Why? This statement is a lot of bunk.
Surprise! Massachusetts pushes for spanking ban
- Thread starter TheDanold
- Start date
Why? This statement is a lot of bunk.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Isn't it clear?
You teach violence to your children and they send it back out. Anyone who spanks is a terrible parent and should be ashamed of themselves.
That's not true. My mom used to light my a$$ up and she was a great parent!
Lovely. Glad to know it. Anyone who spanks and sends the message to his/her child that spanking is violence.......oh forget it.
Thanks LadyT. This is really not so much a liberal vs. conservative issue. The only thing is that liberals in politics are more likely to propose such bans.
Answering a question with another question. That's a good one. I asked you first.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Anti-spanking advocates argue chiefly that spanking is abusive, that it is ineffective, and that it teaches children that physical violence is an acceptable way to deal with other people. They point to the fact that scientific research has failed to back up any of the claims in favor of spanking while research has consistently shown that the number one predictor of violent behavior is whether someone comes from a home where violence is practiced, including a home where children are subjected to physical punishment. Some believe that spanking contributes to physical abuse in cases of domestic violence, bullying at school and physical abuse on siblings. Most violent criminals were spanked as children and many cases of bullying at school have been linked to physical abuse cases. Spanking is also criticized for being a violation[14] of human rights. Many are concerned by the fact that spanking is a sexual activity enjoyed by large sections of the adult population and are afraid that spanking might constitute sexual abuse or cause sexual dysfunction.
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) official policy statement [5] states that "Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior." The AAP states that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used". Furthermore, they state that "The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults [15] Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents.[16]"
The American Psychological Association opposes the use of corporal punishment in schools, juvenile facilities, child care nurseries, and all other institutions, public or private, where children are cared for or educated (Conger, 1975). They state that corporal punishment is violent, unnecessary, may lower self-esteem, is likely to train children to use physical violence, and is liable to instill hostility and rage without reducing the undesired behavior. [17]
The Canadian Pediatrics Society policy on spanking states "The Psychosocial Paediatrics Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society has carefully reviewed the available research in the controversial area of disciplinary spanking (7-15)... The research that is available supports the position that spanking and other forms of physical punishment are associated with negative child outcomes. The Canadian Paediatric Society, therefore, recommends that physicians strongly discourage disciplinary spanking and all other forms of physical punishment" [18]
England's Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Royal College of Psychiatrists have called for a complete ban on all corporal punishment, stating "We believe it is both wrong and impracticable to seek to define acceptable forms of corporal punishment of children. Such an exercise is unjust. Hitting children is a lesson in bad behaviour."[19] and that "it is never appropriate to hit or beat children" [20]
The Australian Psychological Society holds that physical punishment of children should not be used as it has very limited capacity to deter unwanted behavior, does not teach alternative desirable behavior, often promotes further undersirable behaviors such as defiance and attachment to "delinquent" peer groups, encourages an acceptance of aggression and violence as acceptable responses to conflicts and problems[21]
UNESCO states "During the Commission on Human Rights, UNESCO launched a new report entitled "Eliminating Corporal Punishment - The Way Forward to Constructive Child Discipline". The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has consistently recommended States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment and other forms of violence against children in institutions, in schools, and in the homes...To discipline or punish through physical harm is clearly a violation of the most basic of human rights. Research on corporal punishment has found it to be counterproductive and relatively ineffective, as well as dangerous and harmful to physical, psychological and social well being. While many States have developed child protection laws and systems violence still continues to be inflicted upon children".[22]
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends that States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment in institutions, in schools, and in the home.[23]
Even without sexual motives on the part of the punisher, some maintain that spanking can interfere with a child’s normal sexual and psychological development. Because the buttocks are so close to the genitals and so multiply linked to sexual nerve centers, slapping them can trigger powerful and involuntary sensations of sexual stimulation. This can happen even in very young children, and even in spite of great, clearly upsetting pain.[24]
Dr. Teresa Whitehurst said "The literature is replete with accounts of rape victims who never came forward to name their accuser or even to admit they'd been violated because they were so ashamed at their bodies' involuntary response to touch, thinking that this would suggest they enjoyed the assault. Nerve endings can and do function without our conscious consent. The pendulum is beginning to turn against spanking and paddling as science amasses more and more evidence regarding the sexual role played by the buttocks, and the ways in which any touch--with a hand or with a paddle--can create unwelcome but unavoidable arousal." Dr. Teresa Whitehurst, member of ChristCentered Christians for Nonviolent Parenting (CCNP); clinical psychologist; author of How Would Jesus Raise a Child? (Baker Books, 2003), Project Zero, Harvard's premier research institution.
Opponents also hold that spanking is ineffective and that other forms of discipline are more successful at teaching a child to behave properly. Also, unlike taking away a child's favorite toy, spanking is permanent and cannot be reversed if it is determined that it was not actually warranted. Spanking may lead to psychological damage and even possible PTS syndrome-related effects due to prolonged fear, feelings of mistrust , being un-loved and love-shyness, alike with bullying at school or other forms of abuse.
The fact that a parent (or other caregiver) is allowed to inflict physical and emotional pain on a child, whereas the same act performed upon another adult would be tantamount to assault, also brings into question the appropriateness of this form of physical punishment. For example, when Michael Fay, a young American man, was caned in Singapore, some Americans expressed outrage against that form of punishment.
Opponents also claim that spanking teaches children that violence is an appropriate way to treat one who offends. Some believe that spanking, like clear-cut forms of physical abuse, may perpetuate a "cycle of violence" which contributes to violent behavior in the child as an adult. Children learn by example, and those subjected to the deliberate infliction of physical pain "to teach them a lesson" will, the argument goes, learn that this is an appropriate way to treat others who have wronged them.
It is also argued that there is a significant risk in regards to the trust of a parent.[/B] If children feel that they are being threatened by this form of chastisement, it is likely that they may have difficulty believing that the parents are there to protect them because of the claim "I would never hurt you" has been violated. This may impair their ability to follow their parents or do what they advise and to listen to them. (Though, as hinted in the preceding section, pro-spankers would object that it is refusing to spank, rather than spanking, that violates the claim "I will never hurt you", since in their view one harms the child by not giving due, reasonable and timely punishment and, in their view, responsible spanking is a licit means of inflicting such punishment).
It is also attested by neurological studies on neuronal stengthening and pain in brain development that children have a much lower pain threshold than adults.[citation needed]
When "Biblical" pro-spanking advocates use the "he who spares the rod hates his son" quote from Proverbs 13:24 to support their position, some anti-spankers try to turn the tables by noting that Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, to whom the book of Proverbs is traditionally attributed, grew up to be such a despised ruler that he split his nation in two. But since the traditional attribution of Proverbs to Solomon has been disputed by some biblical scholars, this is a dubious line of argument. A better objection against the use of Proverbs 13:24 to support spanking is that the Old Testament, from which the book of Proverbs comes, contains many instructions that we today have no moral obligation to follow, such as that a child of unmarried parents may not enter a place of worship (Deuteronomy 23:2), that a menstruating woman must sacrifice two turtles or pigeons to cleanse herself (Leviticus 15: 19-29), and that the parents of a gluttonous and drunkard child, who repeatedly rebels against them, should denounce the child to the men of the city, who should then execute the child by stoning (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Such verses are considered instructions but most Christians would not advocate the stoning to death of drunkard children or adulterers. On the other hand, this view completely ignores the fact that the verses which mention "the rod" are from the book of Proverbs, historically interpreted as advice, not law. However, the passages from Deuteronomy and Leviticus are part of the Torah, the Jewish system of law, which Christians reckon obsolete due to Christ's fulfillment of the law. Some religious organizations outside Christianity, such as Hinduism and the Church of the Cosmic Order, oppose spanking as it is against their teachings. [citation needed]
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) official policy statement [5] states that "Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior." The AAP states that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used". Furthermore, they state that "The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults [15] Spanking has been associated with higher rates of physical aggression, more substance abuse, and increased risk of crime and violence when used with older children and adolescents.[16]"
The American Psychological Association opposes the use of corporal punishment in schools, juvenile facilities, child care nurseries, and all other institutions, public or private, where children are cared for or educated (Conger, 1975). They state that corporal punishment is violent, unnecessary, may lower self-esteem, is likely to train children to use physical violence, and is liable to instill hostility and rage without reducing the undesired behavior. [17]
The Canadian Pediatrics Society policy on spanking states "The Psychosocial Paediatrics Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society has carefully reviewed the available research in the controversial area of disciplinary spanking (7-15)... The research that is available supports the position that spanking and other forms of physical punishment are associated with negative child outcomes. The Canadian Paediatric Society, therefore, recommends that physicians strongly discourage disciplinary spanking and all other forms of physical punishment" [18]
England's Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Royal College of Psychiatrists have called for a complete ban on all corporal punishment, stating "We believe it is both wrong and impracticable to seek to define acceptable forms of corporal punishment of children. Such an exercise is unjust. Hitting children is a lesson in bad behaviour."[19] and that "it is never appropriate to hit or beat children" [20]
The Australian Psychological Society holds that physical punishment of children should not be used as it has very limited capacity to deter unwanted behavior, does not teach alternative desirable behavior, often promotes further undersirable behaviors such as defiance and attachment to "delinquent" peer groups, encourages an acceptance of aggression and violence as acceptable responses to conflicts and problems[21]
UNESCO states "During the Commission on Human Rights, UNESCO launched a new report entitled "Eliminating Corporal Punishment - The Way Forward to Constructive Child Discipline". The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child has consistently recommended States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment and other forms of violence against children in institutions, in schools, and in the homes...To discipline or punish through physical harm is clearly a violation of the most basic of human rights. Research on corporal punishment has found it to be counterproductive and relatively ineffective, as well as dangerous and harmful to physical, psychological and social well being. While many States have developed child protection laws and systems violence still continues to be inflicted upon children".[22]
The United Nations Committee on the Rights of the Child recommends that States Parties to the Convention on the Rights of the Child to prohibit corporal punishment in institutions, in schools, and in the home.[23]
Even without sexual motives on the part of the punisher, some maintain that spanking can interfere with a child’s normal sexual and psychological development. Because the buttocks are so close to the genitals and so multiply linked to sexual nerve centers, slapping them can trigger powerful and involuntary sensations of sexual stimulation. This can happen even in very young children, and even in spite of great, clearly upsetting pain.[24]
Dr. Teresa Whitehurst said "The literature is replete with accounts of rape victims who never came forward to name their accuser or even to admit they'd been violated because they were so ashamed at their bodies' involuntary response to touch, thinking that this would suggest they enjoyed the assault. Nerve endings can and do function without our conscious consent. The pendulum is beginning to turn against spanking and paddling as science amasses more and more evidence regarding the sexual role played by the buttocks, and the ways in which any touch--with a hand or with a paddle--can create unwelcome but unavoidable arousal." Dr. Teresa Whitehurst, member of ChristCentered Christians for Nonviolent Parenting (CCNP); clinical psychologist; author of How Would Jesus Raise a Child? (Baker Books, 2003), Project Zero, Harvard's premier research institution.
Opponents also hold that spanking is ineffective and that other forms of discipline are more successful at teaching a child to behave properly. Also, unlike taking away a child's favorite toy, spanking is permanent and cannot be reversed if it is determined that it was not actually warranted. Spanking may lead to psychological damage and even possible PTS syndrome-related effects due to prolonged fear, feelings of mistrust , being un-loved and love-shyness, alike with bullying at school or other forms of abuse.
The fact that a parent (or other caregiver) is allowed to inflict physical and emotional pain on a child, whereas the same act performed upon another adult would be tantamount to assault, also brings into question the appropriateness of this form of physical punishment. For example, when Michael Fay, a young American man, was caned in Singapore, some Americans expressed outrage against that form of punishment.
Opponents also claim that spanking teaches children that violence is an appropriate way to treat one who offends. Some believe that spanking, like clear-cut forms of physical abuse, may perpetuate a "cycle of violence" which contributes to violent behavior in the child as an adult. Children learn by example, and those subjected to the deliberate infliction of physical pain "to teach them a lesson" will, the argument goes, learn that this is an appropriate way to treat others who have wronged them.
It is also argued that there is a significant risk in regards to the trust of a parent.[/B] If children feel that they are being threatened by this form of chastisement, it is likely that they may have difficulty believing that the parents are there to protect them because of the claim "I would never hurt you" has been violated. This may impair their ability to follow their parents or do what they advise and to listen to them. (Though, as hinted in the preceding section, pro-spankers would object that it is refusing to spank, rather than spanking, that violates the claim "I will never hurt you", since in their view one harms the child by not giving due, reasonable and timely punishment and, in their view, responsible spanking is a licit means of inflicting such punishment).
It is also attested by neurological studies on neuronal stengthening and pain in brain development that children have a much lower pain threshold than adults.[citation needed]
When "Biblical" pro-spanking advocates use the "he who spares the rod hates his son" quote from Proverbs 13:24 to support their position, some anti-spankers try to turn the tables by noting that Rehoboam, the son of Solomon, to whom the book of Proverbs is traditionally attributed, grew up to be such a despised ruler that he split his nation in two. But since the traditional attribution of Proverbs to Solomon has been disputed by some biblical scholars, this is a dubious line of argument. A better objection against the use of Proverbs 13:24 to support spanking is that the Old Testament, from which the book of Proverbs comes, contains many instructions that we today have no moral obligation to follow, such as that a child of unmarried parents may not enter a place of worship (Deuteronomy 23:2), that a menstruating woman must sacrifice two turtles or pigeons to cleanse herself (Leviticus 15: 19-29), and that the parents of a gluttonous and drunkard child, who repeatedly rebels against them, should denounce the child to the men of the city, who should then execute the child by stoning (Deuteronomy 21:18-21). Such verses are considered instructions but most Christians would not advocate the stoning to death of drunkard children or adulterers. On the other hand, this view completely ignores the fact that the verses which mention "the rod" are from the book of Proverbs, historically interpreted as advice, not law. However, the passages from Deuteronomy and Leviticus are part of the Torah, the Jewish system of law, which Christians reckon obsolete due to Christ's fulfillment of the law. Some religious organizations outside Christianity, such as Hinduism and the Church of the Cosmic Order, oppose spanking as it is against their teachings. [citation needed]
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
And that was irresponsible and wrong of her.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Anyone who spanks their children is sending the message that violence is acceptable, ignorant fuckwad.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
You know, Oprah was sexually molested as a child. She grew up to be a great person. Does that mean sexual molestation is acceptable?
Actually its presumptuous and erroneous of you to assume it was wrong & irresponsible of her.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
I'm just amazed at how much support we have for child abuse at this site, a practice that has been disproved in effectiveness for more than 100 years. ABUSING YOUR CHILD CLEARLY DOESN'T MAKE THEM A BETTER PERSON.
Battleborne
Terminator
Waterboy...........
is frankly just plain nuts...he goes on false outrage diatribes quite frequently...maybe his momma and pappa were really kinky...so he thinks all parents are like his...a sorry state of affairs in the waterboy house!
is frankly just plain nuts...he goes on false outrage diatribes quite frequently...maybe his momma and pappa were really kinky...so he thinks all parents are like his...a sorry state of affairs in the waterboy house!
Let the spamming begin!
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/24_spank.html
UC Berkeley study finds no lasting harm among adolescents from moderate spanking earlier in childhood
24 August 2001
By Patricia McBroom, Media Relations
Berkeley - Occasional spanking does not damage a child's social or emotional development, according to a study of long-term consequences in the lives of more than 100 families, reported today (Friday, Aug. 24) by a University of California, Berkeley, psychologist.
The research presented by Diana Baumrind, who co-authored the study with Elizabeth Owens, both research psychologists at UC Berkeley's Institute of Human Development, calls into question a current claim that any physical punishment is harmful to a child.
The study separates out parents who use spanking frequently and severely - resulting in evidence of harm - and focuses on those families who occasionally spank their children, a practice that Baumrind calls normal for the population sampled.
By "spanking," Baumrind refers to striking the child on the buttocks, hands or legs with an open hand without inflicting physical injury and with the intention of modifying the child's behavior.
Baumrind's study also compares spanking with another kind of discipline, namely verbal punishment.
"We found no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment," Baumrind said in an invited address to the American Psychological Association annual meeting today in San Francisco.
"I am not an advocate of spanking," said Baumrind, "but a blanket injunction against its use is not warranted by the evidence. It is reliance on physical punishment, not whether or not it is used at all, that is associated with harm to the child."
She said that, in the absence of compelling evidence of harm, parental autonomy and family privacy should be protected.
Her study of spanking in middle-class, white families was undertaken in response to anti-spanking advocates who have claimed that physical punishment, by itself, has harmful psychological effects on children and hurts society as a whole.
These claims, Baumrind said, have not distinguished the effects of occasional mild-to-moderate spanking from more severe punishment, or taken into account such confounding factors as earlier child misbehavior and the effects of total child rearing patterns - from rejection, on one hand, to warmth and explanation, on the other.
The UC Berkeley study, however, was able to account for all of these factors and others, due to its unique data base. The data were drawn from longitudinal records of child rearing and child outcome in California East Bay families collected at the Institute of Human Development. Families in the Family Socialization and Developmental Competence Project (FSP) were first studied in 1968 when their children were preschoolers, and then in 1972-73 and 1978-80, when the children were early primary schoolers and early adolescents.
In addition to the rich archival material on parental styles and discipline, combined with independent observations and interviews with the children, Baumrind's team created a new instrument for the spanking study. Called the Parent Disciplinary Rating Scale, this instrument rated parents on their strategies for using discipline.
Few of the families, only 4 percent, never used physical punishment when their children were preschoolers, but there was a wide range in the frequency and severity of spanking throughout the whole sample, said Baumrind.
A small minority of parents, from 4 to 7 percent depending on the time period, used physical punishment often and with some intensity. Although these parents were not legally abusive, they were overly severe and used spanking impulsively. Hitting occurred frequently, but it was the intensity that really identified this group, said Baumrind.
She said intensity was rated high if the parent said he or she used a paddle or other instrument to strike the child, or hit on the face or torso, or lifted to throw or shake the child.
This group of parents, identified in the "red zone" for "stop" was removed from the sample at the first stage of analysis. With them went most of the correlations initially found between spanking and long-term harm to children, said Baumrind.
"When we removed this 'red zone' group of parents," said Baumrind, "we were left with very few small but significant correlations between normative physical punishment and later misbehavior among the children at age 8 to 9.
"Red zone parents are rejecting, exploitative and impulsive. They are parents who punish beyond the norm. You have very little to explain after you remove this small group."
She said the few links that remained were explained by the child's prior misbehavior. In other words, when researchers controlled for the tendency of the child to be uncooperative or defiant as preschoolers, all correlations between spanking and harmful effects were close to zero.
In addition to a "red zone," parents were classified into orange, yellow and green zones.
"There were no significant differences between children of parents who spanked seldom (green zone) and those who spanked moderately (yellow zone)," Baumrind said.
Families in the orange zone could have used spanking often, but with little or no intensity. Those in the "yellow zone" used physical punishment only occasionally, with little or no intensity, while those in the "green zone" used little or no physical punishment with no intensity.
The children of parents in the green zone who never spanked were not better adjusted than those, also in the green zone, who were spanked very seldomly, Baumrind said.
Studies of verbal punishment yielded similar results, in that researchers found correlations just as high, and sometimes higher, for total verbal punishment and harm to the child, as for total physical punishment and harm.
"What really matters," said Baumrind, "is the child rearing context. When parents are loving and firm and communicate well with the child (a pattern Baumrind calls authoritative) the children are exceptionally competent and well adjusted, whether or not their parents spanked them as preschoolers."
Baumrind emphasized that her study does not address at all the damaging effects of abusive physical punishment, of which she and other researchers have found ample evidence.
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2001/08/24_spank.html
UC Berkeley study finds no lasting harm among adolescents from moderate spanking earlier in childhood
24 August 2001
By Patricia McBroom, Media Relations
Berkeley - Occasional spanking does not damage a child's social or emotional development, according to a study of long-term consequences in the lives of more than 100 families, reported today (Friday, Aug. 24) by a University of California, Berkeley, psychologist.
The research presented by Diana Baumrind, who co-authored the study with Elizabeth Owens, both research psychologists at UC Berkeley's Institute of Human Development, calls into question a current claim that any physical punishment is harmful to a child.
The study separates out parents who use spanking frequently and severely - resulting in evidence of harm - and focuses on those families who occasionally spank their children, a practice that Baumrind calls normal for the population sampled.
By "spanking," Baumrind refers to striking the child on the buttocks, hands or legs with an open hand without inflicting physical injury and with the intention of modifying the child's behavior.
Baumrind's study also compares spanking with another kind of discipline, namely verbal punishment.
"We found no evidence for unique detrimental effects of normative physical punishment," Baumrind said in an invited address to the American Psychological Association annual meeting today in San Francisco.
"I am not an advocate of spanking," said Baumrind, "but a blanket injunction against its use is not warranted by the evidence. It is reliance on physical punishment, not whether or not it is used at all, that is associated with harm to the child."
She said that, in the absence of compelling evidence of harm, parental autonomy and family privacy should be protected.
Her study of spanking in middle-class, white families was undertaken in response to anti-spanking advocates who have claimed that physical punishment, by itself, has harmful psychological effects on children and hurts society as a whole.
These claims, Baumrind said, have not distinguished the effects of occasional mild-to-moderate spanking from more severe punishment, or taken into account such confounding factors as earlier child misbehavior and the effects of total child rearing patterns - from rejection, on one hand, to warmth and explanation, on the other.
The UC Berkeley study, however, was able to account for all of these factors and others, due to its unique data base. The data were drawn from longitudinal records of child rearing and child outcome in California East Bay families collected at the Institute of Human Development. Families in the Family Socialization and Developmental Competence Project (FSP) were first studied in 1968 when their children were preschoolers, and then in 1972-73 and 1978-80, when the children were early primary schoolers and early adolescents.
In addition to the rich archival material on parental styles and discipline, combined with independent observations and interviews with the children, Baumrind's team created a new instrument for the spanking study. Called the Parent Disciplinary Rating Scale, this instrument rated parents on their strategies for using discipline.
Few of the families, only 4 percent, never used physical punishment when their children were preschoolers, but there was a wide range in the frequency and severity of spanking throughout the whole sample, said Baumrind.
A small minority of parents, from 4 to 7 percent depending on the time period, used physical punishment often and with some intensity. Although these parents were not legally abusive, they were overly severe and used spanking impulsively. Hitting occurred frequently, but it was the intensity that really identified this group, said Baumrind.
She said intensity was rated high if the parent said he or she used a paddle or other instrument to strike the child, or hit on the face or torso, or lifted to throw or shake the child.
This group of parents, identified in the "red zone" for "stop" was removed from the sample at the first stage of analysis. With them went most of the correlations initially found between spanking and long-term harm to children, said Baumrind.
"When we removed this 'red zone' group of parents," said Baumrind, "we were left with very few small but significant correlations between normative physical punishment and later misbehavior among the children at age 8 to 9.
"Red zone parents are rejecting, exploitative and impulsive. They are parents who punish beyond the norm. You have very little to explain after you remove this small group."
She said the few links that remained were explained by the child's prior misbehavior. In other words, when researchers controlled for the tendency of the child to be uncooperative or defiant as preschoolers, all correlations between spanking and harmful effects were close to zero.
In addition to a "red zone," parents were classified into orange, yellow and green zones.
"There were no significant differences between children of parents who spanked seldom (green zone) and those who spanked moderately (yellow zone)," Baumrind said.
Families in the orange zone could have used spanking often, but with little or no intensity. Those in the "yellow zone" used physical punishment only occasionally, with little or no intensity, while those in the "green zone" used little or no physical punishment with no intensity.
The children of parents in the green zone who never spanked were not better adjusted than those, also in the green zone, who were spanked very seldomly, Baumrind said.
Studies of verbal punishment yielded similar results, in that researchers found correlations just as high, and sometimes higher, for total verbal punishment and harm to the child, as for total physical punishment and harm.
"What really matters," said Baumrind, "is the child rearing context. When parents are loving and firm and communicate well with the child (a pattern Baumrind calls authoritative) the children are exceptionally competent and well adjusted, whether or not their parents spanked them as preschoolers."
Baumrind emphasized that her study does not address at all the damaging effects of abusive physical punishment, of which she and other researchers have found ample evidence.
Hey Einstein, know one is saying that Abuse is tolerated! Spanking does not automatically equate to abuse.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
ZOMG?!!!!!!!!!!!
LOSERS.
LOSERS.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Beating = abuse.
And we should send men with guns after them.
FUCK THE POLICE
911 EVERY DAY
Here comes the libertarian!