One of the best things that social networks have is that you gradually surround yourself with people who have things in common with you, and who share even beliefs and principles. One of the worst is that you end up believing that the world is getting better, when it turns out that outside your network of friends and acquaintances there is a whole reality that resists changing.
I felt that this was corroborated a few days ago when a video of the judge began to arrive on several fronts Emilio Calatayud that made me quite upset once again. A video of less than 4 minutes in which he defends the cheek, the punishments and the submission of the children to the wishes, orders and command of their parents. Come on defense of authoritarianism that preceded our generation, that of our parents and grandparents, who (it is obvious, look at the society in which we live), failed as an educational model.
Judge Calatayud, in his sauce
And I say in his sauce because I have already heard him say all these things on several occasions, but the response of the audience that hears it is what puzzles me. A judge who at work It stands out for putting "educational sentences" on children, differentiating itself from judges that impose punishments that have little or nothing to do with crime. Penalties such as drawing a comic, teaching or patrolling, which help the child to see, above all, the consequences of their actions.
Now, when you pass from judge to pedagogical counselor the question does not hold, because it is like hearing a teacher from the 50s or 60s speak, those who said that "With blood the letter enters", what children need is "Stick syrup" and that they achieved their objectives at the cost of having the students frightened, scared, and with the almost only motivation to learn to avoid all the evils that could come to them if they did not.
What do you say is so out of place?
If you are a mother or father and have read a little about education, or if you simply had some authoritarian parents and realized that you survived their parenting style, you consider yourself a good person, but do you think they could have done better, you will see the video and you will be clear that the shots, currently, must go the other way.
If instead you watch the video and you don't know very well what the problem is, but you want to read more about it, then I leave you with what I as a father, and as a son, I see that it is out of place:
"They should educate their children without threatening their physical or psychological integrity"
All people have the right to respect for their physical or psychological integrity, and the mere fact of being a father or mother does not give us the power to skip this law. "But, I am educating him," many people will think. Yes, teachers also educate our children and that is why they don't beat them.
A few decades ago it was relatively normal: a teacher hit me at age 4 (she turned my face, in fact), another when I was 8 gave me a jerk of ears that I thought I was going to be left with only one and witnessed enough acts of violence from teachers to classmates, without any of them appearing out of place, because we were used to it.
Now it is unthinkable that this happens in schools, especially because an expert in education should have many more tools than pain or humiliation to get the best out of each child.
Parents are not experts in education, but we are the guides of our children, their referents, and at the same time their educators, especially in the first years, when the most emotional part of their brain is absorbing how we interact with them, how we interact with adults, how other children relate to them, etc.
In other words, how our relationship with them will depend greatly how they relate to the rest of society, so yes, of course, we must educate them without threatening their physical or psychic integrity, and it makes no sense to fall for the easy thing: punish them, hit them, shout at them and "because I say so, period."
"I ask the legislator how we can prevent a 3-year-old boy from sticking his fingers in an outlet"
And then give two options, or tell the child, who barely understands you, that you should not put your fingers in the plug because it can cause a short circuit of irremediable consequences (in clear attempt to discredit the dialogue as an educational means), or hit the hand when you go to touch the plug, and so to the third learn that you do not have to touch it.
And that's it? So far is your pedagogical wisdom? Why do people say phrases like crack? Because I have a third solution: plug the plugs and go. And a fourth: in addition to covering them you say the same "baby pupa" without hitting him in the hand. You pretend to play it, you pretend to hurt yourself a lot, and this is how you teach a child, by example, that if he does the same, much damage can be done.
And as it grows you explain how dangerous the plugs are, depending on your ability to understand, until there comes a time when protections are no longer needed, because you are aware that you do not have to touch. If I have achieved it with three children, that I am only a father, anyone can do it.
"Don't touch me, I denounce you"
And suddenly some older children, probably teenagers, jump out of the plug and say to their parents "don't touch me, that I denounce you" and "do not enter my room, that I denounce you". Those children he works with, and those he knows. And what happens, they are children whose parents did not punish? Are they children who deserved a cheek that they didn't receive?
Surely there is no correlation. Surely most received cheeks and punishments. Surely, in reality, what they had is not a lack of a hard hand, but lack of accompaniment, affection, mother's time and father's time. Surely they grew up feeling that for their parents they were not the most important, and that, in fact, they always had more important things to do than spend time with them.
Either that, or they grew up with parents who at all times they let them do what they wanted, even when they hurt others or their parents, they disrespected others and their parents, and all because, probably, they were screaming children, that way, to act, to take the reins of his fatherhood and that, for the first time, they began to act as guides and life companions. What every mother and father should really be.
The rest is "better not to be a father" humor
I do not follow because it is not necessary. The rest of the video is a humor monologue in which everything is summed up in "better not to have children, because everything is trouble". It is understood that it is humor, and here it is up to each one who likes more or less that style of humor. But the rest, from his position as juvenile judge, which people consider "expert in children" for that reason, is much better.
Much, because it is to return to the authoritarianism that we were already leaving behind and that, as I say, has not proved useful or valid. And to reality I refer: today's society is the result of that kind of education. If every day you watch the news and are happy with how the world is going, go ahead, educate your children just like our parents did with us. Of course, not everyone ends up so badly, but many do.
And it is that authoritarianism is the result of the loss of authority, or what is the same, abuse of authority: It is the damage that an adult has to end up doing to a child because he has not been able to get the little one to consider him a fair person, a person to follow and to trust. And, although you don't believe it, many parents never become that person ever, because they fail to create a relationship of trust with their children, and vice versa.
And there, I'm afraid, you're lost. Y it will not be the child's fault.
