Showing posts with label Self Defence for kids. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Self Defence for kids. Show all posts
Monday, July 16, 2012
Sunday, March 4, 2012
7 year old girl fights off attacker! Great job!
Great work by this girl! Listen to the last thing she says... "My school taught me...etc" She did what she was taught and it saved her. Yet still we have to BATTLE to get our education into schools or to get many parents to invest in their children's safety. Apathy and denial are the biggest threat to our kids...Check this great job out:
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1442200775001/
and here's the link to Whitcoulls online for our book 'Empower Your Kids to be Safe...For Life'. CLICK HERE
http://video.foxnews.com/v/1442200775001/
and here's the link to Whitcoulls online for our book 'Empower Your Kids to be Safe...For Life'. CLICK HERE
Tuesday, February 28, 2012
You Didn’t Thank Me For Punching You in the Face
You Didn’t Thank Me For Punching You in the Face
Original article HEREParents...This article is excellent and something I definitely support the philosophy of. I have written about this in the past but I love the blunt style of the article. Enjoy!
I am sure every girl can recall, at least once as a child, coming home and telling their parents, uncle, aunt or grandparent about a boy who had pulled her hair, hit her, teased her, pushed her or committed some other playground crime. I will bet money that most of those, if not all, will tell you that they were told “Oh, that just means he likes you”. I never really thought much about it before having a daughter of my own. I find it appalling that this line of bullshit is still being fed to young children. Look, if you want to tell your child that being verbally and/or physically abused is an acceptable sign of affection, i urge you to rethink your parenting strategy. If you try and feed MY daughter that crap, you better bring protective gear because I am going to shower you with the brand of “affection” you are endorsing.
When the fuck was it decided that we should start teaching our daughters to accept being belittled, disrespected and abused as endearing treatment? And we have the audacity to wonder why women stay in abusive relationships? How did society become so oblivious to the fact that we were conditioning our daughters to endure abusive treatment, much less view it as romantic overtures? Is this where the phrase “hitting on girls” comes from? Well, here is a tip: Save the “it’s so cute when he gets hateful/physical with her because it means he loves her” asshattery for your own kids, not mine. While you’re at it, keep them away from my kids until you decide to teach them respect and boundaries.
My daughter is `10 years old and has come home on more than one occasion recounting an incident at school in which she was teased or harassed by a male classmate. There has been several times when someone that she was retelling the story to responded with the old, “that just means he likes you” line. Wrong. I want my daughter to know that being disrespected is NEVER acceptable. I want my daughter to know that if someone likes her and respects her, much less LOVES her, they don’t hurt her and they don’t put her down. I want my daughter to know that the boy called her ugly or pushed her or pulled her hair didn’t do it because he admires her, it is because he is a little asshole and assholes are an occurrence of society that will have to be dealt with for the rest of her life. I want my daughter to know how to deal with assholes she will encounter throughout her life. For now, I want my daughter to know that if someone is verbally harassing her, she should tell the teacher and if the teacher does nothing, she should tell me. If someone physically touches her, tell the teacher then, if it continues, to yell, “STOP TOUCHING/PUNCHING/PUSHING ME” in the middle of class or the hallway, then tell me. Last year, one little boy stole her silly bandz from her. He just grabbed her and yanked a handful of them off of her wrist. When I went to the school to address the incident, the teacher smiled and explained it away to her, in front of me, “he probably has a crush on you”. Okay, the boy walked up to my daughter, grabbed and held her by the arm and forcibly removed her bracelets from her as she struggled and you want to convince her that she should be flattered? Fuck off. I am going to punch you in the face but I hope you realize it is just my way of thanking you for the great advice you gave my daughter. If these same advice givers’ sons came home crying because another male classmate was pushing them, pulling their hair, hitting them or calling them names, I would bet dollars to donuts they would tell him to defend themselves and kick the kid’s ass, if necessary. They sure as shit wouldn’t say, “he probably just wants a play date”.
I will teach my daughter to accept nothing less than respect. Anyone who hurts her physically or emotionally doesn’t deserve her respect, friendship or love. I will teach my boys the same thing as well as the fact that hitting on girls doesn’t involve hitting girls. I can’t teach my daughter to respect herself if I am teaching her that no one else has to respect her. I can’t raise sons that respect women, if I teach them that bullying is a valid expression of affection.
The next time that someone offers up that little “secret” to my daughter, I am going to slap the person across the face and yell, “I LOVE YOU”.
Parents, if you have not read this book yet, it is a very cheap investment in your children's safety: CLICK HERE
Tuesday, August 9, 2011
'Child Power' Article: The Aucklander
'Child Power' Article: The Aucklander, August 4 2011
'Empower Your Kids to be Safe...For Life' available in most bookstores or from Amazon.com by clicking HERE
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Impulse...
Some kids tag a man's fence, he sees them and chases them down the road with a kitchen knife. A fight ensues and he stabs one of them. The kid dies, the man is sent to prison. Many lives are destroyed. Why didn't he get descriptions and call the police?
A man is walking with his girlfriend when they are mugged at gunpoint for her purse. Because he is a martial arts black belt he tries to physically engage the mugger and is shot dead. Why didn't they just hand over the purse?
A champion kickboxer is training when he sees someone back into his car and drive off. He chases the car down the road and tries to drag the guy out of the car when it stops at an intersection. The guys pulls a weapon and kills the kickboxer. Why didn't he just get the car's licence plate and call the Police?
A man is in his kitchen when he sees a couple of youths kick his letterbox over. He chases them down the street and catches them. One of them picks up a rock and hits him on the head and in the face repeatedly with it. He is left with severe brain damage. Why didn't he just call the Police?
And then this today:
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9775930/melbourne-woman-dies-in-stabbing/
Youths threw eggs at their house. So they chased them, and now the lady is dead. Why didn't they just call the Police?
I have literally dozens of real stories, like the ones above that illustrate this point. Now I know it's easy to say what they 'could have done' when no-one can say for sure what should/could/would have happened unless they were actually there, but these are straight forward enough to illustrate a point.
That point is that when people have not had any decent self defence training, they are often unable to see the context of situations when they perceive threat or are at the mercy of fear and/or anger, and often act on impulse...Often with disasterous counsequesnces. Our courses prepare peoople to deal with the behavioual and psychological aspects of these situations so that these tragic outcomes can be avoided. This is real self defence, applicable to anyone, in any area, at any age...
A man is walking with his girlfriend when they are mugged at gunpoint for her purse. Because he is a martial arts black belt he tries to physically engage the mugger and is shot dead. Why didn't they just hand over the purse?
A champion kickboxer is training when he sees someone back into his car and drive off. He chases the car down the road and tries to drag the guy out of the car when it stops at an intersection. The guys pulls a weapon and kills the kickboxer. Why didn't he just get the car's licence plate and call the Police?
A man is in his kitchen when he sees a couple of youths kick his letterbox over. He chases them down the street and catches them. One of them picks up a rock and hits him on the head and in the face repeatedly with it. He is left with severe brain damage. Why didn't he just call the Police?
And then this today:
http://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/9775930/melbourne-woman-dies-in-stabbing/
Youths threw eggs at their house. So they chased them, and now the lady is dead. Why didn't they just call the Police?
I have literally dozens of real stories, like the ones above that illustrate this point. Now I know it's easy to say what they 'could have done' when no-one can say for sure what should/could/would have happened unless they were actually there, but these are straight forward enough to illustrate a point.
That point is that when people have not had any decent self defence training, they are often unable to see the context of situations when they perceive threat or are at the mercy of fear and/or anger, and often act on impulse...Often with disasterous counsequesnces. Our courses prepare peoople to deal with the behavioual and psychological aspects of these situations so that these tragic outcomes can be avoided. This is real self defence, applicable to anyone, in any area, at any age...
Thursday, June 23, 2011
Online Safety for Kids Series Part 3
Our new book 'Empower Your Kids to be Safe...For Life' has been getting fantastic reviews and I am really stoked with the feedback. So I thought I'd pick some pieces of it and give them away for free to you. So over the next few blogs I will reporoduce parts of the section on Online safety, as I receive quite a few questions about this subject. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. Phil
3)Ensure that all Security Software is Installed and Up To Date.
A computer without adequate, updated virus protection software is exposed to multiple risks including Malware (malicious software including viruses, spyware, trojan horses, adware, and spam), Identity theft, Spoofing, Phishing, and Keystroke loggers. It is vital that you have adequate software installed and that it is kept updated to protect your kids and yourself from these threats.
For younger children (pre-teen) you may also choose to register with a child specific ISP (Internet Service Provider). These ISP’s function as your child’s home page browser and only allow children to surf areas of the internet that are approved for children of specific ages. There are several of these browsers available. Two of them are www.razzul.com and www.kidwideweb.net
3)Ensure that all Security Software is Installed and Up To Date.
A computer without adequate, updated virus protection software is exposed to multiple risks including Malware (malicious software including viruses, spyware, trojan horses, adware, and spam), Identity theft, Spoofing, Phishing, and Keystroke loggers. It is vital that you have adequate software installed and that it is kept updated to protect your kids and yourself from these threats.
For younger children (pre-teen) you may also choose to register with a child specific ISP (Internet Service Provider). These ISP’s function as your child’s home page browser and only allow children to surf areas of the internet that are approved for children of specific ages. There are several of these browsers available. Two of them are www.razzul.com and www.kidwideweb.net
Tuesday, June 7, 2011
Online Safety For Kids Series - Part 2
Our new book 'Empower Your Kids to be Safe...For Life' has been getting fantastic reviews and I am really stoked with the feedback. So I thought I'd pick some pieces of it and give them away for free to you. So over the next few blogs I will reporoduce parts of the section on Online safety, as I receive quite a few questions about this subject. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. Phil
2) Openly Communicate and Participate
The more that you participate and communicate with your child about their online activities, without seeming meddlesome, the more you will be able to understand what they get up to and how safe they are being.
One of the best ways to do this is to let them show you, and teach you, things on the internet. Be open to learning new things from them and ask relevant (sometimes ‘loaded’) questions as you go. For example: “Thanks for showing me how the chat room works, can you please tell me how to make sure that no-one can view my personal information? Also, what are the best strategies that you use to avoid contact with predators online?” Questions like this allow you to gauge their level of understanding and competence in this area, and if it is good, you can reinforce it with praise. If it is clearly lacking you can give them guidance and help them set new boundaries.
It is also important that you understand chat and SMS text lingo. It can seem like a completely different language and it is important that you at least understand the basics of it to know what is being said.
Examples of just a few of the commonly used chat acronyms are:
A/S/L = Age/Sex/Location
CD9 or just 9 = Parents are around/watching
CTN = Can’t talk now
LMIRL = Lets meet in real life
ILU = I love you
IWSN = I want sex now
F2F = Face to face
GNOC = Get naked on cam
HAK = Hugs and kisses
KPC = Keeping parents clueless
TDTM = Talk dirty to me
PAL = Parents are listening
PAW = Parents are watching
WTF = What the f**k
WYRN = What’s your real name?
These are just a few of the relevant ones, so you can see that without any knowledge of chat lingo your kids could very well keep you in the ‘KPC’ category.
An excellent website that has been set up to help you decipher and understand chat lingo is www.netlingo.com. They even have an ‘Acronyms for parents’ section with the top chat acronyms that parents need to know.
3) To be continued in the next blog...
2) Openly Communicate and Participate
The more that you participate and communicate with your child about their online activities, without seeming meddlesome, the more you will be able to understand what they get up to and how safe they are being.
One of the best ways to do this is to let them show you, and teach you, things on the internet. Be open to learning new things from them and ask relevant (sometimes ‘loaded’) questions as you go. For example: “Thanks for showing me how the chat room works, can you please tell me how to make sure that no-one can view my personal information? Also, what are the best strategies that you use to avoid contact with predators online?” Questions like this allow you to gauge their level of understanding and competence in this area, and if it is good, you can reinforce it with praise. If it is clearly lacking you can give them guidance and help them set new boundaries.
It is also important that you understand chat and SMS text lingo. It can seem like a completely different language and it is important that you at least understand the basics of it to know what is being said.
Examples of just a few of the commonly used chat acronyms are:
A/S/L = Age/Sex/Location
CD9 or just 9 = Parents are around/watching
CTN = Can’t talk now
LMIRL = Lets meet in real life
ILU = I love you
IWSN = I want sex now
F2F = Face to face
GNOC = Get naked on cam
HAK = Hugs and kisses
KPC = Keeping parents clueless
TDTM = Talk dirty to me
PAL = Parents are listening
PAW = Parents are watching
WTF = What the f**k
WYRN = What’s your real name?
These are just a few of the relevant ones, so you can see that without any knowledge of chat lingo your kids could very well keep you in the ‘KPC’ category.
An excellent website that has been set up to help you decipher and understand chat lingo is www.netlingo.com. They even have an ‘Acronyms for parents’ section with the top chat acronyms that parents need to know.
3) To be continued in the next blog...
Monday, June 6, 2011
Online Safety For Kids Series - Part 1
Our new book 'Empower Your Kids to be Safe...For Life' has been getting fantastic reviews and I am really stoked with the feedback. So I thought I'd pick some pieces of it and give them away for free to you. So over the next few blogs I will reporoduce parts of the section on Online safety, as I receive quite a few questions about this subject. Please let me know if you have any questions. Cheers. Phil
Most kids regularly use the internet to safely interact with hundreds of people (who they either know or don’t know) through social network and gaming sites. The threat of online sexual predators may not be as prolific as the media will have us believe but it is certainly a genuine threat. Some sexual predators spend a great deal of time searching the internet for potential victims whom they can groom, so it is vital that kids know the risks of various activities, and how to stay safe from them.
To be able to successfully guide children to stay safe and be responsible on the internet it is important that the issues are openly communicated between you and your kids. What you perceive to be issues and what your kids perceive to be issues may be worlds apart, so it is important to bridge the gap to ensure that your kids ‘buy in’ to the rules. You can be sure that if kids don’t understand the reasons behind the internet safety rules, and if they think their parent is out of touch and doesn’t understand how things really work on the internet (a commonly held, and sometimes accurate belief among a lot of kids), they will find a way to circumvent the rules. If they fully understand the actual risks, not the over exaggerated ones, and have the strategies to deal with them, then they will follow the rules in any environment whether supervised or unsupervised. Remember, most kids have access to the internet from multiple different sources including home, school, work, internet cafe, friend’s houses, their cellphone/PDA, their friend’s cellphone/PDA etc, so it is unrealistic to think that you are going to be able to supervise all of their internet activity. That is why it is so important to work with your kids on this, not simply apply hard and fast rules which they resent or don’t understand. If you do take that position, as soon as they have the chance, and that will be often, they will ignore the rules (maybe even act in spite of them, which is even more dangerous) and be open to potential victimisation.
Before we look at the greatest risks that kids face on the internet, and strategies to address them, there are a couple of key strategies that you as the parent can take to ensure your children’s responsible and safe use of the internet:
1) Set Boundaries and Supervise Their Activities
Depending on the age of the child, there is one highly effective and important strategy that you can implement to minimise the online risks to your kids. I advocate this strategy for all pre-teen children. It is very simply:
Do not allow the computer to be located in the child’s bedroom or other private place, move it into a public area of the house.
This will help with the immediate issue of supervision while you teach your child how to use the internet safely.
Set boundaries with your kids including time limits online, and rules around the sharing/displaying of any kind of personal information online, as discussed below, and supervise their compliance. Keep in mind though that your kids probably know more about the internet than you do. If they do not understand why the rules are in place, and how they keep them safe, they will find a way around them. For example:
• You can check the browsing history to see what sites they have been to, but most kids know how to delete these and their temporary internet files to prevent you from checking up on them
• You can monitor their emails, but many kids set up multiple accounts; one for you to see and another for their private use. Additionally they will delete sent and received emails (or IM conversation logs) that they don’t want you to see
• You can watch their social networking pages, but often times kids will set up multiple pages; one which they allow you to see and join as their ‘friend’, and another which they use to communicate with their friends etc
• You can check the saved file content on the computer but kids will often just save anything they don’t want you to see on a removable hard drive and/or rename files to non descript and covert names which don’t attract any attention to them
• You can password protect their access, but most kids will bypass this very quickly
These are just a few of the ways kids can hide what they are doing online. There are of course other options available to parents such as installing overt or covert tracking software, but that only addresses the home computer use, not all of the other access points that they have to the internet. In my opinion the most effective way to ensure children’s online safety and responsibility is to openly educate and guide them, and let them be involved in the boundary setting (aka ‘rule setting’) process. If they feel that they helped make the rules, because they understand the risks, they will be more likely to always follow them wherever they are. Use the Online Safety Agreement in Appendix Four as a guide to set and agree on the boundaries.
2) To be continued in the next blog...
Most kids regularly use the internet to safely interact with hundreds of people (who they either know or don’t know) through social network and gaming sites. The threat of online sexual predators may not be as prolific as the media will have us believe but it is certainly a genuine threat. Some sexual predators spend a great deal of time searching the internet for potential victims whom they can groom, so it is vital that kids know the risks of various activities, and how to stay safe from them.
To be able to successfully guide children to stay safe and be responsible on the internet it is important that the issues are openly communicated between you and your kids. What you perceive to be issues and what your kids perceive to be issues may be worlds apart, so it is important to bridge the gap to ensure that your kids ‘buy in’ to the rules. You can be sure that if kids don’t understand the reasons behind the internet safety rules, and if they think their parent is out of touch and doesn’t understand how things really work on the internet (a commonly held, and sometimes accurate belief among a lot of kids), they will find a way to circumvent the rules. If they fully understand the actual risks, not the over exaggerated ones, and have the strategies to deal with them, then they will follow the rules in any environment whether supervised or unsupervised. Remember, most kids have access to the internet from multiple different sources including home, school, work, internet cafe, friend’s houses, their cellphone/PDA, their friend’s cellphone/PDA etc, so it is unrealistic to think that you are going to be able to supervise all of their internet activity. That is why it is so important to work with your kids on this, not simply apply hard and fast rules which they resent or don’t understand. If you do take that position, as soon as they have the chance, and that will be often, they will ignore the rules (maybe even act in spite of them, which is even more dangerous) and be open to potential victimisation.
Before we look at the greatest risks that kids face on the internet, and strategies to address them, there are a couple of key strategies that you as the parent can take to ensure your children’s responsible and safe use of the internet:
1) Set Boundaries and Supervise Their Activities
Depending on the age of the child, there is one highly effective and important strategy that you can implement to minimise the online risks to your kids. I advocate this strategy for all pre-teen children. It is very simply:
Do not allow the computer to be located in the child’s bedroom or other private place, move it into a public area of the house.
This will help with the immediate issue of supervision while you teach your child how to use the internet safely.
Set boundaries with your kids including time limits online, and rules around the sharing/displaying of any kind of personal information online, as discussed below, and supervise their compliance. Keep in mind though that your kids probably know more about the internet than you do. If they do not understand why the rules are in place, and how they keep them safe, they will find a way around them. For example:
• You can check the browsing history to see what sites they have been to, but most kids know how to delete these and their temporary internet files to prevent you from checking up on them
• You can monitor their emails, but many kids set up multiple accounts; one for you to see and another for their private use. Additionally they will delete sent and received emails (or IM conversation logs) that they don’t want you to see
• You can watch their social networking pages, but often times kids will set up multiple pages; one which they allow you to see and join as their ‘friend’, and another which they use to communicate with their friends etc
• You can check the saved file content on the computer but kids will often just save anything they don’t want you to see on a removable hard drive and/or rename files to non descript and covert names which don’t attract any attention to them
• You can password protect their access, but most kids will bypass this very quickly
These are just a few of the ways kids can hide what they are doing online. There are of course other options available to parents such as installing overt or covert tracking software, but that only addresses the home computer use, not all of the other access points that they have to the internet. In my opinion the most effective way to ensure children’s online safety and responsibility is to openly educate and guide them, and let them be involved in the boundary setting (aka ‘rule setting’) process. If they feel that they helped make the rules, because they understand the risks, they will be more likely to always follow them wherever they are. Use the Online Safety Agreement in Appendix Four as a guide to set and agree on the boundaries.
2) To be continued in the next blog...
Tuesday, May 24, 2011
New book launched!
Our long awaited book for kids is now available! You can purchase at Amazon.com, Barnes & Noble, Angus & Robertson and most good booksellers. At the moment it is cheapest from our online store HERE
Enjoy!
Enjoy!Wednesday, February 16, 2011
'Power Up Your Kids' latest article from Darcy Mellsop
Here is Wellington Regional Instructor Darcy Mellsop's latest article. Enjoy!
Thursday, February 3, 2011
Thursday, November 4, 2010
Free video on Self Defence Fundamentals!
Hi Everyone,
We have had so many questions on the fundamental aspects of our training that we have done something very cool for you...Click on this link:
http://www.protectlessonsgiveaway.com/signup.php
Enter your name and email and we will send you a video that was taken at one of our recent seminars where I explain many of our fundamentals. Not only that, but you can get a second video for free too, instructions on how to do that are on the email you will receive when you request this one.
Anyone interested in real self defence will get good value from these videos. I'd love to hear your feedback too.
Enjoy!
Phil
We have had so many questions on the fundamental aspects of our training that we have done something very cool for you...Click on this link:
http://www.protectlessonsgiveaway.com/signup.php
Enter your name and email and we will send you a video that was taken at one of our recent seminars where I explain many of our fundamentals. Not only that, but you can get a second video for free too, instructions on how to do that are on the email you will receive when you request this one.
Anyone interested in real self defence will get good value from these videos. I'd love to hear your feedback too.
Enjoy!
Phil
Tuesday, July 13, 2010
Facebook Predators
Below is an article by Lori Getz regarding Facebook Predators:
Ashleigh Hall, 17, was raped and murdered by a 33-year-old man she met on Facebook who was posing as a teenager. How does this happen?
Who is Peter Cartwright? Is he a 19-year-old Facebook hottie, or a 33-year-old registered sex offender? The answer became clear after the man behind the pseudo-identity, Peter Chapman, raped and murdered 17-year-old Ashleigh Hall in the fall of last year. He was found guilty on Monday and sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Ashleigh and Peter met on Facebook and quickly became friendly, exchanging notes on their walls. They even sent text messages to each other. Peter was posing as an attractive 19-year-old, using a photo of a bare-chested young man as his profile picture.
Within a month, Peter had convinced Ashleigh to agree to a face-to-face meeting, telling her his father would be picking her up for the weekend rendezvous. Ashleigh’s body was found the following Monday.
How does this happen? How do good kids fall prey to such horror? What is Facebook’s responsibility? What is our responsibility as parents?
First, it happens more often than we want to think. It doesn’t always end as tragically, but our kids are enamored with being “famo,” or Internet-famous. The more friends they have online, the more popular they seem to think they are. But this just isn’t so. The truth is, the more online friends they have, the bigger the target on their back.
Good kids fall prey to predators for a couple of reasons:
1) They are trusting! They have a hard time believing anyone would want to do them harm.
2) Predators are smart and patient! They find “good victims” and wait patiently to cultivate a relationship that is built on a false sense of trust and loyalty. A predator will become your child’s best friend, significant other, parent or mentor. They will be whatever the victim needs them to be in order to gain their trust.
What makes a “good victim?”
A “good victim,” in the eyes of a predator, is someone who is seeking attention. When predators see sexy or provocative profile pictures on Facebook, they are drawn to the users because they see them as attention seekers. And remember, predators are very good at giving victims all the attention in the world. Also, kids who are willing to friend just about anyone online are also seen as “good victims,” because, again, they display attention-seeking behavior. Finally, when a user posts status updates about hating his/her parents or school, this gives the predator an opening to connect with the victim.
Is Facebook responsible?
Yes and no. Facebook, in my opinion, has a responsibility to act when lascivious or questionable behavior is brought to their attention. In the past, Facebook has removed known registered sex offenders from the site. The company encourages users to report any type of abuse that occurs within their site. Users can report everything from cyberbullying to potential predators. But the USERS need to know to do this.
Facebook’s warning about dangerous predators is buried deep within the help menu under “Safety.” But it is there. The warning talks about how people can pretend to be anyone they want, and therefore it is in the users’ best interest to proceed with caution when friending strangers.
Increasing age requirements or attempting to block older and younger users is NOT going to solve these types of problems. As of now, Facebook requires that a user be 13 — but I know plenty of 10-year-olds who have accounts (and their parents know about it). The kids just lie, and Facebook has no way of verifying such information (especially if the parents are in on the deception).
That’s where we come in as parents. What is our responsibility?
To be active and involved parents in our children’s online world — the SAME way we are active and involved parents in their physical world. Education is the ONLY option here. Social networking has its pitfalls, but it also has incredible value when used appropriately. Staying connected with friends, marketing a new business, exchanging photos with family members across the world — these are all positive things.
But we need to start talking to our kids about the fact that these communities have the same rules that our personal communities have. Keep personal information private, respect one another and do not involve ourselves with total strangers or invite them into our lives.
———————————————————————————————
Lori Getz
Lori Getz is the founder of Cyber Education Consultants and speaks to students, parents and educators about Internet safety, security and ethics. She has a Master of Arts in Educational Technology from San Diego State University and is certified by isafe.org as an Internet Safety Specialist. Her mission is to help bridge the gap between a young generation of digital natives and their parents and teachers. She is the mother of one and lives in Los Angeles with her husband
Ashleigh Hall, 17, was raped and murdered by a 33-year-old man she met on Facebook who was posing as a teenager. How does this happen?
Who is Peter Cartwright? Is he a 19-year-old Facebook hottie, or a 33-year-old registered sex offender? The answer became clear after the man behind the pseudo-identity, Peter Chapman, raped and murdered 17-year-old Ashleigh Hall in the fall of last year. He was found guilty on Monday and sentenced to 35 years in prison.
Ashleigh and Peter met on Facebook and quickly became friendly, exchanging notes on their walls. They even sent text messages to each other. Peter was posing as an attractive 19-year-old, using a photo of a bare-chested young man as his profile picture.
Within a month, Peter had convinced Ashleigh to agree to a face-to-face meeting, telling her his father would be picking her up for the weekend rendezvous. Ashleigh’s body was found the following Monday.
How does this happen? How do good kids fall prey to such horror? What is Facebook’s responsibility? What is our responsibility as parents?
First, it happens more often than we want to think. It doesn’t always end as tragically, but our kids are enamored with being “famo,” or Internet-famous. The more friends they have online, the more popular they seem to think they are. But this just isn’t so. The truth is, the more online friends they have, the bigger the target on their back.
Good kids fall prey to predators for a couple of reasons:
1) They are trusting! They have a hard time believing anyone would want to do them harm.
2) Predators are smart and patient! They find “good victims” and wait patiently to cultivate a relationship that is built on a false sense of trust and loyalty. A predator will become your child’s best friend, significant other, parent or mentor. They will be whatever the victim needs them to be in order to gain their trust.
What makes a “good victim?”
A “good victim,” in the eyes of a predator, is someone who is seeking attention. When predators see sexy or provocative profile pictures on Facebook, they are drawn to the users because they see them as attention seekers. And remember, predators are very good at giving victims all the attention in the world. Also, kids who are willing to friend just about anyone online are also seen as “good victims,” because, again, they display attention-seeking behavior. Finally, when a user posts status updates about hating his/her parents or school, this gives the predator an opening to connect with the victim.
Is Facebook responsible?
Yes and no. Facebook, in my opinion, has a responsibility to act when lascivious or questionable behavior is brought to their attention. In the past, Facebook has removed known registered sex offenders from the site. The company encourages users to report any type of abuse that occurs within their site. Users can report everything from cyberbullying to potential predators. But the USERS need to know to do this.
Facebook’s warning about dangerous predators is buried deep within the help menu under “Safety.” But it is there. The warning talks about how people can pretend to be anyone they want, and therefore it is in the users’ best interest to proceed with caution when friending strangers.
Increasing age requirements or attempting to block older and younger users is NOT going to solve these types of problems. As of now, Facebook requires that a user be 13 — but I know plenty of 10-year-olds who have accounts (and their parents know about it). The kids just lie, and Facebook has no way of verifying such information (especially if the parents are in on the deception).
That’s where we come in as parents. What is our responsibility?
To be active and involved parents in our children’s online world — the SAME way we are active and involved parents in their physical world. Education is the ONLY option here. Social networking has its pitfalls, but it also has incredible value when used appropriately. Staying connected with friends, marketing a new business, exchanging photos with family members across the world — these are all positive things.
But we need to start talking to our kids about the fact that these communities have the same rules that our personal communities have. Keep personal information private, respect one another and do not involve ourselves with total strangers or invite them into our lives.
———————————————————————————————
Lori Getz
Lori Getz is the founder of Cyber Education Consultants and speaks to students, parents and educators about Internet safety, security and ethics. She has a Master of Arts in Educational Technology from San Diego State University and is certified by isafe.org as an Internet Safety Specialist. Her mission is to help bridge the gap between a young generation of digital natives and their parents and teachers. She is the mother of one and lives in Los Angeles with her husband
Wednesday, May 26, 2010
Child sexual predators 'sick'?
Below is part of a Facebook conversation between Richard Dimitri (founder of Senshido), Ryan Sainsbury (senior Protect student), Craig Walsh (briefly - Senshido affiliate UK) and myself. I thought I would copy it here as I think it raises some interesting points of view around child sexual predators...
Richard Dimitri - Senshido International: "Despite Facebook's attempts to safeguard its users from sexual predators, tens of thousands of registered sex offenders have been able to slip through the cracks in security. Those with CHILDREN please, make certain you set your privacy settings accodingly especially when it comes to your children's profiles and pictures shared."
Craig Welsh
"dirty bastards.."
Richard Dimitri
"Most yes, some are actually sick, realize, feel horrible for what they do, how they feel and even ask to be medically impaired from it or incarcerated. Nothing is ever cut and dry or black and white brother... the human being is much to complex a creature to be categorized under any label our intellectual mind can come with."
Phil Thompson
"Sorry Bro, I'm with Craig. Regardless of the human condition, to label all child sex offenders as 'sick' is a way that people can pigeon-hole the issue and use that as an excuse for the truth, and that is what most people do (not what you were doing I know, you said 'some'). And the truth is that they are cruel and in many instances, evil. 'Sometimes' they are 'sick', that is, they have a mental illness. 'Some' do ask for help, and good for them. Most are not sick and most do not ask for help. And the majority of the time, outside of their sexual practices they appear as normal as everyone else. 'Some' of them have a sexual attraction to kids, the vast majority are attracted to the power, manipulation, dominance and control that they can act out on the 'easiest' of targets, young kids.
It is wrong in every context, damaging in ways most people cannot even begin to comprehend, and absolutely needs to be called what it is: Cruel, horrific, and evil. Stage 1 of any problem we need to fix: Accept it and label it correctly...
My two Kiwi cents... Love ya fella"
Richard Dimitri
"I fully agree bro... no argument there at all, most are indeed sociopathic, however, there are some that are clinically and medically 'sick' and realize it and also abhor what they are... and even though they appear to normally function in everyday society doesn't take away the fact that a small percentage do actually have a mental condition, much like some drug addicts that manage to hide their addictions for years to both their friends and families as well as social networks. I'm not saying the law should ease up, I'm just saying that on a humane level, to simply throw a blanket statement isn't fair to the minority and is to a certain degree, a judgement... that's all :`)"
Phil Thompson
"Yeah, I understand bro. I have such conflicting emotions around this. On one hand I know that when we judge someone we don't define them, we just define ourselves as someone who needs to judge. I get that and I work hard on it every day, you constantly inspire me towards that. On the other hand where is the line drawn? I think our judgements are necessary to form our opinions, which are often ego fuelled I know, but sometimes necessary. I mean without them we would condone every act of violence and cruelty in the world and simply accept it as 'it is what it is'. I think my personal direction on this is that I will aim not to judge anyone as best I can for the way they act, how they live their lives, who they are etc until such time as their behaviour adversely affect other people or brings harm to any other person or creature. That is the point where I am happy to make judgements and form strong opinions on someone and take the appropriate action. Otherwise I think tolerance becomes weakness and even denial, which does not serve humanity or the world at all. In the case of child sex offenders, yes I appreciate that some of them are mentally sick. But most are not. It is just an easy lable that most bestow upon predators because it makes it easier to understand and accept. And to look at the issue with empathy or sympathy because the offender 'might' be sick is not giving it the weight it deserves. Personally I will choose to look upon every child sex offender as being cruel and evil. If through the process of law and order (for the countries which actually have it) it is determined that the person is 'mentally sick' then my opinion on the person may change, but my opinion on the crime never will...I think before society starts to worry about whether a child predator has a mental illness before they draw an opinion, society needs to wake up to the fact that we have an enormous problem, accept that these things are happening out there to our kids, silence the voice of denial that goes on for so many, and bring this issue into the mainstream so it can be reduced. Once that is done, then we can start categorising the predators and ensuring their treatment or punishment fits their own circumstances. Right now, we are a long way off..."
Ryan Sainsbury
"Y'all seem to be looking at this somewhat differently from myself, so I'm going to pitch in here.
Personally, I don't care if or why a person is attracted to children. Are they sick in the head? Fine. Do they have an innate sexual preference for children? Okay. Do they have a cruel attraction to power and dominance, and prefer the thought of enacting that upon children? I, for one, would submit that this is merely another form of sickness.
Point is, what leads them to the point of wanting to do these things to children is utterly disinteresting to me. If one of them wants help, for any of these situations, I'm all for giving it to them. If they decide to spend their lives bottling their desires up in a vortex of self-loathing and despair, then that's cool too.
Myself, I see the important distinction as being between 'person who wants to have sex with children' and someone who acts upon those desires. As far as I'm concerned, your ultimate fantasy can revolve around an orgy in the goddamn maternity ward, but the moment you actually touch a child for gratification, that is the point in time that I break out a big heaping bowl of judgment and start ladling it out.
Rich, you made the distinction between people who are clinically 'sick', and those who are sociopathic. I suggest that these are two sides of the same coin. And in the end, it makes very little difference, because both are capable of controlling their actions - the difference from one to another rests not in discerning in which particular way they specifically are fucked in the head, but whether they decided to resist the urge or not.
The sole exception to this is people who are clinically psychotic, and this is so insanely rare (there are very few true psychotics, and most of their blackouts end with people injured and dead, not molested) and difficult to prove that it's hardly worth mentioning. Did a quick search, and could not find a single case where this defence was even argued.
I'm not sure why we're placing such a large emphasis on why they're attracted to children. It seems entirely academic, because in the end the practical result is the same. Ultimately, anyone who wants to have sex with children wants to have sex with children, and the question seems not to be "why do you want to" so much as "did you resist the temptation to do so?"
In the end, that's the only question the child's really going to care about."
Phil Thompson
"Ryan, good points fella. I have the same thoughts on some of what you say and different thoughts on other points you have made. Particularly your point about fantasies.
Fantasies are thoughts and thoughts equal outcomes. The missing piece in the middle is... Action. If a person with child sex fantasies goes their whole life without ever doing anything about them then I agree with you. People will have their own judgements about this but at the end of the day nobody is hurt. But as soon as that person starts to take ACTION against any of their fantasies then there is an escalating problem.
Rich’s original post referred to child predators (in fact registered sex offenders) using Facebook as a means to exploit kids. That is a serious issue. It means that they have taken action against those fantasies. They are no longer harmless. In the same way that child pornography is not harmless. An argument I have heard there is that as long as the person ‘just looks but never touches’ it is harmless. That is not so. For every photo or video of child pornography there is a victim. The innocent child on the tape or in the photo is a traumatised victim and the person viewing it for their own pleasure or to satisfy their fantasy IS guilty of the crime. They have acted upon their fantasy.
That same person who views child pornography, or hunts through Facebook looking for children, left alone with a child and to their own devices would likely abuse that child in some way. Not necessarily in all cases I know, but the probability is high. Therefore the only difference between the fantasy – once any form of action has been taken against it - and the reality is opportunity.
Therefore our responsibility is to work towards removing the opportunity for sexual predators and increasing online security in just one avenue to do that. If all we worry about is “Did you resist the urge or not” and forget the “Why and how do you carry out crimes against kids” then we will always be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The biggest part of our job in this area is prevention. And knowing the ‘enemy’ is important so that we can implement preventative strategies to keep kids safe.
You stated: “Do they have a cruel attraction to power and dominance, and prefer the thought of enacting that upon children? I, for one, would submit that this is merely another form of sickness.” This I do not agree with in this context. My reference to this was in the context of people using ‘he is sick’ as an excuse for his actions. By that logic then every act of murder, cruelty, torture, manipulation, control, emotional or physical aggression is a form of ‘sickness’ and there are no evil people in the world. I don’t believe this is the case. There are some truly evil people out there. There are a hell of a lot more loving, caring, great people, but there are the bad ones too. And my point here is to call it what it is. An act of sexual violence against a child is evil. Regardless of where it came from, the act itself is evil. Now as Rich points out, there are ‘some’ cases where the person has a genuine mental illness and I accept that but once the crime has definitely been committed against the child this is a case where I think ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is relevant when it comes to proving mental illness as an excuse.
Loving the conversation and debate here, awesome."
Ryan Sainsbury
"Hey Phil, you've made some pretty good observations mate.
To be honest, when I wrote that, I'd more or less forgotten about Rich's opening post, and had started focusing on the whole judgment/difference between a 'paedophile' and a 'child molestor' part. In relation to his initial point, could not agree more with him (except perhaps the part about "Facebook's attempts to safeguard its users" - I like Facebook, but their safeguards are pretty pathetic and they really don't have any serious interest in maintaining privacy). Any movement to make children safer from online predators is something I can get behind - have gotten behind - and I've got no argument with you there.
I should have clarified that I do include viewing child pornography in the category of 'acting on those desires', on account of the fact that that pornography has to come from somewhere, and in acquiring it they support and encourage the creation of it.
As for the part about sickness, I think we're both using the same term to mean two different things. I gather that when you say it, you mean 'sick' in the sense of something which renders a person irresponsible for their actions, on account of the concept that they 'can't be held responsible' - as a result of some form of mental health issue wherein they genuinely don't realize that what they're doing is wrong, or literally lack the capacity to stop themselves. Of course, someone who just enjoys inflicting pain does not fall into this category.
When I use the term 'sick', I'm referring more generally to 'someone who has desires that just aren't right'. Be this a desire to have sex with children, or a desire to cause suffering, or a desire to feel power over other human beings - I see them all very much as sides of the same coin. The main difference between our use of the terms seems to be that your usage of 'sick' refers to people whose actions are (for lack of a better term - this doesn't really convey what I'm trying to say, but it's the best I can think of) excused by their affliction. My use is more in line with merely explaining how someone came to have those desires, and isn't in any way mitigating their responsibility. When I say 'sick', I'm only referring to sick desires - not a literal inability to control them. That's something quite else.
To summarize that ridiculously long-winded definition of mine - when I say 'sick', I'm talking about anybody who wants to do terrible things, not somebody who *literally* cannot stop themselves, or lacks comprehension of what they're doing. So, in the context in which you were using the term, I agree wholeheartedly.
"An act of sexual violence against a child is evil."
I think this is the ultimate crux of the discussion, and I don't think anybody's arguing with you. There exist cases where mental illness plays a genuine role, but they are rare and are far more likely to be used as an excuse than they are to be a genuine reality.
...I think I could have summarized my entire statement by saying "ya i agree lol"."
Richard Dimitri - Senshido International: "Despite Facebook's attempts to safeguard its users from sexual predators, tens of thousands of registered sex offenders have been able to slip through the cracks in security. Those with CHILDREN please, make certain you set your privacy settings accodingly especially when it comes to your children's profiles and pictures shared."
Craig Welsh
"dirty bastards.."
Richard Dimitri
"Most yes, some are actually sick, realize, feel horrible for what they do, how they feel and even ask to be medically impaired from it or incarcerated. Nothing is ever cut and dry or black and white brother... the human being is much to complex a creature to be categorized under any label our intellectual mind can come with."
Phil Thompson
"Sorry Bro, I'm with Craig. Regardless of the human condition, to label all child sex offenders as 'sick' is a way that people can pigeon-hole the issue and use that as an excuse for the truth, and that is what most people do (not what you were doing I know, you said 'some'). And the truth is that they are cruel and in many instances, evil. 'Sometimes' they are 'sick', that is, they have a mental illness. 'Some' do ask for help, and good for them. Most are not sick and most do not ask for help. And the majority of the time, outside of their sexual practices they appear as normal as everyone else. 'Some' of them have a sexual attraction to kids, the vast majority are attracted to the power, manipulation, dominance and control that they can act out on the 'easiest' of targets, young kids.
It is wrong in every context, damaging in ways most people cannot even begin to comprehend, and absolutely needs to be called what it is: Cruel, horrific, and evil. Stage 1 of any problem we need to fix: Accept it and label it correctly...
My two Kiwi cents... Love ya fella"
Richard Dimitri
"I fully agree bro... no argument there at all, most are indeed sociopathic, however, there are some that are clinically and medically 'sick' and realize it and also abhor what they are... and even though they appear to normally function in everyday society doesn't take away the fact that a small percentage do actually have a mental condition, much like some drug addicts that manage to hide their addictions for years to both their friends and families as well as social networks. I'm not saying the law should ease up, I'm just saying that on a humane level, to simply throw a blanket statement isn't fair to the minority and is to a certain degree, a judgement... that's all :`)"
Phil Thompson
"Yeah, I understand bro. I have such conflicting emotions around this. On one hand I know that when we judge someone we don't define them, we just define ourselves as someone who needs to judge. I get that and I work hard on it every day, you constantly inspire me towards that. On the other hand where is the line drawn? I think our judgements are necessary to form our opinions, which are often ego fuelled I know, but sometimes necessary. I mean without them we would condone every act of violence and cruelty in the world and simply accept it as 'it is what it is'. I think my personal direction on this is that I will aim not to judge anyone as best I can for the way they act, how they live their lives, who they are etc until such time as their behaviour adversely affect other people or brings harm to any other person or creature. That is the point where I am happy to make judgements and form strong opinions on someone and take the appropriate action. Otherwise I think tolerance becomes weakness and even denial, which does not serve humanity or the world at all. In the case of child sex offenders, yes I appreciate that some of them are mentally sick. But most are not. It is just an easy lable that most bestow upon predators because it makes it easier to understand and accept. And to look at the issue with empathy or sympathy because the offender 'might' be sick is not giving it the weight it deserves. Personally I will choose to look upon every child sex offender as being cruel and evil. If through the process of law and order (for the countries which actually have it) it is determined that the person is 'mentally sick' then my opinion on the person may change, but my opinion on the crime never will...I think before society starts to worry about whether a child predator has a mental illness before they draw an opinion, society needs to wake up to the fact that we have an enormous problem, accept that these things are happening out there to our kids, silence the voice of denial that goes on for so many, and bring this issue into the mainstream so it can be reduced. Once that is done, then we can start categorising the predators and ensuring their treatment or punishment fits their own circumstances. Right now, we are a long way off..."
Ryan Sainsbury
"Y'all seem to be looking at this somewhat differently from myself, so I'm going to pitch in here.
Personally, I don't care if or why a person is attracted to children. Are they sick in the head? Fine. Do they have an innate sexual preference for children? Okay. Do they have a cruel attraction to power and dominance, and prefer the thought of enacting that upon children? I, for one, would submit that this is merely another form of sickness.
Point is, what leads them to the point of wanting to do these things to children is utterly disinteresting to me. If one of them wants help, for any of these situations, I'm all for giving it to them. If they decide to spend their lives bottling their desires up in a vortex of self-loathing and despair, then that's cool too.
Myself, I see the important distinction as being between 'person who wants to have sex with children' and someone who acts upon those desires. As far as I'm concerned, your ultimate fantasy can revolve around an orgy in the goddamn maternity ward, but the moment you actually touch a child for gratification, that is the point in time that I break out a big heaping bowl of judgment and start ladling it out.
Rich, you made the distinction between people who are clinically 'sick', and those who are sociopathic. I suggest that these are two sides of the same coin. And in the end, it makes very little difference, because both are capable of controlling their actions - the difference from one to another rests not in discerning in which particular way they specifically are fucked in the head, but whether they decided to resist the urge or not.
The sole exception to this is people who are clinically psychotic, and this is so insanely rare (there are very few true psychotics, and most of their blackouts end with people injured and dead, not molested) and difficult to prove that it's hardly worth mentioning. Did a quick search, and could not find a single case where this defence was even argued.
I'm not sure why we're placing such a large emphasis on why they're attracted to children. It seems entirely academic, because in the end the practical result is the same. Ultimately, anyone who wants to have sex with children wants to have sex with children, and the question seems not to be "why do you want to" so much as "did you resist the temptation to do so?"
In the end, that's the only question the child's really going to care about."
Phil Thompson
"Ryan, good points fella. I have the same thoughts on some of what you say and different thoughts on other points you have made. Particularly your point about fantasies.
Fantasies are thoughts and thoughts equal outcomes. The missing piece in the middle is... Action. If a person with child sex fantasies goes their whole life without ever doing anything about them then I agree with you. People will have their own judgements about this but at the end of the day nobody is hurt. But as soon as that person starts to take ACTION against any of their fantasies then there is an escalating problem.
Rich’s original post referred to child predators (in fact registered sex offenders) using Facebook as a means to exploit kids. That is a serious issue. It means that they have taken action against those fantasies. They are no longer harmless. In the same way that child pornography is not harmless. An argument I have heard there is that as long as the person ‘just looks but never touches’ it is harmless. That is not so. For every photo or video of child pornography there is a victim. The innocent child on the tape or in the photo is a traumatised victim and the person viewing it for their own pleasure or to satisfy their fantasy IS guilty of the crime. They have acted upon their fantasy.
That same person who views child pornography, or hunts through Facebook looking for children, left alone with a child and to their own devices would likely abuse that child in some way. Not necessarily in all cases I know, but the probability is high. Therefore the only difference between the fantasy – once any form of action has been taken against it - and the reality is opportunity.
Therefore our responsibility is to work towards removing the opportunity for sexual predators and increasing online security in just one avenue to do that. If all we worry about is “Did you resist the urge or not” and forget the “Why and how do you carry out crimes against kids” then we will always be the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff. The biggest part of our job in this area is prevention. And knowing the ‘enemy’ is important so that we can implement preventative strategies to keep kids safe.
You stated: “Do they have a cruel attraction to power and dominance, and prefer the thought of enacting that upon children? I, for one, would submit that this is merely another form of sickness.” This I do not agree with in this context. My reference to this was in the context of people using ‘he is sick’ as an excuse for his actions. By that logic then every act of murder, cruelty, torture, manipulation, control, emotional or physical aggression is a form of ‘sickness’ and there are no evil people in the world. I don’t believe this is the case. There are some truly evil people out there. There are a hell of a lot more loving, caring, great people, but there are the bad ones too. And my point here is to call it what it is. An act of sexual violence against a child is evil. Regardless of where it came from, the act itself is evil. Now as Rich points out, there are ‘some’ cases where the person has a genuine mental illness and I accept that but once the crime has definitely been committed against the child this is a case where I think ‘guilty until proven innocent’ is relevant when it comes to proving mental illness as an excuse.
Loving the conversation and debate here, awesome."
Ryan Sainsbury
"Hey Phil, you've made some pretty good observations mate.
To be honest, when I wrote that, I'd more or less forgotten about Rich's opening post, and had started focusing on the whole judgment/difference between a 'paedophile' and a 'child molestor' part. In relation to his initial point, could not agree more with him (except perhaps the part about "Facebook's attempts to safeguard its users" - I like Facebook, but their safeguards are pretty pathetic and they really don't have any serious interest in maintaining privacy). Any movement to make children safer from online predators is something I can get behind - have gotten behind - and I've got no argument with you there.
I should have clarified that I do include viewing child pornography in the category of 'acting on those desires', on account of the fact that that pornography has to come from somewhere, and in acquiring it they support and encourage the creation of it.
As for the part about sickness, I think we're both using the same term to mean two different things. I gather that when you say it, you mean 'sick' in the sense of something which renders a person irresponsible for their actions, on account of the concept that they 'can't be held responsible' - as a result of some form of mental health issue wherein they genuinely don't realize that what they're doing is wrong, or literally lack the capacity to stop themselves. Of course, someone who just enjoys inflicting pain does not fall into this category.
When I use the term 'sick', I'm referring more generally to 'someone who has desires that just aren't right'. Be this a desire to have sex with children, or a desire to cause suffering, or a desire to feel power over other human beings - I see them all very much as sides of the same coin. The main difference between our use of the terms seems to be that your usage of 'sick' refers to people whose actions are (for lack of a better term - this doesn't really convey what I'm trying to say, but it's the best I can think of) excused by their affliction. My use is more in line with merely explaining how someone came to have those desires, and isn't in any way mitigating their responsibility. When I say 'sick', I'm only referring to sick desires - not a literal inability to control them. That's something quite else.
To summarize that ridiculously long-winded definition of mine - when I say 'sick', I'm talking about anybody who wants to do terrible things, not somebody who *literally* cannot stop themselves, or lacks comprehension of what they're doing. So, in the context in which you were using the term, I agree wholeheartedly.
"An act of sexual violence against a child is evil."
I think this is the ultimate crux of the discussion, and I don't think anybody's arguing with you. There exist cases where mental illness plays a genuine role, but they are rare and are far more likely to be used as an excuse than they are to be a genuine reality.
...I think I could have summarized my entire statement by saying "ya i agree lol"."
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
Part 2: Assault on 4 year old boy for wearing 'gang colours'!
Well, my last post has resulted in a few interesting emails and I really wanted to touch on one more point that one of our senior students, Brendan, bought up.
Several people’s responses have questioned the actions of the boy’s father. What did he do about the situation? Why didn’t he “beat the s**t out of him” was one comment.
There are so many angles to this that this would be a never-ending blog topic if I even tried to go into them all. As we have always said, and the principle that our entire training structure is built upon, is there is no ‘black-and-white’ answer to violence or to self defence. None of us could ever say what we ‘would have done’ - and therefore what anyone else ‘should have done’ – in any situation unless we were actually there.
Perhaps the whole event was over before the boy’s father was even aware of it, and when he was made aware of it maybe his focus was on taking care of his child rather than taking the law into his own hands.
Maybe he was considering the future safety of his son, himself and his family. It’s so easy for armchair critics to say that he should have ‘bashed the guy’, but what about the fact that this is a gang member, in a gang run area, where the father has to live with his family. Do these people really believe that there would be no retaliation against him and potentially his family if he had decided to respond physically? Get into the real world people. I have no idea what the boy’s father’s options were as I only know what has been reported, but if he did have the option to confront the offender - after the event was already over and his boy was now safe and in need of support – and chose not to and to instead take care of his boy then I have absolute respect for his decision. That to me is perfect ‘self defence’.
This is not the Wild West, it is not about ‘defending your honour’ or appearing ‘yellow’, it is about making rational decisions which will ensure your safety and well being. Based on my understanding of the event, that is what the boy’s father did and it is not always easy to do in high pressure situations.
A common opinion seems to be that the boy’s dad should have physically assaulted the offender. Did he deserve it? You know the answer to that. But would it have been right to do it at this point? Would it have been right to lower himself to the same level as the criminal? What would that have solved? Would it really have ‘taught him a lesson’? Of course not. These guys live their lives around violence, if you think that would have deterred him from committing other acts of violence in the future you are very mistaken, if anything it would only strengthen the violent tendencies.
Let’s look at a few potential outcomes if he had decided to confront the offender. Let’s keep in mind that the event was already over and his son was safe at the point when he had to make this decision. It would have been a different story if he was there right in the middle of it and needed to protect his son as he would not have known where the situation could have escalated to, in which case an intervention would have likely been required and justified, but that is not the case here. The event was over, nothing could change the fact that it had happened and now a decision needed to be made as to what action to take and he chose to take care of his frightened son.
What if, instead of receiving the urgently needed support and caring of his dad while he was frightened and upset, the 4 year old boy (an age where children are HIGHLY influenced by violent imagery and events) was left alone while his dad confronted his attacker. The little boy is now even more afraid, afraid that he is alone, afraid for his dad, afraid of what is unfolding right before his eyes, and every second that goes by is affecting him more and more.
And then we look at two of the possible outcomes of the situation; The first is that the dad – who some people seem to assume should be a mix of the talents of David Tua, Bruce Lee, and John Rambo rather than a normal everyday dad who probably would rather not confront a violent gang member at risk of his safety and the safety of his family – is hurt in front of his child. Even if we sideline the impact on Dad himself and just look at the impact on the little boy, after what he has just been through himself he now gets to watch his dad beaten, or stabbed, or having his head stomped on, when the other option was to simply let it go and let the law deal with it.
The second option is that dad did ‘give the guy the bash’. All other factors aside such as the legal repercussions, retaliation against him and his family, emotional and/or physical trauma, let’s just look at what dad has just taught his little boy. Violent visual imagery influences and affects all children and the younger they are the more susceptible they are to it. Witnessing an actual event is many times greater than witnessing it on TV or other media, but witnessing it done by your role model and a person who is responsible for moulding your values and beliefs is going to be disastrous and maybe even irreversible. Dad would have just shown his son that violence is ok. That letting raw emotion guide your decisions - consequences be damned - is the way to go.
And the consequences of that little boy growing up with those beliefs? Well, you already know what they are and where they could lead.
Gaining control of our own natural (and normal) responses to fear and anger, under extreme stress situations is one of the most important aspects to self defence and in my opinion - based on my understanding of how the situation unfolded - the boy’s dad did that and should be praised for his actions not criticised for them.
Several people’s responses have questioned the actions of the boy’s father. What did he do about the situation? Why didn’t he “beat the s**t out of him” was one comment.
There are so many angles to this that this would be a never-ending blog topic if I even tried to go into them all. As we have always said, and the principle that our entire training structure is built upon, is there is no ‘black-and-white’ answer to violence or to self defence. None of us could ever say what we ‘would have done’ - and therefore what anyone else ‘should have done’ – in any situation unless we were actually there.
Perhaps the whole event was over before the boy’s father was even aware of it, and when he was made aware of it maybe his focus was on taking care of his child rather than taking the law into his own hands.
Maybe he was considering the future safety of his son, himself and his family. It’s so easy for armchair critics to say that he should have ‘bashed the guy’, but what about the fact that this is a gang member, in a gang run area, where the father has to live with his family. Do these people really believe that there would be no retaliation against him and potentially his family if he had decided to respond physically? Get into the real world people. I have no idea what the boy’s father’s options were as I only know what has been reported, but if he did have the option to confront the offender - after the event was already over and his boy was now safe and in need of support – and chose not to and to instead take care of his boy then I have absolute respect for his decision. That to me is perfect ‘self defence’.
This is not the Wild West, it is not about ‘defending your honour’ or appearing ‘yellow’, it is about making rational decisions which will ensure your safety and well being. Based on my understanding of the event, that is what the boy’s father did and it is not always easy to do in high pressure situations.
A common opinion seems to be that the boy’s dad should have physically assaulted the offender. Did he deserve it? You know the answer to that. But would it have been right to do it at this point? Would it have been right to lower himself to the same level as the criminal? What would that have solved? Would it really have ‘taught him a lesson’? Of course not. These guys live their lives around violence, if you think that would have deterred him from committing other acts of violence in the future you are very mistaken, if anything it would only strengthen the violent tendencies.
Let’s look at a few potential outcomes if he had decided to confront the offender. Let’s keep in mind that the event was already over and his son was safe at the point when he had to make this decision. It would have been a different story if he was there right in the middle of it and needed to protect his son as he would not have known where the situation could have escalated to, in which case an intervention would have likely been required and justified, but that is not the case here. The event was over, nothing could change the fact that it had happened and now a decision needed to be made as to what action to take and he chose to take care of his frightened son.
What if, instead of receiving the urgently needed support and caring of his dad while he was frightened and upset, the 4 year old boy (an age where children are HIGHLY influenced by violent imagery and events) was left alone while his dad confronted his attacker. The little boy is now even more afraid, afraid that he is alone, afraid for his dad, afraid of what is unfolding right before his eyes, and every second that goes by is affecting him more and more.
And then we look at two of the possible outcomes of the situation; The first is that the dad – who some people seem to assume should be a mix of the talents of David Tua, Bruce Lee, and John Rambo rather than a normal everyday dad who probably would rather not confront a violent gang member at risk of his safety and the safety of his family – is hurt in front of his child. Even if we sideline the impact on Dad himself and just look at the impact on the little boy, after what he has just been through himself he now gets to watch his dad beaten, or stabbed, or having his head stomped on, when the other option was to simply let it go and let the law deal with it.
The second option is that dad did ‘give the guy the bash’. All other factors aside such as the legal repercussions, retaliation against him and his family, emotional and/or physical trauma, let’s just look at what dad has just taught his little boy. Violent visual imagery influences and affects all children and the younger they are the more susceptible they are to it. Witnessing an actual event is many times greater than witnessing it on TV or other media, but witnessing it done by your role model and a person who is responsible for moulding your values and beliefs is going to be disastrous and maybe even irreversible. Dad would have just shown his son that violence is ok. That letting raw emotion guide your decisions - consequences be damned - is the way to go.
And the consequences of that little boy growing up with those beliefs? Well, you already know what they are and where they could lead.
Gaining control of our own natural (and normal) responses to fear and anger, under extreme stress situations is one of the most important aspects to self defence and in my opinion - based on my understanding of how the situation unfolded - the boy’s dad did that and should be praised for his actions not criticised for them.
Monday, May 3, 2010
Keeping our kids safe...
Every parent is concerned about the safety of their children. In a society where 1 in 4 girls, and 1 in 8 boys will be sexually assaulted before the age of 16 it is worth getting some education around how to keep them safe.
Yesterday I had a discussion with a parent who asked me what 'moves' (referring to physical self defence) were the best to teach his two young children. I told him they were the least important aspect of personal safety for kids (albeit still important) and asked him if he was teaching them what to look out for so they could identify and avoid potential predators to start with. His reply was along the lines of "No, I just want to teach them what to do if a stranger grabs them. I tell them to stay away from strangers and all that of course".
This is the all-too-common type of response I hear from parents, and was one of the key reasons we developed our 'Guardian Angel' program, so let me challenge a couple of old beliefs here. Obviously this is a broad subject so I will just discuss a couple of key points here today.
The world is changing so rapidly with new technology, new laws and new societal forces that it is a constant challenge for parents and caregivers to teach their children to stay safe from harm.
Our efforts as a society to prevent crimes against children have not been able to keep up with the increasing levels of risk and vulnerability of our children.
The age old mantra of “Stranger Danger” which has become so ingrained in our psyches as the answer to teaching children to be safe is outdated and no longer relevant on its own. We need to move ahead with the times and adapt to the changing world around us if we are to best protect our kids.
So many crimes against children are preventable. In hindsight, so many parent’s of child victims look back and say “If only she’d known what to look for…”, “If only he hadn’t gone with him…”, “If only she’d talked to us about this, we could have caught it before it got out of hand…” etc, etc…
Prevention is about education. And the education must be specific and relevant to our New Zealand society today.
One of the most important aspects to child safety is open and honest communication between yourself and your child. Children who do not feel that they are listened to or understood at home are far more vulnerable to the exploitation of child predators. Remember, the predator is always looking for perceived ‘easy prey’. Low self confidence, low self esteem, low self beliefs, and a feeling of loneliness and isolation are all perfect tools for the child predator to use to their advantage.
This is also why we are such big advocates of martial arts for children. A good martial art instils confidence and positive self-beliefs in the child, automatically making them a “harder target”.
A home environment which makes your child feel confident and comfortable to discuss any matters, including sensitive ones, without fear of judgment or embarrassment is the first step, and one of the most powerful steps, in keeping your child safe.
The sad reality is children are too often afraid, embarrassed or confused to discuss or report their fears, situations and experiences.
As more and more crimes against children are reported by the media, and talked about in our social circles, we are in danger of building a paranoia around keeping our kids safe. This is not the answer either. There is a huge difference between paranoia and awareness. Living in paranoia is no way to live life, and can make us take things to extremes forcing an already rebellious teenager for example, to do just the opposite of what we want.
Awareness is about discussing openly the safety strategies and rules in a positive and reassuring way, as opposed to instilling fear into your child about all of the nasty things that could happen to them if they don’t follow the safety rules.
Kids need to be empowered with positive messages and safety skills that will build their self esteem and self confidence while helping to keep them safer. Kids don’t need to be told the world is a scary place. They watch the news, hear adults talking, and may even experience violence firsthand so they are well aware of that already. Rather, they need to know that their parent or caregiver is there for them if they are in trouble and have it reinforced that most adults they encounter in their lives are generally good people who would not hurt a child.
Part of the process of ensuring that home is always a ‘safe haven’ for your child in addition to open communication, is to absolutely ensure that if you impose a punishment upon your child for misbehaviour, that punishment should never place your child in danger in any way.
We recently read a case file of a young girl who went out for a night with her friends, and arrived home after her curfew time. As this was not the first time she had done it, her mother decided to teach her a lesson and lock her out of the house. Too afraid of her mother’s wrath to knock on the door, she headed for a friend's house. A man approached her, manipulated her into conversation with him, 'sympathetically' listened to her situation and in doing so gained her trust…
He then abducted her, repeatedly raped, and murdered her.
The actions of her mother, fed up and looking to send a clear message to her daughter by denying her the safety and refuge of her own home, indirectly resulted in her death. A punishment should never place a child in danger.
So what about “Stranger Danger”? We’ve all grown up with it. We’ve all been told to “Stay away from strangers”. And this message/concept may have served us well, but it is now redundant and needs updating urgently.
This is a big call.
The unfortunate reality is most cases of child abduction/exploitation (well over 80%)are committed by someone known to the child, and maybe not known to the parent. The offender does not fit the “Stranger” role so therefore the child’s awareness/guard is down.
Often a child predator will make seemingly innocent contact with the child. They use subtle tactics and manipulation to gain the confidence of their victim, befriend them and lower their guard, again removing the “Stranger” label.
It is important that children and parents understand the types of situations, tactics, and approaches used by these people.
It is far more important to teach children to be aware of certain types of situations than certain types of people. That is the concept at the core of 'Guardian Angel'.
When describing the “Stranger Danger” concept to children, parents often promote visions of “dodgy”, “sleazy”, “dirty” looking men. This typecast labelling is very dangerous. Many times the predator does not fit any of these profiles. They are the everyday “normal” looking person, the neighbour, the teacher, the friend’s parent. Typecasting dangerous people promotes a narrow view and leaves the child open to all of the unexpected possibilities. It is the situation or action that the child should be aware of, regardless of who the person is. Besides, as adults we have the benefit of experience and honed decision making skills that we have acquired over our lifetime to identify dangerous people, and we still often get it wrong. So how do we expect our kids to be able to identify “bad” people when we can’t even do it?
Also keep in mind that if your child needs help, the “never talk to strangers” message in isolation effectively eliminates a key source of help for your child if they are in trouble. They just need to know who to get help from if they need it.
Parents and children need to know what the common approaches of a child predator are. For example, an adult pulling over their car to ask the child for help with directions, lost puppy, etc. Adults should not have to ask kids for help. Kids can ask kids for help. Adults should ask adults for help.
As our children are bought up to be polite, to respect their elders and obey the orders of adults, it is important to let them know that in these situations it is ok to say “no” to an adult. Their personal safety is always more important than being polite.
All common situations, setups, manipulations should be discussed with your child in a positive, clear, calm and reassuring way. This is far more important and effective than teaching them to look out for a particular image or profile of a “Stranger”.
Kids should view safety strategies as positive, and even fun (in a serious way). They don’t need to be frightened into thinking the world is a big scary place full of people who want to hurt them, they get enough of that from the media every day. They need to know that they have you there whenever they need you, and that most adults they encounter are good people, the safety rules are there just in case…
Here are a few things you can do to help prevent possible exploitation or abduction situations:
- Teach your children to recognise potentially dangerous situations and teach them that it is ok to say “no” to an adult.
- There really is more safety in numbers. Teach your child to always go places with a friend if possible. This is a major, key point.
- Teach them to know the difference between “good touches” and “Bad touches”. Any touch in a place where a bathing suit would normally cover is a bad touch, as are any which make them feel frightened, confused, uneasy, uncomfortable or “funny”. They should know it is ok to say no and to tell you immediately if someone does try to touch them in this way.
- Checking first with you before going anywhere, or doing anything new should be promoted as a healthy and positive part of your household routine with your child. This is a major point and can not be emphasized enough. The way you promote this concept to your child to ensure they “buy in” to it is vital, they need to see that it is always in their best interests and they have your full support.
- Know your child’s friends, and their parents, and have up-to-date contact lists for them all. Knowing where your children are and who they are with is important. Through open communication this can be done without seeming “controlling” or “invasive”.
- Be aware of anyone who is giving inappropriate or expensive gifts to your child, or paying them an unusual amount of attention.
- Pay attention to changes in your child’s behaviour and be prepared to sit down and discuss what the issues are with them when they occur. These are often a call for help and should be treated sensitively but seriously.
- Be empathetic and supportive to your child’s worries and fears, listen to them carefully and help guide them to find a solution together.
- Teach your children to trust their intuition and feelings and let them know that if it feels wrong it definitely is and they have the right to say no.
- Be diligent of anyone who is in a position of care for your child. Babysitters, sports coaches, tutors etc. References from people you trust are a great place to start. Be extra diligent if the situation requires that your child be left alone with the individual in privacy.
Obviously I have only covered a few of the key points on child safety in this article. There is a lot more to it, but these points are a good start and something worth thinking about.
Yesterday I had a discussion with a parent who asked me what 'moves' (referring to physical self defence) were the best to teach his two young children. I told him they were the least important aspect of personal safety for kids (albeit still important) and asked him if he was teaching them what to look out for so they could identify and avoid potential predators to start with. His reply was along the lines of "No, I just want to teach them what to do if a stranger grabs them. I tell them to stay away from strangers and all that of course".
This is the all-too-common type of response I hear from parents, and was one of the key reasons we developed our 'Guardian Angel' program, so let me challenge a couple of old beliefs here. Obviously this is a broad subject so I will just discuss a couple of key points here today.
The world is changing so rapidly with new technology, new laws and new societal forces that it is a constant challenge for parents and caregivers to teach their children to stay safe from harm.
Our efforts as a society to prevent crimes against children have not been able to keep up with the increasing levels of risk and vulnerability of our children.
The age old mantra of “Stranger Danger” which has become so ingrained in our psyches as the answer to teaching children to be safe is outdated and no longer relevant on its own. We need to move ahead with the times and adapt to the changing world around us if we are to best protect our kids.
So many crimes against children are preventable. In hindsight, so many parent’s of child victims look back and say “If only she’d known what to look for…”, “If only he hadn’t gone with him…”, “If only she’d talked to us about this, we could have caught it before it got out of hand…” etc, etc…
Prevention is about education. And the education must be specific and relevant to our New Zealand society today.
One of the most important aspects to child safety is open and honest communication between yourself and your child. Children who do not feel that they are listened to or understood at home are far more vulnerable to the exploitation of child predators. Remember, the predator is always looking for perceived ‘easy prey’. Low self confidence, low self esteem, low self beliefs, and a feeling of loneliness and isolation are all perfect tools for the child predator to use to their advantage.
This is also why we are such big advocates of martial arts for children. A good martial art instils confidence and positive self-beliefs in the child, automatically making them a “harder target”.
A home environment which makes your child feel confident and comfortable to discuss any matters, including sensitive ones, without fear of judgment or embarrassment is the first step, and one of the most powerful steps, in keeping your child safe.
The sad reality is children are too often afraid, embarrassed or confused to discuss or report their fears, situations and experiences.
As more and more crimes against children are reported by the media, and talked about in our social circles, we are in danger of building a paranoia around keeping our kids safe. This is not the answer either. There is a huge difference between paranoia and awareness. Living in paranoia is no way to live life, and can make us take things to extremes forcing an already rebellious teenager for example, to do just the opposite of what we want.
Awareness is about discussing openly the safety strategies and rules in a positive and reassuring way, as opposed to instilling fear into your child about all of the nasty things that could happen to them if they don’t follow the safety rules.
Kids need to be empowered with positive messages and safety skills that will build their self esteem and self confidence while helping to keep them safer. Kids don’t need to be told the world is a scary place. They watch the news, hear adults talking, and may even experience violence firsthand so they are well aware of that already. Rather, they need to know that their parent or caregiver is there for them if they are in trouble and have it reinforced that most adults they encounter in their lives are generally good people who would not hurt a child.
Part of the process of ensuring that home is always a ‘safe haven’ for your child in addition to open communication, is to absolutely ensure that if you impose a punishment upon your child for misbehaviour, that punishment should never place your child in danger in any way.
We recently read a case file of a young girl who went out for a night with her friends, and arrived home after her curfew time. As this was not the first time she had done it, her mother decided to teach her a lesson and lock her out of the house. Too afraid of her mother’s wrath to knock on the door, she headed for a friend's house. A man approached her, manipulated her into conversation with him, 'sympathetically' listened to her situation and in doing so gained her trust…
He then abducted her, repeatedly raped, and murdered her.
The actions of her mother, fed up and looking to send a clear message to her daughter by denying her the safety and refuge of her own home, indirectly resulted in her death. A punishment should never place a child in danger.
So what about “Stranger Danger”? We’ve all grown up with it. We’ve all been told to “Stay away from strangers”. And this message/concept may have served us well, but it is now redundant and needs updating urgently.
This is a big call.
The unfortunate reality is most cases of child abduction/exploitation (well over 80%)are committed by someone known to the child, and maybe not known to the parent. The offender does not fit the “Stranger” role so therefore the child’s awareness/guard is down.
Often a child predator will make seemingly innocent contact with the child. They use subtle tactics and manipulation to gain the confidence of their victim, befriend them and lower their guard, again removing the “Stranger” label.
It is important that children and parents understand the types of situations, tactics, and approaches used by these people.
It is far more important to teach children to be aware of certain types of situations than certain types of people. That is the concept at the core of 'Guardian Angel'.
When describing the “Stranger Danger” concept to children, parents often promote visions of “dodgy”, “sleazy”, “dirty” looking men. This typecast labelling is very dangerous. Many times the predator does not fit any of these profiles. They are the everyday “normal” looking person, the neighbour, the teacher, the friend’s parent. Typecasting dangerous people promotes a narrow view and leaves the child open to all of the unexpected possibilities. It is the situation or action that the child should be aware of, regardless of who the person is. Besides, as adults we have the benefit of experience and honed decision making skills that we have acquired over our lifetime to identify dangerous people, and we still often get it wrong. So how do we expect our kids to be able to identify “bad” people when we can’t even do it?
Also keep in mind that if your child needs help, the “never talk to strangers” message in isolation effectively eliminates a key source of help for your child if they are in trouble. They just need to know who to get help from if they need it.
Parents and children need to know what the common approaches of a child predator are. For example, an adult pulling over their car to ask the child for help with directions, lost puppy, etc. Adults should not have to ask kids for help. Kids can ask kids for help. Adults should ask adults for help.
As our children are bought up to be polite, to respect their elders and obey the orders of adults, it is important to let them know that in these situations it is ok to say “no” to an adult. Their personal safety is always more important than being polite.
All common situations, setups, manipulations should be discussed with your child in a positive, clear, calm and reassuring way. This is far more important and effective than teaching them to look out for a particular image or profile of a “Stranger”.
Kids should view safety strategies as positive, and even fun (in a serious way). They don’t need to be frightened into thinking the world is a big scary place full of people who want to hurt them, they get enough of that from the media every day. They need to know that they have you there whenever they need you, and that most adults they encounter are good people, the safety rules are there just in case…
Here are a few things you can do to help prevent possible exploitation or abduction situations:
- Teach your children to recognise potentially dangerous situations and teach them that it is ok to say “no” to an adult.
- There really is more safety in numbers. Teach your child to always go places with a friend if possible. This is a major, key point.
- Teach them to know the difference between “good touches” and “Bad touches”. Any touch in a place where a bathing suit would normally cover is a bad touch, as are any which make them feel frightened, confused, uneasy, uncomfortable or “funny”. They should know it is ok to say no and to tell you immediately if someone does try to touch them in this way.
- Checking first with you before going anywhere, or doing anything new should be promoted as a healthy and positive part of your household routine with your child. This is a major point and can not be emphasized enough. The way you promote this concept to your child to ensure they “buy in” to it is vital, they need to see that it is always in their best interests and they have your full support.
- Know your child’s friends, and their parents, and have up-to-date contact lists for them all. Knowing where your children are and who they are with is important. Through open communication this can be done without seeming “controlling” or “invasive”.
- Be aware of anyone who is giving inappropriate or expensive gifts to your child, or paying them an unusual amount of attention.
- Pay attention to changes in your child’s behaviour and be prepared to sit down and discuss what the issues are with them when they occur. These are often a call for help and should be treated sensitively but seriously.
- Be empathetic and supportive to your child’s worries and fears, listen to them carefully and help guide them to find a solution together.
- Teach your children to trust their intuition and feelings and let them know that if it feels wrong it definitely is and they have the right to say no.
- Be diligent of anyone who is in a position of care for your child. Babysitters, sports coaches, tutors etc. References from people you trust are a great place to start. Be extra diligent if the situation requires that your child be left alone with the individual in privacy.
Obviously I have only covered a few of the key points on child safety in this article. There is a lot more to it, but these points are a good start and something worth thinking about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
