On Wed, 4 Aug 2004 09:46:12 -0700, Doan wrote:
On 3 Aug 2004, Kane wrote:
On 03 Aug 2004 14:01:38 GMT, (Fern5827) wrote:
And yet many *researchers* have found that VERBAL ABUSE IS FAR
MORE
THREATENING, anxiety-provoking, and harmful to children than
quick,
consequential spanking.
Parents who chose not to use CP have little trouble seeing the
danger
in verbal abuse...hence they do not usually choose it as an
alternative. Invariabely they either already parented with the
alternative of gentleness, or if they are X-compulsives, they
quickly
go hunting for the gentler way. Except.....
You meant they don't talk to their kids? Where do they draw the line
between talking to their kids and verbal abuse? ;-)
They don't verbally abuse at all. The line is so far away for these
families it is of no importance to know where it might be.
For those families that DO believe in punishment, then you would have
to answer that question for us, Droaner. YOU are from that camp, not
I.
So tell us, Droaner, for those that would risk by verbal punishment,
the same risk that those who use CP, were is the line?
You are such a dumb clutz. You really thought this would be a stumper,
didn't you.......R R R R R R
The ball is STILL in your court and never has come over the net to my
side.
I do not know where the line between CP/VP safe use and injurious
abuse lies, nor have I ever claimed to. You can chose to cuddle your
child while teaching them, or you can choose to explain things to
them, each the opposite of CP or VP.
It's only those that spank and contemplate having it taken away
from
them that consider verbal abuse as a "discipline" alternative.
WRONG! It's what the non-spanking zealotS promoted!
Nope. It's as true as the words I write that you deny. The
"non-spanking zealotS" do not promote verbal abuse or verbal
punishment..and the really smart ones, such as myself, know that
punishment is a fools tool for teaching anyone anything.
Or would you not rank me as one of the "non-spanking zealotS?"
"Swedish parents now discipline their children; and in doing so, they
rely
on a variety of alternatives to physical punishment.
The method most
commonly used is _verbal_conflict_resolution_, which invites parents
as
well as children to express their anger in words.
Doesn't say "non-spanking zealotS" promote it. Just that Swedes use
it. And one can "express" their anger in words without the least harm
to the child, or to the adult by the child. Speaking in a calm voice,
learning how to phrase non-blamefully, learning how to express empathy
verbally about the problems that others have (such as the child) are
ALL part of the major training that was introduced to the Swedes when
they went to the new law....and it was Dr. Thomas Gordon's Parent
Effectiveness Training...PET, as it is often referred to as.
And there isn't a loud or angry word in it, anywere. In fact were
their IS a chance of the one hearing another's complaint there is a
built in skill the user MUST learn FIRST to de-escalate the tension or
upset the other MIGHT feel.
Some day when you grow up and discover that anger, punishment,
hostility, toward children isn't the only way to control them (and a
sorry way that is) it might occur to read Gordon and find out what we
are talking about.
It's all there. It is simple. It takes some guts though when a child
like you has been raised in pain and humilation parenting
circumstances. Frankly I don't think you could understand a gentle
way.
Parents insist that
discussions involve constant eye contact, even if this means taking
firm
hold of young children to engage their attention.
Yep. I don't approve. That doesn't mean the nospank law failed. It
just means THEIR replacement failed my criteria.
Parents and
professionals agree that discussions may escalate into yelling, or
that
yelling may be a necessary trigger for discussion.
They are wrong. That is simply punishment. It doesn't work. And it's
NOT what "non-spanking zealotS" would promote. Not the one's that
have figured out who humans actually function best.
Still, many point out
that while yelling may be humiliating, it is better than ignoring the
problem or containing the anger, and it is usually less humiliating
than
physical punishment."
To few alternatives being offered. I don't have humliate a child, and
never have had to. Though I recall back when I was learning better I
slipped a couple of times...but they skills I learn for gentle and
supporting parenting stood me in good stead and I could recover in a
split second any ground I and the child I addressed had lost.
No, yelling isn't "less humiliating than" CP. Each has the capacity to
be many different levels of humiliating. They are wrong in this.
That does not make me part of their camp, however. You lump me with
others the same way you categorize children, and parents.
See if you can use your "formidable research skill" to findout where
those
quotes come from. :-)
I already know. I've read them many times.
Your posting and refusing to identify the source is YOUR problem with
YOUR credibility, not mine.
I've also posted before just about what I said here today.....probably
tens of instances in the past. Maybe even hundreds by now. I am not of
the same camp that wishes to use punishment at all. The fault of the
research that fails to show just how stupid and dangerous spanking is
failed on that very note.......the comparisons were with non cp
punishment.
And for kids who have been spanked before it's stupid to just switch
to another form of it.
Goes to show you how brain dead they are. And you are one of them.
So Swedish parents are brain dead according to you? ;-)
Not all. Many use no punishment. On those, as in any part of the
world, that would substitute one punishment for another.
What I said that you are responding to was this:
It's only those that spank and contemplate having it taken away
from
them that consider verbal abuse as a "discipline" alternative.
Since all swedish parents aren't mentioned in that statement, then
your statement is pure bunk. Your usually public masturbation
exhibition.
Please show were all Swedish parents USED spanking before the ban, and
that all Swedish parents that DID spank switched to verbal abuse.
As I said, any that do so, are brain dead. Some can be awakened.
You, apparently, cannot.
This was another exercise in misleading by you Droany. You are a liar.
As you know I advocate non-punitive parenting...that is gentle,
supportive, loving, and instructional parenting. I did not punish
my
children and they easily overcame their frustrations with learning
and
became independent problem solvers, trusting me to help, assist,
support, when they indicated they needed it.
So now you claiming you don't hit your kids? ;-)
Why would I hit them?
So you can't be talking about me...but rather you and the spanking
compulsives crowd that can't think beyond "punishment" as
discipline.
LOL! And you can't think beyond "smelly-****"! :-)
Odd, I have posted millions of characters, thousands up thousands of
words you seem to be ignoring. Yet another of your lies.
One can see the verbal abuse which is practiced on this Ng by
those
who
ostensibly eschew punishment.
What is it you are asking for, Plant? Why don't you come right out
with it and tell us about your ...ummmm...ahhhh...peculiar fetishes
and desires? R R R R R R
LOL! Typical response from a "never-spanked" boy!
I'm not the one that seems to be saying they prefer physical abuse
over verbal. It's The Plant you should be addressing, and asking It to
explain that "I can't remember if my father caught me and spanked me
or not."
Personally I'm not into that kind of weirdness. But
you....hmmmm...reminds me of another poster who once said of bloody
beatings that "I deserved them." You recall?
You are aware of course that YOU are verbally abusive? Or aren't
you?
LOL! And Kane is not? :-)
Of course I am. But not to children. Are you now saying you are exempt
on those grounds?
Doan countered thusly:
He diverted and weaseled. And in fact chose a model as analogy that
does not hold up under closer inspection.
More lies from Kane0!
Nope. All yah have to do is read your nonsense and you will see I am
correct.
In other words, his "countered thusly" was, as usual, a lie or
ignorance. Take your pick, I know my pick.
You are looking in the mirror again! :-)
Nope...directly at you. Twice a day, usually. One day you'll figure it
out, or I'll tell you.
For a clearer and more objective veiw on the question of Sweden's
policy on CP read the following:
http://www.nospank.net/durrant2.htm
LOL! "Objective"??? Come on, Kane! Stop showing your stupidity!
Oh, and on what grounds do you claim Durrant is NOT objective?
She just disagrees with you. Here logic and support for her claims are
clear. Read them. .
You'll also be pleased to note that yet another country has banned
all
CP, home and school. This country's youth has been known for its
wildness, with drinking and drugs being something of a problem
there.
Though the crime rate is rather low for juveniles.
You meant it is as low as Singapore? :-)
I don't know. Why don't you show us.
It will take about 12 years to see the real results, as children
being
born from 2003 on, will fall under that law and be entering the
teen
years by then.
It has been 25 years since they banned spanking in Sweden. The crime
rate their is still much higher than Singapore!
It was higher before. It has reduced. Singapore, as you and I know
from previous exchanges, experiences ups and downs, and some startling
UPs recently in juvenile crime.
It will be interesting to see if the abuse rates drop, though, like
Sweden and all other countries where more attention is placed on
this
issue suddenly, there will be an obvious rise in reporting abuse.
Before beating a child was legal, so of course what could people
report that was illegal about it.....? Nothing.
The abuse rate increased in Sweden after the ban.
The abuse reporting rate did...as can be expected when folks go from
being told it's okay to whale away on kids, to it NOT being okay.
Are you suggesting the measure of success in Sweden would be an
instant stoppage of all child abuse?
Just the change in definition of abuse, which the ban had, would force
the numbers up.
I was meaning to post this paper for sometime but never got around to
it.
Now that I have some free time, here it is:
Doan
Ah, referrences to that most objective of researchers, Larzelere.
We've seen it all before.
It is inconclusive. It weasels just as you do. It makes claims that
are NOT supported by the evidence presented, and in fact presents
little evidence that is not easily answered by reality.
Counts of abuse, as I answered above, for instance. Bogus nonsense.
Begin include
Two recent reviews of parental corporal punishment have found little
sound
evidence of detrimental child outcomes such as child aggression. This
paper
explores whether the 1979 Swedish law against all corporal punishment
has
reduced their child abuse. Sweden's 1979 law was welcomed by many as
a much
needed policy toward reducing physical child abuse. Surprisingly,
this
search located only five published studies with any relevant data.
The best
study found that the rate of child abuse was 49% higher in Sweden
than in
the United States, comparing a 1980 Swedish national survey with the
average
rates from two national surveys in the United States in 1975 and
1985. By
comparison, a retrospective survey of university students in 1981
found that
the Swedish child abuse rate was 21% of the USA rate in the 1960s and
the
1970s, prior to the anti-spanking law. More recent Swedish data
indicate a
489% increase in one child abuse statistic from 1981 through 1994, as
well
as a 672% increase in assaults by minors against minors.
Excuse me. This smacks of Droananation big time.
Notice this from above: "By comparison, a retrospective survey of
university students in 1981"
How does one compare a student survey against this other data and draw
any valid conclusions?
In addition, one needs to look at the number of incidences of the
event being considered.
If there were only 10 to begin with, it would take only a few
incidences to push it to high percentages. So what WAS the actual
numbers of child abuse?
Want to see the actual numbers? R R R R R R.....cover your eyes,
Droany, you AREN'T going to like this:
"Between 1971 and 1975, 5 children in Sweden died as a result of
physical abuse. In the next 15 years, no children died because of
abuse. Between 1990-1996, 4 children died from abuse but only 1 of
them was killed by a parent."
http://www.pubpol.duke.edu/centers/c...s/Jan%2022.ppt
Yah think Duke University is jivin' us, Droany?
And what was that "one child abuse statistic" mentioned above?
This bit of wordsmithing legerdeman is a clear indication of the
lengths the authors will go to to obscure for their own agenda. One of
the authors of the citation you give below is a renowned adversary of
anti spanking organizations and people.
As for minor on minor assualt:
PC is as rapidly a growing phenomena in Sweden as here....children
smacking each other at play in the school yard, "minor" 'assault' on
"minor," probably has jumped the same way in the US.
We now, as they do, REPORT these incidences where we didn't before.
That IS what happens when you go from a violent child rearing method
society (and the Swedes were close competitors to the Germans in that
area) you WILL see people MUCH more conscience of and reporting
anything that appears to be assault...that they would not have before.
The society in Sweden is changing for the better. I personally think
it takes about two generations for the culture to change in clearly
identifiable ways when a major behavior component is changed by law.
We see it in amendments to the constitution of the US. The first
generation fights it still, for their privelege. The next gives in a
bit, and by the third, it's just business as usual and folks can't
remember what it was like before....say, during slavery.
The article discusses
possible reasons for this apparent increase in child abuse and calls
for
better evaluations of innovative policies intended to reduce societal
abuse
and violence.
Notice that point...the same as mine....."possible reasons for the
apparent" increase. That goes to the change in status of the behavior
of spanking. One can't report abuse if it isn't abuse in the law, or
if one does....it's not going to be counted as abuse since there is no
statute to cover it.
Once spanking became abuse then it could be reported and counted.
You lie with every breath, Droany. And you find this old worn out
sorry piece of nonsense twisting and weaseling paper to support you.
Poster presented at the XXVI International Congress of Psychology,
Montreal,
August 18, 1996.
Where is Evidence That Non-Abusive Corporal Punishment
Increases Aggression?
Two recent reviews of the literature on parental corporal punishment
have
found few methodologically sound studies. Further, hardly any of the
soundest
studies found detrimental child outcomes associated with corporal
punishment.
This paper explores whether there is evidence that the outlawing of
corporal
punishment by parents in Sweden and other countries has had any
discernible
effect, particularly on child abuse and, to a lesser degree, on child
outcomes
such as aggression.
Lyons, Anderson, and Larson (1993) attempted to review all journal
articles on
corporal punishment by parents from 1984 through 1993.
What journal? Or journals? I doubt they read everything in the world.
Only 24 of the 132
articles (17%)
Yep...there are one hell of a lot more than 132 articles out there on
this issue. .
included any empirical data on corporal punishment. Less than
half of those (11) investigated corporal punishment as a possible
cause of
some other variable.
The logic is flawed in that statement. The issue isn't CP as cause of
a variable. It's change in a constant, or it's not research. Variables
change for many reasons....constants are just that, constant....so if
THEY change you have something significant to consider.
They just because variables. LIghts are supposed to flash and sirens
scream.
Most (83%) of the studies were cross-sectional, and only
one made any attempt to exclude child abuse from the measure of
corporal
punishment.
R R R R ...... that's for the simple reason that most people that can
think know that the line is not definable by current scientific
means...probably never will be either.
Hence the do NOT try, as one reasearcher you idiots quoted here, did
by removing the worst cases and calling them "abuse."
You remember her, don't you Droany. Wouldn't even submit to peer
review, but nonetheless went public with her "findings."
They concluded that there was empirical evidence supporting one of
three
hypotheses: Several studies found that parents were more likely to
use corporal
punishment themselves if their parents had used it. There was no
sound evidence
that corporal punishment was ineffective, nor that it was associated
with child
aggression.
The first is obvious. The second is bull****, just like you post.
Their is ample study to show that not only is it ineffective in the
longer run, but has a high risk of side effects like public
exhibitions of Droananation.
As for child aggression related to CP, that is an out and out lie.
Children that are NOT spanked are in too short supply to even begin to
have a comparative study. If 90% or more of the population has been
spanked one need only to look to the nature of the society to see the
connection. The more CP the bloodier the society.
Larzelere (in press) built on their review by extending the search of
peer-
reviewed articles to the period 1974 to 1995 plus older articles that
met the
inclusion criteria.
Yeah, and I'd like to see their criteria for choosing and his.
The inclusion criteria were designed to exclude studies
that were cross-sectional or whose measures emphasized the severity
of usage
of corporal punishment.
Tell us about objectivity, Droany.
As soon as you start picking and choosing what you will and won't
study you are cherry picking.
Only 18 studies were found that both met the two
inclusion criteria and limited the sample to children under 13 years
of age.
Interesting choice. Why leave out those 13 and over?
Could it be the conclusions offered could not be supported with them
in the demographic?
The 8 strongest studies found beneficial outcomes of corporal
punishment,
usually in 2- to 6-year-olds.
Immediate results can be obtained in many ways, including verbal
punishment of that age range.
I can pound a post in the ground instead of digging a hole, bracing
and backfilling with gravel and concrete, and both will be servicable
posts....one for a few years as the splintered wood fills with fungus
and dry rot...the other for nearly my lifetime, because the wood has
not been splintered by brute force pounding.
Pretty much the same with kids. And it's pretty much the same in
Singapore. If you read some social studies on Singapore you will find
there is much going on that is NOT in the best interests of its
citizens. Politics is an interesting game there.
The 10 other studies were prospective (6) or
retrospective (4). Three of them found detrimental outcomes, but only
1 of
those 3 made any attempt to exclude abuse from its measure of
corporal
punishment.
Obviously because they knew The Question cannot be answered. One
cannot draw a clear line between the two, discipline and damage.
Further, none of the 10 studies controlled for the initial level
of child misbehavior.
Yep...the problem with ALL social studies is they will not be
administered as experiments in the physical sciences are....by
destructive testing. Can't be.
Hence YOUR claims, Droany, and theirs are as empty as you wish to
claim mine and the researchers I and others refer to are.
The answer to the question is somewhat larger than social science.
Outcomes of behavior over a period of time, in the larger social
setting, and by the cultures the behaviors and reactions occur in are
where the only consideration and policy making need be or should be
taken.
This seems to be an important methodological problem,
since the frequency of every type of discipline response tends to be
positively associated with child misbehavior, whether the
associations are
cross-sectional or longitudinal (Larzelere, Sather, Schneider,
Larson, & Pike,
1996; Larzelere, Schneider, Larson, & Pike, in press).
Basically a stupid statement that says the children were not tested by
being spanked when they didn't misbehave. Brilliant.
Finally, no alternative
discipline response in any of the 18 studies was associated with more
beneficial child outcomes than was corporal punishment,
Beautiful. Madison avenue couldn't improve on the obscurity and
obfuscation if they tried. It just says that CP didn't work any better
than the alternative. What does THAT prove except you DON'T NEED TO
USE CPS TO GET THE SAME RESULTS.
whereas 7 alternatives
were associated with more detrimental child outcomes, mostly in 2- to
6-year-olds.
Notice the careful distancing from what those "alternatives" were. And
children in the most helpless age range. At 7, when children are
suppposed to have developed abstract reasoning, that is the capacity
for accurate cause and effect relationship awaress, they LEAVE THE
OLDER DEMOGRAPHIC OUT....now I wonder why? R R R R ...because the kids
can NOW get sicker from being hit. Like start chosing to act out
themselves, become sneaky, lie, steal, hit their sister behind moms
back...etc
These reviews suggest that the empirical linkage between
nonabusive corporal punishment and aggression comes only from
cross-sectional
studies, studies of teenagers,
Well, we do have this little problem, don't we now? Unless we kill
them first, we parents WILL have teenagers one day. I'd say that's a
very solid reason for including them IN the study.
studies measuring particularly severe forms
of corporal punishment,
And we know that there have been those here, and certainly in the
general population, that consider drawing blood with a belt to NOT be
severe, but the parent's right. So including severe CP in a study
along with less severe is HONEST research.
and, perhaps, studies of punitiveness.
In other words, many of the things we argue about here are included in
the studies that show bad outcomes from CP. I love that "punitiveness"
statement.
It slams non-CP but still punishing methods. Which you know I'm
against. In other words you are once again posting to support me,
while your poor child abused mind things otherwise.
This led us
to ask how well current societal experiments are working in countries
that
have outlawed all forms of parental use of corporal punishment.
Yep. Now we get to the really good stuff. You will see weaseling that
has been the model for Droany for years now. Hot stuff.
In 1979, Sweden passed a law prohibiting all corporal punishment by
parents.
This was hailed as a crucial step in the effort to reduce child abuse
(Deley,
1988; Feshbach, 1980; Ziegert, 1983). Several countries have passed
similar
laws since then (Norway, Denmark, Finland, Austria, and Cyprus), and
organizations have formed to advocate against parental corporal
punishment
throughout the world (e.g., End Physical Punishment of Children
[EPOCH]: Radda
Barnen, no date).
This movement represents one of the most sweeping changes ever
advocated by
social scientists. In the United States, for example, about 90% of
parents
have spanked their 3-year-old children in the past year (Straus,
1983;
Wauchope & Straus, 1990). Some social scientific research has been
used to
support the anti-spanking position (e.g., Hyman, 1995; Straus, 1994),
but the
reviews summarized above have found such support coming primarily
from
methodologically poor studies.
And that is a poorly supported claim. One of the criticisms of one of
those works was by a doctor who claimed that because of poor
experimental methods (non-destructive of the subjects) they study was
invalid. Stupid just like you.
Given the inconclusiveness of relevant research
and the importance of the issue, it is desirable to know whether
child abuse
has decreased in Sweden following their 1979 anti-spanking law.
Accordingly,
this article asks two inter-related questions: (1) To what extent
have social
scientists evaluated the effect of the 1979 anti-spanking law in
Sweden, and
(2) what do those evaluations indicate about the effects of the
anti-spanking
law in reducing child abuse? We also report one finding about Swedish
trends
in assaults by minors discovered during our study.
Literature Search for Evaluations
Two procedures were used to find evaluations of the effects of
Sweden's anti-
spanking law. First, PsycLit was searched from 1974 through June of
1995 for
all publications that included "Sweden" or "Swedish" and either
"punishment"
or "spanking" in their abstracts. Second, Social Sciences Citation
Index was
used to identify all articles citing Gelles and Edfeldt (1986)
through April
1995, because their study reported a well-done survey of Swedish
child abuse
rates one year after the anti-spanking law was passed.
Empirical Evaluations of Sweden's Anti-Spanking Law
Five published studies and one unpublished paper were found that
included any
empirical information relevant for evaluating the 1979 anti-spanking
law.
Ziegert (1983) published a conceptual, preliminary article on why the
law
should be effective. His only empirical data was from a Swedish
opinion poll
showing that the percentage of respondents considering corporal
punishment
to be necessary had dropped from 53% in 1965 to 35% in 1971 to 26% in
1979 and
1981. In an article comparing Swedish and American use of corporal
punishment,
Solheim (1982) reported that 26% of Swedish respondents considered
corporal
punishment necessary in 1978. Like Ziegert (1983), Solheim's (1982)
article
was mostly nonempirical, discussing such issues as court decisions
about
corporal punishment in schools, the 1979 law, and expert opinions.
Together
these two articles show that the decline in support for the necessity
of
parental corporal punishment in Sweden preceded the 1979 law, and it
did not
decrease thereafter, at least through 1981.
Which does not go to the claimed intent of the author. Interesting.
A third article reported the rate of child homicides in various
European
countries, comparing 1973/1974 with approximately 1987/1988
(Pritchard, 1992).
Note that this compared statistics before and after the 1979 law. The
Swedish
child homicide rate was the sixth lowest of the 17 countries at both
time
periods. However, it nearly doubled from 1973/1974 to 1986/1987.
Sweden's
93% increase in its child homicide rate was the fifth largest
percentage
increase among the 17 countries. It should also be noted that the
rate of
accidental baby deaths in Sweden was the lowest of the 17 countries
at both
time periods. Unlike the child homicide rate, it decreased by 67%
between the two time periods, although 10 of the other 16 countries
decreased
their accidental baby death rates by an even larger percentage.
A fourth article compared child abuse rates among university students
at one
Swedish university compared to one American university as reported in
a 1981
survey (Deley, 1988). Because these were retrospective reports, they
were
child abuse rates during the 1960s and the 1970s as these students
were growing
up, a time period preceding the 1979 law. The critical question asked
whether
a spanking had ever left physical marks that lasted for more than 10
minutes.
Two percent of the Sweden students reported receiving such physical
marks from
a spanking, compared to 9.5% of the American students. Although this
is far
from a representative sample, this suggests that the child abuse rate
in
Sweden was only 21% of the American child abuse rate in the 1960s and
1970s
(i.e., 2.0 divided by 9.5 = .21).
The fifth and best study used telephone surveys of a nationally
representative
sample of Swedish parents to measure the rates of spanking and of
child abuse
in 1980 (Gelles & Edfeldt, 1986). It used the Conflict Tactics Scale,
which
was also used to measure the prevalence of spanking and child abuse
in two
National Family Violence Surveys in the USA (Straus & Gelles, 1986;
Straus,
Gelles, & Steinmetz, 1980). Gelles and Edfeldt (1986) compared their
1980
Swedish survey only with the 1975 National Family Violence Survey.
They
concluded that a smaller percentage of parents were spanking their
children in
Sweden than in the United States, but that there were no significant
differences in child abuse rates.
By a telephone survey? Personal surveys are notorious for showing
outcomes that are predetermined by those commissioning the survey.
We read voice inflection and tone along with pacing, just as we read
people's faces, and we respond accordingly. It's a million or more
year old survival need. We are very good at responding to others in
social context the way we think they want us to.
It would have been more appropriate, however, to compare their 1980
Swedish
survey with the 1985 National Family Violence Survey in the USA
(Straus &
Gelles, 1986), which reported a 47% lower rate of child abuse in the
United
States than in 1975. For one thing, the 1980 Swedish survey was
closer to the
1985 USA survey in its method, because both used telephone
interviews. In
contrast, the 1975 USA survey used face-to-face interviews. Table 1
gives the
percentage of Swedish and United States parents reporting the use of
various
forms of physical aggression in both national surveys in the United
States and
the national survey in Sweden. In contrast to Gelles & Edfeldt
(1986), we
report whether the Swedish rate was significantly different from the
mean USA
rate from both the 1975 and the 1985 surveys. This approach
represents a
compromise on the issue of which USA survey is the most appropriate
comparison,
and it assumes that the 1980 rates in the USA might have been halfway
between
the 1975 and the 1985 rates.
Table 1 Prevalence Rates of Various Forms of Physical Child Abuse in
the
United States and Sweden
__________________________________________________ ____________________
United States
Sweden
Type of Violence 1975 1985 1980
1. Threw things at 5.4% 2.7% 3.6%
Down
2. Pushed, grabbed, or shoved 40.5 30.7 49.4***
Lots of things we do with children could be considered any of these
three for any number of reasons having little or nothing to do with
discipline.
3. Hit (spanked or slapped) 58.2 54.9 27.5***
Very down, you might notice.
4. Kicked, bit, or hit with fist 3.2 1.3 2.2
Lower than the starting figure.
5. Hit with an object (*1) 13.4 9.7 2.4***
Much lower than either of the previous measured years.
6. Beat up 1.3 .6 3.0***
What does "Beat up" mean exactly? And a major issue here, as it was in
child homocides, is who was doing the abuse?
7. Threatened with a weapon .1 .2 .4
Too small an incidence to be significant.
8. Used a weapon .1 .2 .4
What is a "weapon?"
Very Severe Violence (4, 6-8) 3.6 1.9 4.0*
These are of course, comparisons. Not so much of the changes in the
same country but skewed invisibly by comparing two countries.
Among the missing variables are things such as unemployment rates...a
nortorious indicator of change in child abuse rates, influx of
immigrants who bring very different child rearing habits...and they of
course differ from each other, so which country got which parents with
different methods of child rearing they weren't going to let go?
Hell, a middle eastern family stabbed their daughter to death in the
US for becoming immodestly American. That would be a child fatality
but it would have zero to do with the legal or illegal use of CP.
__________________________________________________ ______________________
1 In the United States this item referred to attempted or completed
hits. In Sweden, the item referred only to completed hits. The 1975
and 1980 surveys are taken from Gelles & Edfeldt (1986) and the 1985
survey from Straus & Gelles (1986).
*p .05, 2-tailed t-test of proportions, comparing the combined USA
samples with the Swedish sample.
***p .001, same test.
As can be seen, significantly fewer Swedish parents spanked or hit
their child
with an object, compared to USA parents. Nonetheless, 27% of Swedish
parents
reported spanking or slapping their child in the past year,
reflecting
imperfect compliance with the law.
Flaccid.
R R R R R....in other words, the author lost his erection before
penetration........R R R R
In contrast, most of the more serious types
of physical aggression occurred more often in Sweden one year after
passing the
anti-spanking law than they did in the United States.
Uhuhuhuh...naughty, naughty. They were REPORTED more. And in the US
spanking is NOT banned, hence there are two different criteria for
what IS abuse in each country...which goes again to the honestly or
lack thereof in the authors methods used to make the claims they seem
to be making.
The rate of beating a
child up was three times as high in Sweden as in the United States,
the rate
of using a weapon was twice as high, and the overall rate of Very
Severe
Violence was 49% higher in Sweden than the United States average from
the 1975
and 1985 surveys.
The problem is one of scope. If you have five incidences in one year,
and years later have 10, you have a huge increase in percentage.
....NOT the rate, notice.
I've noticed the liars here in these ngs also shift from rate to
percentage when it suits their lying claim.
So a hundred percent increase does NOT accomodate changes in size or
characteristics of the demographic being studies. Tsk.
Now I can't call that research, or even a study of anything but the
pointely biased promotion of an agenda...a spanking compulsives
agenda.
Except for weapon usage, all of these differences were
significantly different using a test of differences between
proportions (Downie
& Heath, 1974, chap. 13), p .05. In addition, the rate of pushing,
grabbing,
or shoving was 39% higher in Sweden than the average rate in the
United States,
I'd like to see the work product, using the actual numbers, and the
rates from each to test out that 39%.
We have two populations, that are somewhat dissimilar....one does NOT
have a spanking ban. The other does. One has a history of violence
from it's inception as a nation...the other decidedly doesn't. The one
that doesn't would most likely count all incidences and near
incidences much more vigorously, against that contrast of a long
history of non-violence.
p .001. Thus, the rate of spanking was significantly lower in
Sweden than in
the United States, but the rate of other forms of physical
aggression,
including child abuse, was significantly higher in Sweden than in the
United
States.
Not only are there the factors I've mentioned, the "count" issue
versus the actual incidence of what each of us would call abuse, but
the latter alone would heavily skew the results.
We don't think of certain physical act agression. The Swedes might.
The study and claims are hollow.
Because there were so few published studies with relevant empirical
data, we
also included an unpublished field study by Haeuser (1988) and sought
additional data from Swedish sources. As co-founder of EPOCH-USA, an
organization advocating the banning of all corporal punishment in the
United States, Haeuser (1988) explicitly wanted to "promote positive
visibility
of this Swedish law in the U.S. and garner U.S. support for the
possibility of
promoting U.S. parenting norms which avoid physical punishment" (p.
2). Her
paper was based on her 1981 and 1988 field visits to Sweden, using
extensive
interviews of 7 parents and 60 personnel in government, health and
human
services, and schools.
In the summary, she concluded, "Most, if not all, believe the law has
not
affected the incidence of child abuse" (p. iii). Specifically, she
reported
that concerns about sexual abuse and youth gang violence had
superseded
concerns about physical child abuse by 1988. She also reported that
she
observed toddlers and young children often hitting their parents in
her 1988
visit.
According to her, "In 1981 both parents and professionals agreed that
parents
had not . . . found constructive alternatives to physical punishment
[within
the two years since the law was passed]. For most parents the
alternative was
yelling and screaming at their children, and some believed this was
equally,
perhaps more, destructive" (p. 22). Haeuser went on to report that
most Swedish
parents had developed firmer discipline techniques by 1988.
Yep. Can't disagree with that. Tom Gordon took them a model, under
auspices of the government, that would and does work if applied. One
cannot make people take the training, nor apply it, if they do not
wish to.
In fact those in resistance to it would be more likely to make it NOT
work...rather like old Observer showed us in this ng a couple of years
back.
Haeuser (1988) concluded that the child abuse rate was lower in
Sweden than
in the USA based on Swedish police statistics of 6.5 cases of
physical child
abuse per 1000 children in 1986. Haeuser compared this to a "U. S.
rate of 9.2
to 10.7" per 1000 (Haeuser, 1988, p. 34), but acknowledged, "Since
the Swedish
police data omits child abuse cases known to social services but not
warranting
police intervention, the actual Swedish incidence rate is probably
higher"
(p. 34).
It's all in what you call abuse. As she just said. In fact, spanking
being against the law, it would now be a CRIME stat that police would
keep. She's uttering nonsense.
However, the American survey that she cited (National Center on Child
Abuse and
Neglect [NCCAN], 1988) indicated that the basis of the rate of 9.2 or
10.7 per
1000 differed from the Swedish police statistic in two ways. First,
the USA
rate included sexual and emotional abuse as well as physical abuse.
Second,
the USA rate included not only cases known to police, but also cases
known to
at least one professional across a wide range of occupations,
including those
in child protection services, public health, education (schools,
daycare
centers), hospitals, mental health, and social services.
Then she is a poor reseacher. All child abuse stats keep for a
national database are delivered by a single agency in the US. CPS in
its various forms in various states. The only other reporters are the
police...and only in those instances where the criminal justice system
is involved in the case. I'm not sure but what those don't go back
through CPS for reporting though, so a case is only counted one time,
or an abuse is not duplicated in reporting.
If limited to only
physical abuse, the USA rate was only 4.9 or 5.7 known to at least
one of
these professionals, depending upon the definition of physical child
abuse. If
limited to all three kinds of abuse known specifically to police or
sheriffs,
the USA rate was only 2.2 per 1000 (NCCAN, 1988).
If spanking, as it is in Sweden, was against the law, we would be far
ahead of Sweden. That IS illegal in Sweden and reported as abuse.
The most relevant statistics we have obtained from Sweden are
police-record
trends in physical abuse of children under 7 years of age (Wittrock,
1992,
1995). Those records showed a 489% increase in the child abuse rate
from 1981
to 1994 (see Figure 1). The same police records also indicated a 672%
increase
in assaults by minors against minors (under 15 in Sweden) from 1981
to
1994 (see Figure 2).
That would mean that playground spats that included a push or shove,
which is obviously counted in other databases, would constitute
assualt of minor on minor.
Discussion and Conclusions
Although the Swedish anti-spanking law was intended to reduce child
abuse, the
best empirical study since then indicated that the rate of child
abuse in
Sweden was 49% higher than in the United States one year after the
anti-
spanking law was passed.
"One year after?" Just what did they think would happen? The reporting
would have jumped higher than that I would have thought.
And, what is never mentioned so far is that there is NO penalty for
spanking in Sweden. No stick, and no carrot. I'm stunned they got as
much results as they did.
Does this mean that the anti-spanking law increased
the rate of physical child abuse in Sweden? Deley's (1988)
retrospective data
indicates that the Swedish physical child abuse rate was 21% of the
USA rate
in the 1960s and 1970s. This suggests that the anti-spanking law not
only
failed to achieve its goal of reducing child abuse, but that the
child abuse
rate increased from 21% to 149% of the equivalent USA rate, a
seven-fold
increase relative to the decreasing rate in the United States.
Rates. No actual rates...just a percentage of rate change. What
garbage. And with a comparison to the US to offset any real attention
to data and changes within Sweden.
And we saw early what the fatality figures were and how dramatic that
made the percentage appear. What was it, 3 killed or five killed. Just
ONE more would make it appear to be a hugely significant
percentage.....until one looked at the number, and got it that other
variables were being ignored.
And a child homicide isn't necessarily a parent inflicted murder.
We doubt that
the increase was actually that substantial, because Deley used a
retrospective
measure with a small unrepresentative sample. Nonetheless, the
available
evidence suggests that a sizeable increase in the Swedish child abuse
rate
occurred around the time of the 1979 anti-spanking law. The other
studies
indicate no changes in attitudes about corporal punishment nor in
child
homicides due to the 1979 law.
R R R R ......not only lost it, but likely couldn't get it up again
with Viagra.
In other words they are admitting they really are thinking about and
considering only the first year. For a law with NO teeth..no
penalty...no payoff either.
Was the apparent increase in the Swedish child abuse rate only a
temporary
increase following their anti-spanking law? More recent data on
Swedish child
abuse rates would help answer that question. One piece of subsequent
data was
the 6.5 cases of physical child abuse per 1,000 children in official
1986
Swedish police statistics, which was substantially higher than the
2.2 per
1,000 known to police or sheriffs in the USA.
But spanking is a crime there, reflected in that rate. Spanking is NOT
a crime in the US so would be counter reflected in the US rate.
The other available evidence is
the sharp increase in physical child abuse in Swedish police records
from 1981
through 1994, along with a similar sharp increase in certain assaults
by
minors.
There is no such sharp increase even by their own offerings here.
There is a sharp increase in reporting. And at that it doesn't reflect
much in the much smaller society. Other variables could be heavily
influencing any changes. Just the immigrant question alone could do
it.
Why might Sweden experience an increasing child abuse rate and an
increase in
assaults by minors after outlawing corporal punishment? Haeuser's
(1988)
description of some parental frustration and yelling in 1981 might
indicate an
increased risk of escalation to abuse at that time.
Bull****. Pure speculation. Haeuser did NOT provide a comprehensive
demographic. No ages of parents..for instance. Older parents might be
holding out heavily for what they learned and practiced already.
Immigrants might be very resistant to change.
This is reminiscent of
Baumrind's (1973) observation of permissive parents. Compared to
authoritative
and authoritarian parents, permissive parents were the most likely to
report
"explosive attacks of rage in which they inflicted more pain or
injury upon
the child than they had intended. . . .
That is reaching. That report is on US parents and children. We are a
violent country compared to Sweden. And there are not that many
permissive parents to study.
I suspect, as in other things where Baumrind interpreted
conditions..such as removing the more abusive end of the
demographic....the definition of "permissive" is up for grabs.
Many spankers rank anyone that doesn't spank as permissive, even when
they have well behaved children. What "permissive" should mean, for
any useful analysis, is "inattentive."
Many parents "permit" their child a very large theater of activity and
exploration..yet those children don't exhibit significant behavior
problems. In fact they tend to have many fewer because they are so
busy with exploring.
But the parent could be mislabled as "permissive" really meaning
inattentive.
Inattentive parents are the problem, and they are the one prone to
explosive reactions when the children bother them. Truely permitting
parents are delighted at most of the interactions of their children
with them. Those are considered social exploration.
Permissive parents apparently became
violent because they felt that they could neither control the child's
behavior
nor tolerate its effect upon themselves" (Baumrind, 1973, p. 35).
Inattentive parents. Permissive is being misused in this context.
Permissive
parents used spanking less than did either authoritative or
authoritarian
parents.
Yep. They are inattentive. It makes them angry when a child interfers
with them...and they go for controlling instead of redirecting and
being with the child.
Classic stuff.
So it could be that the prohibition of all spanking eliminates a type
of mild spanking that prevents further escalation of aggression
within
discipline incidents (see Patterson's [1982] coercive family
process).
It could be said, but it would be bull**** to do so. Notice the title
of the citation. "coercive family process?"
Tells it all, now doesn't it.
Haeuser's (1988) report suggests that Swedish parents later developed
new,
firm discipline responses that reduced escalations to yelling and
possibly to
child abuse. But adequate data on the resulting child abuse rates are
lacking.
Yep, yet these twits make assumptions in the face of that lack.
In conclusion, the available Swedish data indicate that we cannot
reduce child
abuse just by mandating that parents stop using corporal punishment.
We cannot reduce reporting of abuse. That is going to go up whereever
CP is made illegal and abusive. It's not rocket science...just simple
logic.
If taking my neighbors apples isn't illegal he can't report me for
breaking the law. If the next day there IS a law passed making it
illegal, and I'm in the habit of taking those apples and thinking that
way habitually and continue to do it, suddenly there is going to be
reports of an apple stealing crimewave in my neighborhood.
In fact I would surmise throughout the jurisdiction of that new law.
It might take some months, even years, to reduce the reporting of this
crime....by it's actual reduction. FOR IT WAS NOT A CRIME BEFORE.
Parents
also need new, effective techniques to replace corporal punishment if
it is to
be outlawed.
Yep...but it takes more than just the information. It takes practice,
and it takes a commitment to make it work. Without either nothing will
change. Except there WILL be a reducting in actual abuse...just as
Sweden experienced...despite the reports.
It is even possible that mild corporal punishment may play an
important role in preventing escalation to abuse for some parents.
Ah yes, one of the spanking compulsives favorites. It ranks right up
there with spanking is not hitting and similar Cargo Cult thinking.
The other
surprise is that there has been so little empirical evaluation of the
effects
of Sweden's anti-spanking law.
That is because it was not meant to be an enforceable law with
penalties. It was meant to make a moral statement to the population.
Apparently it's working too.
I don't think that would work in the US. We have a different history
and culture. Very. I am looking sadly forward to the day when we have
such a law in this country, but with teeth to make it work.
I don't want it, but I can see plainly, by examples such as you,
Droany, that the resistance to gentle child rearing, the perverse NEED
to hurt and humiliate others weaker than one's self, is too strong a
force in our country to be stopped any other way.
But I'll keep trying. Read Gordon.
Perhaps it has seemed so obvious that
eliminating parental spanking would reduce the child abuse rate that
people
have felt that no evaluation was needed.
That would be the mindset of a nation with the culture that Sweden
has. It was only in recent years they accepted immigrants.
If so, this summary of available
evidence should shake us out of our premature complacency. The role
of parental
discipline responses in preventing aggression in parent and child is
surprisingly complex (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Patterson, 1982; Snyder
&
Patterson, 1995). We need better research to understand the
complexities
involved in parental discipline, including its relationship to child
abuse. We
need to discriminate effective from counterproductive forms of
discipline
responses, including the role of different forms of corporal
punishment in
increasing or decreasing the risk of child abuse. We also need better
evaluations of policies designed to change parental discipline, given
that the
effects of the Swedish anti-spanking law seem to have had exactly the
opposite
effect of its intention, at least in the short term.
End include
Nearly total nonsense, from start to conclusion. Poor logic. Flawed in
assumption and method. To draw the stated conclusions from the cited
research and surveys is preposterous.
But it's just your style Droananator. Just your style.
R R R R R
Kane
Subject: Canadian Judge ok's Dad's apanking in Calgary
divorce
case
From: Doan
Date: 8/2/2004 6:17 PM Eastern Daylight Time
Message-id:
But we know that Sweden is perfect! Swedish parents don't spank,
they
just yell! ;-)
Dear dear Droananator,
There was an increase in yelling. We do not know if all who stopped
spanking turned to yelling.
It is what the anti-spanking zealotS promoted!
The info is not clear, and the message is not what you claim it is.
You can close your eyes and shut you ears. That does not change the
fact! :-)
Given the training that was offered they certainly didn't have to
yell. But the training was not mandatory.
It has been 25 years!
However, you compulsives can't seem to do other than assume that
loss
of one way of hurting and humiliating a child has to be replaced
with
another for "discipline," now don't you?
It has been 25 years!
Admit it...it's about brute force parenting, not loving, gentle
supportive parenting.
It has been 25 years!
Let us know when you have the real answer to The Question.
LOL! Showing your stupidity again, Kane0!
Where is the line that marks the boundary between CP for discipline
and CP that injures?
You don't know? :-)
Doan
Kane
Doan
On Mon, 2 Aug 2004, Carlson LaVonne wrote:
Canada is ahead of the USA in its treatment of children, but
Canmada
isn't perfect either. Thanks for the post.
LaVonne
Fern5827 wrote:
http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/Calgar...09/532794.html
Fri, July 9, 2004
Judge OKs spanking
Dad's actions ruled reasonable
By KEVIN MARTIN, CALGARY SUN
Spanking his eight-year-old son after the boy threatened to
"grab a
lawyer" and
sue him wasn't a criminal act by a city dad, a judge ruled
yesterday.
Judge Bob
Wilkins said James Dean Boyd exercised reasonable force when
he
disciplined his
son 19 months ago.
"The force used by the accused falls within the scope
enunciated
by the
Supreme
Court of Canada and was 'a minor corrective force of a
transitory and
trifling
nature,'" Wilkins said.
"The action of the accused in spanking his son was for
corrective
purposes."
Police were called by Boyd's ex-wife after she discovered
bruising on the
child's bum after he was returned to her Nov. 23, 2002,
following an
access
visit.
Defence lawyer Joel Livergant argued the bruising occurred
while
the
child was
tobogganing, but Wilkins said without medical evidence, he
could
not say
what
caused the injury.
Boyd admitted spanking the child three times on the behind
for
disciplinary
reasons after the child had acted up and told the father to
"shut up."
The incident occurred at Boyd's brother's home and involved a
dispute
between
the child, whom Wilkins did not identify by name, and his
cousins.
The judge noted the boy stood on stairs, yelling "I hate this
place, I
hate
you, I'm going to grab a lawyer, I'm going to sue you all and
I'm going
to live
in a foster home."
"This outburst was followed by the child telling his father
to
'shut
up,'"
Wilkins said.
"I accept his explanation that the spanking was done for
corrective
purposes,
as a last resort and was not done out of anger, maliciousness
or
revenge," the
judge said.
Wilkins said the Criminal Code permits persons in authority
to
use force
for
discipline as long as it is reasonable under the
circumstances.
He said Boyd's actions were intended to be for educative or
corrective
purposes
and the force used was not excessive.
Outside court, a relieved Boyd said it's important to have
legislation
that
protects a parent's right to discipline a child.
"It just reinforces, or gives the parent the opportunity to
reinforce a
verbal
command with a reasonable amount of force," he said.
"To let young people know ... there's a consequence for their
actions."