5 ms·

I can imagine an argument for checking basic abilities of a parent for extreme cases, where the kid's life might be in danger (extreme psychiatric problems, dru

I can imagine an argument for checking basic abilities of a parent for extreme cases, where the kid's life might be in danger (extreme psychiatric problems, drug addiction, sex offenders, etc). This is completely different and fully dystopic, though. looking at Rorschach tests? cultural trivia like asking about mother Teresa? What is happenning in denmark that allows this process to exist? I feel this part is also particularly damning: >Like Zammi, her son was meant to have been taken away immediately after birth. >But because he was born prematurely on Boxing Day and social workers were on holiday, she and her husband Ulrik got to keep him for 17 days. So the state decides that the child is in enough danger to justify removal from their family. Let's say they truly, honestly believe this is a dangerous enough situation to justify the measure. It is then fine to leave the newborn with those parents for weeks due to scheduling conflicts?

johnisgood 11mo ago
> looking at Rorschach tests? cultural trivia like asking about mother Teresa? Is that a part of their evaluation process? Good Lord.
- cogman10 11mo ago
  Yup, it was in the article. Some real eugenicsy vibes.
  - MadnessASAP 11mo ago
    Wellllll.... Eugenics wasn't exactly unpopular in Denmark for a good chunk of the 20th century. So that kinda tracks.
- cma 11mo ago
  Another one: in the US, mothers suspected of drug use can have their baby's urine screened and then have the child taken away. Johnson's head-to-toe baby wash cross-reacted with the THC urine test and could cause false positives. Picking out which mothers to suspect and screen was probably full of racial and economic bias.
cogman10 11mo ago
Exactly my thoughts coming into the article. Reading what was being tested, playing with dolls, trivia, and math problems. That's just insane. You need none of that to be a good parent. The closest I could see to doing a test like that is if you wanted to administer a dementia test. You know, something that could actually get the kid seriously harmed. There are cases when a state should take away a kid. But it should be because the kid is in danger, not because the parents can't pass a trivia game.
- spwa4 11mo ago
  > There are cases when a state should take away a kid. But it should be because the kid is in danger, not because the parents can't pass a trivia game. Really? Such as? Because if what you care about is the child, the child's future, even in absurdly extreme cases birth parents turn out to be better: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/05/980505092617.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/05/980505092617.h... And the closer the family bond, the better children fare. Which means "state care" is always the worst option. Unrelated foster care is the second worst option. Study after study shows bad situations ... and always state intervention is the worst option. Take the child away when the parents are arrested? Or put the kid in jail too? Best option turns out to be ... let the kid stay in jail too. Drug addicts refuse treatment? Best option for the kid? State care or just leave them? Best option turns out to leave them. And even truly extreme: actual, bona fide abuse. Which in 99% of cases is the kid just being left home alone for too long btw. What is best? State intervention or leaving the kid there? Best is leaving the kid there. Violence at home? Whether it's witnessing violence or actual victimization: best option is to leave the kid at home (and of course, often it's the state's fault, for example failing to protect a mother from an ex-husband) Parents want to get rid of a child? Best option is to refuse to help. I guess what I'm trying to say is that "the state should take away the child" should never be used as long as the parents or any family willing to help are even alive. Because, study the system and you will quickly see how it really works. You will find foster care is only forced on the parents and the children. Foster parents want to get rid of a kid? Easy. A care home wants to get rid of a child? Even if the kid ends up on the street that's easy. Of course, nobody suggests changing that. In those cases, of course, the parents get punished, not "professionals" *. And, of course, child protection cannot be forced to care for a child through studies (but parents can). And so on. * this, despite the fact that punishing the parents is often not possible. If the parents have nothing, what are you going to do. Of course, even if child protection or social workers are very much involved in the problems of the parents (e.g. the parents were foster kids themselves), they cannot be forced to deal with the consequences.
bossyTeacher 11mo ago
> What is happenning in denmark that allows this process to exist? Surprised at your reaction. It is well known that several of the Nordics have historically have fairly questionable processes when it came to the indigenous people. Eugenics sounding processes given the euphemism word "assimilation process". The Sami people are still suffering from the legacy of these processes in Norway and Finland. This is no different than the Canadian whitening policy via cultural assimilation via one way adoption, one way intermarry, residential schools, etc. Australia had the same thing. Virtually, every colonised country where the colonised population wasn't wiped out right had similar processes on them. I think people on here often have an overly rosy views of the Nordics due to the surveys ranking them as the happiest people in the world. Let us remember that this is the same country that has guetto laws defined as places with less than 50% western people. And yes, the Danish word for "guetto" was in the official documents and it actually only got removed 4 years ago
- tokai 11mo ago
  Don't leave Sweden out of this. They only recognized Sami languages in '09.
- lambdaphagy 11mo ago
  Referring to the Sami as "Indigenous" in contrast to the Scandinavian and Finnish peoples seems pretty tendentious. All three of these groups have been in Northern Europe for thousands of years.
  - AlotOfReading 11mo ago
    Despite the dictionary definition of the word, "indigenous" is more often a statement about the relationship with the state than a statement on cultural or geographic continuity. The Sami have a very different relationship to the Nordic governments than other Fennoscandian groups.
    - lambdaphagy 11mo ago
      Yeah, that's precisely what I'm objecting to-- smuggling in assumptions about the relationship between Sami and other Northern-European populations by using a term that implies that Scandinavians aren't native to Scandinavia, at least as much as any human population is native to anywhere. In particular it obscures what is fundamental to the conflict, which is state/settled vs non-state/tribal, not one group being native to the land and the other being some sort of outside occupying force.
HWR_14 11mo ago
> cultural trivia like asking about mother Teresa? In 2024. For most parents the correct answer would be "someone who died before I was born", but in the case of this particular mother it is "someone who died before I was a teenager". I'm not sure it's ever been relevant cultural trivia for Denmark and is irrelevant to modern culture anywhere.
mc32 11mo ago
Slippery slopes do exist. It’s not fallacious. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.
roywiggins 11mo ago
> What is happenning in denmark that allows this process to exist? I would first ask what happened such that Denmark owns Greenland in the first place, because it's all part of the same process, same as this: > Thousands of Inuit women and girls were fitted with an intrauterine device (IUD), commonly known as a coil, during the 1960s and 70s... it is unclear how many cases lacked consent or proper explanation. > Among those affected were girls as young as 12, and several have stated publicly that they were not properly informed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63049387 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63049387
- int_19h 11mo ago
  These tests aren't specific to Greenland though. They affect more people there because they tend to assume a certain culture, and that part stems directly from Denmark's past colonial policies. But it would still be dystopian if confined to Denmark proper.
  - bazoom42 11mo ago
    The article is about tests administered in Denmark by the Danish authorities. Greenland has its own child protective services ran by Greenlanders, presumably with a better cultural understanding of their own citizens (although cultural differences and different languages does also exist inside of Greenland).
- bazoom42 11mo ago
  > I would first ask what happened such that Denmark owns Greenland in the first place I think there is some misunderstanding of the issue here. While Greenland isn’t fully independent, many domains, including social services and child protective services in Greenland are managed by Greenland itself, not by Denmark. But the controversial tests described in the article did not happen in Greenland - They happened in Denmark, but they were considered unfairly biased aginst Greenlandic parents living in Denmark.
throw-the-towel 11mo ago
> cultural trivia like asking about mother Teresa? What is happenning in denmark that allows this process to exist? I believe this is called "colonialism".
amypetrik8 11mo ago
Well as I see it, it's a hell of a "road to hell paved with good intentions" type nasty slippery slope. "Let's have the next generation be the best possible, as they are innocent and never chose life, let them thusly get the best life" "Let us assess the parents Nurture ability, and if not to our standards, we most assuredly will for sure provide a high quality Nurture environment, super promise it will always work" "Oh, that worked so well, let us assess Nature in the whole Nature vs Nurture topic, let us assess the genetic health of parents and ensure the next generation is genetically superior" It's playing with damn fire you ask me

johnisgood 11mo ago

> looking at Rorschach tests? cultural trivia like asking about mother Teresa? Is that a part of their evaluation process? Good Lord.

cogman10 11mo ago
Yup, it was in the article. Some real eugenicsy vibes.
- MadnessASAP 11mo ago
  Wellllll.... Eugenics wasn't exactly unpopular in Denmark for a good chunk of the 20th century. So that kinda tracks.
cma 11mo ago
Another one: in the US, mothers suspected of drug use can have their baby's urine screened and then have the child taken away. Johnson's head-to-toe baby wash cross-reacted with the THC urine test and could cause false positives. Picking out which mothers to suspect and screen was probably full of racial and economic bias.

cogman10 11mo ago

Exactly my thoughts coming into the article. Reading what was being tested, playing with dolls, trivia, and math problems. That's just insane. You need none of that to be a good parent. The closest I could see to doing a test like that is if you wanted to administer a dementia test. You know, something that could actually get the kid seriously harmed. There are cases when a state should take away a kid. But it should be because the kid is in danger, not because the parents can't pass a trivia game.

spwa4 11mo ago
> There are cases when a state should take away a kid. But it should be because the kid is in danger, not because the parents can't pass a trivia game. Really? Such as? Because if what you care about is the child, the child's future, even in absurdly extreme cases birth parents turn out to be better: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/05/980505092617.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/1998/05/980505092617.h... And the closer the family bond, the better children fare. Which means "state care" is always the worst option. Unrelated foster care is the second worst option. Study after study shows bad situations ... and always state intervention is the worst option. Take the child away when the parents are arrested? Or put the kid in jail too? Best option turns out to be ... let the kid stay in jail too. Drug addicts refuse treatment? Best option for the kid? State care or just leave them? Best option turns out to leave them. And even truly extreme: actual, bona fide abuse. Which in 99% of cases is the kid just being left home alone for too long btw. What is best? State intervention or leaving the kid there? Best is leaving the kid there. Violence at home? Whether it's witnessing violence or actual victimization: best option is to leave the kid at home (and of course, often it's the state's fault, for example failing to protect a mother from an ex-husband) Parents want to get rid of a child? Best option is to refuse to help. I guess what I'm trying to say is that "the state should take away the child" should never be used as long as the parents or any family willing to help are even alive. Because, study the system and you will quickly see how it really works. You will find foster care is only forced on the parents and the children. Foster parents want to get rid of a kid? Easy. A care home wants to get rid of a child? Even if the kid ends up on the street that's easy. Of course, nobody suggests changing that. In those cases, of course, the parents get punished, not "professionals" *. And, of course, child protection cannot be forced to care for a child through studies (but parents can). And so on. * this, despite the fact that punishing the parents is often not possible. If the parents have nothing, what are you going to do. Of course, even if child protection or social workers are very much involved in the problems of the parents (e.g. the parents were foster kids themselves), they cannot be forced to deal with the consequences.

bossyTeacher 11mo ago

> What is happenning in denmark that allows this process to exist? Surprised at your reaction. It is well known that several of the Nordics have historically have fairly questionable processes when it came to the indigenous people. Eugenics sounding processes given the euphemism word "assimilation process". The Sami people are still suffering from the legacy of these processes in Norway and Finland. This is no different than the Canadian whitening policy via cultural assimilation via one way adoption, one way intermarry, residential schools, etc. Australia had the same thing. Virtually, every colonised country where the colonised population wasn't wiped out right had similar processes on them. I think people on here often have an overly rosy views of the Nordics due to the surveys ranking them as the happiest people in the world. Let us remember that this is the same country that has guetto laws defined as places with less than 50% western people. And yes, the Danish word for "guetto" was in the official documents and it actually only got removed 4 years ago

tokai 11mo ago
Don't leave Sweden out of this. They only recognized Sami languages in '09.
lambdaphagy 11mo ago
Referring to the Sami as "Indigenous" in contrast to the Scandinavian and Finnish peoples seems pretty tendentious. All three of these groups have been in Northern Europe for thousands of years.
- AlotOfReading 11mo ago
  Despite the dictionary definition of the word, "indigenous" is more often a statement about the relationship with the state than a statement on cultural or geographic continuity. The Sami have a very different relationship to the Nordic governments than other Fennoscandian groups.
  - lambdaphagy 11mo ago
    Yeah, that's precisely what I'm objecting to-- smuggling in assumptions about the relationship between Sami and other Northern-European populations by using a term that implies that Scandinavians aren't native to Scandinavia, at least as much as any human population is native to anywhere. In particular it obscures what is fundamental to the conflict, which is state/settled vs non-state/tribal, not one group being native to the land and the other being some sort of outside occupying force.

HWR_14 11mo ago

> cultural trivia like asking about mother Teresa? In 2024. For most parents the correct answer would be "someone who died before I was born", but in the case of this particular mother it is "someone who died before I was a teenager". I'm not sure it's ever been relevant cultural trivia for Denmark and is irrelevant to modern culture anywhere.

mc32 11mo ago

Slippery slopes do exist. It’s not fallacious. Give them an inch and they’ll take a mile.

roywiggins 11mo ago

> What is happenning in denmark that allows this process to exist? I would first ask what happened such that Denmark owns Greenland in the first place, because it's all part of the same process, same as this: > Thousands of Inuit women and girls were fitted with an intrauterine device (IUD), commonly known as a coil, during the 1960s and 70s... it is unclear how many cases lacked consent or proper explanation. > Among those affected were girls as young as 12, and several have stated publicly that they were not properly informed. https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63049387 https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63049387

int_19h 11mo ago
These tests aren't specific to Greenland though. They affect more people there because they tend to assume a certain culture, and that part stems directly from Denmark's past colonial policies. But it would still be dystopian if confined to Denmark proper.
- bazoom42 11mo ago
  The article is about tests administered in Denmark by the Danish authorities. Greenland has its own child protective services ran by Greenlanders, presumably with a better cultural understanding of their own citizens (although cultural differences and different languages does also exist inside of Greenland).
bazoom42 11mo ago
> I would first ask what happened such that Denmark owns Greenland in the first place I think there is some misunderstanding of the issue here. While Greenland isn’t fully independent, many domains, including social services and child protective services in Greenland are managed by Greenland itself, not by Denmark. But the controversial tests described in the article did not happen in Greenland - They happened in Denmark, but they were considered unfairly biased aginst Greenlandic parents living in Denmark.

throw-the-towel 11mo ago

> cultural trivia like asking about mother Teresa? What is happenning in denmark that allows this process to exist? I believe this is called "colonialism".

amypetrik8 11mo ago

Well as I see it, it's a hell of a "road to hell paved with good intentions" type nasty slippery slope. "Let's have the next generation be the best possible, as they are innocent and never chose life, let them thusly get the best life" "Let us assess the parents Nurture ability, and if not to our standards, we most assuredly will for sure provide a high quality Nurture environment, super promise it will always work" "Oh, that worked so well, let us assess Nature in the whole Nature vs Nurture topic, let us assess the genetic health of parents and ensure the next generation is genetically superior" It's playing with damn fire you ask me