[BeaverFever]

Psudo wrote:

An illuminating aside from the article: "(three quarters of substantiated cases of child physical abuse in Canada are incidents of physical punishment)". I take this to mean that a significant amount of full-on physical abuse is grouped in with spanking as if there is no distinction. Parents who spank certainly make a distinction between spanking a child and battering them black-and-blue; can a thorough investigation of the issue avoid consideration of that perspective? If the research has not made that distinction, a lot more of those studies would take the "makes no difference" stance and support some parents' theory of short-term benefit at no cost. I can't actually say if that methodological mistake occurred because this is not a scientific paper and has little to say about methodology. Certainly Ensom and Durrant make no attempt to make that distinction in their informal writing.

No, I think what that says is that 3/4 of actual physical abusecases occurred in situations where the parent was punishing the child (e.g your kid talks back to you so you knock his teeth out). This is compared to abuse where there was no discipline motive (eg a drunk who beats their kid for no reason).

I think we have to ask how does spanking differ from non-physical punishment, like sending kids to their room or taking away their toys? Both force the child to suffer as a consequence for their bad behaviour, but spanking does this by inflicting physical pain on the child, period. I dont know why anyone would think deliberately inflicting physical pain is necessary or healthy. After all, we dont even do that to adult criminals. Sending a kid to their room with no toys is the equivalent of a jail sentence and it doesnt teach kids that violence is an acceptable means of contolling other peoples behaviour.

[Brenda]

Is a slap (blame ESL, lack of better word) on the diaper considered spanking?
Is a slap (see above) on the fingers when a 2 year old for the 100th time in 3 minutes put their hand where they shouldn't be and you took it away from the danger (hot tea, candle, pen, whatever it wants to touch on the coffee table) gently 99 times, spanking?

[andyt]

Psudo wrote:

The actual article Ron Ensom and Joan Durrant wrote is entitled "Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth" and is on pages 28-29 of Canada's Children.

The criticism of "physical punishment" (the word "spank" does not appear in the article; "hit" is also commonly used) is that "physical punishment of children and youth plays no useful role in their upbringing and poses only risks to their development." As is clear to any parent who has seen first-hand any change of behavior due to spanking, this is not true in the short-term. This is a description of the long-term effects. The question of spanking is, then, an exchange, short term benefit for some risk of long-term detriment. If a parent believes that they can intentionally evade the consequences of that long-term risk (a plausible scenario, even defended by "a few studies" according to your source), this becomes a beneficial exchange; short-term benefit with minimal or no side effects.

An illuminating aside from the article: "(three quarters of substantiated cases of child physical abuse in Canada are incidents of physical punishment)". I take this to mean that a significant amount of full-on physical abuse is grouped in with spanking as if there is no distinction. Parents who spank certainly make a distinction between spanking a child and battering them black-and-blue; can a thorough investigation of the issue avoid consideration of that perspective? If the research has not made that distinction, a lot more of those studies would take the "makes no difference" stance and support some parents' theory of short-term benefit at no cost. I can't actually say if that methodological mistake occurred because this is not a scientific paper and has little to say about methodology. Certainly Ensom and Durrant make no attempt to make that distinction in their informal writing.

So, congratulations! Your sources prove that the issue lies where we all suspected it was anyway; violence is bad, but spanking isn't necessarily. But some want to call it assault anyway.

Well no, the research paper the news outlets were talking about is this: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/0 ... l.pdf+html but you need a subscription to the cmaj to view it.

Am I reading you right that you don't see spanking as physical punishment?

I don't think your logic is on when you claim my source proves what you say it does. You would have to review all the research papers these authors reviewed for their meta analysis to make that point.

And the quote you selected doesn't say what you seem to infer. What it is saying is that 3/4 of physical child abuse was administered with the intent to punish/correct the child - ie spanking that went way wrong. The other 1/4 would be actual physical harm done for it's own sake.

[Gunnair]

andyt wrote:

Psudo wrote:

The actual article Ron Ensom and Joan Durrant wrote is entitled "Joint Statement on Physical Punishment of Children and Youth" and is on pages 28-29 of Canada's Children.

The criticism of "physical punishment" (the word "spank" does not appear in the article; "hit" is also commonly used) is that "physical punishment of children and youth plays no useful role in their upbringing and poses only risks to their development." As is clear to any parent who has seen first-hand any change of behavior due to spanking, this is not true in the short-term. This is a description of the long-term effects. The question of spanking is, then, an exchange, short term benefit for some risk of long-term detriment. If a parent believes that they can intentionally evade the consequences of that long-term risk (a plausible scenario, even defended by "a few studies" according to your source), this becomes a beneficial exchange; short-term benefit with minimal or no side effects.

An illuminating aside from the article: "(three quarters of substantiated cases of child physical abuse in Canada are incidents of physical punishment)". I take this to mean that a significant amount of full-on physical abuse is grouped in with spanking as if there is no distinction. Parents who spank certainly make a distinction between spanking a child and battering them black-and-blue; can a thorough investigation of the issue avoid consideration of that perspective? If the research has not made that distinction, a lot more of those studies would take the "makes no difference" stance and support some parents' theory of short-term benefit at no cost. I can't actually say if that methodological mistake occurred because this is not a scientific paper and has little to say about methodology. Certainly Ensom and Durrant make no attempt to make that distinction in their informal writing.

So, congratulations! Your sources prove that the issue lies where we all suspected it was anyway; violence is bad, but spanking isn't necessarily. But some want to call it assault anyway.

Well no, the research paper the news outlets were talking about is this: http://www.cmaj.ca/content/early/2012/0 ... l.pdf+html but you need a subscription to the cmaj to view it.

Am I reading you right that you don't see spanking as physical punishment?

I don't think your logic is on when you claim my source proves what you say it does. You would have to review all the research papers these authors reviewed for their meta analysis to make that point.

And the quote you selected doesn't say what you seem to infer. What it is saying is that 3/4 of physical child abuse was administered with the intent to punish/correct the child - ie spanking that went way wrong. The other 1/4 would be actual physical harm done for it's own sake.

You have kids, right?

[andyt]

Brenda wrote:

Is a slap (blame ESL, lack of better word) on the diaper considered spanking?
Is a slap (see above) on the fingers when a 2 year old for the 100th time in 3 minutes put their hand where they shouldn't be and you took it away from the danger (hot tea, candle, pen, whatever it wants to touch on the coffee table) gently 99 times, spanking?

I would think the authors would consider it such, which is why they use the term physical punishment. It's not all about any pain administered - they're saying that by resorting to physical means to correct your child, you're setting a poor example, at the least.

[andyt]

Gunnair wrote:

You have kids, right?

Are you asking me or the authors of the research? Which person would be more relevant to ask?

[Gunnair]

andyt wrote:

Gunnair wrote:

You have kids, right?

Are you asking me or the authors of the research? Which person would be more relevant to ask?

I'm asking you.

[andyt]

Why?

[Brenda]

andyt wrote:

Brenda wrote:

Is a slap (blame ESL, lack of better word) on the diaper considered spanking?
Is a slap (see above) on the fingers when a 2 year old for the 100th time in 3 minutes put their hand where they shouldn't be and you took it away from the danger (hot tea, candle, pen, whatever it wants to touch on the coffee table) gently 99 times, spanking?

I would think the authors would consider it such, which is why they use the term physical punishment. It's not all about any pain administered - they're saying that by resorting to physical means to correct your child, you're setting a poor example, at the least.

Oh. Well, then they can suck it.

I take it the humiliation of (inflicted by? It's Saturday and early ) slapping my teenager on the ass in a busy store because I told her to stop nagging more than once, and warned her I would do slap her ass, is not to their liking either. Since it is effective, it is to my liking.

[andyt]

Just hope she doesn't smack you back when she (and you) gets older. If you're dependent on her for care, and suffering from dementia, and she gives you a smack to stop you doing something, do you think that's OK?

[Brenda]

andyt wrote:

Just hope she doesn't smack you back when she (and you) gets older. If you're dependent on her for care, and suffering from dementia, and she gives you a smack to stop you doing something, do you think that's OK?

I think by then, she is an adult and will know I deserve the respect to not do so. She does not deserve my respect when she is disrespectful to me, since I am the adult and she is not.

Other than that, I do not expect her to take care of me 24/7 if and when that happens. There are professionals for that. She is not. She is my child.

Btw, I am offended by you assuming abuse, using the word "smack". "Smacking" (and correct me if I am wrong), shows intent to cause pain.

[andyt]

I guess you're safe then.

[Brenda]

andyt wrote:

I guess you're safe then.

You don't have kids, do you.

Because if you had, you would know that soft approach and trying to talk sense or reason into teens (or toddlers) is not working.

[andyt]

Talking sense to a toddler doesn't make much sense. Doesn't mean you have to hit them. Just that non physical methods take more time and patience. Something parents don't allow themselves.

Hitting a teen is just nuts. They can reason and will understand consequences - again, takes a little more time and patience. As the authors point out, hitting will just boomerang on you. Saves a bit of time and effort in the moment, but not in the long run. Basically you're reaping what you sowed earlier.

I don't have kids, but I was one. I wasn't spanked often, but when I was, it just made me more angry and resentful. I basically considered it a form of betrayal in the trust I had in the parent. I responded much better to non-physical consequences. All you're doing when you spank is teaching that might makes right and humiliating the child.

[Brenda]

andyt wrote:

Talking sense to a toddler doesn't make much sense. Doesn't mean you have to hit them. Just that non physical methods take more time and patience. Something parents don't allow themselves.

Hitting a teen is just nuts. They can reason and will understand consequences - again, takes a little more time and patience. As the authors point out, hitting will just boomerang on you. Saves a bit of time and effort in the moment, but not in the long run. Basically you're reaping what you sowed earlier.

I wish you luck with your soft and gentle approach. I also wish you luck with keeping your patience.

I have talked to my teen forever. Warned her before we went into a store to not nag me for stuff, we are only going for this this and this, and nothing else. The moment we walk in the store, the nagging starts. 15 minutes of constant nagging and constant "no" was not effective. 2 warnings and one slap (I oppose the word "hit") on her butt in front of people did the trick. I still use that incident as an example when she starts on me again. She has never let it come that far anymore. You tell me, what was more effective?