Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[timothyu]

Thats why I also said the objections to fathers involvement and importance is probably more political than anything else. An ideology that has targeted and demeaned males, fathers, marriage and TF for decades and has resulted in the breakdown of families and absent fathers today.

The ruling from the 60's?

 

[stevevw]

In focussing on the attitudes and beliefs which allow people to abuse, that's exactly what I'm attempting to do.

The article I linked stated that despite trying to change peoples attitudes and beliefs nothing has really changed and parents still abuse their kids. It mentions that interventions are needed. Strategies to create a family environment that is conducive of child development, nurturing and safety . What better way to achieve these things than for a child to be raised by the mother and father.

Well, yes. Healthy relationships and environments, nurturing and safe environments are not abusive. So let's target abusive behaviour, rather than trying to make this about every other thing.

In targeting abusive behaviour you have to have some alternative that reduces abusive behaviour, that creates a safe and nurturing enviironment. You can't just stop abuse without any strategy to increase non abusive environments.

I mean legislating this doesn't change anything as its just forcing people without any way to change their behaviour. We have tried the ' Don't abuse as its bad for kids' strategy and it hasn't worked, hasnot changed the environment and attitudes.

Which is basically exactly what I've been arguing for.

So how do you promote children's healthy development if not by promoting parents and especially fathers to be actively involved with their kids. If its evidenced based as the article said then the evdience shows this is the best way to promote children's healthy development.

I think you will find when we begin to unpack this it will naturally lead to exactly what I have been saying. How can you talk about childrens healthy development to change parents behaviour without discussing the roles of parents.

 

[stevevw]

The ruling from the 60's?

Ruling, I don't think it was a ruling but more a political ideological movement not based on any evidence and in fact flew in the face of the evidence.

 

[Paidiske]

Ok well the evdience shows a direct causal relationship between fatherlessness and behavioural problems.

But behavioural problems aren't why people abuse. That's where your argument falls apart.

That c annot be true. How can there be a direct correlation between ice cream and violent crimes. The two are completely unrelated.

That's exactly my point. If you track both things, it will look like a causal relationship, because they do correlate; but that fails to take into account that something else is the driving cause of both.

Well reducing child abuse is good don't you think no matter how its done.

Reducing child abuse is good. But it needs to be done in ways which don't just shift the problems. And it needs to be done in ways which actually tackle the underlying causes, otherwise the abuse will continue, just in different circumstances.

So we try multiple approaches such as educating all parents especially those in the higher risk categories, practical support and also encouraging parents and fathers to be there for their kids.

Except that encouraging parents to "be there" for their kids doesn't prevent abuse. If you're encouraging abusive parents to "be there," without dealing with their abusiveness, it may well make things worse.

I honestly think most don't even think that far. They react rather than think. They are emotionally disturbed themselves and have no control regadless of what they believe.

That doesn't match my observation, or what I can find in the literature. People who physically abuse their kids believe that it is appropriate, and even necessary.

The above paper mentions that just about all child abuse happens when parents are trying to dicipline and control their kids.

Well, yes. Abuse is pretty much an exercise in control. Whether or not that control is appropriate is a necessary question, though.

So that includes the majority being mothers who are in situations beyond their control and are overwhelmed that they lash out or react rather than act.

So you honestly believe that parents never make a considered choice to be physically abusive? I don't believe that for one second. It's often very deliberate, considered choice.

Thats why I also said the objections to fathers involvement and importance is probably more political than anything else.

It's not that either. The objection I have in this thread is that it is not relevant to why parents abuse. You want to spout off about the importance of fathers and whatever, fine. Can you not just take it elsewhere so that we can actually have a thread that takes abuse seriously rather than using it as an excuse to push other ideological barrows?

I'm not targetting or demeaning anyone. I'm wanting to keep the thread focussed on the actual topic, which is physical abuse and the trauma it causes; not engage in whataboutery.

 

[Paidiske]

The article I linked stated that despite trying to change peoples attitudes and beliefs nothing has really changed and parents still abuse their kids.

Yes, which is why it says - as I already quoted - "There is a particular need for interventions that translate evidence of its harms into parent-friendly messages and that support parents in changing their behavior in ways that promote their children's healthy development."

What better way to achieve these things than for a child to be raised by the mother and father.

Well, as the sentence I've just quoted points out, the more urgent thing is to effectively communicate to parents the harm done, and help them to change their behaviour.

From your link: "Positive attitudes toward physical punishment are strong predictors of its use (Clément & Chamberland, 2014; Lansford, Deater-Deckard, Bornstein, Putnick, & Bradley, 2014), as are beliefs that physical punishment is normative (Taylor, Hamvas, Rice, Newman, & DeJong, 2011). ...Therefore, reducing approval of physical punishment, altering perceptions of its normality, and exposing parents to new perspectives on discipline should reduce physical punishment's occurrence."

So how do you promote children's healthy development if not by promoting parents and especially fathers to be actively involved with their kids.

The important issue is the quality of involvement. As I've already said, there's no point increasing abusive invovlement. You have to equip parents, whatever their parenting arrangements, to parent well. Which is why your own link highlights parenting programmes as having a good evidence base for reducing abuse.

 

[FireDragon76]

I think theres some truth to this. The Godhead being a trinity and yet one just as man and women become one in marriage and create a child who is an extention of that union making it a trinity and yet as one. I think there is some truth in this spiritual aspect of the family under God.

But I think some if not much of the resistence against the traditional family, against fathers, biological parents is how modern society has evolved to include many forms of family and so any fixed idea about what that should be or encouraging the TF setup as optimum is seen as not being inclusive.

If you are talking about the rejection of the patriarchal family model, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Conservatives are simply seeing the past through rose colored glasses and waving away objections to the abuse that frequently was accepted as normative in such families.

I also think a patriarchal family model actually falls shorts of the Christian ideal, though it was accepted for centuries under a Constantinian/Carolingian paradigm. The early Church insisted that spouses love each other, and resisted families' attempts to instrumentalize marriage as a political or social tool, which is what it had been for centuries in much of the world.

There has been a concerted effort by progressive thinking to breakup the TF over a long time so its not a surprise we have 85 million fatherless kids today in the US and growing single parenthood and breakdown in families across most Western nations. So parental roles can be filled by anyone and families can be made up of any configuration and its all normal and acceptable.

No fault divorce wasn't due to progressives, but the majority of society tired of lengthy and often ugly divorce procedures in court.

Men have been devalued and demeaned as toxic, brutish, violent and raping thugs and that has stuck.

This is a ridiculous reactionary talking point, and is untrue. What is being challenged are crude constructions of masculinity focused on aggression and dominance. But that's not the only way to be a man.

 

[stevevw]

If you are talking about the rejection of the patriarchal family model, I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing. Conservatives are simply seeing the past through rose colored glasses and waving away objections to the abuse that frequently was accepted as normative in such families.

I also think a patriarchal family model actually falls shorts of the Christian ideal, though it was accepted for centuries under a Constantinian/Carolingian paradigm. The early Church insisted that spouses love each other, and resisted families' attempts to instrumentalize marriage as a political or social tool, which is what it had been for centuries in much of the world.

Gee we don't want to start another topic that some will think irrelevant lol. I wasn't necessarily talking about the Patriarchal family but the fallout from that which went overboard to demean males and the resulting consequences of not only destroying the patriarchal family but families altogether. Especially the role of fathers.

By the way I don't think men and fathers being strong, couragous providers and protectors of their family is a patriarchy but rather their natural state as males. As one of the articles mentions men but especially biological fathers act as a good insurance against threats and abuse in the family.

Not sure marriage was a complete social and political tool. It was just the norm for most of our history because it was the most natural state to be in when it came to families. The idea that parents should be committed, monogomous, procreate and protect their kids is a natural state of affairs even in evolutionary terms. Its really only been in recent times that marriage has been politicised.

No fault divorce wasn't due to progressives, but the majority of society tired of lengthy and often ugly divorce procedures in court.

Well its certainly gone overboard now. Maybe it went the other extreme and its too easy. But I think part of devaluing marriage was due to progressive thinking. So therefore easy divorce is now seen as a formality.

This is a ridiculous reactionary talking point, and is untrue. What is being challenged are crude constructions of masculinity focused on aggression and dominance. But that's not the only way to be a man.

Yes and and with that they have undermine mascullinity itself as being something toxic. You only have to look at the narrative and language used for males nowadays. I think on the identity group scale white males are at the bottom. Then it goes minority males including black males, and just about all other groups ending with white females and at the top minority females as most worthy.

Dads have copped it through the courts for years often losing custody to their kids. Otherwise why is there an identity crisis with males who no longer know what being a man means because everything they naturally want to be, competitive, a leader, protector and provider has been rideculed as oppressive. Why is there an epidemic in fatherless families.

 

[stevevw]

Yes, which is why it says - as I already quoted - "There is a particular need for interventions that translate evidence of its harms into parent-friendly messages and that support parents in changing their behavior in ways that promote their children's healthy development."

Yes the messages translate into behaviours that promote children's healthy development. According to the evdience the best way to promote childrens healthy development is through having both parents involved in their life. How else would we promote childrens healthy development if not through encouraging parents to be good parents.

Well, as the sentence I've just quoted points out, the more urgent thing is to effectively communicate to parents the harm done, and help them to change their behaviour.

Actually the article stated that despite communicating to parents, to society that abuse causes kids harm abuse has actually become worse and the message is not getting through. So they suggested more active strategies to change behaviour and attitudes which included good parenting.

From your link: "Positive attitudes toward physical punishment are strong predictors of its use (Clément & Chamberland, 2014; Lansford, Deater-Deckard, Bornstein, Putnick, & Bradley, 2014), as are beliefs that physical punishment is normative (Taylor, Hamvas, Rice, Newman, & DeJong, 2011). ...Therefore, reducing approval of physical punishment, altering perceptions of its normality, and exposing parents to new perspectives on discipline should reduce physical punishment's occurrence."

The article also said
The strength of the evidence demonstrating physical punishment's risks and the human rights arguments against it have led increasing numbers of professional organizations serving children and families to strongly discourage physical punishment.
So thats the communication to parents and society that its wrong. This has been happening for some time. Yet the article then mentions.
Yet parents continue to physically punish their children.

Thats why it states
The fact that parents continue to use physical punishment, despite the accumulation of scientific evidence that it is both ineffective and harmful to children, indicates a clear need for strategies to prevent it.

So the communication didn't work, people did not either listen or change their ways so more strategies are needed to prevent it. Those strategies include "parent-friendly messages and that support parents in changing their behavior in ways that promote their children's healthy development". What was the aim of the strategies, the parent friendly messages. They were to change parental behaviour to promote their childrens healthy development.

What promotes childrens healthy development, loving and involved parents including mothers and fathers. Its the number 1 strategy to promote childrens healthy development if we are basing this on the evidence.

The important issue is the quality of involvement. As I've already said, there's no point increasing abusive invovlement.

I never thought you said that. Thats a strange thing to say. Why would we even contemplate increasing abuse. But what does quality involvement mean. According to the evidence it means fathers and mothers being involved and engaging with their kids.

You have to equip parents, whatever their parenting arrangements, to parent well. Which is why your own link highlights parenting programmes as having a good evidence base for reducing abuse.

Yes programs will lift parenting across all families. But there is no program that can replace a father for example no matter how good it is.

The other point is I work in this industry and there is a big problem with parents especially single parents engaging. They usually engage a couple of times and then drop off. Thats because there are many other issues happening in their lives, like addiction and mental illness and they are not willing or ready to change.. Even if that means losing their kids.

So your not only trying to change their behaviour with their kids but also their personal lives which involves a whole lot more than parenting. Thats why they probably don't listen to the advice and communication that child abuse is wrong because they don't really want to know, are not ready and willing to change their life in other ways.

 

[FireDragon76]

Gee we don't want to start another topic that some will think irrelevant lol. I wasn't necessarily talking about the Patriarchal family but the fallout from that which went overboard to demean males and the resulting consequences of not only destroying the patriarchal family but families altogether. Especially the role of fathers.

By the way I don't think men and fathers being strong, couragous providers and protectors of their family is a patriarchy but rather their natural state as males. As one of the articles mentions men but especially biological fathers act as a good insurance against threats and abuse in the family.

Not sure marriage was a complete social and political tool. It was just the norm for most of our history because it was the most natural state to be in when it came to families. The idea that parents should be committed, monogomous, procreate and protect their kids is a natural state of affairs even in evolutionary terms. Its really only been in recent times that marriage has been politicised.

Well its certainly gone overboard now. Maybe it went the other extreme and its too easy. But I think part of devaluing marriage was due to progressive thinking. So therefore easy divorce is now seen as a formality.

You're arguing for what's natural based on a very limited and particular human experience conditioned on a set of material relations that haven't ever been universal. In reality, a great many family structures have been natural throughout history. Patriarchy didn't become normative in some societies until settled agriculture began to dominate about 10,000 years ago. Before that, societies were likely relatively egalitarian, as are most horticulturalist and hunter-gatherer societies today.

Today, our societies are undergoing a revolution as significant as agriculture was 10,000 years ago. Material circumstances of civilization change. There is no reason to hold up a particular model of family life as "natural" in light of that.

Yes and and with that they have undermine mascullinity itself as being something toxic. You only have to look at the narrative and language used for males nowadays. I think on the identity group scale white males are at the bottom. Then it goes minority males including black males, and just about all other groups ending with white females and at the top minority females as most worthy.

Dads have copped it through the courts for years often losing custody to their kids. Otherwise why is there an identity crisis with males who no longer know what being a man means because everything they naturally want to be, competitive, a leader, protector and provider has been rideculed as oppressive. Why is there an epidemic in fatherless families.

Who is this "they"? Perhaps you need to step outside of whatever media bubble echo chamber you are in. I don't experience a generalized contempt for masculinity in our culture.

 

[Paidiske]

Yes the messages translate into behaviours that promote children's healthy development. According to the evdience the best way to promote childrens healthy development is through having both parents involved in their life. How else would we promote childrens healthy development if not through encouraging parents to be good parents.

You are spectacularly missing the point. The linked article was not arguing for having both parents, or for any particular parenting arrangements; it was arguing for equipping whatever parents or parental figures were in a child's life to not abuse them.

So the communication didn't work, people did not either listen or change their ways so more strategies are needed to prevent it. Those strategies include "parent-friendly messages and that support parents in changing their behavior in ways that promote their children's healthy development".

Which has nothing to do with household structure, and everything to do with parents changing their behaviour in whatever household structure they inhabit.

What promotes childrens healthy development, loving and involved parents including mothers and fathers. Its the number 1 strategy to promote childrens healthy development if we are basing this on the evidence.

In the context of this discussion, what promotes children's healthy development is refraining from physically abusing them.

But what does quality involvement mean. According to the evidence it means fathers and mothers being involved and engaging with their kids.

It means more than that. It means parents being able to parent without abusing. As I've said, if you have an abusive parent, having that parent more involved is not a good thing; it just increases abuse.

But there is no program that can replace a father for example no matter how good it is.

The aim is not replacing a father, though. It's equipping whatever parent/s a child has to not abuse them.

 

[stevevw]

You're arguing for what's natural based on a very limited and particular human experience conditioned on a set of material relations that haven't ever been universal. In reality, a great many family structures have been natural throughout history. Patriarchy didn't become normative in some societies until settled agriculture began to dominate about 10,000 years ago. Before that, societies were likely relatively egalitarian, as are most horticulturalist and hunter-gatherer societies today.

Today, our societies are undergoing a revolution as significant as agriculture was 10,000 years ago. Material circumstances of civilization change. There is no reason to hold up a particular model of family life as "natural" in light of that.

The patriarchy has nothing to do with the natural setup of the family. The nuclear family goes back to prehistoric times.

Its natural because when parents give birth to offspring its an extention of themselves, evolutionary its the process of passing on their genes for survival into the next generation so its in the interest of parents especially fathers to proect their families. Women in child birth were volnurable and needed proection from threats. Those instincts go back millions of years and are still seen today.

But its not just instinct, its also by lived experience. The experience of creating a child, an extention of the parents which bonds them in a certain way no other setup can create. A parent will die for their child more than a strangers child because of that bond and that same bond will drive them to look after them more than any other setup. But it takes both parents especially the father who is more attuned to protecting his child.

The idea that we can reconstruct families like Tetra blocks where mums can be dads and dads can be mums or any configuration will work just as good as any is relatively recent and not based on any evidence. It actually creates more situations where kids are abused.

Who is this "they"? Perhaps you need to step outside of whatever media bubble echo chamber you are in. I don't experience a generalized contempt for masculinity in our culture.

Thats good but thats not the experience of men today.

Our Society Reviles the Group It Most Depends On

Our Society Reviles the Group It Most Depends On: Men

Thank you to the men, those I know personally and the millions that I do not, for making the world we live in a clean, functioning and safe place to be.

www.newsweek.com

The descent of man
The mainstreaming of misandry

The descent of man | Jess Gill | The Critic Magazine

The mainstreaming of misandry…

thecritic.co.uk

 

[Carl Emerson]

Yes, which is why it says - as I already quoted - "There is a particular need for interventions that translate evidence of its harms into parent-friendly messages and that support parents in changing their behavior in ways that promote their children's healthy development."

Well, as the sentence I've just quoted points out, the more urgent thing is to effectively communicate to parents the harm done, and help them to change their behaviour.

From your link: "Positive attitudes toward physical punishment are strong predictors of its use (Clément & Chamberland, 2014; Lansford, Deater-Deckard, Bornstein, Putnick, & Bradley, 2014), as are beliefs that physical punishment is normative (Taylor, Hamvas, Rice, Newman, & DeJong, 2011). ...Therefore, reducing approval of physical punishment, altering perceptions of its normality, and exposing parents to new perspectives on discipline should reduce physical punishment's occurrence."

The important issue is the quality of involvement. As I've already said, there's no point increasing abusive invovlement. You have to equip parents, whatever their parenting arrangements, to parent well. Which is why your own link highlights parenting programmes as having a good evidence base for reducing abuse.

I suspect underlying the discussion is a lack of agreement over what abuse actually is.

Christians make a case for smacking because that is what they read in Scripture is appropriate.

So at what point is a well controlled smack crossing the line to abuse?

It is pretty hard to make a case from scripture that disciplining a child is entirely off limits.

Our Law allows for 'light smacking' but in reality all smacking is condemned by the modern thought movement.

Sadly this matter is not legally defined and confusion reigns.

So it seems that this discussion like many on CF ends up going circular because definitions are not attended to first.

 

[FireDragon76]

The patriarchy has nothing to do with the natural setup of the family. The idea of the nuclear family goes back to prehistoric times.

The nuclear family as a norm is relatively recent, it only existed for about 150 years or so, and then for only a select group of people, typically middle class.

Its natural because when parents give birth to offspring its an extention of themselves, evolutionary its the process of passing on their genes for survival into the next generation so its in the interest of parents especially fathers to proect their families. Women in child birth were volnurable and needed proection from threats. Those instincts go back millions of years and are still seen today.

That doesn't explain why the nuclear family or patriarchy is natural.

It's also strange for a Christian to resort to such a biologically reductionist account of human nature.

The idea that we can reconstruct families like Tetra blocks where mums can be dads and dads can be mums or any configuration will work just as good as any is relatively recent and not based on any evidence.

It's based on the evidence that child abuse is harmful to children, and kids would be better off in homes without abuse, even if those homes are more diverse than a nuclear family.

Thats good but thats not the experience of men today.

Our Society Reviles the Group It Most Depends On

Our Society Reviles the Group It Most Depends On: Men

Thank you to the men, those I know personally and the millions that I do not, for making the world we live in a clean, functioning and safe place to be.

www.newsweek.com

The descent of man
The mainstreaming of misandry

The descent of man | Jess Gill | The Critic Magazine

The mainstreaming of misandry…

thecritic.co.uk

Op-ed opinion pieces by non-experts rehashing tired, cliched ideological talking points.

 

[Larniavc]

I would have thought in discussing corporal punishment part of that would be dicussing why, when and where it happens and strategies to prevent it.

Part of this like any issue of health and wellbeing is to understand the Risks and Protections associated with child abuse especially relating to abuse associated with trying to control childrens behaviour or out of control behaviour.

For example the articles below are saying despite campaigns to stop physical abuse through dicipline parents continue to use it. It states that strategies need to be implemented that will create an environment which supports childrens health development.

I would have thought that considering there is ample evidence that promoting childrens healthly development through stable family environment that involve both parents was very relevant to promoting healthy development in kids.

It seems most strategies include the promoting of families, healthy relationships and environments with children that support child development, positive parenting, nurturing and safe environments. Part of positive parenting and promoting child development is the environment the child is subjected to.

The fact that parents continue to use physical punishment, despite the accumulation of scientific evidence that it is both ineffective and harmful to children, indicates a clear need for strategies to prevent it. There is a particular need for interventions that translate evidence of its harms into parent-friendly messages and that support parents in changing their behavior in ways that promote their children's healthy development.

Promising Intervention Strategies to Reduce Parents' Use of Physical Punishment - PMC

The strong and ever-growing evidence base demonstrating that physical punishment places children at risk for a range of negative outcomes, coupled with global recognition of children's inherent rights to protection and dignity, has led to the ...

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Healthy Families America & other evidence - based childhood home visiting programs provide information, caregiver support, and training about the importance of positive parent-child relationships, child health and development, and support in addressing concrete needs.

https://preventchildabuse.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/PCA-Corporal-Punishment-One-Pager-May-2021.pdf

Ten Things You Can Do to Prevent Child Abuse
Invest in kids. Encourage leaders in the community to be supportive of children and families.

Department of Children, Youth & Families

DCYF is a cabinet-level agency focused on the well-being of children. Our vision is to ensure that Washington state’s children and youth grow up safe and healthy—thriving physically, emotionally and academically, nurtured by family and community.

www.dcyf.wa.gov

POLICY BRIEF: Physical Punishment
One of the key responsibilities of parents is to help children learn to manage their emotions and behaviour

https://www.rch.org.au/uploadedFiles/Main/Content/ccch/PB_20_Physical_Punishment.pdf

What better way to help kids manage their emotions than through active involvement of both parents. The evdience shows that both parents including mothers secure attachment to child and dads active play with their kids helps regulate emotions.

This study linked early father-infant play to positive social, emotional and cognitive outcomes, and the association between father-child play and a child's later ability to control their emotions was found in 'almost all' of the 78 studies the researchers looked at.

The benefits of ‘Dad play’ in a child’s first years

Father child play is not just for dads! Learn about research from Cambridge University, which shows father-child play from an early age can help children manage behavioural problems, including aggression, and why non-male parents should do dad play too.

www.careforkids.com.au

You keep flying off at tangents like the student who cannot answer the exam quest so reframes the question into one on the subject the revised.

 

[stevevw]

The nuclear family as a norm is relatively recent, it only existed for about 150 years or so, and then for only a select group of people, typically middle class.

What do you mean by norm. If the nuclear family is a universal in most cultures then it logically follows that it was also a norm. It takes two people a male and female to have a child. It seems strange that once a couple has a child they don't love it and look after it. Its just basic common sense.

The idea that the industrial revolution brought about the nuclear family has been refuted.
The nuclear family was the dominant arrangement in England stretching back to the thirteenth century.

The Real Roots of the Nuclear Family

Though much of the public seems unaware of it, family scholars believe that—generally speaking—children are best off growing up with their two married parents. These are the children most likely to get the education crucial for maintaining a middle-class life in an advanced economy, to remain...

ifstudies.org

“The nuclear family is a universal human grouping. Either as the sole prevailing form of the family or as the basic unit from which more complex familial forms are compounded, it exists as a distinct and strongly functional group in every human society”.

Is the Nuclear Family a Universal Form of Family Relationship?

ADVERTISEMENTS: Get the answer of: Is the Nuclear Family a Universal Form of Family Relationship? Murdock suggested that the nuclear family is the universal form of family relations and that it performs “distinctive and vital functions—sexual, economic, reproductive and educational”. He...

www.sociologydiscussion.com

Besides none of that matters today as we are older and wiser. We have evidence that the nuclear family is the optimal setup for children today. In fact the evidence shows cohabitating, and living in extended families leads to more problems for kids on average than living only with their mum and dad as I have already linked..

That doesn't explain why the nuclear family or patriarchy is natural.

First equating the nuclear family with the patriarchy is a false comparison. Second explaining how its natural for the people who have the child to be the most invested is the explaination. Its explained in biological terms and in psychological and sociological terms as I have also already linked.

It's also strange for a Christian to resort to such a biologically reductionist account of human nature.

Why can't Christians support evolution. Believing in evolution is not reductionism. Its just basic and simple fact thats reflected in all mammals. But its also not just biology as mentioned its also reflected psychologically, sociologically, anthropologically and spiritaully.

It's based on the evidence that child abuse is harmful to children, and kids would be better off in homes without abuse, even if those homes are more diverse than a nuclear family.

Yes kids are better off without abuse and if theres no other options then its better than not caring for kids at all. But the one family setup that minimizes child abuse according to decades of evidence is that of the TF. Children in single parent, non biological and extended families have higher rates of abuse compared to the TF, simple fact.

Op-ed opinion pieces by non-experts rehashing tired, cliched ideological talking points.

OK lol, heres one from a mens group based on mens experience, and today we place a lot of emphasis on experience, womens experience, blacks experience, minority experience.
Hating men is mainstream

Hating men is mainstream

Has misandry become so widespread that it is acceptable in the mainstream? James Jackson provides us with some disturbing examples

avoiceformen.com

A 2020 study highlights how 88% of men agree that the term ‘toxic masculinity’ may have a harmful impact on boys,
https://counsellorinleeds.co.uk/blog/misandry-stop-saying-kill-all-men/
Thats nearly 90% of men who think the war on toxic mascullinity and boys and men is harmful to them. Does their experience count for anything.

Heres some from academic literature.
Christina Hoff Summers is a University professor, women and supports feminism yet she acknowledges the truth that boys and men and mascullinity are being demonised.
The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men

The War Against Boys: How Misguided Feminism Is Harming Our Young Men, by Christina Hoff Sommers

An absolute must read for every man, woman and parent who wishes to see their children grow into healthy, well adjusted beings. Blurb: Despite popular belief, American boys tag behind girls in re…

gerrycan.wordpress.com

The Frontier Centre for Public Policy is an independent researcher on Public Policy which has also found evidence of boys, men and their natural mascullinity being made out to have something innately wrong which has been reflected with over 7.5 million references to toxic macullinity and other demeaning narratives that have crept into mainstream language such as mansplaining, Hash tag "Kill all men",ect. https://fcpp.org/2018/07/11/toxic-feminism/

Another Policy researcher
Stop Emasculating Men, Then Wondering Where All The Good Men Went

Stop Emasculating Men, Then Wondering Where All The Good Men Went

The laudable, original objective of the feminist movement urging us to better our traditional manhood has warped into an assault on everything masculine.

thefederalist.com

 

[stevevw]

You keep flying off at tangents like the student who cannot answer the exam quest so reframes the question into one on the subject the revised.

Ah I got the information about how parental roles, family structure and supporting interventions that promote child development in relation to addressing corporal punishment from academic articles not my own personal opinions. So if academia is saying the same thing how is this irrelevant.

 

[timothyu]

It's like God says about caring for others, that is a logical scenario within a typical old school family setting, while the selfish who don't know how to follow that pattern focus on self,, preferring division as that is their comfort zone . Each unit will in turn teach their kids to follow the same pattern as their own. Which is more abusive, man's selfishness or God's concept of caring for all?

Btw this ad popped up for some show or something but it seemed to be related to the topic.

 

[stevevw]

You are spectacularly missing the point. The linked article was not arguing for having both parents, or for any particular parenting arrangements; it was arguing for equipping whatever parents or parental figures were in a child's life to not abuse them.

OK fair enough. Like I said we can have targeted programs and we can have society wide recommendations or policies that aim to encourage both parents to be present and available especially fathers. Targeting problem situations like single parents or families without a father to improve child development is all well and good but it only addresses part of the problem and therefore there will always be problems..

What your failing to understand is that in many situations targeted programs are limited. If the absence of a father is one of the biggest factors in poor child development then no amount of targeted progrmas is going to fix this. It will only bandaid the situation.

Even if the single mother manages to stop physically abusing her kid there will still be developmental setbacks for the child which will often lead to bad behaviour which then puts the mum in a more stressful and hard to cope situations.

Which has nothing to do with household structure, and everything to do with parents changing their behaviour in whatever household structure they inhabit.

So in supporting the best healthy development of the child should we not include say encouraging more dads to get involved. Should we settle for second best and third best solutions and hope they work. Like I said how can you claim supporting a childs healthy development doesn't include both parents. No matter what programs they use there will still be developmental issues that will cause disruption.

The best and only way to overcome this is by getting more parents especially fathers relating to dicipline to be actively involved with their kids.

In the context of this discussion, what promotes children's healthy development is refraining from physically abusing them.

Thats only one part so its a limited appraoch which doesn't address the true root causes. There will still be unhealthy development.

It means more than that. It means parents being able to parent without abusing.

Yes stopping physical abuse. But if the fundemental issue is to stop all abuse and neglect of children then its more than just physical abuse. A child without a father is a form of abuse as its a human right for children to have both partents.

Theres no sense in stopping one form of abuse only to allow other forms.

The aim is not replacing a father, though. It's equipping whatever parent/s a child has to not abuse them.

Its both, Its equipping parents as they stand right now as best we can. But if we are to truely have their healthy development at heart then all children need both parents for healthy development.

See not having both parents especially the father relating to child behaviour and dicipline will always lead back to some developmental problems which inevitably influence behaviour. It becomes a vicious cycle. We want both the parents and the child to be in the best situation possible for their health and well being.

 

[FireDragon76]

What do you mean by norm. If the nuclear family is a universal in most cultures

The nuclear family is not the norm in most cultures. It's mostly been confined to middle-class Anglo-American culture.

then it logically follows that it was also a norm. It takes two people a male and female to have a child. It seems strange that once a couple has a child they don't love it and look after it. Its just basic common sense.

In many cultures, responsibility for child rearing in shared by more than just the parents. In most matrilineal cultures (common among Native Americans), the father wasn't even involved in raising the child.

Besides none of that matters today as we are older and wiser. We have evidence that the nuclear family is the optimal setup for children today.

Do we? It seems to me you can only come to this conclusion through a very narrow perspective.

 

[Paidiske]

What your failing to understand is that in many situations targeted programs are limited.

No, I understand that quite well. That's an argument for improving and expanding them, though, not for ignoring the need.

If the absence of a father is one of the biggest factors in poor child development then no amount of targeted progrmas is going to fix this.

But the absence of a father is not a cause of abuse. We need to target the reasons why abusive parents and caregivers - whatever their relationship to the child - engage in that abuse.

Even if the single mother manages to stop physically abusing her kid there will still be developmental setbacks for the child which will often lead to bad behaviour which then puts the mum in a more stressful and hard to cope situations.

But the abuse will have stopped, which is the main point. Then we can look at putting other necessary supports in place for that household.

So in supporting the best healthy development of the child should we not include say encouraging more dads to get involved.

Sure. Just realise that it's not an answer to abusive parenting.

Thats only one part so its a limited appraoch

When it comes to preventing abuse, it's the only part that matters.

There will still be unhealthy development.

There are lots of things that contribute to unhealthy development. This thread, however, is specifically about physical abuse, not every other issue.

Yes stopping physical abuse. But if the fundemental issue is to stop all abuse and neglect of children then its more than just physical abuse.

Well, yes, stopping other forms of abuse is important too. This thread, however, is specifically about physical abuse. If you want to discuss emotional abuse, neglect, social control, financial abuse, spiritual abuse, conversion therapy, and whatever else I haven't thought of off the top of my head, those things absolutely deserve threads of their own.

A child without a father is a form of abuse

That depends entirely on the circumstances.

as its a human right for children to have both partents.

A child has a right to a relationship with both parents, provided there's no compelling reason not to. But that relationship can take a variety of forms.

See not having both parents especially the father relating to child behaviour and dicipline will always lead back to some developmental problems which inevitably influence behaviour.

But will not inevitably cause abuse, because abuse is a parent's choice, not an inevitable circumstance.