Children are not the property of their parents
From Martin LeFevre in California
Jason, my six-year-old nephew, is an impish, mischievous, athletic, and
sensitive boy. I haven't seen him since he was a year old, so I am a new person
to him, as he is to me. It is fascinating to see how he has developed, and to
observe the influences on him.
As a baby Jason had petit mal seizures, and was put on mild sedatives for most
of his first two years. When they took him off the medication (babies usually
outgrow seizures), all the pent-up energy in his little body exploded in
often-unmanageable behaviors, at home and school.
His mother, my sister, has been very patient with him through many trials, and
he is learning where the limits are and how to regulate himself. Spanking is
rarely if ever applied, though firmness is often demonstrated, to a positive
effect.
When Jason really acts up, or gets carried away with the roughhousing (which is
oddly encouraged and engaged in by all three of my brothers-in-law), a stern
word by his mother usually halts the bad behavior. Then Jason gets a rascally
look in his eye, but relents.
It's clear that spanking would have the opposite affect on him. Hitting a child
causes a suppression of bad behavior, and an inculcation of external control,
rather than internal regulation. Unfortunately, suppression, whether through
spanking or other means, is the rule in America, and the legendary violence of
this society is a direct result.
As boys grow older, the vicious cycle of violence begetting violence intensifies
(delinquents are usually boys, though more and more girls are demonstrating
anti-social behaviors as well). Criminality is met with increasingly harsh
measures. ‘Build more prisons, and throw away the key,' is the hue and cry. For
example, California's infamous "three strikes" law commands an automatic life
sentence for any third felony.
Given that half the marriages in this country end in divorce, and the culture
has completely gone to hell, most children are emotionally abandoned, leaving
untold numbers of them to raise themselves. Then society turns on them,
demanding they act like responsible adults (as if the adults they see are
responsible). At the extreme end of this mad cycle of abuse and neglect of
children is the trend toward executing younger and younger offenders.
When an eleven or twelve year old boy kills or rapes, it is not the child that
is responsible, but the parents and society. Putting the child to death is the
culmination of the violence and sickness that permeates society.
When a society breaks down, the majority of people react, while a minority
responds. Reactionaries call for a return to the good old days, when family and
religion were the purported pillars of a supposedly orderly society. Adults who
are responsible acknowledge the new circumstances, and seek intelligent
solutions that fit the new conditions.
All over the world, traditions are breaking down. Appealing to, much less
insisting on, halcyon days of order and discipline that never existed only
hasten the breakdown.
What makes a family? Is a family a function of the qualities that imbue it? Or
is it a structure legalized by the state and sanctioned by religion? Certainly
the qualities of caring, affection, protection, and empathy define a family, and
not the structure.
The state cannot legislate parents to care about and take responsibility for
their children. "Public policies that affirm the formal lifelong public
commitment of marriage" are no basis for a marriage, or a society.
Children are not the property of their parents. Child abuse is a crime against
humanity, and child protection is a universal right.
martinlefevre@sbcglobal.net
The author welcomes comments.
