Researching the connection -- from wives/servants to children

[cklewis]

I thought I'd start a new thread here.

Let's re-group. Our questions seem to be:


When did it become "normal" to hit *children* on the backside (as opposed to the back, leg, or hand)?
When did the sexual connotations of hitting on the bare backside become hidden?
When did the hitting on the backside become ritualized and proper?
When did Christian parenting = "the rod"? Was there a time when parents used the rod on some other body part, and then this was transfered to the "backside" due to some influence?


Anything else?

Our primary texts are:

The Mother's Book (http://digital.library.upenn.edu/women/child/book/book.html) by Lydia Child, 1831. As I understand it, this was the first child-rearing manual published in the US. I think I'm remembering that correctly. Lydia Child (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lydia_Child) was like the Betty Crocker/Martha Stewart icon of the antebellum age. Every woman -- even on the prairie -- had this book on her mantle.
That Spencer Spanking Plan junk. 1936. :sick
Roy Lessin seems to be a big name, and Quiteria had evidence that he predates Dobson, right?
Dobson's Dare to Discipline (http://www.amazon.com/Dare-Discipline-James-Dr-Dobson/dp/0553255282/sr=1-4/qid=1168868940/ref=sr_1_4/103-8510684-5517445?ie=UTF8&s=books) was a biggie in my neck of the woods. 1982 is the date there.


Our secondary texts are:

That History Channel Doc.
Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking)
Donnelly, D. & Straus, M. (1994) The fusion of sex and violence, in M. A. Straus (Ed.) Beating the devil out of them: Corporal punishment in American families. Boston: Lexington/MacMillan.
Philip Greven's Spare the Child
Philip Greven's Child-Rearing Concepts, 1628-1861, 1973. That sounds promising.


I'll edit that list as we go.

I kinda wonder if I can go to the library here on campus and see if I can trace the child-rearing manuals, yk? I *might* have time for that this week.

C

[cklewis]

Oooo -- I just remembered something. While Lydia Child was a Unitarian, I did read all the stuff by a bunch of evangelical women in a magazine called "The Mother's Magazine" started in 1832 in the midst of the 2nd Great Awakening. These women were :cool . TBH, :O I think we here are their contemporary soul sisters. :woohoo Anyway, the magazine eventually developed into The Family Circle! No kidding!

I read it in Bloomington, Indiana. I don't know if we have the microfilm here. :scratch Hmmm. . . . That might be something. I mean, if we can find early on where punishing did NOT mean spanking, yk? Then we have the two dates, the two parenthesis, or something like that.

C

[cklewis]

Me, still jabbering. I need to get to work. But first, here's Lydia Child's discussion of punishment. It's in the public domain, so I can quote it all here:

CHAP. IV.
MANAGEMENT.
THIS phrase is a very broad and comprehensive one. Under it I mean to include all that relates to rewards, and punishments, and the adaptation of education to different characters and dispositions.

The good old fashioned maxim that 'example is better than precept,' is the best thing to begin with. The great difficulty in education is that we give rules instead of inspiring sentiments. The simple fact that your child never saw you angry, that your voice is always gentle, and the expression of your face always kind, is worth a thousand times more than all the rules you can give him about not beating his dog, pinching his brother, &c. It is in vain to load the understanding with rules, if the affections are not pure. In the first place, it is not possible to make rules enough to apply to all manner of cases; and if it were possible, a child would soon forget them. But if you inspire him with right feelings, they will govern his actions. All our thoughts and actions come from our affections; if we love what is good, we shall think and do what is good. Children are not so much influenced by what we say and do in particular reference to them, as by the general effect of our characters and conversation. They are in a great degree creatures of imitation. If they see a mother fond of finery, they become fond of finery; if they see her selfish, it makes them selfish; if they see her extremely anxious for the attention of wealthy people, they learn to think wealth is the only good.

Those whose early influence is what it should be, will find their children easy to manage, as they grow older.

An infant's wants should be attended to without waiting for him to cry. At first, a babe cries merely from a sensation of suffering – because food, warmth, or other comforts necessary to his young existence, are withheld; but when he finds crying is the only means of attracting attention, he soon gets in the habit of crying for everything. To avoid this, his wants should be attended to, whether he demand it or not. Food, sleep, and necessary comforts should be supplied to him at such times as the experience of his mother may dictate. If he has been sitting on the floor, playing quietly by himself a good while, take him up and amuse him, if you can spare time, without waiting for weariness to render him fretful. Who can blame a child for fretting and screaming, if experience has taught him that he cannot get his wants attended to in any other manner?

Young children should never be made to cry by plaguing them, for the sake of fun; it makes them seriously unhappy for the time, and has an injurious effect upon their dispositions. When in any little trouble, they should be helped as quick as possible. When their feet are caught in the rounds of a chair, or their playthings entangled, or when any other of the thousand-and-one afflictions of baby-hood occur, it is an easy thing to teach them to wait by saying, 'Stop a minute, and I will come to you.' But do not say this, to put them off; attend to them as quick as your employments will permit; they will then wait patiently should another disaster occur. Children, who have entire confidence that the simple truth is always spoken to them, are rarely troublesome.

A silent influence, which they do not perceive, is better for young children than direct rules and prohibitions. For instance, should a child be in ill humor, without any apparent cause, (as will sometimes happen) – should he push down his playthings, and then cry because he has injured them – chase the kitten, and then cry because she has run out of his reach – it is injurious to take any direct notice of it, by saying, 'How cross you are to-day, James! What a naughty boy you are! I don't love you to-day.' This, in all probability, will make matters worse. The better way is to draw off his attention to pleasant thoughts by saying, 'I am going in the garden' – or, 'I am going out to see the calf. Does James want to go with me?' If, in the capriciousness of his humor, he says he does not want to go, do not urge him: make preparations to go, and he will soon be inclined to follow. A few flowers, or a little pleasant talk about the calf, will, in all probability, produce entire forgetfulness of his troubles. If the employment suggested to him combine usefulness with pleasure, – such as feeding the chickens, shelling peas for dinner, &c, so much the better. The habit of assisting others, excites the benevolent affections, and lays the foundation of industry.

When a little child has been playing, and perhaps quarrelling, out of doors, and comes in with his face all of a blaze, sobbing and crying, it is an excellent plan to take him by the hand and say, 'What is the matter, my dear boy? Tell me what is the matter. But, how dirty your face is! Let me wash your face nicely, and wipe it dry, and then you shall sit in my lap and tell me all about it.' If he is washed gently, the sensation will be pleasant and refreshing, and by the time the operation is finished, his attention will be drawn off' from his vexations; his temper will be cooled, as well as his face. Then seat him in your lap, encourage him to tell you all about his troubles, comb his hair gently in the mean time, and in a few minutes the vexation of his little spirit will be entirely soothed. This secret of calling off the attention by little kind offices is very valuable to those who have the care of invalids, or young children. Bathing the hands and feet, or combing the hair gently, will sometimes put a sick person asleep when he can obtain rest in no other way.

An experienced and very judicious mother told me that, in the course of twenty years' experience, she had never known washing the face and combing the hair, fail to soothe an angry and tired child. But then it must be done gently. The reason children frequently have an aversion to being washed is that they are taken hold of roughly, and rubbed very hard. If you occasion them pain by the operation, can you wonder they dread it?

By such expedients as I have mentioned, ill-humor and discontent are driven away by the influence of kindness and cheerfulness; 'evil is overcome with good.' Whipping and scolding could not have produced quiet so soon; and if they could, the child's temper would have been injured in the process.

I have said that example and silent influence were better than direct rules and commands. Nevertheless, there are cases where rules must be made; and children must be taught to obey implicitly. For instance, a child must be expressly forbidden to play with fire, to climb upon the tables, &c. But whenever it is possible, restraint should be invisible.

The first and most important step in management is, that whatever a mother says, always must be done. For this reason, do not require too much; and on no account allow your child to do at one time, what you have forbidden him at another. Sometimes when a woman feels easy and good-natured, and does not expect any company, she will allow her children to go to the table and take lumps of sugar; but should visiters be in the room, or she out of humor with the occurrences of the day, she will perhaps scold, or strike them, for the self-same trick. How can a mother expect obedience to commands so selfish and capricious? What inferences will a child draw from such conduct? You may smile at the idea that very young children draw inferences; but it is a fact, that they do draw inferences – and very just ones too. We mistake, when we trust too much to children's not thinking, or observing. They are shrewd reasoners in all cases where their little interests are concerned. They know a mother's ruling passion; they soon discover her weak side, and learn how to attack it most successfully. I will relate a little anecdote, to show that children are acute observers of character. A wealthy lady, fond of dress and equipage, was the mother of a thoughtless little rogue. One day, he seized hold of a demijohn of wine, which a larger boy had placed upon the side-walk of a secluded alley, while he joined his companions in play; the little fellow persisted in striking the demijohn on the pavement, for his amusement. He was repeatedly warned that he would break the bottle and spill the wine; and at last this did happen. His mother, being told of the mischief he had so wantonly done, immediately paid for the wine, and ordered him to he undressed and put to bed, although it was then in the middle of the day. While this operation was performed by the nursery maid, he said, 'Betsy, it is my private opinion, that I should have had a whipping if mother hadn't had her best gown on. '

[katiekind]

You may be containing it in your current statements that use the word "hitting" but I'd like to know where Christian parenting via "the rod" fits into the picture. Was there a time when parents used the rod on some other body part, and then this was transfered to the "backside" due to some influence? (I'm thinking of literature such as Little Women where the schoolmaster used a rod on the hand of the child, iirc.)

[greenemama]

there's a lot of good stuff in that exerpt. :tu i think this is really exciting.

[thomer]

Here's my WAG…..

This is kind off topic about spanking per se, but more about the shift of thinking about how children should be treated.

So around the turn of the century was the industrial revolution - people started moving into cities - urbanization. And children went to work. They weren't seen as children any more - but seen as little workers.
Fast forward to when child labor laws came around. All the new moms and dads didn't have a normal childhood - what they remembered was having to work and being mistreated. They think they have to make their children obey - to be seen and not heard - to work and not complain - like their own childhoods. Combine that with a very stressful period in American history - the depression, WWI, etc. and you have stressed out parents who don't know how children should be treated.

Just a guess.

Also some other resources to look at would be looking at the fiction of that time period - for example, how were Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn and other 'naughty' children punished? Were they 'beat' or 'spanked'?

[cklewis]

Added that Kathy. :ty

thomer -- :scratch Childhood was created in the Victorian Age. No idea of that existed before the 1850s per se. I think you're exactly right that the Industrial Revolution had a big part to play in all this. I just found a reader called The Church and Childhood on my shelf that was compiled in reaction to the huge child abuse discoveries in the 1990s. Anyway, they are discussing in several essays about the cultural changes that you are describing. The abuse that was described in Victorian England was really torture. Like hanging a child until he was unconscious. :sick2 No bottoms that I can find though. Just hitting hands and backs mostly. :think

C

[Chris3jam]

Well, the *only* thing that is referenced when I've ever been talked to about how spanking is right and good is the "Rod verses" in the Bible. Everyone I know that spanks says very quickly, "The Bible tells us so." and cites those two verses, and then the Hebrew one ("the blueness of the wound") for good measure, along with the one in Jeremiah ("the heart is deceitful above all things and wicked. . . . . "). No one I have *ever* talked to about this subject (except here, of course! :)) has cited *anything* different. To raise children, one *must* employ the rod, otherwise we risk our children not knowing God. And it is based *solely* on "The Bible says so. Here are the verses." I have learned otherwise, of course. And this is very helpful. . .. .these books? Are they hard to come by?

[greenemama]

yeah, i'm wondering if it will matter to most whether or not there is historical proof since "the bible commands us to spank" kwim? of course, it's the sin nature of the child that is turning a godly spanking into something sexual. :rolleyes :scratch i just don't know if there's any way around it, especially when talking about fundamentalist separatists that aren't going to care about historical "proof."

[euromom]

This is a great thread. Kinda on what Chris3jam said, I had a friend tell me that in seminary he studied Hebrew Culture and says that the Isrealites did physically use a rod on their children. This had me :scratch as I have never heard such a thing. I asked for his refrences but never got them :shrug He said it was common knowledge in seminary :( Not sure which one he attended. :shrug

Still, I always wondered if there was a way to really search out Hebrew Culture in Bible times, as far as the rod and it's use or none use of. Are there any refrences, books we can look into on that as well ???? :think What sources would they have read that says the Isrealites did do this?? And then the question again, where on the body, backside, legs, hands???

[Aisling]

I found this that might be helpful with the when were the sexual connotations hidden: Chastisement by John Barry, published in 1966 by Brandon House Books of California. It's the history of spanking, and it seems to reference erotic spanking back to ancient Greece...it cites infertile women being whipped by priests on the backs with leather whips in a clearly sexual context. :sick

[lumpofclay]

yeah, i'm wondering if it will matter to most whether or not there is historical proof since "the bible commands us to spank" kwim? of course, it's the sin nature of the child that is turning a godly spanking into something sexual. :rolleyes :scratch i just don't know if there's any way around it, especially when talking about fundamentalist separatists that aren't going to care about historical "proof."


I would like to know when spanking started as "Godly punishment." Mollie's thoughts above made me wonder.....If spanking as punishment didn't start until XXXX date, then how come it took us that long to figure out that was God's plan for discipline of children? I mean, if Jesus walked the Earth, how come he didn't introduce punitive discipline way back then, yk?

[Chris3jam]

Further, to add to the above post, I would like to know what was "used" instead of spanking when spanking was not used (if, indeed, spanking was never used before XXXX date). I admit to total selfishness in this. I am committed to raising my children without violence. . .but it is proving almost impossible (I end up yelling and getting angry a lot :(). How did other people do it? What did they do? If the historical evidence shows that spanking was not used in child rearing until XXXX date (and I think it may have had something to do with some sort of revival at some time, and someone pulled out those Bible verses and said, "We need to get back to the Bible!!" - -that's my unqualified and ignorant opinion), what do I do to raise my children without them or us getting hurt?

[cklewis]

Hitting goes back at least to the Middle Ages. I have a document here that asserts that before age 7 a person is a baby and under the care of his mother and should be coddled (no hitting). After age 7 when he (not she, mind you) can talk and reason and work, hitting on the back or hands is necessary.

So we've always had hitting, Chris. Maybe I'm not sure I understand your question. Hitting doesn't work -- ever.

C

[Chris3jam]

Oh, yes, you're right. . .hitting does not work; it actually makes things worse (in my case). This is why I have an uphill battle right now (we did start out hitting :() However. .. .there are all those "testimonies" about how 'hitting' *does* work (evidenced by the loads of kids that are hit and are well-behaved). But. .. . I would also like to know. . .what was done before spanking? And *why* did it start to occur (um. . .basically, I want to know the same thing you do, and posted in the OP. .um. . .right? :shifty)

[greenemama]

Hitting doesn't work -- ever.

i don't know . . . i think that it does *work* but that the end doesn't justify the means. we all know people with exemplary kids who are fun to be around and are polite and creative, and well behaved, and who are that way largely because of the tight hold their parents have on them and the fear of misbehavior that has been instilled in them, kwim?

personally, it doesn't matter how terrific the kids are if they are that way because they're scared to push the envelope. but many, many parents believe that if the kids behave then "it worked."

i also think that spanking doesn't work for parents who don't use it for every little thing. the kids have to be broken and terrified if it will work, and the only way that happens is if it's the really bad spanking, not the occasional pop on the bum.

:sad2

[Wonder Woman]

I dunno Mollie - I don't consider that 'working'. :shrug The behavior modification may be successful, but then you've got another generation of people who think that A: they deserved to be hit and B: they have the right to hit others. :think

[greenemama]

I dunno Mollie - I don't consider that 'working'. :shrug The behavior modification may be successful, but then you've got another generation of people who think that A: they deserved to be hit and B: they have the right to hit others. :think


but it's all in the results that we want that determines whether it's working or not. for us, it doesn't work because we want a better outcome (more than just behavior mod. and instant compliance), for them, if the kids are obeying, the parents are happy. :shrug

[Aisling]

I dunno Mollie - I don't consider that 'working'. :shrug The behavior modification may be successful, but then you've got another generation of people who think that A: they deserved to be hit and B: they have the right to hit others. :think


but it's all in the results that we want that determines whether it's working or not. for us, it doesn't work because we want a better outcome (more than just behavior mod. and instant compliance), for them, if the kids are obeying, the parents are happy. :shrug


Totally OT here, sorry..I think it depends on what outcome you're talking about. If you're seeking well-behaved kids, it could "work". But if you're seeking whole, healthy adults who make kind decisions without guilt/fear as a motivator, I would say it doesn't work. One "outcome" is parent-focused (enjoying the kids who *do* behave when spanked), the other is child focused (with the emphasis on holistic parenting and producing a healthy, whole person in adulthood).

[cklewis]

I just look at these dear young people around me and see all the hurt and fear in their eyes and think, "no, it doesn't work." :cry2

C

[Chris3jam]

I just look at these dear young people around me and see all the hurt and fear in their eyes and think, "no, it doesn't work."

Yeah. There is always that "look". It's kind of a "hunted" look. . . .or almost a disconnect. Even though they *seem* happy and well-adjusted. But. . . . there's that. . . ."look" behind, in their eyes.

[CelticJourney]

I had a friend tell me that in seminary he studied Hebrew Culture and says that the Isrealites did physically use a rod on their children. This had me as I have never heard such a thing. I asked for his refrences but never got them He said it was common knowledge in seminary

Ah, but see there in lays the problem - 'common knowledge' is insufficent for seminary or any other academic institution. I'd be laughed out of any professional meeting for saying something was 'common knowledge'. If they can't present a reference it becomes conjecture - not what you want to base your parenting decisions on!

[cklewis]

Ugh. Found something. I will be honest here -- I don't know how much validity we can put in this source. He's been proven to be a little loose with the facts, but for what it's worth. . . .

Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish. He has a woodcut from the late 18th century. From France.

Steam machine for the 'celeriferous' correction of young boys and girls. 'Father and Mothers. Uncles and Aunts. Guardian Masters and Mistresses of boarding schools and all those who have lazy. greedy, disobedient, rebellious, insolent, quarrelsome, tale-bearing, chattering, irreligious children, or children having any other defect, are hereby informed that Mr Bogeyman and Mrs Bricabrac have just set up in every mairie of the city of Paris a machine similar to the one represented in this engraving and are ready to accept all naughty children in need of correction in their establishments each day, from midday to two o'clock. Mr Werewolf, Coalman Scarecrow, Eat-without-Hunger and Mrs Wildcat, Spiteful Slag and Drink-without-Thirst, friends and relations of Mr bogeyman and Mrs Bricabrac, will, for a small sum, set up similar machines to be sent into provincial towns and will themselves supervise their operation. The cheapness of correction given by the steam machine and the surprising effects that it produces will persuade parents to avail themselves of it as often as the bad behaviour of their children will require it. We also take incorrigible children as boarders; they are fed on bread and water'

And the engraving shows a boy and a girl in facing away from each other undressed from the waist down with the "machine" ready to hit them on their bottoms. The little boy's bottom is more obvious than the little girl's, and he's wearing devil horns.

I think I'm going to be sick. I'll try to find an online pic of this when I'm home. Can't here.

C

[Wonder Woman]

:shiver :sick2

[cklewis]

I want to add -- I think that's a joke. I could be wrong, I'm still searching, but I think it's one of those sick jokes.

C

[Wonder Woman]

:yes but even *as* a joke, it's sick and shows a sense of perversion. :/

[cklewis]

:yes but even *as* a joke, it's sick and shows a sense of perversion. :/


Oh yeah. Totally. :td

C

[QuiltinGramma]

That it just totally bad.... :pray2 that it is a joke. Could it be a joke but was started in the early 1900's? For some reason I just have a mental picture of it being done at that time.
:shiver
That sends chills up my spine.
:heart

[cklewis]

Here. If you want to see the pic, go here to Amazon (http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0679752552/ref=sib_dp_pt/105-9698696-4077268#reader-link) and search the book for steam machine. It's on pg 176. I'm still not convinced it's legit. Foucault was nuts.

C

[Quiteria]

:popcorn

still catching up reading

[Wonder Woman]

won't let me see it because I've never bought from Amazon. Hmph.

[Chris3jam]

Pg. 176 doesn't come up. :shrug Some horrible awful 'testimony' of a torture did, though. I started reading before I knew really what it was. :sick

[cklewis]

Pg. 176 doesn't come up. :shrug Some horrible awful 'testimony' of a torture did, though. I started reading before I knew really what it was. :sick


did you search for "steam machine"? that'll bring it up. sorry for the ick. foucault is gross.

c

[Chris3jam]

Oh. ick. blech. icky. :sick :sick :sick That cannot have been actually built and *used* was it? Or was that how they *really* thought of kids? You would think that with babies and children dying left and right, they would treasure the ones that actually lived. Or, maybe the mortality rate of the children hardened them to it? I see that. . . ."life was hard for me, life is hard and a struggle, it's good that you find that out ASAP, and why should it be soft for you?!"

[ArmsOfLove]

Still, I always wondered if there was a way to really search out Hebrew Culture in Bible times, as far as the rod and it's use or none use of.This isnt' a secret--go read the Rabbi's from whatever time you are looking for. That's what I do. That's how I do a lot of my research :shrug The fact is there have always been people who are harsh and argue for beating and hitting and striking and whipping. In most eras these people were seen as the extremists and even by many, abusive. Even when Rabbi's argued that the rod verses spoke to physical punishment it was never what we know today as 'spanking' and it was *always* as a very last resort for an older child.

the question is, really, when did what we know today as "spankings" become interchangeably used with "rod"? I think if we could start with Roy Lessing and go back we'd find some answers.

[cklewis]

Here's the yucky poem, Hudibras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudibras), by Samuel Butler in 1663.

The wiki article has this:

Spanking advocates argue that the buttocks are the safest place to administer corporal punishment since it produces a sharp stinging pain but injury is unlikely; indeed even the terrible judicial cane in, say, Singapore is applied right there, with protective padding just in case the back, especially the kidneys, get accidentally hit. (http://Spanking advocates argue that the buttocks are the safest place to administer corporal punishment since it produces a sharp stinging pain but injury is unlikely; indeed even the terrible judicial cane in, say, Singapore is applied right there, with protective padding just in case the back, especially the kidneys, get accidentally hit.)

I wonder if we can track this down?

From nospank (http://nospank.net/sexdngrs.htm):

“Frequent spankings, too, may have a negative impact on sex development. Because of the proximity of the sex organs, a child may get sexually aroused when spanked. Or he may so enjoy the making up that follows the punishment that he will seek suffering as a necessary prelude to love. There are many adult couples who seem to need a good fight before a good night.”
Dr. Haim G. Ginott, child psychologist. Between Parent and Child (1966)

“Being beaten excites children sexually because it is an intense excitation of the erogenous zones of the skin of the buttocks and of the muscles below the skin...”
Otto Fenichel, M.D. The Psychoanalytic Theory of Neurosis (1945)

“In many cases, the avowed disciplinary value of flagellation in schools and colleges was a mere pretense to enable sadists to secure sexual titillation.”
George Ryley Scott, historian, sociologist, anthropologist. The History of Corporal Punishment (1938)

“I have had constantly to do with neurotics in whom sadistic feelings were first aroused by corporal punishment; after the sadistic impulse thus awakened has been repressed and forms the starting points of very malignant aberrations about which it would be very disingenuous to aver that they would have developed without the free use of the rod... The number of those who are harmed through beating, especially upon the buttocks, is undoubtedly very great... Even one who passionately contemns sexuality will hardly be inclined to deny that the corporal punishment induced well-marked sexual stimulation—although the gluteal region is not within the domain of the genital organs.”
Oskar Pfister, physician, psychoanalyst. Love in Children and its Aberrations (1924)

“Ever since Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Confessions, it has been well known to all educationalists that the painful stimulation of the skin of the buttocks is one of the erotic roots of the passive instrument of cruelty (masochism).”
Sigmund Freud. Three Essays on the Theory of Sexuality, VII (1905)

Secondary Sources:

http://www.nospank.net/101.htm

Freud, Sigmund, “A Child is being Beaten: A Contribution to the Study of the Origin of Sexual Perversion” (1919). Reprinted in the Standard Edition of the Complete Psychological Works of Sigmund Freud. (Consult a university library.)

Krafft-Ebing, Richard von, Psychopathia Sexualis. (1886) (Translated from the German. Consult a university library.)

:sick2

C

[Aisling]

wow. :( I'm very interested to get to the bottom of this. It actually...explains a lot about my childhood. :sick

[Quiteria]

Re; the steam machine above

I can't imagine that a parent would pay for the use of such a machine when they could more easily inflict a spanking, whipping, etc., at home for free. The whole concept is :sick , but logicallly it had to have been a joke. However, I do think it indicates the rear as a common place for painful punishment or else no one would have gotten the joke. In other words, IMO, it shows that people were already hardened to inflicting pain on the bottom for misbehavior even though likely not in this fashion. More than likely, families were using a variety of instruments, here's one more.

:sick :sick :sick

[Learnin'2B]

:popcorn

[cklewis]

I can't imagine that a parent would pay for the use of such a machine when they could more easily inflict a spanking, whipping, etc., at home for free. The whole concept is :sick , but logicallly it had to have been a joke. However, I do think it indicates the rear as a common place for painful punishment or else no one would have gotten the joke. In other words, IMO, it shows that people were already hardened to inflicting pain on the bottom for misbehavior even though likely not in this fashion. More than likely, families were using a variety of instruments, here's one more.

:sick :sick :sick


yes, yes -- you said it all. now to find out if the ad/joke actually existed.

c

[Quiteria]

When did Foucault publish?

[QuiltinGramma]

Foucault published his book in 1975

From Discipline & Punish: The Birth of the Prison (NY: Vintage Books 1995) pp. 195-228 translated from the French by Alan Sheridan © 1977 http://foucault.info/documents/ disciplineAndPunish/foucault.disciplineAndPunish.panOpticism.html

I don't believe this was a real machine....I think that if he did find this drawing that it was done in satire....as a way for parents to scare their DC into being good.
:heart

[cklewis]

I think that if he did find this drawing that it was done in satire....as a way for parents to scare their DC into being good.
:heart


Yes, but did he actually find it in the late 18th-century? Or did someone make it up and *say* it was from that time period. Foucault plays wild with the facts, and you can't trust him as a source without others.

C

[greenemama]

yeah, i can see people scaring their kids with that. :sad2

outrageous. he was a loon!

[NewCovenantMama]

Found this on Wikipedia, from a work called Secret History, written by a 6th century historian named Procopius.
Theodora was the wife of the Roman Emperor Justinian. It suggests that schoolboys were commonly spanked on
the bottom. I'm assuming the "schoolboys" were probably older kids or teenagers?

"When Saturninus had slept with his new bride and found that she had been deflowered, he informed one of his
intimate friends that the girl he had married was nothing but damaged goods. When this comment came to
Theodora’s ears, she said that he was showing off and had no right to be so puffed up, and ordered her servants
to bend him over like any schoolboy. Then she gave his behind a fearsome beating and told him not to talk such
nonsense in future."

The same article also says spankings were dished out to boys and even lower ranking men in the Navy, but doesn't say what nationality, or give a date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking#Educational_spanking

Emma

[Katydid]

:popcorn

[mraab]

yeah, i'm wondering if it will matter to most whether or not there is historical proof since "the bible commands us to spank" kwim? of course, it's the sin nature of the child that is turning a godly spanking into something sexual. :rolleyes :scratch i just don't know if there's any way around it, especially when talking about fundamentalist separatists that aren't going to care about historical "proof."


I don't think we're shooting so much for getting hard-core spankers to change because of historical data, but rather trying to make them so uncomfortable with the idea of spanking on the bottom that they take another look at the Scriptures and some of the opposing arguments as well as start looking for alternatives disciplinary methods. It's cognitive dissonance. You find a way to make them so uncomfortable in the position they've chosen that they find a new position of their own volition. You know?

[mraab]

Still, I always wondered if there was a way to really search out Hebrew Culture in Bible times, as far as the rod and it's use or none use of.This isnt' a secret--go read the Rabbi's from whatever time you are looking for. That's what I do. That's how I do a lot of my research :shrug The fact is there have always been people who are harsh and argue for beating and hitting and striking and whipping. In most eras these people were seen as the extremists and even by many, abusive. Even when Rabbi's argued that the rod verses spoke to physical punishment it was never what we know today as 'spanking' and it was *always* as a very last resort for an older child.

the question is, really, when did what we know today as "spankings" become interchangeably used with "rod"? I think if we could start with Roy Lessing and go back we'd find some answers.


Crystal, this should probably go in it's own thread, but could you put up some of your Jewish sources? If you had a couple of well-respected Rabbis for each of the verses used to support spanking that said that the verses meant something completely different, that would be a really useful tool in the no-spank toolbox. With that kind of source, you can argue the issue at the level of "the Bible says to spank," ya know?

[Chris3jam]

Well, a lot of times in history, "the backside" was actually the back, not the buttocks. Somehow, it was moved "down". Sometimes the buttocks were considered *part* of the back. Floggings and other 'spankings' were generally on the back. In researching the history of all this, the terminology and wording must also be taken into account.

[hsgbdmama]

Still, I always wondered if there was a way to really search out Hebrew Culture in Bible times, as far as the rod and it's use or none use of.This isnt' a secret--go read the Rabbi's from whatever time you are looking for. That's what I do. That's how I do a lot of my research :shrug The fact is there have always been people who are harsh and argue for beating and hitting and striking and whipping. In most eras these people were seen as the extremists and even by many, abusive. Even when Rabbi's argued that the rod verses spoke to physical punishment it was never what we know today as 'spanking' and it was *always* as a very last resort for an older child.

Crystal, this should probably go in it's own thread, but could you put up some of your Jewish sources? If you had a couple of well-respected Rabbis for each of the verses used to support spanking that said that the verses meant something completely different, that would be a really useful tool in the no-spank toolbox. With that kind of source, you can argue the issue at the level of "the Bible says to spank," ya know?


:yes I'd be interested too! <<raises hand enthusiastically>>

In the meantime, I need to go back and digest this whole thread ... :phew ;)

[mraab]

OK, here's what I was able to dig up on the Singapore caning thing. I found this on http://www. corpun.com/singfeat.htm. I'm not sure how accurate it is, but the author does a lot of quote from statutes and news reports, so it seems pretty solid. It's pretty detailed :sick and goes into the differences between a caning in Singapore and a whipping in Malaysia. It sounds like both countries use some kind of shield to protect the kidney and genital areas. From the stuff on that website, it sounds like they definitely inflict the maximum amount of pain, but there is no shortage of permanent injuries. The caning leaves indelible scars and memories.

This is a lot more severe than the average spanking, but frankly, it sounds a lot more like what a whipping/beating in Bible times would have looked like. Again, cognitive dissonance. If spanking can be knocked out of the ring as the right way to use "the rod" and caning is the alternative, I think people will think long and hard about their pro-"spanking" position. And, interestingly enough, the minimum age for caning is 16, which is about the time most parents quit spanking their kids.

[mraab]

Anybody out there have access to medical journals? Maybe we can get a copy of this.

Corporal punishment in Singapore.
Lancet. 1994 Jun 18;343(8912):1571. No abstract available.
PMID: 7911892 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Might be useful.........

[kwisie]

I'd use the little popcorn guy, but he seems way too happy for this topic, to me. I'll just use this guy instead. :listen

[euromom]

Still, I always wondered if there was a way to really search out Hebrew Culture in Bible times, as far as the rod and it's use or none use of.This isnt' a secret--go read the Rabbi's from whatever time you are looking for. That's what I do. That's how I do a lot of my research :shrug The fact is there have always been people who are harsh and argue for beating and hitting and striking and whipping. In most eras these people were seen as the extremists and even by many, abusive. Even when Rabbi's argued that the rod verses spoke to physical punishment it was never what we know today as 'spanking' and it was *always* as a very last resort for an older child.

Crystal, this should probably go in it's own thread, but could you put up some of your Jewish sources? If you had a couple of well-respected Rabbis for each of the verses used to support spanking that said that the verses meant something completely different, that would be a really useful tool in the no-spank toolbox. With that kind of source, you can argue the issue at the level of "the Bible says to spank," ya know?


:yes I'd be interested too! <<raises hand enthusiastically>>

In the meantime, I need to go back and digest this whole thread ... :phew ;)


Yes, me too! I have searched at the Library and online many times before and have not found anything :/

[ArmsOfLove]

I haven't kept the best of notes, but I'll see what I can put together :)

[QuiltinGramma]

:yes :yes :yes
:mrgreen
:heart

[Quiteria]

Found this on Wikipedia, from a work called Secret History, written by a 6th century historian named Procopius.
Theodora was the wife of the Roman Emperor Justinian. It suggests that schoolboys were commonly spanked on
the bottom. I'm assuming the "schoolboys" were probably older kids or teenagers?

"When Saturninus had slept with his new bride and found that she had been deflowered, he informed one of his
intimate friends that the girl he had married was nothing but damaged goods. When this comment came to
Theodora’s ears, she said that he was showing off and had no right to be so puffed up, and ordered her servants
to bend him over like any schoolboy. Then she gave his behind a fearsome beating and told him not to talk such
nonsense in future."

The same article also says spankings were dished out to boys and even lower ranking men in the Navy, but doesn't say what nationality, or give a date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking#Educational_spanking

Emma






Found that, too. 6th century...yikes! But, it wasn't a Christian or Jewish reference. Perhaps we stole the idea from the Romans? Or perhaps, the phrase "like any schoolboy" was added when the translation was published later.
The Secret History was discovered centuries later in the Vatican Library and published in 1623, but its existence was already known from the Suda, which referred to it as the Anekdota ("the unpublished composition").

Another thought...this particular punishment is of a grown man being punished for talking about a matter that was sexual in nature. Perhaps this area was chosen for that reason as opposed to being a common place.

Ugh...I don't like that this reference exists, but the whole work is perverted (I followed the links to it's author's article :sick the other quote I read was a description of an exotic dancer's routine...at that point I quit reading), so perhaps that is in our favor, that it was not linked to something normal about parenting.

[siberian]

After reading "The Mother's Book" was the first time it ever occured to me the spanking wasn't as "good old fashioned" a method I had once thought. As far as people who are set on spanking as "being Biblical," I've kind of given up and retreated into the often-times lonely GD corner. It is so ingrained in our culture (Christian and secular) that if you question spanking you are seen as questioning God's Word; we're not questioning His Word, we're questioning man's interpretation of His Word :banghead!!

[Somertyme]

Mostly just :popcorn for now, but I've had a couple of books on my amazon wish list for awhile, and I wonder if they would shed any light. Anyone read these? (not sure how to link)

When Children Became People: The Birth Of Childhood In Early Christianity
by Odd Magne Bakke, Brian McNeil (Translator)

The Child in Christian Thought (Religion, Marriage, and Family)
by Marcia J. Bunge (Editor)

[QuiltinGramma]

A question was asked "when did spankings move from the back to the buttocks. I found this answer at: http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/ moonglowDC/Letters/History.htm
The theory that whipping would make barren women fertile lasted until the sixteenth century. Then the wife of the heir to the throne of France was childless. It was decided that a spanking would be administered daily to the princess. After a long period, she gave birth; causality not proven!

Er*tic whipping became common in the French court of that period. Ladies bottoms were frequently whipped in public! The church even defined different types of whipping; superior was whipping on the back, while inferior referred to the naked buttocks. In due course, only the latter was recommended as it was less likely to result in permanent injury.
So it seems as if spankings moved to the buttocks during that time or shortly after.

This link http://corpun. master.com/texis/master/search/?q=the+spanking+machine&s=SS has various cartoons depicting spanking machines-non which have been verfied to be true. I'm still looking for Foucault's steam machine.
:heart

[cklewis]

Great sleuthing, Bobbie!! :glasses

I wish we weren't researching something so icky. Because this corporate researching is SO COOL!! :rockon I :heart it!

C

[RubySlippers]

This is all very interesting. Sorry I don't have anything to add. :listen

[Aisling]

ITA, Camille! Maybe after we're done with this, we can do something fun, like gentle families throughout history :rockon :heart I'm really enjoying this. :mrgreen

[Chris3jam]

Well, I've googled until my fingers are numb (and I'm still not done). But, so far, the only thing that seems to be common is, "Spanking has been around as long as written history and as long as there has been those who spank children, there have been those who oppose it." There seem to be periods of time where one camp or the other becomes stronger and more public and more outspoken, but then it equalizes again. :shrug

[QuiltinGramma]

Look what I found....
IngentaConnect The Rod of Discipline: Masochism, Sadism, and the ...
The Rod of Discipline: Masochism, Sadism, and the Judeo-Christian Religion ...
Abstract:
Within the Judeo-Christian tradition, the scenario where a person, often a child, is being beaten by a parent, an authority figure, or even God, is often found. This essay searches for an explanation for this phenomenon by combining Sigmund Freud's thoughts on the masochism of the Oedipus complex and Martin Bergmann's belief that Western religion was impacted by the sadism of the Laius and Jocasta Complexes. The paper argues that, within the section of the Judeo-Christian tradition that sanctions the physical abuse of children, sadism and masochism find the perfect marriage.

http://www.ingentaconnect. com/content/klu/jorh/2000/00000039/00000004/00340013
That sounds promising but it costs $42 to get this guy's paper? thesis? whatever it's called.

Off to look for more interesting stuff.
:heart
:heart

[NewCovenantMama]

Found this on Wikipedia, from a work called Secret History, written by a 6th century historian named Procopius.
Theodora was the wife of the Roman Emperor Justinian. It suggests that schoolboys were commonly spanked on
the bottom. I'm assuming the "schoolboys" were probably older kids or teenagers?

"When Saturninus had slept with his new bride and found that she had been deflowered, he informed one of his
intimate friends that the girl he had married was nothing but damaged goods. When this comment came to
Theodora’s ears, she said that he was showing off and had no right to be so puffed up, and ordered her servants
to bend him over like any schoolboy. Then she gave his behind a fearsome beating and told him not to talk such
nonsense in future."

The same article also says spankings were dished out to boys and even lower ranking men in the Navy, but doesn't say what nationality, or give a date. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanking#Educational_spanking

Emma






Found that, too. 6th century...yikes! But, it wasn't a Christian or Jewish reference. Perhaps we stole the idea from the Romans? Or perhaps, the phrase "like any schoolboy" was added when the translation was published later.
The Secret History was discovered centuries later in the Vatican Library and published in 1623, but its existence was already known from the Suda, which referred to it as the Anekdota ("the unpublished composition").

Another thought...this particular punishment is of a grown man being punished for talking about a matter that was sexual in nature. Perhaps this area was chosen for that reason as opposed to being a common place.

Ugh...I don't like that this reference exists, but the whole work is perverted (I followed the links to it's author's article :sick the other quote I read was a description of an exotic dancer's routine...at that point I quit reading), so perhaps that is in our favor, that it was not linked to something normal about parenting.


Thinking about it, that culture was very licentious. Dh pointed out that there was a lot of paedophilia. If schoolboys were beaten on the buttocks, there might have been a sexual side to that. It is :sick2 :sick2 :sick2

Emma

[mraab]

Mostly just :popcorn for now, but I've had a couple of books on my amazon wish list for awhile, and I wonder if they would shed any light. Anyone read these? (not sure how to link)

When Children Became People: The Birth Of Childhood In Early Christianity
by Odd Magne Bakke, Brian McNeil (Translator)

The Child in Christian Thought (Religion, Marriage, and Family)
by Marcia J. Bunge (Editor)


OK, got both of these on request at the Duke library. They should show up in a day or two. I got the corporal punishment book last night, but I was tired and not in a frame of mind to handle it last night. :sick So I'll take a crack at it today.

[ArmsOfLove]

Emma--yes, in that culture I have no doubt that the boys were spanked for sexual reasons :(

[QuiltinGramma]

Emma--yes, in that culture I have no doubt that the boys were spanked for sexual reasons :(


Romans 1: 18-32
18 The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, 19 since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20 For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
21 For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles.
24 Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another. 25 They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
26 Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. 27 In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
28 Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. 29 They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, 30 slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; 31 they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. 32 Although they know God's righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.

What a perverse human race we come from. :cry

Quote from: Quiteria on Yesterday at 01:53:07 PM
Found that, too. 6th century...yikes! But, it wasn't a Christian or Jewish reference. Perhaps we stole the idea from the Romans?
When a nation conquers another nation, many times the conquered nation takes on the practices of those who conquered them. Since the Romans conquered most of the known world at one time it could be very likely that their perverted practices were spread to those conquered nations.
:heart

[Beth1231]

Wow....a lot to think about here. I also found this link http://www.corpun .com/rules.htm#afghanistan and if I didn't cut the link correctly, please feel free to fix it for me. It's a detailed historical account of the use of corporal punishment in countries around the world! Surprisingly, the vast majority of the info (I skimmed quite a bit) relates to caning, whipping, beating ADULTS on the bottom and about half the time they were publicy exposed! The site says this was for humiliation, however. There is zero mention of sexual connotation. It's also interesting to note that women and girls were excused from this travesty in nearly every single country. Hmmm.... :think I no longer can believe that spanking on the bottom began with the Victorian Era. It goes back much farther to male prisoners all over the world. Rats, and that would have been such a good way to convince my dad too.

[QuiltinGramma]

But still, showing how spanking through the ages was done to humilate, degrade and all the sexual stuff behind it could have an effect on someone.
:heart

[Aisling]

I just got the Strauss book (Beating the devil out of them) and it looks like a great resource for anti-corporal punishment. :tu I'll start it tonight after the munchkins go to bed, but wanted to post a few of the references he cites.

"Cross-National Differences in Corporal Punishment, Infant homicide, and Socioeconomic factors"- Nancy Burns

Parents Who Don't Spank:Deviation in the Legitimation of Physical Force- PhD dissertation from University of NH
-and-
"Advice of Child-rearing Manuals on the Use of Physical Punishment"- Barbara A. Carson

"The English Vice: Beating, Sex, and Shame in Victorian England and After"- Ian Gibson

"Campaigns Against Corporal punishment: Prisoners, Sailors, Women and Children in Antebellum America" -Myra C. Glenn

"Protestant Fundamentalism and Attitudes Toward Corporal Punishment of Children"-Harold Grasmick and Robert J. Bursik Jr.

"Spare the Child: Religious Roots of Physical Punishment" Philip Greven

"Science, Technology and Society in seventeenth Century England"-Robert Merton

"Masochism: on the Childhood Origin of Paraphilia, OpponentProcess theory, and Anti androgen Therapy" John Money, Journal of sex research 23:273-75

"Physical Child Abuse in America: Past, Present and Future"- Nancy Hall and Edward Zigler

An interesting fact cited from skimming..(paraphrased)

-As spanking increases in childhood, the greater the chance of masochism in sexual practice in adulthood. (the lines are perfectly parallel on the chart) and the more warmth is present in the child/parent spanking relationship during childhood (ie, lovingly spanking as prescribed by Dobson, Tripp), the rate jumps by 20%. :(





Dobson gets cited as a negative source several times...

[RubySlippers]

An interesting fact cited from skimming..(paraphrased)

-As spanking increases in childhood, the greater the chance of masochism in sexual practice in adulthood. (the lines are perfectly parallel on the chart) and the more warmth is present in the child/parent spanking relationship during childhood (ie, lovingly spanking as prescribed by Dobson, Tripp), the rate jumps by 20%. :(

:jawdrop That makes so much sense. :shiver :sick2

[Quiteria]

Wow....a lot to think about here. I also found this link http://www.corpun .com/rules.htm#afghanistan and if I didn't cut the link correctly, please feel free to fix it for me. It's a detailed historical account of the use of corporal punishment in countries around the world! Surprisingly, the vast majority of the info (I skimmed quite a bit) relates to caning, whipping, beating ADULTS on the bottom and about half the time they were publicy exposed! The site says this was for humiliation, however. There is zero mention of sexual connotation. It's also interesting to note that women and girls were excused from this travesty in nearly every single country. Hmmm.... :think I no longer can believe that spanking on the bottom began with the Victorian Era. It goes back much farther to male prisoners all over the world. Rats, and that would have been such a good way to convince my dad too.


Actually, this fits with Crytal;s interpretation that the rod verses deal with young men instead of children, due to the Hebrew word used in the rod verses.
this verse(prov 23:13-14), however you understand it, does not apply to a child under the age of 5, or to a female child.
In other words, whether you believe the rod verses endorse beating or mean something else, the Hebrew simply does not refer to a baby/toddler/preschooler nor a female child. The fact that nearly every single country excused women and girls, and applied this judicial punishment to older males, says to me that somewhere along the way our Christian culture must have changed the rules. We haven't proven yet whether the location of the spankings has changed throughout Judeo-christian tradition, but I'd say that site does speak to the fact that our application to whom spankings are given is very skewed.

[cindergretta]

This is absolutely fascinating..... Thank you to all of you who are reading and researching and sharing all this info.

:popcorn

[mokamoto]

Oh, yes, you're right. . .hitting does not work; it actually makes things worse (in my case). This is why I have an uphill battle right now (we did start out hitting :() However. .. .there are all those "testimonies" about how 'hitting' *does* work (evidenced by the loads of kids that are hit and are well-behaved). But. .. . I would also like to know. . .what was done before spanking? And *why* did it start to occur (um. . .basically, I want to know the same thing you do, and posted in the OP. .um. . .right? :shifty)


:hug2 Good luck with your battle Chris! I wanted to comment on the "testimonies" you referred to. (not at all implying anything about your style- just reflecting on my experience "out loud") In my family's case, we kids were good because of hitting b/c we were scared. (We talked about it between ourselves.) IMHO fear doesn't "work" but instead causes a harmful mindset in how a child processes the rest of the world and how their personality develops. For example, a fear of authority (or more accurately the punishment that can come with the power inherant in authority), not true respect for the rules due to understanding and trust. For my DS, I want him to "be good," not just behave, or "act good." kwim? I'm working to change my auto-thoughts from my own experiences and learning how to deal with anger before a situation occurs. A good friend suggested stating "Mommy is angry." She said that just acknowledging it aloud calms her immensely. I wonder though what impact that verbalization has on a child. Any ideas of constructive outlets for anger that can teach positive skills to our little ones? Anger and violence or silence is what I learned as a child (mostly silence, which isn't healthy either). Looking forward to hearing others' experiences/ideas on this topic. Thanks!

[siberian]

Oh, yes, you're right. . .hitting does not work; it actually makes things worse (in my case). This is why I have an uphill battle right now (we did start out hitting :() However. .. .there are all those "testimonies" about how 'hitting' *does* work (evidenced by the loads of kids that are hit and are well-behaved).

((HUG)) Always remember that the outward obedience produced by punitive methods does not and cannot change the heart. Those "perfect little soldiers" often times rebel when they are older and sometimes even abandon Christianity completely. I try to think long term and remember that my child's love and obedience to God as an adult is waaaaay more important than his obedience to me right now.

[mraab]

I'm in the depths of the Beating the Devil out of Them, and I just had a thought. Does anyone know when the legal shift happened that made hitting wives an assault instead of a husband's prerogative? Legally, did it happen all at once by federal mandate, or were the laws passed slowly, state by state? Was there ever a time when it was widely accepted within Christian circles that husbands had some kind of duty to physically punish (i.e. hit) their wives? 'Cause if there was, it would be very interesting to know what lines of thinking moved us away from that :think

[cklewis]

I'm in the depths of the Beating the Devil out of Them, and I just had a thought. Does anyone know when the legal shift happened that made hitting wives an assault instead of a husband's prerogative? Legally, did it happen all at once by federal mandate, or were the laws passed slowly, state by state? Was there ever a time when it was widely accepted within Christian circles that husbands had some kind of duty to physically punish (i.e. hit) their wives? 'Cause if there was, it would be very interesting to know what lines of thinking moved us away from that :think


Yeah -- I can get that. It's because of the early feminists. Around the civil war. New York State. :scratch I'm kinda foggy right now. . . . Google "rule of thumb."

C

[euromom]

I'm in the depths of the Beating the Devil out of Them, and I just had a thought. Does anyone know when the legal shift happened that made hitting wives an assault instead of a husband's prerogative? Legally, did it happen all at once by federal mandate, or were the laws passed slowly, state by state? Was there ever a time when it was widely accepted within Christian circles that husbands had some kind of duty to physically punish (i.e. hit) their wives? 'Cause if there was, it would be very interesting to know what lines of thinking moved us away from that :think


Yeah -- I can get that. It's because of the early feminists. Around the civil war. New York State. :scratch I'm kinda foggy right now. . . . Google "rule of thumb."

C


Googled that but most of the sites seem to say that the "Rule of Thumb" as referring to wife beating was a myth :shrug

Wish I had time to read more but ds is waking from nap. It's an interesting thought though. I mean, we all know it's socially unacceptable to beat your wife for chastisement. Oh for the day it will be socially unacceptable for children as well. :rockon

[RubySlippers]

Googled that but most of the sites seem to say that the "Rule of Thumb" as referring to wife beating was a myth :shrug

Wish I had time to read more but ds is waking from nap. It's an interesting thought though. I mean, we all know it's socially unacceptable to beat your wife for chastisement. Oh for the day it will be socially unacceptable for children as well. :rockon

Really? I thought the "rule of thumb" originated in England. :scratch

[mraab]

Rule of thumb didn't get me much in itself (mostly site refuting the idea that the phrase "rule of thumb" directly refers to a common law [i.e. a law held over from England] idea that man could beat his wife with a stick so long as it was smaller than his thumb), but it did pull up a law journal article that looks promising. "The Rule of Love": Wife Beating as Prerogative and Privacy, Journal article by Reva B. Siegel; Yale Law Journal, Vol. 105, 1996. If we've got someone here that has access to Questia or to JSTOR, we can get a look at it. When Chris gets home, I'll see if he can snag it through the Duke system somehow.

If the states started passing laws explicitly forbidding spousal assault in the late 1860-1870s, what did the concurrent Christian literature have to say on the subject? Was there a great outcry that men would no longer be able to be "biblical leaders"?

[mraab]

OK, time for a book report. :glasses

I've read about half of the Straus book, Beating the Devil out of Them, and I just finished Chapter 8, The Fusion of Sex and Violence. I have to say that so far, I've been really impressed with the way he handles his statistics. It's hard to really fairly represent numbers, and he seems to have done a pretty good job with it. He also handles the weaknesses of his studies well; the studies that he's citing don't provide ironclad cause and effect proof that corporal punishment harms children and/or adults immediately or later in life. He deals with that by acknowledging the weak points, but also by pointing out that the studies that support other widely accepted views (e.g. single motherhood drastically increases the risk of cross-generational poverty) are as weak or sometimes weaker than the studies that he is using. However, I'm no kind of expert on statistical analysis, so I'd be really glad to get someone's opinion who has dealt with more statistical analysis type stuff.

As far as his chapter on sex and violence goes, I have mixed feelings about it. The conclusion that he is really able to demonstrate pretty strongly is that spanking (by warm, loving parents or by cold, indifferent parents) increases the likelihood that the children spanked will be more likely to be aroused by fantasizing about or participating in masochistic practices once they hit college age. Children who have warm, loving parents are overall less likely to fantasize about or be aroused by masochistic practices than are children with cold, indifferent parents, but if warm, loving parents spank a child, that child's probability of enjoying masochism later on in life increases much more than if cold, indifferent parents spank a child. So he documents as well as possible without a control group the direct link between spanking and masochism. (You can't use a control group with this kind of study for obvious ethical reasons.) [It should be noted here that he includes practices in his definition of masochism that really don't strike me as particularly deviant. :hiding For example, he includes any type of restraint, which runs the gamut from tying hands to bed posts with silk scarves to fur handcuffs to stringing the partner up from the ceiling. The chapter really has kind of an old-timey feeling to it, disapproving of something that is not really widely considered deviant any more, and it seems to me that there may be more affecting the number of kids that end up within his definition of masochism than just whether they were spanked as kids....]

What he cannot and doesn't try to show is a link from masochism to spanking children; in other words, he doesn't indicate that parents spank their children for some kind of sexual gratification. Throughout the book, the statistics constantly point to stopping/preventing undesirable behavior as the main reason for spanking. So it's a control issue, not a sexual issue.

[Quiteria]

Try Seneca Convention for the women's movement in Seneca Falls, NY. Not sure if it dealt with beating; I just thought it was the right to vote...but it was a whole movement, so I imagine it had broad effects.

[mokamoto]

Try Seneca Convention for the women's movement in Seneca Falls, NY. Not sure if it dealt with beating; I just thought it was the right to vote...but it was a whole movement, so I imagine it had broad effects.


Not directly correlated, but I found the following reference to the intent of the Seneca Falls Convention Law, Gender, & Injustice: A Legal History of U.S. Women by:
Joan Hoff, New York University Press, 1991(http://www.pinn. net/~sunshine/book-sum/injust.html)

"24. "Thus, the Seneca Falls Declaration of Sentiments stressed wife-beating, dual standards of morality, divorce, child custody, and control over property and wages - all problems stemming from the institution of marriage as it had evolved by the middle of the nineteenth century. As Stanton said in 1853, "the right idea of marriage is at the foundation of all reforms." Both Anthony and Stanton and other radical feminists of their time reasserted for the remainder of the century that "marital bondage" was "woman's chief discontent." As their militant newspaper, The Revolution, would later proclaim on 27 October 1870:
But we are not dreamers or fanatics: and we know that the ballot when we get it, will achieve form woman no more than it has achieved for man. . . the ballot is not even half the loaf; it is only a crust, a crumb. The ballot touches only those interests, either of men or women, which take their root in political questions. But woman's chief discontent is not with her political, but with her social, and particularly her marital bondage. The solemn and profound question of marriage. . . is of more vital consequence to woman's welfare, reaches down to a deeper depth in woman's heart, and more thoroughly constitutes the core of the woman's movement, than any such superficial and fragmentary question as woman's suffrage."
page 140 - This quote comes from about the middle of a nice discussion of the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848.

This research is really helpful! Thanks to all who are looking into this topic.

[cklewis]

Ah, Seneca Falls. . . . Yes, I remember that stuff well. I need to find that research when I get a chance.

Interesting stuff, Monica. Hmmm. . . .

C

[cklewis]

oky-doky. I finally ordered that book that TulipMama recommended by Marcia Bunge (http://www.amazon.com/Christian-Thought-Religion-Marriage-Family/dp/0802846939/ref=si3_rdr_bb_product/105-0409491-9442046). And I got the online version too. One of the essays in there cites this:

To adopt an extreme version of either of these convictions would be to choose one of two heretical positions: deterministic nihilism, the belief that the human will is essentially and irretrievably evil and sinful; or Pelagianism, the belief that people are essentially good and can save themselves through good works. Thomas, refusing the choice, attempted the apparently impossible: he embraced simultaneously the pessimistic Augustinian vision of the human will fatally flawed by original sin and the optimistic Aristotelian vision of the rational person with the natural capacity to grow in virtue and wisdom. Although he agrees with Augustine that original sin renders the unbaptized unworthy of salvation,10 Thomas envisions grace as completing rather than correcting nature. Thus he tends to emphasize children's potential for spiritual growth with the aid of grace rather than, like Augustine , their incapacity for true devotion and virtue in the absence of grace Yet Thomas's refusal completely to discard a strong doctrine of original sin in favor of developmentalism is evident in many places -- for instance, in his theory of limbo (below). It may also play a part in his refusal to decide whether, by advising parents to "bring [children] up in the discipline and correction of the Lord;" St. Paul recommends spankings and remonstrations or simply encouragement to good and restraint from evil.11 Thus Thomas bequeaths the Augustinian-Aristotelian tension to later writers, all of whom resolve it differently, in some cases by nearly eradicating one pole (106).

So she traces it back to Aquinas. :think So if we go look at her reference there -- #11.

St. Thomas Aquinas, Commentary on Saint Paul's Epistle to the Ephesians, translated and introduced by Matthew L. Lamb, O. C. S. O., Aquinas Scripture Series, vol. 2 (Albany, N.Y: Magi Books, 1966 ), 230-31. Later chapters in this volume will debunk the myth that strong doctrines of original sin can be correlated with harsh discipline and weak doctrines with gentle treatment. Quite often the opposite is the case; other factors supervene.

Let me go see if I can find *that*. . . . Anybody else?

C

[kwisie]

That's very interesting! :think

[Chris3jam]

Later chapters in this volume will debunk the myth that strong doctrines of original sin can be correlated with harsh discipline and weak doctrines with gentle treatment. Quite often the opposite is the case; other factors supervene.

Oooo! Yes. .. where is that?

[jenn3514]

:popcorn, good stuff. :)

[QuiltinGramma]

I love :popcorn

:heart

[Treenahurricane]

Still, I always wondered if there was a way to really search out Hebrew Culture in Bible times, as far as the rod and it's use or none use of. Are there any refrences, books we can look into on that as well ???? :think What sources would they have read that says the Isrealites did do this?? And then the question again, where on the body, backside, legs, hands???

That is so odd. I have never heard that before- one thing that comes to mind is that the Isrealites were initially slaves... being whipped by the egyptians. So their treatment wouldnt' necessarily be an example of "good parenting" being that they were treated solely as objects and possessions than people!

[mokamoto]

:popcorn