That's how I read these two posts.
I didn't say that no spanking means no discipline. I said I see more children that are not spanked or disciplined at all.
That's how I read these two posts.
When the person delivering the physical punishment is over 5' tall and over 100 lbs with muscle and the child being hit is all of 25 lbs-80lbs, yep it's brut force. You are forcing your child into compliance with physical punishment and you are much bigger than they are. Imagine Shaquille O'neal comes to your house and says, "you are going to be hit by me about 5 times on the rear end because you did not pay your taxes on time.' The hitting has nothing to do with the crime and Shaq is so big that being hit by him-because he is soooo much bigger than we are - is very scary. Or-does your boss come to your office with a switch and swat your legs because you turned in the report late? Brut force.
I got spanked a few times. My mother grabbed me by my hair, dragged me to the ground and kicked me too. Neither gave me a real need or desire to do what I was told. It did not make me a good person. It did not improve my self worth nor make me feel loved or lovable.
Why would anyone hit a child?
Strongest evidence yet?You meant that sarcastically, right OP? It's a study of 2500 kids. My goodness, that is hardly a drop in the bucket.
Heck, given a bit of time, I'm sure I could find loads of "studies" on how discipline is good for a kid and makes them a better person. This study, and most others., aren't worth the paper they were written on.
I love how the "I don't spank" crowd starts to sound all smug. If you spank then you must be some illiterate, uneducated, backwoods idiot who beats their child into submission. You do realize that people who spank are capable of control and rational thought, right?
I think a lot of people need to worry about cleaning up their own glass houses before they start throwing stones at others.![]()
lol, that study missed the obvious, in my opinion. That would be the temperment of the child. It controlled many variables, but I don't see where it dealt with the concept that a child might have been spanked more because of their temperment.
Studies say what you want them to say, and what the grant money wants them to say.
Personally I don't care if you want to spank your kids or sit them down in a drum circle and talk about their feelings with them.
What I find most humorous about this "study" is the fact that people believe it. As someone who deals with statistics on a daily basis, I could sit here and plug in information to SPSS that could prove a correlation between non spanking and on the "autism spectrum" just based on previous posts by people.
Does that make it more valid because I can show a graph correlating these two things?
Not that I agree or disagree with spanking as I feel it's up to the individual parent, but the "study" presented by the article is just as valid as the one I could plug into my computer to "prove" a certain stance on something. Heck, mine would be MORE valid based on the number of people that post on these boards so my N would be higher than 2500.
The thing people refuse to recognize is that correlation does not mean causation.
I need a statistic to prove to my husband that I am 95% right of the time...anyone got one of those available?
I will continue to spank my kids as I see fit
Personally I don't care if you want to spank your kids or sit them down in a drum circle and talk about their feelings with them.