Journal Entry 1

Upon searching for child abuse and the psychological stimulus that comes with it, I found an article titled,
"Psychological Maltreatment is not an Ancillary Issue." The article gives an in-depth look at how child abuse
is actually not the serious issue, but the effect of psychological maltreatment that comes with the child abuse.
While that seems to be common sense, the article goes even deeper to provide details and information to
not only what psychological maltreatment is, but what child abuse is, and how it is defined among several
cultures. Cultures also play a key part into child abuse as well as psychological maltreatment, as one culture
may think an act of hitting a child is child abuse, while in other cultures, it is considered bad parenting if a
parent does not hit their child. The article also breaks psychological maltreatment down from a broad
statement into five main categories that define it, and how child abuse can be caused from these points.  Tevin -- I think your summary could be more detailed.  Don't just give me the basic claims.  Tell me exactly how the article proves its point.  What is meant here by "psychological maltreatment"?  Why do the authors claim that this is the real problem?  These summaries will be useful to you when you start writing the paper, so making them as detailed as possible (with citations!).

     When I saw the article, I was hoping to read about something that might give evidence that child abuse
would not affect a child's developing mind and how they saw the world. Instead, I became informed that
psychological maltreatment is actually the key factor in what is determined to be child abuse or not. New
questions also came into my mind after reading the article. A question the article helped me consider is,
"What defines child abuse?" Is it hitting? Causing pain? Another question is, "Who defines child abuse, the
child, the parent, or the public?" If neither the child or the parent see that a interaction between the two is
considered abusive, yet the public does, is it child abuse?  Okay, but how has this affected your thinking process?  What new ideas emerge?  Also, don't be afraid to question the article's argument.  Are there reasons why its claims might not hold up?  Is its methodology sound?  I do really like your question, though, "Who defines child abuse -- the child, the parent, or the public?"  This might be a useful train of thought to flesh out more fully.

     After reading this article, I have decided to narrow my topic down to how psychological maltreatment is
the main issue of bad parenting, and not child abuse. The greatest factor in changing my mind about this is
the article talks about how a child can stay psychologically sound from physical, mental, and emotional child
abuse as long as a psychological maltreatment isn't occuring. This is a very interesting viewpoint on child
abuse that I do not think has been tapped into, and by me doing so, will create not only a better paper for
myself, but a better understanding on the term "child abuse."
Similarly, I'd like to see a clearer plan of action.  Where, specifically, do you go next?  Overall, you journal should be more detailed, more comprehensive, and more engaged with the conceptual ideas (your own as well as the source's).