> In past times and cultures, life was more difficult for children. And, now we know better.

Perhaps... I think that there needs to be some kind of middle way between 'we are right and they were wrong' and 'to each, their own'. I think we must be wary of cultural imperialism. On the other hand, I don't think that maximum toleration or acceptance is the way to go either.

For example... In some cultures when girls hit puberty they are married off to older men in their tribes. I think we should be wary of labeling such social practices (when they occur in those societies rather than our own) 'child abuse'. I think it is more likely that when that happens in a society where it is accepted that the girl isn't harmed as she would be when that happens in a society where it is not accepted (such as our own) and where it is labelled abusive (as in our own). Please note: I am NOT saying that parents should be allowed to marry off their 11 and 12 and 13 year old daughters in developed western nations - I'm just trying to illustrate that how harmed one is can PARTLY (though of course not FULLY) be determined by how society (and how we ourselves) view what has happened to us.

> We know now, from the results of a rather large body of research, that children need, deserve protection, validation, love and a lot of positive attention from their parents if they are to grow into healthy, functioning adults.

Well... We also know that children don't need this from their biological parents in particular. Some flourish in response to the care and attention of adopted parents, or grandparents, or siblings, or other members of the tribe... Cultures vary considerably with respect to how much care and attention from parents is feasible. If you are conceiving such that babies are popping out every 2 years you simply don't have enough time to spend that much of it with each and every of your kids... The western ideal of parental care isn't the only one and I'd be wary of interpreting research findings such that they are taken to suggest that it is...

Anthropologists and cross cultural developmental psychologists have critiqued psychoanalytic / psychodynamic theorists for being so western-centric.

> However, we also know now that parental behaviors that were socially accepted in the past have caused traumatic illness in people as they grew.

So you want to use the word 'abuse' to refer to events that cause traumatic illness? Do acts of nature like hurricane and tornado count as 'abuse' as well, or for an event to be 'abusive' does it require an agent (person) to be responsible for the act? Maybe accidents don't count (so maybe if a parent accidentally spills boiling water on her kid that isn't abuse) whereas intentional harms / malevolent intent does (so if the parent intends to damage / hurt her child then that is abuse).

Is that the thought?

In order for a person to be abused their abusers needed to have malevolent intent towards them - intentionally desiring to cause them insult / injury / harm etc?

If that is the thought then I was never abused. My mother did the best she could. When she hit me / hurt me / yelled at me I really think she wasn't really in control of her actions / emotions. I don't think she INTENTIONALLY was malevolent towards me...

> Abuse is abuse. I don't think that there is a lot of room for a fluid definition about whether certain acts are abusive. Frankly, I believe that choosing not to call certain events abuse is denial and dangerous because it can lead to a repeat.

So we should label hurricanes and tornadoes 'abuse' too - in order to prevent a repeat? If I call my mother an 'abuser' then that is meant to make it more likely that she will not hurt me again? If I call my mother an 'abuser' then that is meant to make it more likely that I will not do those things? If society calls my mother an 'abuser' then that is meant to make it more likely that other people will not do those acts? I'm not sure that I follow...

My mother hit me.
My mother yelled at me.

I don't see why I'm in denial by choosing not to describe those events (that harmed me) as abuse.

We can agree that gorse is a bush that grows... While disagreeing whether gorse is a 'weed'... To say that gorse isn't a weed isn't to deny the existence of gorse or to deny that it is a plant. I don't see where 'denial' comes into this...