# Spin-off....History of hitting children



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

This is a spin off from another discussion. It seems that the natural or instinctual part of hitting children is brought up about how GD is NOT natural. That if we were to follow guidelines of being natural and instinctual, it would mean that hitting children would occur and be acceptable.

In the reading I have done, I have found that to be untrue.

So, I began to wonder where in history did the hitting of children become acceptable?

I think it would help those who struggle with GD to know where hitting children came from and why it occured and how to use that as a stepping stone to change.

One thing I would appreciate, is if people would NOT use animals as examples, ie-the wolf who nips or bites her young.
Humans are intelligent and are one of the few creatures on this Earth who have the ability to use language and speak to each other.

Did hitting result with some change that made children no longer seen as precious and rather as objects of ownership? Did it happen with the domestication of animals? I don't know.

Anyone up for learning and sharing?


----------



## Crisstiana (Jan 18, 2007)

Hi, MamaInTheBoonies:

Interesting questions for which I have no answers. But in digging around, it seemed easier to answer the opposite question: When did the welfare of children start to be seen as a societal issue, subject to government intervention? I could only find scraps of information, but here they are:

...

From the Guardian Unlimited: Timeline: a history of child protection [in the UK]

1889: The first act of parliament for the prevention of cruelty to children, commonly known as the "children's charter" was passed. This enabled the state to intervene, for the first time, in relations between parents and children. Police could arrest anyone found ill-treating a child, and enter a home if a child was thought to be in danger. The act included guidelines on the employment of children and outlawed begging.

...

From the National Association of Counsel for Children: Children and the Law

...It is difficult to say when the modern child protection movement began [in the United States]. The famous case of Mary Ellen in 1874 is important but misunderstood. Although this first Juvenile Court was founded in 1899, early juvenile courts were not focused on protecting maltreated children as much as they were concerned with keeping the streets free of poor and vagrant children. The events which most likely gave rise to our current child protection systems were the battered child research and writings of Dr. Henry Kempe in the early 1960s and the passage of the federal Child Abuse Prevention and Treatment Act in 1974. The following is a list of historical events that give rise to our current system.

* In 1874, 10 year old Mary Ellen was removed from her home for cruelty and provided protection by the New York Court system. The case is connected to the founding of the New York Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children, which gave rise to the founding of similar societies. By 1900, 161 cruelty societies existed in the United States.
* In 1839, the Pennsylvania court issued the Ex parte Crouse19 decision judicially affirming the parens patriae role of the government to "care for" society's children.
* In 1860, French physician Ambrose Tardieu conducted a study of 32 children whom he believed died of child abuse. Tardieu's findings described medical, psychiatric, social and demographic features of the condition of child abuse as a syndrome.
* The first juvenile court was founded in Cook County, IL in 1899 with exclusive jurisdiction of minors.
* In 1912, as a result of President Roosevelt's 1909 White House Conference on Children, Congress created the United States Children's Bureau.
* In 1921, Congress passes the Shappard-Towner Act, which established Children's Bureaus at the state level and promoted maternal-infant health.
* In 1944, the Supreme Court of the United States confirmed the state's authority to intervene in family relationships to protect children in Prince v. Massachusetts....

...

From Child Labor Public Education Project: Child Labor in U.S. History

...1836: First state child labor law: Massachusetts requires children under 15 working in factories to attend school at least 3 months/year

...

It seems to me that the bulk of fundamental protection of children is a sadly recent phenomenon.









Also, I found this interesting abstract for a recent Mt. Sinai Journal of Medicine article entitled "Corporal punishment of children in England and the United States: current issues", but I can't get to a computer right now with full subscription privileges:

Proverbs has eight sets of instructions on beating children, but that book does not contain the often cited proverbial "spare the rod and spoil the child." This form of discipline, which is thousands of years old, has only recently been abandoned and forbidden in many states in the US, and in much of Europe. It is still legal in Britain and some US states, and remains a controversial issue....


----------



## QueenOfTheMeadow (Mar 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
This is a spin off from another discussion. It seems that the natural or instinctual part of hitting children is brought up about how GD is NOT natural. That if we were to follow guidelines of being natural and instinctual, it would mean that hitting children would occur and be acceptable.

In the reading I have done, I have found that to be untrue.

So, I began to wonder where in history did the hitting of children become acceptable?

I think it would help those who struggle with GD to know where hitting children came from and why it occured and how to use that as a stepping stone to change.

One thing I would appreciate, is if people would NOT use animals as examples, ie-the wolf who nips or bites her young.
Humans are intelligent and are one of the few creatures on this Earth who have the ability to use language and speak to each other.

Did hitting result with some change that made children no longer seen as precious and rather as objects of ownership? Did it happen with the domestication of animals? I don't know.

Anyone up for learning and sharing?

Just because we are rational speaking beings does not, in any way, negate instinctual reactions. So no, I can not have this conversation with out bringing up those 'animal like responses'.

That being said, we are rational thinking humans beings, and we recognize that our children are rational speaking human beings. So they will have emotions and thoughts that surround being hit. It is the fact that we know that we are hurting them physically and emotionally and we can teach them things without being physical that makes acting like animals wrong. It doesn't mean that those instincts don't exist.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *MamaInTheBoonies* 
It seems that the natural or instinctual part of hitting children is brought up about how GD is NOT natural. That if we were to follow guidelines of being natural and instinctual, it would mean that hitting children would occur and be acceptable.

It does seem that humans are, in many ways, different from other mammals.

In trying to figure out how to respond to this post, I looked at as many case studies on feral children as I could find. I figured if feral children hit or were aggressive, that might be evidence that humans, left alone in their natural state, are inherently aggressive.

But that is not what I found in reviewing the (very few known) lives of feral children. What struck me is that more than anything, when it comes to culture, humans start as blank slates. THERE IS NO NATURAL HUMAN. We are meant to blend with our culture, whatever that culture is. Therefore, we are neither inherently aggressive nor inherently pacifist. We seem to come with few pre-existing instincts regarding interacting with others, and those revolve around safety (for example, wanting to be in close contact with the parent from the moment of birth). Maybe that is why there is so much debate among us on how to parent - no other mammal seems to have the ability to choose how to parent; they already have instinctual knowledge. We don't.

In the absence of a human culture, feral children adopt whatever culture they feel most connected to. Feral children raised with wolves bare their teeth and hiss to show fear or aggression (I wasn't able to determine if they would actually bite).

In looking at people who are very, very cognitively disabled (people whose lives look only slightly different from people who are in comas), when they are confronted with an unpleasant stimulus, they withdraw (pull hand back, turn head away, close eyes, etc). They don't hit out at the stimulus. That would seem to indicate to me that we are not inherently aggressive. Our response to pain, at the most base level, is to withdraw, not to attack.

So my best guess is that parenting without aversive stimuli or shaming, blaming, etc is a cultural phenomenon. Other cultures parent with those things. To each individual member of a culture, the way they parent seems perfectly "natural". And to them, it is, because we have no innate pre-existing parenting models (other than to respond to the infants need for comfort and connection by giving them that connection - and it takes some work to ignore or go against that primal instinct).

So to me the questions are: How did our culture come to believe in the use of corporal punishment or its psychological counterparts (shaming, blaming, manipulating, judging)? And how can we change our culture?

The second question I don't really know the answer to, but I suspect part of it is having posts like this and forums like MDC and people questioning and speaking out and talking about things.

The first question, though... I'm sure I'll get really flamed for this... anyway, I believe western culture began to use punitive methods with children when we began to believe that humans were inherently flawed and "bad," instead of humans being a part of all that is, a good (or at least neutral), creative, relevant, sacred part of all life that is. Freud contributed to this view of humanity with his notions of children being all Id, and the Id being selfish, illogical, and antisocial. But before Freud, a very prevalent part of our mythology involved the idea that humans are born so extremely evil, so terribly venomously rotten to the core, so base in our desires, that the only possible way we could ever hope to be redeemed was for god to sacrifice the one thing he loved the most in a drawn out, bloody, humiliating manner in order to save us. That's how bad we are.

When we started hating ourselves, we started hating our children.


----------



## QueenOfTheMeadow (Mar 25, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
It does seem that humans are, in many ways, different from other mammals.

In trying to figure out how to respond to this post, I looked at as many case studies on feral children as I could find. I figured if feral children hit or were aggressive, that might be evidence that humans, left alone in their natural state, are inherently aggressive.

But that is not what I found in reviewing the (very few known) lives of feral children. What struck me is that more than anything, when it comes to culture, humans start as blank slates. THERE IS NO NATURAL HUMAN. We are meant to blend with our culture, whatever that culture is. Therefore, we are neither inherently aggressive nor inherently pacifist. We seem to come with few pre-existing instincts regarding interacting with others, and those revolve around safety (for example, wanting to be in close contact with the parent from the moment of birth). Maybe that is why there is so much debate among us on how to parent - no other mammal seems to have the ability to choose how to parent; they already have instinctual knowledge. We don't.

In the absence of a human culture, feral children adopt whatever culture they feel most connected to. Feral children raised with wolves bare their teeth and hiss to show fear or aggression (I wasn't able to determine if they would actually bite).

In looking at people who are very, very cognitively disabled (people whose lives look only slightly different from people who are in comas), when they are confronted with an unpleasant stimulus, they withdraw (pull hand back, turn head away, close eyes, etc). They don't hit out at the stimulus. That would seem to indicate to me that we are not inherently aggressive. Our response to pain, at the most base level, is to withdraw, not to attack.

So my best guess is that parenting without aversive stimuli or shaming, blaming, etc is a cultural phenomenon. Other cultures parent with those things. To each individual member of a culture, the way they parent seems perfectly "natural". And to them, it is, because we have no innate pre-existing parenting models (other than to respond to the infants need for comfort and connection by giving them that connection - and it takes some work to ignore or go against that primal instinct).

So to me the questions are: How did our culture come to believe in the use of corporal punishment or its psychological counterparts (shaming, blaming, manipulating, judging)? And how can we change our culture?

The second question I don't really know the answer to, but I suspect part of it is having posts like this and forums like MDC and people questioning and speaking out and talking about things.

The first question, though... I'm sure I'll get really flamed for this... anyway, I believe western culture began to use punitive methods with children when we began to believe that humans were inherently flawed and "bad," instead of humans being a part of all that is, a good (or at least neutral), creative, relevant, sacred part of all life that is. Freud contributed to this view of humanity with his notions of children being all Id, and the Id being selfish, illogical, and antisocial. But before Freud, a very prevalent part of our mythology involved the idea that humans are born so extremely evil, so terribly venomously rotten to the core, so base in our desires, that the only possible way we could ever hope to be redeemed was for god to sacrifice the one thing he loved the most in a drawn out, bloody, humiliating manner in order to save us. That's how bad we are.

When we started hating ourselves, we started hating our children.

I never even knew there really was such a thing as feral children. I always thought it was just a pretend thing. Do you have a link that you could provide for that?

But I have to say that I think that feral children are different from parents. Parents have many instincts that protect their children, like you said keeping your baby safe by keeping them close. Those instincts don't kick in, and often are not understood by those who are not parents. I've seen people swear they would never cosleep, etc, and then after they have children and those instincts kick in, it's a totally different story. I think in the wild







that animals often use biting etc as a way to teack and protect their young because they don't have the language to pass things on or teach in any other way.


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *race_kelly* 
I never even knew there really was such a thing as feral children. I always thought it was just a pretend thing. Do you have a link that you could provide for that?

Well here's one: http://www.feralchildren.com/en/index.php

I didn't actually read this site very thoroughly; it seemed more interested in sensationalizing the circumstances of feral children than in a scientific study.

In graduate school we studied a few case histories because they provided interesting information on the nature of language acquisition.


----------



## peacelovingmama (Apr 28, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 

So to me the questions are: How did our culture come to believe in the use of corporal punishment or its psychological counterparts (shaming, blaming, manipulating, judging)? And how can we change our culture?

.

I took a social history course that focused on early colonial Puritans. It was their religious beliefs that fueled their treatment of their children. The beliefs that people are "born into sin," need to have the "devil beat out of them" and that children should "cry softly and fear the rod" were a foundation for indoctrinating their vision of God into their children. I know this isn't an example of early humans but it definitely is an example of how violence can be embraced by culture.


----------



## lanamommyphd07 (Feb 14, 2007)

my hunch is--that since human beings have been hurting each other physically for as long as recorded history exists, that they have also been hurting their children in various degrees. It appears that at least in American society, violence is celebrated, excused, and emulated in many ways (just a look at sports and all the aggression surrounding simply viewing them {cringe}). It would be great if everyone realized that in order to treat others with love ALL THE TIME, then it would follow that that's what would have to be observed. I see no end in sight, but after throwing out the TV years ago, I find I can live in some blissful ignorance about what mainstream is liking. just on a professional note--it's difficult to tell parents not to spank children when they spend three hours or more every week screaming at the TV for grown men to "kick a#$" and then blow people up in their video games all day. sigh. I would disagree with any statement, however, that argues all humans have an innate need for aggression or violence. Perhaps that's the argument many are using for the "anger management" referrals I keep getting. Anger isn't the issue for most of these kids. Modeled aggression is the culprit.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

This was an interesting read.
http://www.naturalchild.org/alice_mi..._violence.html


----------



## Houdini (Jul 14, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *race_kelly* 
I never even knew there really was such a thing as feral children. I always thought it was just a pretend thing. Do you have a link that you could provide for that?

Here are some more links for feral children.

http://www.occultopedia.com/j/john_ssabunnya.htm

http://www.occultopedia.com/f/feral_children.htm


----------



## jenmk (Apr 28, 2005)

I don't know, it seems that hitting children would be a "natural" human trait. (Gosh, I just cringe to say that.) It's used to dominate someone weaker and smaller. Just look at our worldwide history of oppression . . . conquering the weaker, smaller, unarmed, uneducated, unknowing. Is there any culture on Earth that hasn't done that? Used strength and size to dominate and rule? (I'm really asking here . . . I can't think of any.)

What strikes me as being so strange in this day and age is that it is still accepted. How is it that thinking, well-educated, intelligent, good people believe that hitting a child is okay? I really don't understand that at all. (And, yes, there are plenty of people who spank, for example, who are good people.) But that's what boggles my mind . . . why do good people make an exception where children are involved? You know, though, I'd be willing to bet that the people who think it's okay to hit children would not think it was okay for anyone else to do it. So, maybe our revolution in changing our society's comfort with hitting children is to point this out to people everywhere. "If you wouldn't be okay with someone else hitting your child, why is it okay for you to do it?"


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jenmk* 
Is there any culture on Earth that hasn't done that? Used strength and size to dominate and rule? (I'm really asking here . . . I can't think of any.)

Yes, there are a few known ones: the New Guinea Mountain Arapesh; the Semai; the Mbuti of Zaire...

Unfortunately, non-violent cultures tend to either be overtaken by aggressive cultures or forced to become aggressive to deal with an attacking aggressive culture, and are lost to history. Its not known how many cultures would be non-violent if not confronted with more aggressive cultures, but my personal belief is that it would probably be about 50% of all cultures - we don't have "natural" leanings towards either pacifism or aggression, so either is equally likely to develop, and to varying degrees, ranging from absolute pacifism to attacking everything strange thing that moves.


----------



## Mamapits (Jun 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *race_kelly* 
I never even knew there really was such a thing as feral children. I always thought it was just a pretend thing. Do you have a link that you could provide for that?

I did just see a documentary on that and there are a few cases that are documented.

BTW







MITBoonies


----------



## Miatagirl (Feb 16, 2007)

I found something interesting that I learned while taking a pre-natal class....That the fetus does have the natural instinct to fight back, when they did an amniotic fluid test and they had an ultrasound on the woman's belly, as they were drawing fluid out, the needle accidentally pricked the fetus. The fetus' hand reached out and swatted at the needle, as if to hit it. I thought it was interesting...


----------



## Jennah_Gole (Dec 12, 2001)

Quote:

So, maybe our revolution in changing our society's comfort with hitting children is to point this out to people everywhere. "If you wouldn't be okay with someone else hitting your child, why is it okay for you to do it?"
I just have to chime in and say that as a mother that used to hit her children - I would hit them and feel they got what they deserved. I know its awful but if I saw my husband hit anyone(which was rare; he believes that there are very rare instances where a child needs to be spanked lightly ) even before he spanks the child i would be all nervous and uptight and thinking the child doesnt deserve this and why is he gonna spankthe child even if it is lightly.

This led me to think why do I think it is okay for me to spank them while its hard for me to see anyone else do it. Something is wrong. I realized I was spanking out of anger. Why don't they listen to me? Why can't they do what I told them to do right away? Again, the hitler control problem..

So in some cases, its spanking out of anger. its wrong and its awful because its not disciplining the child - its only the parent letting out their anger onto the child.


----------



## DevaMajka (Jul 4, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *jenmk* 
I don't know, it seems that hitting children would be a "natural" human trait. (Gosh, I just cringe to say that.) It's used to dominate someone weaker and smaller. Just look at our worldwide history of oppression . . . conquering the weaker, smaller, unarmed, uneducated, unknowing. Is there any culture on Earth that hasn't done that? Used strength and size to dominate and rule? (I'm really asking here . . . I can't think of any.)

iirc, the Yequana, (in the Continuum Concept) are not opposed to using their strenght against other tribes, but they don't use any type of punishment (or even coersion) with their kids.
So, to them, kids are people just the same as adults, but maybe other tribes aren't?

and as far as people *today* saying that hitting is natural or its instinctual, it seems to me that what it comes down to is that it has been so conditioned in them, that it *feels* like the most natural response. (I'm talking about people saying it without actually delving into the whole concept of what it would mean for hitting kids to *actually* be instinctual)


----------



## daniedb (Aug 8, 2004)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie* 
The first question, though... I'm sure I'll get really flamed for this... anyway, I believe western culture began to use punitive methods with children when we began to believe that humans were inherently flawed and "bad," instead of humans being a part of all that is, a good (or at least neutral), creative, relevant, sacred part of all life that is. Freud contributed to this view of humanity with his notions of children being all Id, and the Id being selfish, illogical, and antisocial. But before Freud, a very prevalent part of our mythology involved the idea that humans are born so extremely evil, so terribly venomously rotten to the core, so base in our desires, that the only possible way we could ever hope to be redeemed was for god to sacrifice the one thing he loved the most in a drawn out, bloody, humiliating manner in order to save us. That's how bad we are.

When we started hating ourselves, we started hating our children.

Well, you won't get any flames from me. In addition to Freud's philosophies, I think the extreme Puritanical influences in the 1500-1600s where radical modesty and humility were de rigeur, and the emphasis on sinfulness was a huge factor in how subsequent generations view themselves. When one is taught that one is a sinful, broken creature from their first day, not only do we focus on that aspect and try to purify ourselves by punishment and self-abnegation, but also in our children, for all kinds of purposes.

My sister belongs to a Presbyterian church and embraces Arminianism as her philosophy, one I reject as a Christian. The basic premise is that every human has a completely depraved heart (and I'm actually quoting here from their tenets of faith, not using hyperbole), and we are completely reliant on God to redeem our depravity and only through fully abandoning pride and self-reliance are we able to become better people as defined by her church. This constant teaching that one is fully depraved and fully sinful and that only God can inspire any goodness in our hearts is, to me, the absolute antithesis of God's assertion that we are made in His image.

I agree that we are unable to separate our humanity from our instinct, and while I am convinced that nature plays a large role in our relationships and parenting decisions, I'm also torn as to how much our nuture does as well - I see my sister seeking out a church that teaching this rigidity and almost constant scorn of humans' goodness, while I attend a church that is firmly rooted in God's grace and acceptance, without legality or condemnation. I can look back into our upbringing and see the direct result of my parents' decisions that influence what my sister and I have chosen to seek as our image of God the Father. My sister is a very rigid person, and has every intention to spank and has made "jokes" that all Henry needs is a good spanking to correct his behavior, while I am horrified by the thought of laying a hand on my sons.

An interaction that we had recently is a perfect vignette that helps me remember how very different we, as parents, are instinctually programmed to respond to our children, whether because of personality or nurture, but here it is:

Whitney was staying here for the weekend and Henry did something delightful. I said, "Henry, you're so awesome. I love you." Whitney jumped in and said, "But remember, Henry, your best efforts are but filthy rags before God, and only through Jesus are we acceptable in His sight." Obviously, there was much swooping-in-and-debriefing-by-mama, followed by a serious discussion with my sister later. It just encapsulated for me her attitude toward herself, full of self-hatred, and how she will, by extension, view and treat her children.

/off topic


----------



## Redifer (Nov 25, 2006)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
iirc, the Yequana, (in the Continuum Concept) are not opposed to using their strenght against other tribes, but they don't use any type of punishment (or even coersion) with their kids.
So, to them, kids are people just the same as adults, but maybe other tribes aren't?

I think it's more a question of survival. Other tribes are threats to their livelihood, therefore sometime must be dealt with aggressively, or even violently. Children, on the other hand, are not a threat to a full-grown adult. There is no need to use aggression or violence on a being that is not threatening to you or your survival, and children fall into that category.


----------



## mowilli3 (Jan 7, 2007)

I'm sorry i haven't read all of the posts because this in interesting. I have two observations that might have already been stated.

RE: the fetus hitting back. Humans have an instinct towards self-defense. Like all animals, yes, we protect ourselves when our lives are threatened. And good for the fetus. Let's be clear: Hitting back something that hurts us is self-defense, not punishment. Hitting children is unprovoked, as even at their worse misbehaving, children are usually not threatening our lives.

Second, I grew up in a segregated Af-Am community in the South, where it was still legal to use corporal punishment in schools in the early 2000s. Parents resisted taking it out of schools. Civil rights leaders flocked down there and testified again and again who hurtful it was to the children. DH and I were talking about this and I got an insight that I'd like to share. I think that Af Ams might have used excessive control, including hitting, to make their (our) children obedient during a time when any small perceived self-assertion gave whites cause to lynch. Emmitt Till is a classic example. 100 years ago, up to about 50 years ago, obedience could have actually saved their lives. Today is a different story in most parts of the country although I think there are still some very nasty people who practice hate crimes to keep people subordinate according to their race. I'm getting too upset trying to sort this out in terms of where social hierarchy, dominance, and parenting intersect, but I thought this slant might inform some of the future discussion.


----------



## mowilli3 (Jan 7, 2007)

Stupid question: Isn't it more natural for animals to protect their young and to nuture them to ensure survival of the species? If that is the case, isn't GD natural from a human perspective to produce healthier and more confident humans?

ETA: We talk about parents not being threated physically by children (and i think most people will accept that), but I want to consider the possibility that parents who hit are threatened pyschologically by their kids. Is it possible that parents use hitting to suppress the strength and development of a person who they fear will outsmart them, out run them, become bigger and better then them? I think on one hand parents want their children to be their best, but many insecure parents do not want to be overshadowed by their offspring. Just a thought.


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Wow! Thank you all for replying! You've shared information that I myself have never even thought about.
Before replying further, I need to digest this information and research some of the things that were brought up.








Mamapits


----------



## KermitMissesJim (Feb 12, 2004)

Quote:

_Whitney was staying here for the weekend and Henry did something delightful. I said, "Henry, you're so awesome. I love you." Whitney jumped in and said, "But remember, Henry, your best efforts are but filthy rags before God, and only through Jesus are we acceptable in His sight." Obviously, there was much swooping-in-and-debriefing-by-mama, followed by a serious discussion with my sister later. It just encapsulated for me her attitude toward herself, full of self-hatred, and how she will, by extension, view and treat her children._
I have no words.









On hitting in self-defense: dd hits ds (older brother) when she perceives some kind of attack--he took away her toy, he's threatening to take away her toy, any kind of threat and she strikes. I wonder if on some basic level, parents perceive their kids' misbehavior as a threat against which they must defend themselves.

It's not a good theory, it's just what ran through my head.

I come from abusive parents, and one day I threw a shoe at my younger sister (I was 17, she 11) and knocked the breath out of her. My father (in a rare moment of good parenting) sat down with me and apologized for the years of abuse I'd suffered at their hands, told me he didn't feel they did a good job as parents, both of them relied too much on the abuse that was bred into them by the times and families in which they grew up. He asked me to find a way to break that cycle. I'm 32 and I've been working on that ever since. He seemed to suggest that hitting kids was racial memory.


----------



## warriorprincess (Nov 19, 2001)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *daniedb* 
An interaction that we had recently is a perfect vignette that helps me remember how very different we, as parents, are instinctually programmed to respond to our children, whether because of personality or nurture, but here it is:

Whitney was staying here for the weekend and Henry did something delightful. I said, "Henry, you're so awesome. I love you." Whitney jumped in and said, "But remember, Henry, your best efforts are but filthy rags before God, and only through Jesus are we acceptable in His sight." Obviously, there was much swooping-in-and-debriefing-by-mama, followed by a serious discussion with my sister later. It just encapsulated for me her attitude toward herself, full of self-hatred, and how she will, by extension, view and treat her children.

/off topic

That saddens me. How is that allowing her to show the fruit of the spirit in her life? How can we ever teach our kids the fruit of the Spirit if we don't show _it to him?_


----------



## Rhiannon Feimorgan (Aug 26, 2005)

Wow, there is a lot to think about in this thread. I have to agree with pp who have suggested that part of the root of aggression and hatred toward children came with a religious world view that we are all inherently sinful. I think it goes back much further than the Puritans though.

I think to a large extent we parent the way we were parented. It take a lot of work to parent differently, although many of us know it is possible to break the cycle. I live in an area with a large Cree population. Like many other First Nations communities, many of the older generation are victims of residential schools. There are lot's of tragedies and injustices associated with those schools but the one that applies to this topic is that these children *were taken away from their parents*. _They were never really parented._ They were fed and clothed and housed but not parented. It struck me, once I got to know the family history of various other parents in this community how children of residential schools struggle with good parenting and this struggle seems to continue through generations if no one indivudual does the work of restablishing a good family parenting style. Where as families who escaped the residential school system seem to parent well much more naturally. It's as if these victums never learned to parent because they were never parented.

Please understand that this is in no way a comment of the fitness of First Nations People as parents, simply and observation of that happens when a cultures parenting practices are interrupted.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

Subbing...

H


----------



## Wugmama (Feb 10, 2005)

Quote:

Whitney was staying here for the weekend and Henry did something delightful. I said, "Henry, you're so awesome. I love you." Whitney jumped in and said, "But remember, Henry, your best efforts are but filthy rags before God, and only through Jesus are we acceptable in His sight." Obviously, there was much swooping-in-and-debriefing-by-mama, followed by a serious discussion with my sister later. It just encapsulated for me her attitude toward herself, full of self-hatred, and how she will, by extension, view and treat her children.
This is not meant in a mean spirited way at all, but a totally serious question. Do you think your sister could have some mental illness? Her behavior just sounds so off the deep end, away from what any normal person would say. And as someone who worked in the MI field for 4.5 years, I can tell you that a lot of people with MI focus abnormally on religion.

~Tracy


----------



## Miatagirl (Feb 16, 2007)

I agree, a healthy Christian would never say that. They would know that Jesus LOVES children... All good Christians and Muslims and any other religion with Jesus knows that.

And hitting did not stem from Christianity! Look at Samoa, and all the Polynesian tribes, they slap their kids into the next generation and the slapping has nothing to do with Christianity, it's their culture.

In fact, I've been to Tonga, and the Tongans that attend church, have changed and are nicer to their kids than non-church goers.. because they learn that children are a gift from the Lord, and we need to steward them, not hit them.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

So I have been mulling this over and I was wondering if religion as a whole has made humans more likely to hit. If you go way way back the Greeks and Romans and Egyptians hit their kids (from what text and info can be found) and some kids had it really rough. Their gods/goddess where pretty punitive too. If you bring that forward it apply to Jews, Christians and Muslims too. God can be pretty darn mean and punitive to his "children"... so did we become hitters because our gods were so strict OR did we make our gods stict because we were.
Another thought I had was that maybe the advent of agriculture had something to do with it. Being hunter gathers is a much easier life sytle you may spend time looking for food, but you are not forever in a battle with the elements and other cretures or people to protect your food. Think about how much work goes into growing a garden. How much modern farming has relied on herbsides and pestasides... how the whole family has to put in the hours and there is no "fun" time or down time it is constant work to get things to grow, keep them growing, harvesting them and then storing it.
Also I am wondering of the groups of people who do not hit... what is it within their culture that we either are missing or that they are missing? I mean if it was part of being human to hit our young, then every group would do it, so why do some not?\

H


----------



## BellinghamCrunchie (Sep 7, 2005)

I think the idea that religion causes people to hit kids isn't quite right.

Both violence towards other people AND the beliefs of certain religions are symptoms of the same mindset: Somewhere along the way people began to believe that we are flawed, unworthy, evil beings. That self-hatred led to the development of myths of redemption as well as believing that people could be deserving of violence against them.

What caused a surge in self-hatred? I don't know. But I don't believe its possible to develop a cultural myth, such as Christianity, if the culture doesn't believe its flawed and needs to be saved in the first place.

I wonder if the belief that humans are flawed, inadequate, and unworthy stems from our interaction with the environment. I'm not completely convinced of this, but I'm playing around in my head with the idea that if an environment is hostile (that is, a group of people find themselves in an area where there is not enough food to go around or that has been hit by numerous storms that caused death and destruction) that group of people might find themselves competing with others for food, which could lead to aggression (fewer people means more food available). As observed in our wars, in order to be able to kill another human being, you have to depersonalize them and see them as not the same as you - once you let the idea in that another person is capable of being flawed and unworthy, you also allow that that idea might be applied to yourself, then self-hatred begins to be a possibility.

If its true that hostile environments led to the development of aggression and self-hatred, myths of being so flawed that we needed to be saved from ourselves, and violence against our young humans because humans are "bad," then I would think one necessary element to eliminating this violence and returning to a belief that all humans are valued, worthy, and a sacred part of all life would be to insure that all humans have everything they need beginning at the most basic level (food, shelter, loving companionship, etc). Sorry for the run-on sentence I haven't finished my morning coffee.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

You know, I like that idea. If "bad" things kept happening to a group of people or an area (say flooding, or drought, or earthquakes... whatever) I would think that after a bit you would beging to wonder what was up. Were you being punished for something? Was something wrong with YOU that your area kept getting the bad stuff while another area kept getting the good stuff. Or maybe like what you said that you sort of have to dehumanize a group to kill them, if they are the same as you... why would you kill them?? (Is that what you are saying?)
Also I can see if people began to see themselves as flawed they might want to prevent this same thing from happening to their children, so there for they maybe headed it off by whipping them into shape so that they would not be flawed as well and then have to suffer.

H


----------



## ~member~ (May 23, 2002)

Okay, I just wanted to touch on the parent without support who hits and believes it is from instinct. I could believe that, as throughout history, when the adult is in trouble, it is usually the weak who get left behind or killed, in order for the adult to survive and get to a better place and reproduce again, kwim?
And, as a pp said, it would come from a place of fear, which would then turn to anger.


----------



## ejmom777 (Aug 9, 2006)

Quote:



Originally Posted by *BellinghamCrunchie*


It does seem that humans are, in many ways, different from other mammals.

In trying to figure out how to respond to this post, I looked at as many case studies on feral children as I could find. I figured if feral children hit or were aggressive, that might be evidence that humans, left alone in their natural state, are inherently aggressive.

But that is not what I found in reviewing the (very few known) lives of feral children. What struck me is that more than anything, when it comes to culture, humans start as blank slates. THERE IS NO NATURAL HUMAN. We are meant to blend with our culture, whatever that culture is. Therefore, we are neither inherently aggressive nor inherently pacifist. We seem to come with few pre-existing instincts regarding interacting with others, and those revolve around safety (for example, wanting to be in close contact with the parent from the moment of birth). Maybe that is why there is so much debate among us on how to parent - no other mammal seems to have the ability to choose how to parent; they already have instinctual knowledge. We don't.

In the absence of a human culture, feral children adopt whatever culture they feel most connected to. Feral children raised with wolves bare their teeth and hiss to show fear or aggression (I wasn't able to determine if they would actually bite).

In looking at people who are very, very cognitively disabled (people whose lives look only slightly different from people who are in comas), when they are confronted with an unpleasant stimulus, they withdraw (pull hand back, turn head away, close eyes, etc). They don't hit out at the stimulus. That would seem to indicate to me that we are not inherently aggressive. Our response to pain, at the most base level, is to withdraw, not to attack.

So my best guess is that parenting without aversive stimuli or shaming, blaming, etc is a cultural phenomenon. Other cultures parent with those things. To each individual member of a culture, the way they parent seems perfectly "natural". And to them, it is, because we have no innate pre-existing parenting models (other than to respond to the infants need for comfort and connection by giving them that connection - and it takes some work to ignore or go against that primal instinct).

So to me the questions are: How did our culture come to believe in the use of corporal punishment or its psychological counterparts (shaming, blaming, manipulating, judging)? And how can we change our culture?

The second question I don't really know the answer to, but I suspect part of it is having posts like this and forums like MDC and people questioning and speaking out and talking about things.

The first question, though... I'm sure I'll get really flamed for this... anyway, I believe western culture began to use punitive methods with children when we began to believe that humans were inherently flawed and "bad," instead of humans being a part of all that is, a good (or at least neutral), creative, relevant, sacred part of all life that is. Freud contributed to this view of humanity with his notions of children being all Id, and the Id being selfish, illogical, and antisocial. But before Freud, a very prevalent part of our mythology involved the idea that humans are born so extremely evil, so terribly venomously rotten to the core, so base in our desires, that the only possible way we could ever hope to be redeemed was for god to sacrifice the one thing he loved the most in a drawn out, bloody, humiliating manner in order to save us. That's how bad we are.

When we started hating ourselves, we started hating our children.


I've only read the first few posts but really wanted to go ahead & post my opinion...
You won't be flamed by me. I totally agree 100%! I was raised a non-denominational christian ... I dont believe everything the bible says because of mistranslation etc. (although I do believe in connection with our Creator.).I think people go to the extremes & pervert the bible any which way they chose. Someone said that there are eight versus in proverbs that discuss punishing/hitting children. Well you are wrong. Alot of those verses were simply symbolizing and some were misinterpreted...My entire post isn't going to be about this..I have several theories on this subject with nothing to do with Religion.. just wanted to post this part for the people who believe the bible's every word...
Here is what someone here wrote on another thread months ago that really made alot of sense...

"with the verses on the rod, one generally accepted rule amongst christians is that in interpreting the bible you have to take literally in a verse what the rest of the bible takes literally and you can take symbolically what the rest of the bible mentions as clearly symbolical. also you must take one verse or passage in the context of what the rest of the bible says on a topic. still a bit of wiggle room for varying interpretations, but this overall prevents being able to make the bible say whatever you want it to.

so, saying that, the rod is spoken of symbolically in the bible - example, the rod of jesse, the rod of so and so etc - speaking of the authority of that tribe or person. it is also used as a literal shepherd's staff.

if you interpret the verses literally - lets take the one that says "beat with the rod" you have to interpret it all literally. beat in the original hebrew language means to beat within an inch of one's life - it is in other places translated slaughter, kill etc. The rod is not something "thin, flexible and reedlike" as many christians are taught. ONe bible dictionary going back to the original language says that word rod means something strong enough for a man to lean on. So this is not a "spanking" like chrisitans try to say - if taken literally it is completely beating a child with a rod big enough and strong enough for a man to lean on.

if taken symbolically it means to continue to impress upon a child the right ways - use your authority, your "rod" to continually direct them. in keeping with the verses in Deuteronomy that say to speak of the ways of God to your children when you rise up, lie down, go out, come in etc.

and what about the new testament verses that say to provoke not your children to wrath but bring them up in the NURTURE and admonition of the Lord or the one where jesus says woe to those who offend one of htese little ones. it would be better for htem (the parent) if they were drowned. again -in context, jesus doesn't support drowning - just saying how awufl it is to offend a little one. "
Another person wrote:
"I do know that the "rod" refered to in the Bible is for guiding sheep, not hitting them."
And someone else..
*"Besides questions about how the Hebrew word "rod" is interpreted, there are huge issues with taking the book of Proverbs and applying it to raising small children. Look at the book of Proverbs. Who is its intended audience? What is discussed? All throughout the book the Hebrew word na'ar is translated "young man." Topics include drinking, partying, gambling, sex, promiscuity, marriage, choosing a mate, etc. It's obviously not a book about raising little ones. So why in just one or two verses is na'ar translated as "child"? It makes absolutely no sense. All throughout Scripture, na'ar is translated as young man, and yet in these two or three verses used to justify hitting little ones, it's suddenly translated as child."*
------------------
And One More..
"I think you have some great responses. To add that not only was the rod used by shepards to guide the sheep, the 'crook' or curved end was used to rescue sheep. The shepard could scoop them out if they fell into a crevace or got elsewhere they couldn't reach. Interesting to think of the rod being used to not only guide but to rescue when in trouble.

Secondly, Jesus is called the 'good shepard' many times in the bible and he was there to guide AND rescue us by GRACE alone. No threats, bribes or punishments for those who choose to love him and nothing we can do to earn his love and salvation. I try to remember that my son doesn't have to earn my love and patience, etc. with his behaviour any more than I have to earn Jesus'!"

All I'm trying to prove here is that SO MANY PEOPLE MISINTERPRET THINGS TWIST & CONTORT THINGS .. TAKE THINGS TOO LITERALLY...TO THE EXTREMES!! 
So I do agree with the original post quoted above that Western Culture or actually just Religion in general has been alot of the reason behind hitting/punishing/believing kids are flawed/bad or need to be controlled.
Maybe even laziness with our society needing to be convenienced in every way & just intolerant to being inconvenienced with our children.
Or maybe alot to do with so many Parents that work outside of the home .. inevitably their connection with their kids are not as great as could be & many more stresses are inevitable with that & also wanting to relax a second when you get home rather than be inconvenienced by your children or anything. SO maybe tolerances are alot lower because we cram so much in a day in our society or so it seems because we are all kind of spoiled with so many new conveniences. But I think with all the conveniences we have made we have created more inconveniences. And people will say that these conveniences are all just part of evolving, but in my opinion we haven't been evolving for the better of humanity, we've been evolving for the better of our wallets & economy. A bunch of money grubbing selfishness. I could rant all day about this subject. I wont. Also our standard american diets play a big role in our temperament. Like for example ..red dye makes kids adhd or other health problems as it does in adults. All the artificial products we put in & on our bodies have a lot to do with our mentality & actions. Same as alcohol.. it take away inhibitions thus we are unable to have self control or think clearly or be peaceful beings.
And of course if you were raised that way than its like second nature to you. I was & I find it refreshing but challenging to learn of & put to action the better ways to understand children & discipline- 'to teach to guide in self-control' through unconditional love, reasoning & common sense. I love Alfie Kohn's approach to parenting.
Anyway~ I believe its a combination of things. I have thought & thought of this subject every single day since my baby (now 14 mo.) was born & have had several different theories which all tie together. I dont even have time or the patience to type it all. And I'm sure no one even made it this far in my post. I typed too much. Mostly Copied & Paste the above quotes though. 
Gotta go. Sorry so long.


----------



## georgia (Jan 12, 2003)

Any further religious discussion re: hitting would best be taken to the Religious Studies forum. Thanks, everyone


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

I would agree with you about the inconvience thing, if that wasn't so new.
What I am curious about is societies where they don't hit (not where there is a law NOT to do it... but where they just don't do it)... what is it about them that makes them so different from us?
Also, I think when you come from an up bringing with violence it is harder to unlearn that.

H


----------



## mb722toddler (May 4, 2006)

Hi, I am personally against spanking and practice GD. It does not sit right with my instincts and seems it would teach my daughter I do not respect her, her feelings and that violence is sometimes OK.

I am writing a paper for college. Some Pyschologists/researchers who wrote about spanking in peer-reviewed pyschology journals are Benjet, Kazdin, Larzelere, and Baumrind, if you would like to see this research. Some are either neutral or pro-spanking. Gershoff and Straus disagree and are against spanking.

I can write more later -- I am still working on my paper & on the part of those against spanking.


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *Deva33mommy* 
iirc, the Yequana, (in the Continuum Concept) are not opposed to using their strenght against other tribes, but they don't use any type of punishment (or even coersion) with their kids.
So, to them, kids are people just the same as adults, but maybe other tribes aren't?

This would seem to be a contrast between "enemies" and "allies". Hitting is an act of war and you don't do acts of war against your own people. This actually indicates that one problem behind hitting of children (women, servants, animals, depending on time and culture) is that they are not considered to be truly a part of society. They are not "one of us" they are "other" and, worse, are a hostile "other".


----------



## sapphire_chan (May 2, 2005)

Quote:


Originally Posted by *mowilli3* 
Stupid question: Isn't it more natural for animals to protect their young and to nuture them to ensure survival of the species? If that is the case, isn't GD natural from a human perspective to produce healthier and more confident humans?

ETA: We talk about parents not being threated physically by children (and i think most people will accept that), but I want to consider the possibility that parents who hit are threatened pyschologically by their kids. Is it possible that parents use hitting to suppress the strength and development of a person who they fear will outsmart them, out run them, become bigger and better then them? I think on one hand parents want their children to be their best, but many insecure parents do not want to be overshadowed by their offspring. Just a thought.









:

This is why having more parenting tools is so important. It's easier to feel secure when you know what you're doing. (







or at least have more things to try before you come to MDC to vent/get help.)

(Also, re: Emmitt Till, I just learned about that, I just about threw up, I can totally see doing anything to keep that from happening to a child. I pray that our society has/will come to a point where everyone is able to break the cycle of fear.)


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't think you can pin a "natural" or "unnatural" label on GD. Different populations have different histories.

One hunter-gatherer population, the Masai, beat their children all the time. I think there can be violence toward the kids in the !Kung tribes as well.

These two different populations of hunter-gatherers have lived almost unchanged for thousands of years. So I suspect their customs reflect the customs of their ancestors, going way, way back.


----------



## mamaofthree (Jun 5, 2002)

Hmmmm interesting. So what is it then?

Could it be what people are watching in nature? IE watching how some animals treat their young and then doing something simular?

H


----------



## RedWine (Sep 26, 2003)

I don't think there are any black and white answers. And within each population there's bound to be variation. Within the Masai, there's bound to be at least a couple of mamas who don't want to hit...and within any "nonviolent" population, there's bound to be a few swatters.

Wish there was some easy way to figure it all out, but I don't think there is. I don't think it is any more natural to be nonviolent than it is to be violent.


----------

