What do you think the child abuse rate is ...

.... for parents who spank vs parents who do not spank?

http://www.mothering.com/articles/gr...e_the_rod.html

.... Another serious problem with spanking is that while most parents
mean well, it's easy to lose patience, especially with our
often-unrealistic expectations. Light swats to the bottom can escalate
after repeated failure at curtailing inappropriate behavior. More
alarming, in 1991, Harold Grasmick, Robert Bursik, Jr., and M'lou Kimpel
of the University of Oklahoma wrote, "The child abuse rate for parents
who approve of corporal punishment is four times the rate of child abuse
for parents who do not approve of corporal punishment."4 ...


Earlier in the same article:

....A startling national survey, released in October 2000, revealed that
61 percent of adults condone regularly spanking children for
inappropriate behavior.1 Sponsored by the nonprofit groups Zero to Three
and Civitas and the toy maker Brio, the survey also found that parents'
expectations of their children's behavior far exceeded the reality of
age-appropriate behavior. According to 57 percent of the 3,000 adults
surveyed, children as young as six months old could be spoiled, a fact
that has been disputed by many child experts and psychologists.

Adults condone spanking for many reasons in addition to unrealistic
expectations. One stems from a small number of studies that have
indicated that spanking is an effective disciplinary method; however,
those studies failed to compare spanking with nonphysical forms of
discipline that are equally effective, if not more so. Another reason
for continued spanking is that many adults believe that nonabusive
spanking by loving parents is not harmful. While some studies have shown
this form of spanking to be less harmful, the act hasn't been proven
harmless.

Over the last couple of decades, a number of studies have revealed a
wide range of negative effects of spanking. One three-year study,
conducted by Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, found
evidence that this traditional practice leads to more antisocial
behaviors.2 The study found that mothers who had spanked even once
during a test week reported higher rates of antisocial behavior by their
children two years following the spankings.

Other studies have revealed similar effects. Three separate studies of
children with serious conduct problems, conducted by Grozier and Katz
(1979), Patterson (1982), and Webster-Stratton et al. (1988, 1990),
found that when spanking was discontinued and other forms of discipline
and behavior management were used instead, the children's behavior
improved. A study conducted by researchers at McMasters University found
that anxiety disorders, drug and alcohol problems, antisocial behavior,
and depression were more prevalent among adults who had been spanked as
children.3 Because of this vast amount of research, the American Academy
of Pediatrics has called for a ban on school spanking. ...

And interesting bit you might have not followed, but when Doug joined in
on this debate on spanking while he defended the right of parents to use
spanking he curiously state he chose not to use it with his children.

To date he has failed to answer why.

If it's safe, and effective, why NOT use it?

Could it be he KNOWS it's not safe and effective?

Apparently he does not want to deal with real issues.

I suggest he read Baumrind very carefully when she mades her claims from
the Berkeley address to the APA, and the fallout she created by her
signficant change of direction from earlier research.

Apparently she let Larzerele rub off on her.

http://www.irregulartimes.com/cpbaumrind.html

.... One must ask the obvious question: Why would any adult purposefully
inflict pain upon a child with the knowledge that the pain would bring
no benefit to the child? To inflict pain upon children without need is
surely among the most cruel acts we can imagine.

The Constitution of the United States of America, guarantees that all
people who live within the borders of the United States are entitled to
protection against cruel and unusual punishment, whether they are
citizens or not. Additionally, assault is a crime in every state in the
union. Therefore, proponents of the disciplinary corporal punishment of
children are not just asking to engage in a necessary practice, but to
gain a special exemption from the Constitution and from ordinary
criminal law. Surely, in order to be granted this special exemption, it
must be demonstrated that the practice of disciplinary corporal
punishment not only causes no harm, but that it is necessary and beneficial.

It seems to me that the Owens-Baumrind report recognizes only half of
the necessary criteria to remove "a blanket injunction against
disciplinary spanking". The pain that could be brought to children as a
result of the publicity surrounding this study dictates that all reports
and presentations related to it discuss not only whether the data show a
correlation between disciplinary corporal punishment and long-lasting
harmful effects, but also whether the data show a correlation between
disciplinary corporal punishment and long-lasting beneficial effects. In
other words, Owens and Baumrind have the responsibility to discuss
whether corporal punishment has any disciplinary benefits in addition to
discussing whether corporal punishment is actually harmful.

The omission of any such discussion suggests that the Owens-Baumrind
data does not reveal any disciplinary benefits of the corporal
punishment of children. Indeed, there are no peer-reviewed studies that
demonstrate any long-lasting benefits of corporal punishment. Given the
lack causually relevant scientific of evidence for disciplinary benefits
of corporal punishment, the extreme legal exemptions that corporal
punishment requires and the high price of pain inflicted upon children
who are corporally punished, there is indeed ample justification for a
general rejection of the use of corporal punishment for disciplinary
reasons.

It all boils down to this: when it comes to physical, emotional and
disciplinary well-being of our children, methods that depend upon
violent interactions between adult and child must be justified by
evidence of substantial benefit, not the absence of evidence of
substantial harm. ...














--
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what
to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb
contesting the vote." - Benjamin Franklin (or someone else)

Kane wrote
What do you think the child abuse rate is ...
for parents who spank vs parents who do not spank?

Doesn't that depend on the caseworker?

Since many caseworkers are anti-spanking
aren't their decisions colored by their bias?

If all things were identical except for spanking,
of course the spanking parents would be
founded at a higher rate because of this bias.

Reposted with attribution and cross posted to ascps and asfp

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
What do you think the child abuse rate is ...
for parents who spank vs parents who do not spank?

Doesn't that depend on the caseworker?

Since many caseworkers are anti-spanking
aren't their decisions colored by their bias?

If all things were identical except for spanking,
of course the spanking parents would be
founded at a higher rate because of this bias.




0:- (Kane) wrote:
What do you think the child abuse rate is ...
... for parents who spank vs parents who do not spank?

http://www.mothering.com/articles/gr...e_the_rod.html

... Another serious problem with spanking is that while most parents
mean well, it's easy to lose patience, especially with our
often-unrealistic expectations. Light swats to the bottom can escalate
after repeated failure at curtailing inappropriate behavior. More
alarming, in 1991, Harold Grasmick, Robert Bursik, Jr., and M'lou Kimpel
of the University of Oklahoma wrote, "The child abuse rate for parents
who approve of corporal punishment is four times the rate of child abuse
for parents who do not approve of corporal punishment."4 ...


Earlier in the same article:

...A startling national survey, released in October 2000, revealed that
61 percent of adults condone regularly spanking children for
inappropriate behavior.1 Sponsored by the nonprofit groups Zero to Three
and Civitas and the toy maker Brio, the survey also found that parents'
expectations of their children's behavior far exceeded the reality of
age-appropriate behavior. According to 57 percent of the 3,000 adults
surveyed, children as young as six months old could be spoiled, a fact
that has been disputed by many child experts and psychologists.

Adults condone spanking for many reasons in addition to unrealistic
expectations. One stems from a small number of studies that have
indicated that spanking is an effective disciplinary method; however,
those studies failed to compare spanking with nonphysical forms of
discipline that are equally effective, if not more so. Another reason
for continued spanking is that many adults believe that nonabusive
spanking by loving parents is not harmful. While some studies have shown
this form of spanking to be less harmful, the act hasn't been proven
harmless.

Over the last couple of decades, a number of studies have revealed a
wide range of negative effects of spanking. One three-year study,
conducted by Murray Straus of the University of New Hampshire, found
evidence that this traditional practice leads to more antisocial
behaviors.2 The study found that mothers who had spanked even once
during a test week reported higher rates of antisocial behavior by their
children two years following the spankings.

Other studies have revealed similar effects. Three separate studies of
children with serious conduct problems, conducted by Grozier and Katz
(1979), Patterson (1982), and Webster-Stratton et al. (1988, 1990),
found that when spanking was discontinued and other forms of discipline
and behavior management were used instead, the children's behavior
improved. A study conducted by researchers at McMasters University found
that anxiety disorders, drug and alcohol problems, antisocial behavior,
and depression were more prevalent among adults who had been spanked as
children.3 Because of this vast amount of research, the American Academy
of Pediatrics has called for a ban on school spanking. ...

And interesting bit you might have not followed, but when Doug joined in
on this debate on spanking while he defended the right of parents to use
spanking he curiously state he chose not to use it with his children.

To date he has failed to answer why.

If it's safe, and effective, why NOT use it?

Could it be he KNOWS it's not safe and effective?

Apparently he does not want to deal with real issues.

I suggest he read Baumrind very carefully when she mades her claims from
the Berkeley address to the APA, and the fallout she created by her
signficant change of direction from earlier research.

Apparently she let Larzerele rub off on her.

http://www.irregulartimes.com/cpbaumrind.html

... One must ask the obvious question: Why would any adult purposefully
inflict pain upon a child with the knowledge that the pain would bring
no benefit to the child? To inflict pain upon children without need is
surely among the most cruel acts we can imagine.

The Constitution of the United States of America, guarantees that all
people who live within the borders of the United States are entitled to
protection against cruel and unusual punishment, whether they are
citizens or not. Additionally, assault is a crime in every state in the
union. Therefore, proponents of the disciplinary corporal punishment of
children are not just asking to engage in a necessary practice, but to
gain a special exemption from the Constitution and from ordinary
criminal law. Surely, in order to be granted this special exemption, it
must be demonstrated that the practice of disciplinary corporal
punishment not only causes no harm, but that it is necessary and beneficial.

It seems to me that the Owens-Baumrind report recognizes only half of
the necessary criteria to remove "a blanket injunction against
disciplinary spanking". The pain that could be brought to children as a
result of the publicity surrounding this study dictates that all reports
and presentations related to it discuss not only whether the data show a
correlation between disciplinary corporal punishment and long-lasting
harmful effects, but also whether the data show a correlation between
disciplinary corporal punishment and long-lasting beneficial effects. In
other words, Owens and Baumrind have the responsibility to discuss
whether corporal punishment has any disciplinary benefits in addition to
discussing whether corporal punishment is actually harmful.

The omission of any such discussion suggests that the Owens-Baumrind
data does not reveal any disciplinary benefits of the corporal
punishment of children. Indeed, there are no peer-reviewed studies that
demonstrate any long-lasting benefits of corporal punishment. Given the
lack causually relevant scientific of evidence for disciplinary benefits
of corporal punishment, the extreme legal exemptions that corporal
punishment requires and the high price of pain inflicted upon children
who are corporally punished, there is indeed ample justification for a
general rejection of the use of corporal punishment for disciplinary
reasons.

It all boils down to this: when it comes to physical, emotional and
disciplinary well-being of our children, methods that depend upon
violent interactions between adult and child must be justified by
evidence of substantial benefit, not the absence of evidence of
substantial harm. ...

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
What do you think the child abuse rate is ...
for parents who spank vs parents who do not spank?

Doesn't that depend on the caseworker?

Not all child abuse is a civil matter.

And yes, that wish is, is. Caseworkers, and their supervisors make the
call, and try to sell it to the judge at the shelter hearing.

Since many caseworkers are anti-spanking

Your proof of this would be?

You are making an assumption, aren't you, Greg?

I have found over the years a great number of CPS workers that are in
fact spankers and believe in spanking. How do you explain that?

aren't their decisions colored by their bias?

Everyone's decisions CAN be colored by their biases. The question is,
prove that this is so for the cases, or a case in particular, and go
from there with your accusation.

If all things were identical except for spanking,
of course the spanking parents would be
founded at a higher rate because of this bias.

Why, "of course?"

Moral people with biases account for them.

For instance, I've pointed out to you in the question on homosexuallity
that comes up here from time to time, that I find homosexuals sexual
behavior somewhat repulsive.

Would you say that my bias has colored my views when it comes to the
rights of homosexuals?

YOU are projecting, Greg. YOU have biases that most certainly push you
into attacks and attemps to deny OTHERS their rights.

Not everyone does this thing you do.

Trust me on this.

If you read policy, by the way, you will find that there are strict
guildlines as to what must be present to have a finding of abuse in a
"spanking" discipline allegation of abuse.

There must be marks of certain kinds, and they must last a certain
length of time.

They even, in some states, have guidelines for workers dealing with
children of various skin colors and shades. Light skinned children are
seen as showing often MORE fearsome looking marks, but in fact aren't
really "injured." Darker skinned children the marks are harder to read
so closer examination with medical health involvement is often used.
Xrays and such.

In many states unless there is severe bruising and or breaks in the
skin, or underlying broken bones it's a NO GO for physical abuse.

If you don't think so, check out some of the anti spanking sites that
show photos of children that were paddled and NO charges brought
against the perp.

Or if brought, found in court to NOT be abuse.

I've listed a few here.

You simply have no argument, Greg, so I expect you'll go on a Doangent
any moment now and challenge my credentials, or try to engage me in
some OTHER argument rather than admit your bull**** insinuations are
empty headed prattle.

0:-]

Kane wrote
And yes, that wish is, is.

Huh?

For instance, I've pointed out to you in the question on homosexuallity
that comes up here from time to time, that I find homosexuals sexual
behavior somewhat repulsive.

Would you say that my bias has colored my views when it comes to the
rights of homosexuals?

YOU are projecting, Greg. YOU have biases that most certainly push you
into attacks and attemps to deny OTHERS their rights.

Like Mark Foley?

Not everyone does this thing you do.

Trust me on this.

If you read policy, by the way, you will find that there are strict
guildlines as to what must be present to have a finding of abuse in a
"spanking" discipline allegation of abuse.

There must be marks of certain kinds, and they must last a certain
length of time.

Or they could just tell a "moral and ethical lie" as you've explained.

Kane said
snip!

Greegor wrote:
Kane wrote
And yes, that wish is, is.

Huh?

Sorry, typo. It should have read, and might have been figured out if you
had not aborted, without NOTICE, the previous and following lines
surrounding the comment with correction in caps:

"Not all child abuse is a civil matter.

And yes, that WHICH is, is. Caseworkers, and their supervisors make the
call, and try to sell it to the judge at the shelter hearing."

For instance, I've pointed out to you in the question on homosexuallity
that comes up here from time to time, that I find homosexuals sexual
behavior somewhat repulsive.

Would you say that my bias has colored my views when it comes to the
rights of homosexuals?

YOU are projecting, Greg. YOU have biases that most certainly push you
into attacks and attemps to deny OTHERS their rights.

Like Mark Foley?

I've not seen discussion on "rights" related to Foley. He violated, if
the evidence pans out, some laws. What connection to rights they have
are up for argument.

Do you have any, and would you like to present them?

Please do.

Not everyone does this thing you do.

Trust me on this.

If you read policy, by the way, you will find that there are strict
guildlines as to what must be present to have a finding of abuse in a
"spanking" discipline allegation of abuse.

There must be marks of certain kinds, and they must last a certain
length of time.

Or they could just tell a "moral and ethical lie" as you've explained.

No, I've not suggested that workers tell moral and ethical lies. On the
contrary, there are times when they really should, cannot, and do not.

Often it results in the child being returned home for "lack of
sufficient evidence," and the child gets to return and be hurt and or
killed.

Everything in the worker's gut tells them that this is a dangerous
family, but clever helpers, such as you, provide just enough bull**** to
hide evidence, and sure enough, children die.

Then YOU get to chortle about the malpractice of CPS.


Kane said
snip!

Well, at least you posted your abortion. I wonder what it was you didn't
want to deal with.

0;-]