- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
Just from reading the last few pages of this thread - it seems like North American and Russian cultures have EXTREMELY DIFFERENT ideas of what does or doesn't constitute child abuse. Which is why this debate over Eteri's training will go on and on forever.
North Americans believe that Eteri's methods could be child abuse (though we obviously aren't sure since we do not have firsthand knowledge). Eteri's methods would probably be considered abusive in the US or Canada, just like we now recognize that the Karolyis were abusive. Any coaches with a similar environment would have to keep it very private or risk outrage or getting shut down.
To Russians, Eteri's methods are not abusive. They are fine. They make children into tough athletes. Training injured, limiting water intake, etc. - that's what it takes to succeed. High risk = high reward. If the children want to do it, they do it, and since the children want to win, it is not abuse.
These are just fundamentally different understandings of 1) how much control/autonomy a child should have over what they want to do - i.e., should a child be able to decide to take risks for success (Russian POV), or should adults be responsible for stopping children from risking their physical/mental health (NA POV)? And 2) what is or isn't child abuse.
I do not want to make uninformed generalizations about people's nationalities. I am just stating the impression that I get from reading these posts from all the different perspectives.
North Americans believe that Eteri's methods could be child abuse (though we obviously aren't sure since we do not have firsthand knowledge). Eteri's methods would probably be considered abusive in the US or Canada, just like we now recognize that the Karolyis were abusive. Any coaches with a similar environment would have to keep it very private or risk outrage or getting shut down.
To Russians, Eteri's methods are not abusive. They are fine. They make children into tough athletes. Training injured, limiting water intake, etc. - that's what it takes to succeed. High risk = high reward. If the children want to do it, they do it, and since the children want to win, it is not abuse.
These are just fundamentally different understandings of 1) how much control/autonomy a child should have over what they want to do - i.e., should a child be able to decide to take risks for success (Russian POV), or should adults be responsible for stopping children from risking their physical/mental health (NA POV)? And 2) what is or isn't child abuse.
I do not want to make uninformed generalizations about people's nationalities. I am just stating the impression that I get from reading these posts from all the different perspectives.
Last edited: