posted on March 14, 2002 06:31:12 PM new
You know in Islamic countries the father has power of life or death over his children. Interesting little cultural difference.
posted on March 14, 2002 07:09:49 PM new
Power over the life or death of his wife (wives) too, Gravid.
Before this thread becomes lengthy and embroiled in sanctimony, has anyone got a sense -- a theory -- as to why there are so many parents murdering their children nowadays? No corroborating links necessary -- I'd just like to know what you think...
posted on March 14, 2002 08:17:29 PM new
gravid: it was common in the old world for men to have that sort of authority. From Viet-Nam to Spain. Ancient Rome and Greece, Egypt, Summeria, Ur, and so forth, it was a Man's Right that could not be contested. NOT being allowed to kill your wife and children as you please is a rather new, almost modern concept in law.
"why there are so many parents murdering their children nowadays?"
Infanticide has been practiced in the West for as long as written history. Doctors and midwives would kill the newborn that they were delivering if it looked crippled. Stillborn, they called it.
But not only that, when your parents or grandparents became too much of a burden, they often got their faces shoved into a bucket or smothered in a pillow. Died in their sleep, it was called.
But we all like to believe that none of this happens. And most of us have not done our homework in history. Otherwise, we'd be a lot less shocked right now.
posted on March 14, 2002 09:03:46 PM newExperts say filicide, the murder of a child by a parent, dates to ancient times, but seems more prevalent today because of media attention given to dramatic cases...
Pathologists at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center at Dallas have tied parental killing of children to 16 different situations.
Actually, IF there is an increase, I think it's because there is no longer a support system.
Today most kids are raised like wolves. Mommy and daddy work and drop Bonzo off at day care hoping when they pick him up he's not too icky. Families are groups of strangers. Years ago, young mothers stayed home or there were grandparents either living in the house or always around. There was less pressure on the mother.
posted on March 15, 2002 03:41:40 PM new
Thanks for those enlightening (and quite disturbing) links...
"The human species has killed almost 10% - 15% of all children born. The majority of these murders have been associated with reasons of necessity at least in the minds of the infanticide parent - or with untoward reactions against an unwanted birth. With little ability to abort an unwanted pregnancy safely, troubled parents have had little choice but to wait until full-term delivery before disposing of the conception."
"For infants under the age of one year, the American homicide rate is 11th in the world, while for ages one through four it is 1st and for ages five through fourteen it is 4th."
So maybe the question I should ask is why we find it so abhorrent, given its historic presence and acceptance?
posted on March 15, 2002 07:23:43 PM new
plsmith - This generation of Americans is the furthest removed from reality of any in history. They are raised to believe from watching TV that animals have the same feelings and characteristics as people. They have no idea what the human body can withstand - thinking that you can have a heavy wooden chair busted over your head and not be harmed. They expect automobiles to make long flights through the air and land without loss of control or the tires or suspension busting. They believe that people can shoot a short barrelled pistol in the dark at ranges of a hundred yards with pinpoint accuracy. They believe that meat comes in little trays with plastic wrap. If they saw the intestines spilled out of a dead cow they would become vegetarians. They think that anyone who is attractive couldn't possibly have a sexually transmitted disease.
They have no idea what the basic laws of nature are or how the technology they depend on to live is produced. They think that they can stop a 4,000 pound car in the 6 foot space they have allowed to the car in front of them at 40 MPH. The can't hold up their fingers and show you how long an inch or a millimeter is. They have no concept how big the country or the continent they live on is and only the vaughest idea how big the world is and what land masses are on it. That there are people who don't speak English or think the same as they do is a disturbing idea they would rather not talk about. If their Mommy or priest can't tell them what is right or wrong then that only leaves politicians to help them since they have no thinking ability of their own.
They have no training or ability to consider serious questions like this. They really have no right to an opinion on any serious social question like this because it would not have any firm foundation.
[ edited by gravid on Mar 15, 2002 07:26 PM ]
posted on March 15, 2002 08:14:39 PM new
Gravid, I don't know anyone quite as stupid as those you seem to be referring to.I know they are out there..I just don't know them. Are you saying by your comment: "They have no training or ability to consider serious questions like this. They really have no right to an opinion on any serious social question like this because it would not have any firm foundation" that those of us here don't have the right to discuss this topic or hold an opinion?
posted on March 15, 2002 08:31:50 PM new
Not at all. - The people who post here have been through a screening process just being able to use the computer technology to post. almost all of the people who post here display expertise in SOME area. However just being alive and having an opinion does not qualify someone to intrude on other peoples lives to tell them what they should do with their children no matter how democratic it sounds. The fact that public policy can be swayed by the opinion of the great unwashed masses is a fact but it is not right. When you get right down to it one man alone can be right about something and the other 300 million citizens can all be wrong. That is why we should continue to each have the right to pursue happiness as we wish with as little interference as possible. It should only be when what a person is doing impacts others that their views should be given weight.
As was said in other countries a man's family is considered his business. In this the society expresses a great deal of expectations about how all the family members will treat each other and what they are expected to do with the community such as attend school - get vaccinations - how they should be housed and clothed and cared for and watched. Is either too extreme? Or should there be an in between?
If you want an example of some people dumb as dirt look no further than the current survivor show. The lazy vote the competent off - and you will see how well it serves them soon. Should someone like that tell me what to do with my kids or life?
People seem to think that their opinion should matter to others about not only how they treat their children but even if they should get help from a doctor to have children if they have a fertility problem. In England the fertility board is made up of all lay persons who have no training in the technologies that they are regulating and they seem proud of their ignorance as if it somehow makes them unbiased! What have we come to that we celebrate ignorance as inpartiality?
posted on March 15, 2002 09:31:34 PM new Gravid, while I agree that the world is full of imbeciles and uneducated people, I'm not so smart or well-read myself that I feel "competent" to discuss most topics with any certitude. And I rather suspect that if I read twenty hours out of every day I'd still be woefully inadequate to the task of sifting and absorbing the vast amount of information we are barraged with daily.
"If you want an example of some people dumb as dirt look no further than the current survivor show. The lazy vote the competent off - and you will see how well it serves them soon."
posted on March 16, 2002 12:15:19 AM new
Everyone has a right to express an opinion, Gravid.
The degree of stupidity or intelligence is often reflected by the weight a recipient chooses to give to that opinion or the fact that a recipient has chosen to take the time to listen (or respond) to a certain opinion at all.
Personally, I think that IQ is often over-rated. I've met people with high IQs and little common sense and others with so-so IQs and a great deal of common sense. I pay more attention to the opinions of the latter.
posted on March 16, 2002 06:19:10 AM new
I agree that formal testing means little. That opinion is perhaps more noteworthy because I score right around 150 on a standardized IQ test. Does that mean I am very itelligent? No. It means I am good at taking tests and happen to have an interest in some of the subjects to which these tests are weighted.
Since we have freedom of speech I suppose you could say that everyone has a right to express an opinion no matter how lacking in merit it is.
That is not what bothers me - It is when that expression is given consideration as public policy.
For example the public has opinions about traffic laws although many of them have no accurate idea how far it takes to stop a car
and what the physics of a collision are.
For example many people buy larger vehicles thinking that that makes them a great deal safer at the expense of the other person they may run into. The public is very unaware that in a collision between two cars the car going faster has less of a change of speed than the car going slower. Therefore the person driving faster experienced a smaller acceleration (less G forces) than the one going slower.
Obviously a collision between cars which is close to being inelastic - both cars retain most of their energy after they bounce off each other - actually favors the speeding driver. People often think that the crazed drunk flying along at high speed was protected by his being drunk when it was the physics of the collision that protected them.
If they want to think that I have no problem - and if they want to express it as a personal opinion that's fine. But if the officials ask for opinions in open meetings to be expressed as a basis for writting traffic laws then I object that the person does NOT have a right to impose his ignorant views on matters that effect my safety.
Do you want industrail safety laws written by people who have no knowledge of the chemicals to which the workers are exposed? Or do you want air traffic rules to be formed by people who don't fly?
I don't think so.
In a similar way I would expect religeous superstition and local culture to be excluded in considering how people treat their children. The best qualification for setting that policy would be for someone to have raised several children who are self sufficiant and have been able to hold jobs and stay out of trouble with the law.
An education in child development or some other social study may be useful but the theories and views of such professionals change with the years. I would rather go by demonstrated ability. I would disqualify myself from setting such policy becasue I have only helped raise other's children and never had any opf my own.
[ edited by gravid on Mar 16, 2002 06:26 AM ]
posted on March 16, 2002 06:42:30 AM new
When I was growing up, we didn't have a lot of "crime". We kept our doors ulocked, never thought twice about picking up someone walking down the highway or assist a stranded motorist. If a stranger knocked on your door and asked if he could use the phone, you let him in.....we had no rapist, no child molestors, no incest victims....or did we????
Turns out we did, it just wasn't talked about especially around the "children"!
I know people don't really want to believe that the media and especially television have any real affect on us, but I really believe that it does.
You asked why so many more parents are killing their children today and it has been pointed out it's actually not something "new" , but it does seem to be on the rise.
What about the increase in children killing their parents or children killing in general? There doesn't seem to be as much history to show that isn't something "new"...
As much as I really don't want to go back to the "caveman" days, and I don't like being thought of as "just a mom" or a second class citizen, there seems to be a lot to be said about the "good 'ole days" where grandma and grandpa lived with us and our parents or just down the road. Mom was always home baking cookies and seemed to just always be where we needed her to be. Dad would go off to work each day and we wouldn't see him again until supper time. What Dad said went and you didn't question it, but you did know that if you could get Mom on your side, Dad would more than likely change his mind.
We didn't have a television until I was about 10 because my folks just couldn't see any practical reason to have one. I of course was desperate for one and can still remember how excited I was when my Dad brought it into the house one Christmas eve!
Of course, TV was quite different then. We had variety shows, with singing and dancing. Comedy was actually funny and even the movies were quite tame. There was no such thing as reality TV.
I remember how critical many folks were about that. News coverage could show no blood or gore. There were no 911/Emergency, no Cops, no CSI shows. Nothing that really resemble the "real world" and that was considered a bad thing. I can remember the argument that kids needed to know that when you shoot someone (we played a lot of cowboy and indians as well as army games when I was a kid) they don't just crumple over all nice and neat!
Well, as time travelled on, it seems that our TV and movies have indeed began to show it as it really is and unfortunately we have desenthisized just about everyone under the age of 40!
A few years back, I had been invited to friends house for dinner and a movie. They had one child who was between 3-4. We had dinner and while the menfolk did the dishes (I do like some of the changes) we womenfolk chitchatted and got the little one ready for bed. She wanted to stay up a little longer and so she sat between her mom/dad on the couch and in no time had curled up with her head in one lap and her feet in the other. She looked so sweet and innocent, like a little angel. Then the movie started getting good....it was a "thriller" (not my favorite kind of movie). As the music changed, my hands went up to my face automatically, the other couple began to lean forward and the little angel popped wide awake, bolted up and announced excitedly "she's going to get her brains blown out!!!!"
I was shocked. Neither the mom or dad seemed to even notice what she had said or seemed to think it strange that a 3-1/3 year old was already so conditioned that she knew from the change in the music that something was about to happen! How does a 3-1/2 year old child even know about brains getting blown out????
Your physics are a little flawed. Contrary to your statement about weight being immaterial and the rate of speed determines who gets the most injury, your scenario is ONLY true if the vehicles have equal mass.
Force equals mass X acceleration
When an Expedition doing 40mph and a Civic doing 60 hit head on, trust me, the Civic is going to be accelerating in the NEGATIVE real fast!
posted on March 16, 2002 01:41:56 PM new
Well! I am lamenting the shoddy state of my IQ -- it would never have occurred to my feeble mind to turn a "Dad Kills 6 Kids" thread into a discussion about the physics of automobile wrecks, darn it...
posted on March 17, 2002 04:45:05 PM new
About 30 years ago, I knew and admired a young mother who had two small girls and then had twin girls. Wonderful husband, too. I asked her one day how she managed everything, because my one little baby was just about doing me in, and she said "Sometimes I just go into the bathroom, stuff a towel into my mouth, and scream."
Except for a few rare women who just adoooore to spend their days and nights with small children, most of us stumble through it somehow. No one but those of us who've done this can know how deadening, dull, and mentally numbing it can be to spend long days with small active children--even when there is lots of love in the home. No man, except for househusbands, can know how it feels. . . .
Not to excuse infanticide, of course. Or the man who kills his 6 children. There are other reasons for that, I'm sure.
posted on March 17, 2002 08:21:55 PM new
This is due to the acceptance of the teachings of Meade and Montague. There is simply not enough interest in breast feeding in this society. Children raised on chemicals whiel sitting in state run schools, and left to television for interaction coupled with the destruction or White culture have caused a nightmare situation like this to develop.
posted on March 18, 2002 04:05:52 AM new
I think it's the raised on chemicals part.
By Golly, if it weren't for those pesky chemicals, we wouldn't be here now. (Especially that pernicious carbon based crap, that started the whole mess.)
You have the right to an informed opinion -Harlan Ellison
posted on March 18, 2002 08:42:51 AM new
"as to why there are so many parents murdering their children nowadays? No corroborating links necessary -- I'd just like to know what you think..."
plsmith,
Communications, mode of travel, investigation. I would say. It is much faster today. Crimes committed today are known in most parts of the world within hours. Where I grew up, a complete family could be wiped by smallpox or killed. Some who lived in a ten mile radius would never know it happened.
For what it is worth my Mother, was a mid-wife. She delivered over 400 babies. A few were twins, some were breech births, some were deformed, some had had sacks over their face. None died. I was delivered by a mid-wife, as were all my brothers & sisters, all eight of us. I was over 2 months old before the doctor knew I was born. It wasn't that the doctor didn,t want to come, it was because it took that long for to make her rounds in a horse & buggy. Yes, we had women doctors then.
Large families in those days were needed. They were needed for safety,(Getting law enforcement there might take weeks), to improve the standard of living of the family. Girls were as important as the boys. Each person in the family was important, each member provided something, even a baby.
So what is diffferent today. People trying to tell someone else, how to live, how to raise children or just sticking their nose where it does not belong or what mental condition caused.
Years ago parents could kill their children, bury them & it never be known. Today, Communications, mode of travel & investigations would be able to record this even in the most remote areas of most Nations. Someone would find a reason as to why they did it & not because they just plain wanted to, but, because some wanted to stick a mental condition on it or someone else caused them to do it.
mx_EUjqrHsC:www.epic.ac.uk/IC/Papers/Sykora.pdf+infanticide+rate+&hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1
