by The Parenting Centre | Feb 13, 2025 | General
As anyone familiar with my work would know, I want everyone on the planet to feel a sense of self-efficacy. I wish for all of us that what we don’t do is because we don’t want, not because we think that we can’t.
When clients have been out in the mainstream therapy world of 2024, they are often given a litany of disempowering words to describe themselves and their children. I’ve had a 10 year old tell me he can’t pursue his dream of being an engineer because he isn’t smart enough (he is); I’ve had teenagers tell me they can’t go to parties because they are “autistic” and can’t handle loud noises or crowds (they can) and I had one 5 year old say he can’t be responsible for his behavioural choices because he hadn’t had his tablet yet.
Whenever I talk to anyone (or hear in myself) the word “can’t” I immediately want to reframe it as a choice. Personally, I am an introvert, so if someone invites me to a party my immediate reaction might be “I can’t do that”. But actually I will hasten to remind myself, of course I COULD do it, I just don’t want to.
A great way to test yourself and others is what I call the ‘ten million dollar question’. The genesis of this was reading stories of people accused of a “king hit” using the excuse that “once I lose my temper, I can’t control it”, or “once I’ve been drinking, I can’t stay away from violence”. I imagined a scenario where, just before they delivered the king hit, someone offered them ten million dollars in cash if they choose not to deliver the blow. Assuming they believed they’d really get the money, would any of them find that they COULD actually stop but were choosing not to? My belief is that most, if not all, of these people would stop and take the money.
So if someone says “I can’t leave the house” or “I can’t call that person” ask them to seriously consider whether they’d be able to do it for ten million in cash. For most people, with most things, they’d take the cash. And that means they COULD make a different decision, and whatever decision they do make is a choice.
by The Parenting Centre | Feb 13, 2025 | General
Since I have devoted the last two reflections to the country I chose to leave, the United States, I wanted to devote this one to the country I chose to move to, Australia.
I want to start off by expressing my appreciation of this beautiful country and my gratitude to Australia for allowing me to relocate and to become a citizen. While racism, misogyny, intolerance and violence certainly exist here, it seems clear these are not mainstream (majority?) ethos, like in the U.S.
The year I moved here, 2008, was the year Kevin Rudd made his “apology” speech. I often talk to parents about the nature of apologizing. If a child shoplifted, they can certainly apologize to the store owner, but the apology is pretty hollow if the child doesn’t return the stolen item. Europeans stole something, and they have not returned it.
Not only hasn’t Australia been returned to its rightful owners, but the invasion and brutal expulsion of indigenous people continues to be celebrated every year. And all our mainstream institutions and social practices are Euro institutions and social practices. An indigenous man really raised my consciousness when he told me “In order to be Australian, I cannot be Jinnabarra”. The comment was a reflection on a discussion about land ownership, which was a concept brought here by Euros. If an Indigenous person wants to “own” a home they typically have to go through the Euro processes to do it. It’s like a child telling other children: “I’ll play with you, but only if we play the games I want to play and we play by my rules”.
What if your child went into Big W and stole a watch? They told the store manager they were sorry, but they kept the watch and every year they celebrated the day they stole it. As a parent, would YOU consider that to be “an apology”?
by The Parenting Centre | Feb 13, 2025 | General
If there is one thing that the rest of the world struggles to understand about the United States it is the prevalence of gun violence. I read that a mass murder (defined as two of more victims) occurs twice every three days in America. This is in sharp contrast to other countries, like ours, where years go by without any of these incidents.
The cycle is as pathetic as it is predictable. There is a horrific mass shooting; people and especially politicians lament the loss of life, and then the incident is totally forgotten until it inevitably recurs. No change actually happens because the United States doesn’t want to change. I thought I’d take a brief stab at explaining the justification, and hypocrisy, of the “gun lobby” in the United States. DISCLAIMER – I am not a historian and if you are interested I would fact check anything I write about history!
The process of incorporating the individual states into a country was not that different from the process of establishing the European Union. There were a number of autonomous entities who were geographically connected who saw many benefits (primarily financial) to incorporating into one central entity. In the late 18th century, these individual states had just fought a bloody war to get out of the Imperialistic clutches of England and were VERY wary of giving up any autonomy.
So the meetings to try to draw up a Constitution were overlaid with this overarching fear of states not wanting to lose their independence to another central government. One of the concessions in the Constitution was to reassure states they could keep their own armies to defend themselves in the event the central government tried to illegally assert authority over them. So here is what’s written in the U.S. Constitution:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Clearly, this was referring to state militia and not individual gun owners. In an agrarian society, most people owned guns. It was not regulated and was accepted. This did not apply to individuals, and I think even a cursory understanding of the U.S. Constitution makes this clear. Certainly, the authors in the late 1700’s were not referring to, and could not anticipate, the existence of the high tech, massively destructive, automatic weapons that people can obtain with ease in the United States.
It raises the question whether people are too stupid to understand the words and intent of the Constitution, or they choose to twist the language to justify their desire to shoot each other?
It’s shocking, and it’s scary.
Recent Comments