm different to everyone else, wouldn't tell me why, she never thanked me, and we never spoke to each other again.
  5. A 17 year old girl who is catcalled and followed by men every time she walks outside her house, her phone broke and she was concerned for her safety going outside knowing that she lives around dangerous people. I brought her a phone despite my low income at the time and she felt much safer.

Would those adults do something like that to help someone................ NO! When I am kind it is life changing and I don't tell anyone. When they are kind it is very minimal of which the only purpose is for virtue signalling.

PS. Why any child or adult would consistently come to me for emotional support when they are upset about something or depressed, I do not know LOL.


Those adults only do kind things to children when they want to, not when they're asked to

What's funny is that if you be forthright and ask for those adults to do something nice to you, they will refuse. They will only do kind things when they wish to, not when they are asked to. I can give three examples of this.
  • If you are in a corner shop (off license) and they want to buy you sweets, they will. However if they have £20 or £50 in their wallet and you want them to buy them sweets that only cost 50p, they will refuse.
  • When they want to help you on your homework, they will. However if you ask them to help you on your homework, they will always say that they don't have the time because they're busy or that they don't understand the work even though they can understand some of it.
  • When they want to talk about what they want to talk about for HOURS, you listen out of politeness or out of interest. But when you want to talk about something that takes 10-30 minutes to explain, they don't want to know.

So if those adults only do kind things to children when they feel the wish to, and not when they're asked to, are they really kind?


Those adults don't take children seriously when they inform them on an important issue

I was helping a 13 year old girl with her depression online, and she told me that her older sister used to hit her when her mother was outside the house. She did not live with her dad. When her mother got home, she would tell her that she was hit by her older sister, and she would say that because she wasn't in the house when it happened, she can't do anything about it because she could be lying. I had to tell her why her mother was being abusive. You know what they say, people who are abused do not realise they are being abused. Yes because the abuser is manipulative. Adults like the ones I'm describing, would do something like that. Say that because they weren't in the house when something happened, they can't do anything about it, and the thing would repeat itself over and over again and they would let the pattern of abuse continue.

According to British childrens charity NSPCC, "emotional neglect" is a form of abuse. Is that a denial of love, care, engagement and affection? Who knows? Well everyone knows that it's a tricky term to define, even though we all know what it is. The British government defines emotional neglect as this
The persistent emotional maltreatment of a child such as to cause severe and persistent adverse effects on the child's emotional development.

It may involve conveying to a child that they are worthless or unloved, inadequate, or valued only insofar as they meet the needs of another person. It may include not giving the child opportunities to express their views, deliberately silencing them or 'making fun' of what they say or how they communicate.

It may feature age or developmentally inappropriate expectations being imposed on children. These may include interactions that are beyond a child's developmental capability, as well as overprotection and limitation of exploration and learning, or preventing the child participating in normal social interaction. It may involve seeing or hearing the ill-treatment of another. It may involve serious bullying (including cyber bullying), causing children frequently to feel frightened or in danger, or the exploitation or corruption of children.

Some level of emotional abuse is involved in all types of maltreatment of a child, though it may occur alone.

Source: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachmentdata/file/419595/WorkingTogethertoSafeguard_Children.pdf

The NSPCC says

Because there's an element of emotional abuse in all other types of child abuse and neglect, it can be difficult to spot the signs and to separate what's emotional abuse from other types of abuse. Emotional abuse includes:
  • humiliating or constantly criticising a child
  • threatening, shouting at a child or calling them names
  • making the child the subject of jokes, or using sarcasm to hurt a child
  • blaming, scapegoating
  • making a child perform degrading acts
  • not recognising a child's own individuality, trying to control their lives
  • pushing a child too hard or not recognising their limitations
  • exposing a child to distressing events or interactions such as domestic abuse or drug taking
  • failing to promote a child's social development
  • not allowing them to have friends
  • persistently ignoring them
  • being absent
  • manipulating a child
  • never saying anything kind, expressing positive feelings or congratulating a child on successes
  • never showing any emotions in interactions with a child, also known as emotional neglect.

Need I say any more, when I say that adults who say that children have no agency, are the exact same adults who do those things? When a child colours something in or does a drawing and shows it to their parents who believe that, the adult is nonchalant, standoffish and guarded.

In school, well British schools anyway, there is a government mandated assembly where a teacher tells kids about the Every Child Matters. It involves three things. First, that teachers look for signs of abuse in children such as if they come to school with a mark on their body or if they eat other people's leftover food or food off the ground, to report it to Social Services. Secondly, that teachers are affiliated with social services, so a child can easily tell a teacher about abuse happening at home, and the teacher will report it to social services. And third, under Every Child Matters, the child's word will always be believed over the word of an adult. Well that's what teachers say (probably because they're told to say it by the government).

Well I know someone who started to get mental health issues at age 6, yes age six, when they were in Year 2. Well I know I child who reported to their teacher about a domestic abuse situation that was happening in their family home. As the abuse was psychological abuse, there was no physical marks. When they reported it to their teacher, their response was "Why don't you just do whatever you did again? Buy a new one and do whatever you did again. But everyone loses things they had as a child. I don't have some of the things I had as a child. People lose things all the time, it's not a big deal." When the same person started reporting disturbed thoughts the same age they reported it, still at age 6, and reported it to three teachers, because the child was very young and small, none of the teachers took it seriously. The child even reported themselves hearing voices to the police when a policeman visited the school, and he didn't believe them and found the whole thing amusing, whilst smiling and laughing, along with the teachers around him. Years later the person developed psychosis.

All would of been prevented if the teachers and police had taken the child seriously. And the person's life was ruined due to 14 years of abuse. That is where "children don't have agency" leads children to. Childrens lives end up ruined with their dreams trashed and they end up either ruined by depression, ruined by suicide or ruined by medication that has side effects.


Their children don't do half the shit that those adults do

For people who claim that children don't have agency, their own children are nicer and more moral people than they ever claim to be or are. I have been a victim of attempted murder multiple times and survived making a full recovery, and passive aggressive behaviour such as talking behind my back, distorting the truth and discouragement masqueraded as genuine advice. Those parents children, do not do those things, and they don't do half the shit that those adults do. Their children are much nicer people than they will ever be, even though those children are raised with bad parenting.


Those adults claim that children have no agency, to compensate for their lame personality's shitty behaviour


"Why are you talking to children for?" (said in a tone of voice as if I'm doing something wrong)
Everyone has a unique story to tell from their life, and everyone has a unique worldview of how they see the world. To dismiss someone's story or worldview based on their age, if you do that, then you are not an interesting person. Your relationships with people will be shallow relationships if you are like that.

You know what they say, Great men are made, not born. Think of all the greats whose name have lasted for long after they died. Kurt Cobain, Martin Luther King, Mother Teresa, Andy Warhol, John Lennon, Julias Caesar, Princess Diana.

The real reason why these people say that children have no agency, is because they are compensating for their shitty behaviour. By desecrating billions of people worldwide throwing them under a bus, they can then use that to boost themselves higher. By moving everyone else down, they move up. Let's face it. Their personality sucks because their behaviour sucks. As they've never actually tried to improve their behaviour really, and show the best version of themselves, their personality is lame, they have shitty behaviour. You would not invite these people to a party or your podcast. You would not phone these people if you were at a police station and the police gave you one number to call. Because their stature is bad, they can only compete with footing, and as they can't compete on merit, they have to punish the productive by moving everyone else down.

People who say that children have no agency, are compensating for their lame personality's shitty behaviour. These people are not nice people. They might seem nice, but they are not nice. Because they are horrible and awful people, they need a way to compensate for that. So they put on a persona, they show face (have a face on their face), they use overzealous pleasantries when they meet someone as part of a "confidence trick". Be careful of these people. Spend too much time with them, or only spend time with them and not anyone else, and see how your life turns out. You will suffer immensely!
"Why are you talking to children for?" (said in a tone of voice as if I'm doing something wrong)
Let me ask you one thing.

Who is better equipped to provide children emotional support for their life issues and mental health issues? Children or adults?

Why do you think children talk to adults in the first place? Because adults know about "the world" and can help them with their mental health issues!

People ask me to get into mental health activism. I prefer to put my time and effort into my creativity. However when you think about it, this forum website Compesh, my chat room Compesh, and my social network Greethouse, is mental health activism when you think about it properly, as my terms of service aka rules is intentionally not abiguous it's clear cut, as it is very clear on what types of speech and abusive behavior is not allowed on Compesh, and which is allowed. There is no two ways about it. So many people have been helped from Compesh and Greethouse. Just because you can't see them, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Compesh and Greethouse has changed people's lives for the better. It's so funny it hurts, and you ain't even know it!
About tynamite
I run Compesh.
I understand writing, music, programming, marketing and sociology.
Two things I hate, cobbers and IP theft cartels.
PM me if you want to chat.
Support Compesh by buying from my shop


Do you want to post a comment on this article? To do so, you must login
What's an assertion, and what should I type in?

Compesh is a question and answer (and debate) website, so before you make a debate, you better learn what an assertion is. I suppose you already know what a question is, and that you've typed it in the box. ;)

An assertion, is basically a statement you can make, that is either true or false.

Richer people have better health.

The question for that would be, Do richer people have better health?

And don't forget to make your assertion, match your question.

Compesh logo