Kid's Corporal Punishment - a Risk to Mental Health

[OldAbramBrown]

My mother verbally battered us and it definitely held us back. Any parent is cruel to their children because that is what the parent learned.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

In my childhood I had two light smacks which didn't harm me (ironically they were from my often verbally abusive mother). But the school beat me when I hadn't done wrong.

 

[OldAbramBrown]

Just like theres a direct causal relationship between a lack of father and trauma and behavioural problems.

wait a minute the fact as you say "there may be many issues with a father's absence" indicates that there are direct issues caused by fathers absence. You acknowledge that. Otherwise we can say there is no direct casual relationship between a light slap and abuse and trauma.

Actually thats what your arguing, to keep the situation the same and then make people behave in a certain way even if the situation is causing the volitile situation. Feminist solution to womens abuse was to change the family structure. I can't see any difference to changing the family structure to teaching fathers to be better dads and take responsibility for their relationships in marriage and their kids.

Really where talking about the same thing. In changing the behaviour of parents to be more responsibile for their families and children we are changing the family setup, its dynamics.

And it hasn't worked. Abuse in these situations has increased. Trying to change individual behaviour doesn't work as not everyone realistically wants to change and not everyone that becomes involved like casual boyfriends who may be more prone to violence are under the control of the mother or any program to change behaviour.

But changing the culture and norms about marriage and family helps the single parent because they become less volnurable to these influences that often lead to abuse. So not only are these situations reduced society wide individuals are also changed by the changed attitudes in society.

Thats why its better to have a change in the beliefs and values about the importance of marriage, mums and dads because its a lifetime change rather than trying to continually battle against individual situations of abusive behaviour which only addresses that individual situation. If anything cannot be done for the childs entire life is to keep trying to control peoples individual behaviour.

We inevitable giveup, don't maintain the vigelance and people slip through the cracks. Where as normative changes change the entire societies attitudes, awareness, values towards better behaviour associated family and parenting because its society wide and this eventually trickles down to most people. We can still work on individuals and this will be easier when society as a whole supports the same values and beliefs.

Exsactly and that is why evidence based recommendations and policies are best. If the evdience shows a lack of fathers leads to poor behaviour and development outcomes for kids then this should be what infoprms policy and not what beliefs ideology claims like dads are not that important and replaceable.

No I said policies should be based on the independent evidence which just happens to align with some of the values within TF. Your making it ideological and political by making out that its all motivated by ideology when its not. Its plain and simple the facts as derived by the research and study that has been repeated over the years.

No it didn't that is your twisting of what was said. It did not mention traditional or nuclear family. It only mentioned or alluded to childrens parents but not what type of family. In fact it stated that many come from a family where one parent has been incarcerated.

So if anything we know that at least some of them were in single parent families. But we cannot say much more than that apart from perhaps deduce logically that because the majority of children in TF setups don't have any trauma at all then the majority of children in foster care don't come from TF because they don't have any trauma to put them there.

No thats a false comparison. The Report did not say this. You are now injecting spectualtion. The 80%plus figure is for children in single parent and non biological parent families. They were a seperate group studies apart from those in foster care. This high figure is supported by other research that has nothing to do with foster care. Most of the kids in foster care actually come from non TF setups.

But I just linked a dozen indpendent sources coming from all angles like absent fathers, non-biological parents, unmarried parents and single parents which all say the same thing and have repreated each finding independently. That is as good as science verification as you can get.

The only conclusion we can make about someone rejecting these findings is to say they are bias, have some ideological belief that prevents them from acknowledging the truth.

Then if thats the only thing you can find doesn't that suggests its just an opinion and not fact.

But there are certain family setiups that reduce abuse. Theres no guarentee 100% abuse free families. But in the meantime surely encouraging situations that reduce abuse is a good thing.

Its certaiunly preventative. As more dads have abandoned fatherhood the rate of behaviour and developmental problems have increased in young people. As more dads are encouraged to be good dads the rate of those problems will reduce and be prevented.

The solution isn't to teach mums to be dads or to replace dads with casual fathers or the State. The solution is to get the actual men who had the kids be their father. That one thing alone will go along way to changing things.

Anyone can father a child, but being a dad takes a lifetime. Fathers play a role in every child’s life that cannot be filled by others. This role can have a large impact on a child and help shape him or her into the person they become.

The Importance of a Father in a Child’s Life - Pediatric Associates of Franklin

Fathers play a role in every child’s life that cannot be filled by others. This role can have a large impact on a child and help shape him or her into the person they become.

www.pediatricsoffranklin.com

Yes and thats why we encourage, recommend and even use policies and laws to make changes culturally because that will lead to individual change because societies awareness and conscience has been changed which filters down to all eventually. That means changing cultural norms like the value and importance of relationships, marriage, mothers and fathers. atherhood.

So you are agreeing that we can sometimes make social and cultural changes to change peoples behaviour through encouragement and policies.

Yes it is. Marriage has represented family for millenia. Even without religion. You cannot have family without marriage or at least the committed relationship of a mother and father.

So whatever definition we place on marriage will also alter what a family becomes, how we as a society value and see families. If we see marriage and mothers and fathers as not that important for family life then this will influence family structure. They are intimately linked.

Ok thank you for your engagement as I really thought it was interesting and relevant. I think with any issue like this its good to unpack it even if some may not be directly linked as we can then understand better what is linked.

So what about the single issue of fathers, absent fathers. Do you think this is directly related to child discipline and abuse.

Evangelicals don't pray, they turn themselves into "influencers" instead. I saw this start.

 

[Carl Emerson]

Just exactly what do think that your link shows?

Maybe read it and connect the dots...

Child abuse increases when NZ legislates against smacking.

Maybe the Bible got it right ???

 

[Larniavc]

Maybe read it and connect the dots...

Child abuse increases when NZ legislates against smacking.

Maybe the Bible got it right ???

Well according the the paper which I read it indicates that since 2013 all forms of abuse and neglect have trended downwards. So I don't know what you are trying to show as the paper says the opposite of what you claim.

Your own link says the following.

"The findings show a clear downward trend in the rates of what the report describes as minor assaults, such as smacking on the hand and bottom, and more severe physical punishments, including hitting with a fist.


Minor assaults almost halved from 77 per cent of parents in 2002 to 42 per cent in 2017. Severe assaults reduced by two thirds over the same period, from 12 per cent to 4 per cent.

The most common physical punishments were smacking on the bottom and slapping on the hand, arm or leg.

Parents more likely to use physical punishment tended to be younger, caring for more children and in a violent partner relationship.

The study found that a history of personal mental health problems combined with socioeconomic disadvantage was also influential."

 

[Carl Emerson]

Well according the the paper which I read it indicates that since 2013 all forms of abuse and neglect have trended downwards. So I don't know what you are trying to show as the paper says the opposite of what you claim.

Your own link says the following.

"The findings show a clear downward trend in the rates of what the report describes as minor assaults, such as smacking on the hand and bottom, and more severe physical punishments, including hitting with a fist.


Minor assaults almost halved from 77 per cent of parents in 2002 to 42 per cent in 2017. Severe assaults reduced by two thirds over the same period, from 12 per cent to 4 per cent.

The most common physical punishments were smacking on the bottom and slapping on the hand, arm or leg.

Parents more likely to use physical punishment tended to be younger, caring for more children and in a violent partner relationship.

The study found that a history of personal mental health problems combined with socioeconomic disadvantage was also influential."

An updated analysis of the anti-smacking law which was released last year says that not only has the ban failed to reduce the harm perpetrated against children, but it has increased the harm inflicted by children.

The report “A Dog’s Breakfast: New Zealand’s Anti-Smacking Law 13 Years On” examined the social indicators relating to child abuse affecting our children and families in the years leading up to the ban on smacking (2000 – 2007) and since the law was passed (2007 – 2019) using official government data from Oranga Tamariki, NZ Police, Stats NZ and the Ministry of Health.

Key findings of this report include:

• notifications of abuse to government agencies continue to increase at alarming rates
• rates of physical abuse (including serious physical abuse) found by both the police and Oranga Tamariki (OT) have increased significantly since the law was passed
• there are significant warranted concerns around increasing levels of violence in schools, including bullying and physical violence targeting principals and teaching staff
• successive governments have failed to reduce physical abuse as promised, and any government
  targets appear to have been abandoned altogether
• child homicides continue to fluctuate with no sign of any long-term, sustained improvement. New Zealand has one of the worst abuse rates in the OECD, and Maori are disproportionately represented
• we have more children in care (especially Maori children)
• there are disturbing trends in the wellbeing of children, including the high rates of self-harm, suicide, and emotional and behavioural problems
• while politicians claim the new law does not criminalise “good parents” for lightly smacking their children, a legal analysis finds this is inconsistent with the actual legal impact of the new Section 59

 

[Larniavc]

• notifications of abuse to government agencies continue to increase at alarming rates
• rates of physical abuse (including serious physical abuse) found by both the police and Oranga Tamariki (OT) have increased significantly since the law was passed

Untrue. Read the report. You've done that haven't you? Your link has incorrect key findings. Look at the 'substantiated abuse all forms' graph on page 10.

 

[Paidiske]

No one is saying that.

But if you push people into particular household structures without addressing the underlying issues, that's what is likely to happen.

Where talking about physical abuse and most physical abuse comes from trying to control kids.

Yes. I have agreed multiple times; abuse is about control. That control is often taken to an inappropriate degree.

What, I have supplied about 20 odd articles from academia, independent policy researchers and child organisations who supplied independent evdience. Are you not reading them because you would not have claimed this otherwise.

I have not seen one link from you looking at the prevalence of the attitudes which drive abuse in different household structures.

Yes they are according to the experts.

No. Again, correlation is not causation.

Actually even just the presence of a loving father will make a difference regardless of the cause.

No, it won't. Because if a loving father believes that physical abuse is appropriate discipline, he will still abuse.

How so.

Let me quote the relevant paragraph again, my bold:

"The literature on father absence has been criticized for its use of cross-sectional data and methods that fail to account for reverse causality, for omitted variable bias, or for heterogeneity across time and subgroups. Indeed, some researchers have argued that the negative association between father absence and child well-being is due entirely to these factors. This critique is well founded because family disruption is not a random event and because the characteristics that cause father absence are likely to affect child well-being through other pathways. Similarly, parents’ expectations about how their children will respond to father absence may affect their decision to end their relationship. Finally, there is good evidence that father absence effects play out over time and differ across subgroups. Unless these factors are taken into account, the so-called effects of father absence identified in these studies are likely to be biased."

And let me point out some key things about what it's saying:
- claims that father absence cause abuse "fail to account for reverse causality" (ie: correlation is not causation; we need to account for situations where abuse has caused the breakdown of the family).
- fail to account for omitted variable bias (ie: there are other causative factors involved)
- fail to account for heterogeneity across time and subgroups (ie: the particular situations of people involved are not being taken into account)
- "family disruption is not a random event" (ie: there may be good reasons why the family is not living in a "traditional" set up).
- "the characteristics that cause father absence are likely to affect child well-being through other pathways" (ie. it's not the absent father per se, as it is whatever caused the father to be absent, which is likely to be causing other problems).
- "there is good evidence that father absence effects...differ across subgroups" (ie: we can't generalise about this).

Taken together, these statements basically demonstrate every weakness with the position you're putting forward.

Lets just take the statement I linked. How is this not saying that family structure also needs to be considered. Read the plain englich they did not make that statement without understanding the context in which abuse happens. Once again it clearly says
these studies also clearly show a role for selection in the relationship between family structure and child outcomes.

In context, that line is part of a paragraph saying that when studying father absence, you have to be careful in selecting your study subjects so as to avoid bias in your studies.

They said the studies they did on child abuse clearly (not maybe or not we actual mean something else) but clearly that family structure plays a role in relation to child abuse.

Actually, they said that the studies they'd examined clearly show that studies of the relationship between family structure and child outcomes need to involve careful selection of study subjects, if biased outcomes are to be avoided.

But heres the science.

From where I'm sitting, you're badly misrepresenting what you're reading.

But naturally on average biological parents are more protective as 70% of such setups prevents all child abuse without being equipped

How can you argue that they're not equipped to avoid abusing, if they're not abusing?

But at least you are beginning to acknowledge that its an option by implying that if they are equipped then it would be good for kids rather than just dismissing the idea out of the hat.

I have consistently argued that what matters is making sure that whatever adults are in a child's life, they are able to care for that child without abusing. So, sure, it's an option to encourage fathers to be involved that may be good for a range of reasons, but if you don't look specifically at what drives abuse in fathers, it's not, in and of itself, to be preventative of abuse.

Can you show me where I blamed kids for child abuse or are you reading that into things.

Every time you say it's driven by the kids' behaviour, you are blaming the kids. Abuse is driven by the choices parents make in how they respond to their children, not by the children's behaviour.

Its funny I have noticed when I linked 2 or 3 articles you always pick out one and stay silent on the others.

You spam the thread with mostly irrelevant stuff, that doesn't demonstrate what you claim. I can't be bothered going through every study and pointing that out to you, line by line, three days before Christmas. I just pick out enough to demonstrate the problems and move on.

The point was the article was saying that family structure plays an important role.

You have been arguing that family structure prevents abuse. That article was saying something completely different; it was not looking at prevalence or prevention, but at what makes the difference in how severe the outcome is. So when someone is abused, having a wider network of caregivers, including extended family, means the psychological damage is likely to be less than if there is a smaller network of caregivers. But it's not saying anything about what causes or prevents that abuse in the first place.

Sure grandparents are also good support in reducing abuse and better than single parenting or at least will help minimize negative outcomes for single parents. But the point was that you were saying family structure has nothing to do with it and the articles states it does.

No, again.... the article was not speaking about reducing abuse. It was looking at what might mean the abused child is more resilient and suffers less harm when abuse does occur.

I have advocated for a multipronged solution that includes supporting families as they are, also encouraging parents especially fathers to get more involved and looking at the societal and policy level of encouraging better attitues and values about family and parenting.

But the one thing you have not advocated for is the one that matters most; tackling the attitudes and beliefs which drive abuse.

As I said its a multipronged approach which includes supporting people in existing families regardless of their setup.

It doesn't support them, to be constantly stigmatised.

I though I already did.

I haven't seen you post a single study looking at adult attitudes to their abusive behaviour, whether they were "out of control" or making deliberate and considered parenting choices, or the like.

The simple fact that single parenthood is highly associated with poverty, stress and the trauma of broken families points to single parents being under more pressure.

Which has nothing to do with whether they were "out of control."

Not in those exact words but if you consider one of the recommendations was to promote health child development through family relationships approaches then that is related to family structure.

No! Family relationships =/= family structure. I mean, under that heading they included "legislative approaches to reduce corporal punishment." It's not about household structure, it's about how people actually interact in whatever household structure they inhabit.

But nevertheless its also interesting that you latch onto a single article and ignore 10 others which do mention family structure.

Those articles don't establish what you want them to, as I've demonstrated above.

 

[Robban]

Wartime strengthens the ties in a family,

 

[Carl Emerson]

Untrue. Read the report. You've done that haven't you? Your link has incorrect key findings. Look at the 'substantiated abuse all forms' graph on page 10.

Maybe read on a bit further...

 

[stevevw]

Evangelicals don't pray, they turn themselves into "influencers" instead. I saw this start.

I am not sure what you mean.

 

[stevevw]

My mother verbally battered us and it definitely held us back. Any parent is cruel to their children because that is what the parent learned.

I think in some ways verbal and emotional abuse is greater than physical abuse. Well at least a slap on the backside anyway.

 

[stevevw]

But if you push people into particular household structures without addressing the underlying issues, that's what is likely to happen.

No one is saying anything about pushing people into particular household structures. Its about encouraging parents and fathers to get more involved. Its not like that is suggesting something alien or wrong that should not be encouraged.

It seems that just the mention of a kid needs their dad is taboo or politically incorrect. But believe it or not there is an ideology out there that thinks suggesting kids should have both parents and a father is somehow wrong.

Yes. I have agreed multiple times; abuse is about control. That control is often taken to an inappropriate degree.

My point was that just about all physical child abuse is associated with trying to disicipline kids. So when articles mention physical abuse they are also talking about diciplining or controlling a child.

I have not seen one link from you looking at the prevalence of the attitudes which drive abuse in different household structures.

Thats silly there were plenty. Even you acknowledged the last one in my last post mentioned approaches such as changing societal norms.

No. Again, correlation is not causation.

They actually said family structure was an intregal part of preventing child abuse.
Measuring the differential impact of these family structure intended to guide the country and its leaders on public policy is therefore essential, and will have grave implications for the life and death of many children in the United States.

these studies also clearly show a role for selection in the relationship between family structure and child outcomes.

family structures are conducive to neglect and abuse
https://www.cis.org.au/app/uploads/2015/07/pm53.pdf

The campaign should emphasise that the traditional family is a protective factor that prevents child sexual abuse.
Abuse a bigger danger in non-traditional families - The Centre for Independent Studies
Why would a policy think tank that influences public policy say we should campaign for the TF to prevent child abuse if its not a cause.

the disintegration of the traditional family (and the devaluation of fatherhood) is one of the leading causes of the growth of domestic violence
https://quadrant.org.au/magazine/2018/05/high-costs-fatherlessness/​

Also correlation is a strong indicator of cause. Smoking is correlated with poor health outcomes. So its a strong cause of health problems and pushed as a health risk and ceasing smoking as a protective factor. Its all to do with Risk and Protective factors.

No, it won't. Because if a loving father believes that physical abuse is appropriate discipline, he will still abuse.

You always take the lowest common denominator to dismiss the value of fathers. So what about the majority of fathers who don't believe physical abuse is appropriate discipline. The facts are 70% of children in TF with a father are completely free of abuse including physical abuse by discipline. Whereas around 80% of kids without a father are abused.

Let me quote the relevant paragraph again, my bold:

"The literature on father absence has been criticized for its use of cross-sectional data and methods that fail to account for reverse causality, for omitted variable bias, or for heterogeneity across time and subgroups. Indeed, some researchers have argued that the negative association between father absence and child well-being is due entirely to these factors. This critique is well founded because family disruption is not a random event and because the characteristics that cause father absence are likely to affect child well-being through other pathways. Similarly, parents’ expectations about how their children will respond to father absence may affect their decision to end their relationship. Finally, there is good evidence that father absence effects play out over time and differ across subgroups. Unless these factors are taken into account, the so-called effects of father absence identified in these studies are likely to be biased."

And let me point out some key things about what it's saying:
- claims that father absence cause abuse "fail to account for reverse causality" (ie: correlation is not causation; we need to account for situations where abuse has caused the breakdown of the family).

When determine how to combat abuse its about Risk and Protective factors of child abuse and a fathers presence is a protective factor and a lack of father is a risk factor.

- fail to account for omitted variable bias (ie: there are other causative factors involved)

Yes there are other factors but don't exclude the possibility of fathers being a reason why kids are safer. No one is failing to acknowledge other reasons. But you are failing to acknowledge that a mum and dad are important factors in the prevention of abuse.

- fail to account for heterogeneity across time and subgroups (ie: the particular situations of people involved are not being taken into account)

I have acknowledge that its a multipronged approach but I think if anyone is not taking things into account its those who are not taking into account the importance of fathers.

Speaking of social norms and ideology about families this silennce and dismissing of the importance of biological parents and fathers due to political motivations (PC) is similar to the silence about child abuse in the past. Just a different way of hiding child abuse.

The issues are not fully and frankly discussed in this country because the public discourse is self-censored, in effect, by politicians, academics, social service organisations, and the media in compliance with politically correct attitudes towards "family diversity", the socially "progressive" and "non-judgmental" fiction that says the traditional family is just one among many, and equally worthy, family forms. In hindsight, we are justifiably critical of the silences that in earlier times kept child sexual abuse a hidden problem. Yet a comparable silence exists today.
Abuse a bigger danger in non-traditional families - The Centre for Independent Studies

- "family disruption is not a random event" (ie: there may be good reasons why the family is not living in a "traditional" set up).

But this doesn't negate that TF are the best possible setup to protect children overall. We can argue about the reasons why families breakdown but family breakdown is not good. So encouraging families to stay together, for parents to take responsibility, for good fathers to protect their families is one aspect of protecting kids against abuse.

The fact is strong families are the bedrock of strong societies not just for abuse within families but for a stable society overall. This fact has been acknowledge for millenia. I fail to see how encouraging stronger families is not an important option. Its so obvious that it makes me wonder what the motivation is for those who resist this.

- "the characteristics that cause father absence are likely to affect child well-being through other pathways" (ie. it's not the absent father per se, as it is whatever caused the father to be absent, which is likely to be causing other problems).

Actually today many families have not even began as TF because around 40% are born out of wedlock. Of those left in TF 70% of kids are not abused and the father is still in the house. So yes there are other characteristics like the breakdown in marriage, higher divorce and more people cohabitating or having kids as single parents without entering into TF situations in the first place.

- "there is good evidence that father absence effects...differ across subgroups" (ie: we can't generalise about this).

We can't generalise that a fathers presence makes a difference. What has the world come to lol. Too many rationalisation to dismiss the reality of the importance of fathers.

Taken together, these statements basically demonstrate every weakness with the position you're putting forward.

No they are weak statements in themselves as they are basically biased in themselves as they don't take into account that many couples don't get married today and just cohabitate which is a factor in higher rates of breakdown and fathers leaving. Or the massive growth in single parenting where people did not marry or where women had kids as single parents without the dad in the first place. The increase in child abuse has coincided with these modern day family patterns.

In context, that line is part of a paragraph saying that when studying father absence, you have to be careful in selecting your study subjects so as to avoid bias in your studies.

That line is not just talking about fathers absence but family structure that leads to higher risk of child abuse. What your failing to take into account is that the higher prevelence of child abuse is also related to cohabitation, children born into single parent families, blended families and non biological parents. These all contribute.

Also the statement is not saying its the only reason but that family structure should be considered as a role in the relationship between family structure and higher abuse and not the only factor. Something you seem to be dismissing.

Actually, they said that the studies they'd examined clearly show that studies of the relationship between family structure and child outcomes need to involve careful selection of study subjects, if biased outcomes are to be avoided.

Yes but careful selection does not mean total dismissal of family structure. Something you seem willing to do.

From where I'm sitting, you're badly misrepresenting what you're reading.

I don't think its a bad representation and certainly not to the point where family structure is completely dismissed.

How can you argue that they're not equipped to avoid abusing, if they're not abusing?

Because the evidence shows that a TF setup naturally minimizes abuse and neglect without parents being equipped. Even if they are equipped it suggests that TF setups are associated with parents equipping themselves for better parenting. Either way they are more equipped.

I have consistently argued that what matters is making sure that whatever adults are in a child's life, they are able to care for that child without abusing. So, sure, it's an option to encourage fathers to be involved that may be good for a range of reasons, but if you don't look specifically at what drives abuse in fathers, it's not, in and of itself, to be preventative of abuse.

OK so therefore its a multipronged approach but encouraging parents and fathers is a big part of that. One of the questions a family support worker will ask in supporting single mums is where is the father in all this. Encouraging dads will take the pressure off single mothers at the very least.

Every time you say it's driven by the kids' behaviour, you are blaming the kids. Abuse is driven by the choices parents make in how they respond to their children, not by the children's behaviour.

Where did I say its driven by childrens behaviour. I said that childrens behaviour tends to be more out of control in non TF and that along with other factors especially for single mums increases the chaos where mums become overwhelmed and lose control.

Its not the childs fault but it creates more turmoil which makes it harder for single mums to cope and more likely to lose control and lash out compared to the TF which is usually more stable with less out of control kids thuse reducing the conflict and turmoil.

 

[Carl Emerson]

What I am hearing again and again is that discipline = abuse.

Yet in the Bible we read...

Hebrews 12:4
You have not yet resisted to the point of shedding blood in your striving against sin;
Hebrews 12:5
and you have forgotten the exhortation which is addressed to you as sons, “My son, do not regard lightly the disciplineof the Lord, Nor faint when you are punished by Him;
Hebrews 12:6
For whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He punishes every son whom He accepts.
Hebrews 12:7
It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline
Hebrews 12:8
But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons.
Hebrews 12:9
Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits, and live?
Hebrews 12:10
For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, so that we may share His holiness.
Hebrews 12:11
For the moment, all discipline seems not to be pleasant, but painful; yet to those who have been trained by it, afterward it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness.
Revelation 3:19
Those whom I love, I rebuke and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.

I also note that discipline is entwined with Love but I very rarely hear Love mentioned at all, just abuse, abuse, abuse.

Have we so much ignored Scripture that we no longer consider discipline is right and loving?

Are we being driven in thought by unresolved rebellion and anger and cry abuse, abuse...

I will stand by scripture in these matters every time.

Discipline is good.

Discipline can involve righteous anger.

Not to discipline is not to Love.

Do we as parents get it right every time?

No, of course not, and that is where open dialogue, prayer, repentance, and healing with forgiveness kicks in.

This works better than a million clever words.

 

[Paidiske]

No one is saying anything about pushing people into particular household structures.

But your whole argument has been that absent fathers are a problem and that we need to encourage people to live as "traditional" families. So what do you want if not that?

Thats silly there were plenty.

Really? Which ones?

Even you acknowledged the last one in my last post mentioned approaches such as changing societal norms.

Yes. But that is not about whether or not parents are "out of control" when they abuse. It's specifically that claim that I'm contesting.

Why would a policy think tank that influences public policy say we should campaign for the TF to prevent child abuse if its not a cause.

The clue is in the fact that it's a right wing think tank, so it pushes socially conservative positions because that is part of its reason for being.

Also correlation is a strong indicator of cause.

No. That is a failure in the most basic of logical reasoning.

You always take the lowest common denominator to dismiss the value of fathers.

What I'm saying has nothing to do with the value of fathers. I'm not dismissing it. I'm simply saying that for this thread, it's beside the point.

So what about the majority of fathers who don't believe physical abuse is appropriate discipline.

They are also beside the point of this thread. This thread is about physical abuse and the harm it does.

The facts are 70% of children in TF with a father are completely free of abuse including physical abuse by discipline. Whereas around 80% of kids without a father are abused.

Steve, I've responded to this point, and shown you why the conclusions you draw from it are flawed, several times now. Kindly please either stop repeating the same flawed argument, or understand that I'm just going to conclude that you are not engaging in this discussion in good faith, and cease wasting my time on it.

When determine how to combat abuse its about Risk and Protective factors of child abuse and a fathers presence is a protective factor and a lack of father is a risk factor.

Not necessarily. That's what the paragraph I quoted to you (twice now) was explaining.

But you are failing to acknowledge that a mum and dad are important factors in the prevention of abuse.

Because I don't believe that. Parents or caregivers are only preventative factors if they don't abuse. Given that mums and dads do abuse, it's not about the relationship to the child, it's about whether or not the person is abusive.

So encouraging families to stay together, for parents to take responsibility, for good fathers to protect their families is one aspect of protecting kids against abuse.

Let me give you a scenario. There's a household where dad is physically abusive of mum and the kids. Mum has a choice; she can take the kids and leave, or she can stay together with the abusive dad. How is encouraging her to stay going to protect anyone from abuse?

Answer: It doesn't. You have to actually address the causes of the abuse, not just assume a given household set up is automatically safest in every situation. Because it isn't.

No they are weak statements in themselves

No, they are part of the conclusions of a very careful systematic review of the literature. That you dismiss the arguments instead of responding to them makes me think you don't actually want to take the discussion seriously, you just want to use this topic to push your particular ideological bandwagon.

That line is not just talking about fathers absence but family structure that leads to higher risk of child abuse.

It's talking about how you structure a study of these matters to avoid bias.

Also the statement is not saying its the only reason but that family structure should be considered as a role in the relationship between family structure and higher abuse and not the only factor.

No... it is saying that when attempting to measure the relationship between family structure and other outcomes, you need to carefully select your subjects so as to avoid biased findings.

Yes but careful selection does not mean total dismissal of family structure. Something you seem willing to do.

I'm not constructing a formal sociological study. I'm arguing against physical abuse in any and every family structure.

I don't think its a bad representation

Then I'm not sure there's much point us continuing this, because I am reading things you link, and coming away with an understanding completely different to what you're claiming they say. At least one of us is badly misunderstanding the material.

Because the evidence shows that a TF setup naturally minimizes abuse and neglect without parents being equipped.

If they're parenting without abusing, then by definition they are well equipped to parent without abusing. They may have come by that equipping informally, through their own families of origin etc., and that's great. The point is they have the skill, wisdom, knowledge, insight, self-knowledge, self-control, whatever, to be able to do that.

Either way they are more equipped.

But not because of the household structure they inhabit.

Its not the childs fault but it creates more turmoil which makes it harder for single mums to cope and more likely to lose control and lash out

That's only relevant if you think abuse is about loss of control. I don't, and you haven't provided any evidence for the claim.

@Carl Emerson Abuse is not discipline. Discipline is important. Abuse is abhorrent. We need to be clear about the difference, and not use a case for discipline to excuse abuse.

 

[timothyu]

Type in 'taking kids cell phones away considered abuse' and 325 million sites come up

 

[stevevw]

You spam the thread with mostly irrelevant stuff, that doesn't demonstrate what you claim. I can't be bothered going through every study and pointing that out to you, line by line, three days before Christmas. I just pick out enough to demonstrate the problems and move on.

You call it spam many others call it just good common sense. But you didn't have to go through every study. You chose certain links and ignored others each time. If you didn't go through every study then how can you dismiss it as irrelevant.

You have been arguing that family structure prevents abuse. That article was saying something completely different; it was not looking at prevalence or prevention, but at what makes the difference in how severe the outcome is. So when someone is abused, having a wider network of caregivers, including extended family, means the psychological damage is likely to be less than if there is a smaller network of caregivers. But it's not saying anything about what causes or prevents that abuse in the first place.

First extended families and networks of carers is structural so family structure does make a difference. Second less psychological damage is preventing psychological damage. Third why does it matter so much about causes if better family structure results in less abuse. The simple fact that there are more caring people in the childs life logically leads to less abuse because there are more people keeping a lookout for the welfare of the child.

No, again.... the article was not speaking about reducing abuse. It was looking at what might mean the abused child is more resilient and suffers less harm when abuse does occur.

Thats seems illogical. So having better family structure and grandparents involved still means abuse occurs at the same level but the kids can handle it better. I don't think this is what they are saying.

I will direct you back to the articles that said 70% of children in TF have absolutely no abuse compared to other family structures.

But the one thing you have not advocated for is the one that matters most; tackling the attitudes and beliefs which drive abuse.

Several articles mentioned addressing social norms about child abuse and discipline. I have said several times its a mulipronged approach that includes looking at social norms and attitudes about child abuse.

It doesn't support them, to be constantly stigmatised.

Who is stigmatising single mums. Are you saying the mere mention that the evdience supports better child welfare is stigamtising people. Its like saying being obese is less optimal for physical health is stigmatising obese people.

I haven't seen you post a single study looking at adult attitudes to their abusive behaviour, whether they were "out of control" or making deliberate and considered parenting choices, or the like.

How do you know this if you just admitted you cannot be bothered reading the links. You just pointed a couple out to me and were using them to show it was about changing attitudes such as norms. If you would have bothered to read them you would have found that they did mention societal attitudes as well ie Risk and Protective factors included

Individual Risk Factors: Caregivers with attitudes accepting of or justifying violence or aggression
Risk and Protective Factors|Child Abuse and Neglect|Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

The socioecological model consists of a set of nested environments that represent the proximal and distal contexts surrounding health and development.22 These nested environments include the individual, interpersonal, community, and societal levels. The societal level includes factors such as social and cultural norms.
Risk and protective factors for child maltreatment: A review

But heres a problem with individual beliefs about corporal punishment and abuse. Some if not many believe corporal punishment is not abuse and have not issues and in fact some evdience that corporal punishment can be beneficial within a framework of disicpline using love and explanations.

So how can we say that attitudes towards abuse by corporal punishment is a cause that applies to everyone when some who believe and use coproral punishment have no abuse. That in itself shows its not necessarily the cause.

Which has nothing to do with whether they were "out of control."

So your saying psychological distress and trauma, extra stress from being a single mum has nothing to do with deminishing single parents options and mental and physical capacities. They are in the same position as a mother who has none of this. It makes no difference.

No! Family relationships =/= family structure. I mean, under that heading they included "legislative approaches to reduce corporal punishment." It's not about household structure, it's about how people actually interact in whatever household structure they inhabit.

Yes it does because better family relations reduces conflict. Part of better family relations is having both parents especially the father within those relationships. Well it should include these factors because ultimately relationships with mothers and fathers can contribute to better relationships.

Thats relationships between father and son or relationships between the direct parents and children. If we don't include this we are ignoring what is considered important in a childs development.

Those articles don't establish what you want them to, as I've demonstrated above.

Then show that this is wrong like you did with that one article. Show your arguement with the other articles you ignored.

 

[Paidiske]

If you didn't go through every study then how can you dismiss it as irrelevant.

I looked at enough to get the sense for what you were presenting.

First extended families and networks of carers is structural so family structure does make a difference. Second less psychological damage is preventing psychological damage. Third why does it matter so much about causes if better family structure results in less abuse. The simple fact that there are more caring people in the childs life logically leads to less abuse because there are more people keeping a lookout for the welfare of the child.

Sigh.

There are two completely different questions:
First: what prevents abuse? The study we were looking at here was not asking that question.
Second: when abuse does occur, what minimises the harm done by it? The study was looking at that question. That was the question where they determined that the presence of extended family was beneficial.

And for what it's worth, in general I agree that reducing isolation helps reduce abuse. I argued that early in the thread when I noted the benefits of multigenerational and extended households rather than "traditional" nuclear families. But be clear that that is not what this paper was discussing.

So having better family structure and grandparents involved still means abuse occurs at the same level

They were not measuring the level at which it happens. That was not what that study was about.

I will direct you back to the articles that said 70% of children in TF have absolutely no abuse compared to other family structures.

And I will point out, again, that some people in other family structures have left "traditional" structures because of abuse, both reducing the apparent prevalence of abuse in "traditional" households and increasing the apparent prevalence in other households.

I have said several times its a mulipronged approach that includes looking at social norms and attitudes about child abuse.

You've said it's multi-pronged, yes. Then you go back to saying, "So we have to encourage fathers to be involved..." and focus on that, when that's not the main issue.

Who is stigmatising single mums. Are you saying the mere mention that the evdience supports better child welfare is stigamtising people. Its like saying being obese is less optimal for physical health is stigmatising obese people.

Saying that single parenting is second-best, is more harmful, and so on, without making any qualifying statement, does stigmatise single parents. (And yes, a lot of health messaging does stigmatise obese people too).

How do you know this if you just admitted you cannot be bothered reading the links.

I'm not going point by point to refute all your links, but I haven't seen one on this particular issue. If you have one, post it.

You just pointed a couple out to me and were using them to show it was about changing attitudes such as norms.

Which argues against the idea that it's about being "out of control." If one is out of control, it doesn't matter what attitudes one has. They only matter if you're making deliberate choices in line with your particular convictions and beliefs.

Individual Risk Factors: Caregivers with attitudes accepting of or justifying violence or aggression
Risk and Protective Factors|Child Abuse and Neglect|Violence Prevention|Injury Center|CDC

And where in that link does it say that parents abuse because they are "out of control"? If they're abusing due to attitudes which justify and accept violence, they're not out of control at all. They believe their behaviour to be acceptable and justified.

So how can we say that attitudes towards abuse by corporal punishment is a cause that applies to everyone when some who believe and use coproral punishment have no abuse.

But the ones who abuse, largely believe it is acceptable for them to do so. That's my point. They're not cracking under pressure and doing something they believe is wrong. They're using parenting techniques they see as valid and right.

So your saying psychological distress and trauma, extra stress from being a single mum has nothing to do with deminishing single parents options and mental and physical capacities.

Pretty low view of human beings there. I can believe single parents have fewer options than partnered parents. I don't believe they have diminished mental capacities. For many of the single parents I know, they are so much better off having left the distress and trauma of an unhealthy household, if anything the opposite is true.

Yes it does because better family relations reduces conflict. Part of better family relations is having both parents especially the father within those relationships. Well it should include these factors because ultimately relationships with mothers and fathers can contribute to better relationships.

Only if those relationships are actually healthy. Again, it's not about who's under the roof; it's how whoever is under the roof relates with others.

Then show that this is wrong like you did with that one article. Show your arguement with the other articles you ignored.

That one article debunked most of the guff you've posted by pointing out the flaws in their arguments. If you want me to answer a specific point, make it. But if you're going to give me paragraphs more of ideological waffle that just rehashes the same flawed claims, I'm disinclined to give it much more time and attention.

 

[Carl Emerson]

@Carl Emerson Abuse is not discipline. Discipline is important. Abuse is abhorrent. We need to be clear about the difference, and not use a case for discipline to excuse abuse.

Until we are clear about the difference and agree on definitions the discussion will not yield much fruit.

 

[Paidiske]

Until we are clear about the difference and agree on definitions the discussion will not yield much fruit.

I find it fairly simple and straightforward to accept the legal definition of abuse and go from there. If that means that your country outlaws corporal punishment, I don't particularly have an issue with that. Discipline doesn't have to invovle corporal punishment at all (and given the risk of harm, and that it's generally pretty ineffective, why anyone would want to make a big thing of fighting for it is beyond me).