My own view however is that, for the child to develop into the disturbed individuals for whom violence is a welcome thrill, some kind of brutalisation has to take place, whether it be physical punishment or repeated humiliation.
Children need limits - it makes them feel secure - and when these are absent, or vague, or changing, the security disappears. Add to this a diet of not really appropriate media output and possibly absent or uncaring parents, and the resulting need for attention can lead to just the sort of behaviour that can result equally from physical brutality.
Show me an unbiddable child and I'll show you a family that is in some way dysfunctional, whether it is a rich one or a poor one in economic terms.
As to both parents going out to work - well, I'm afraid I'm old-fashioned on that one. Babies need their mothers, and that's an end of it. Just because parents want a bigger house, or two new cars, or all the latest gadgets on credit, and can't afford them without both working, has meant that so many young children suffer - not wickedly, but in terms of deprivation of affection and family presence.
Yes, the liberal ideal means that we should all be able to have what we want, when we want it, by right, whether we can afford it or not, and to hell with the consequences of people who suffer along the way, including our children.
But the moral ideal says "hang on, let's wait till we can afford it, and let's grow together with fewer material things but within the bounds of a loving family that eats, lives and talks together. And if that means that one of us has to stay at home till the kids are a bit older, then one of us will do so."
Comment