I don't think that one is necessarily connected to the other. There are too many variables. There seems to be a higher incidence - but that hasn't been proven.
2006-08-03 08:10:33
·
answer #1
·
answered by theophilus 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
As a general rule, it seems to be a vicious cycle. The first generation is poor, making them stressed out over bills and inability to adequately provide for their family, that frustration leaks to child abuse (emotional or physical) and then those kids grow up, having been abused, they don't have the self-worth or self-respect to do better, and they start it all over again having their kids.
HOWEVER, there are exceptions to every rule and this is no different. My grandmother came from a good family. They were country people, but Christians, comfortable though certainly not wealthy and she was not abused. Strangest thing happened - when my grandmother grew up she started running around, getting drunk (drugs were not in vogue then), and sleeping with many MANY men. She lived off darn near nothing, often needing her family's (and men's) assistance, and of course, she ended up with 3 kids of her own by 3 different men. She continued drinking, they were poor (none of the men stuck around) and she physically, emotionally and verbally abused all 3 kids. 2 of the kids grew up...and are just like her, though each has his/her own vice that they are addicted to. They had kids young (like my grandmother...see cyclic) and abused them (when they were around) and I'm sad to say their kids' kids (my grandmother's great grandchildren) are continuing the cycle. But...my grandmother's 3rd child. Somehow...she broke the cycle for herself and her future family. She rose above it and wanted better. She lives all right, though not well-off, she gets her bills paid most of the time and she has NEVER abused her kids. I am her daughter. I'm not poverty stricken, not do I abuse my child. So she started a whole new cycle.
So...it just takes one person to stop the cycle...otherwise, it will go on and on. People mostly learn what they are raised with and don't attempt to change.
2006-08-03 08:37:36
·
answer #2
·
answered by littleangelfire81 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
What a loaded question. You could do a thesis on this one and still never understand the answer. Poverty is not necessarily correlated with child abuse, plenty of children are unfortunately abused by well to do parents. Stress now that is a beast of its own.
2006-08-03 08:10:58
·
answer #3
·
answered by dmomof2 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
Normally, the testbook case, is people of lower incomes (lower socioeconomic societies) are under high stress (due to high bills low income) and normally uneducated, lack proper parenting skills and so forth and therefore it is taken out on the child. HOWEVER!!!! I beg to disagree. Yes, this is something right out of a textbook, but after experiencing child abuse first hand (my parents) we were definitely not lower income. We were in the upper income (both of my parents were high income earners-- my mother was a chemist and my father a cardio-thoracic surgeon) but they both held high stress jobs and came from a background of BAD PARENTING
2006-08-03 08:13:54
·
answer #4
·
answered by curiositykillsthecat 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
It think both of them need more attention, animal abuse, and child abuse. In my opinion they are both as bad a each other. No living creature should go through the abuse some go through.
2016-03-26 21:53:12
·
answer #5
·
answered by ? 4
·
0⤊
0⤋