If we can agree that the majority of parents are likely NOT child abusers, then the parents in their study who were spanking their kids likely did so because the kids had a more aggressive nature to begin with.
You are making an assumption based on ???. What about the assumption that the PARENTS who spanked were more aggressive then parents who don't spank, and NOT the children?
Let's say a child is aggressive. What real threat is an aggressive three year old to an adult? How much of a threat is a one year old to a parent that they need to resort to physical abuse? Around 50% of one year old babies aren't even walking. There are so many alternative ways to deal with babies and children other then hitting them, but they take knowledge, energy, self-control, time, and patience with the process. Ironman says
Too many parents today won't demand that their kid follow directions. They all want to be their kids best friend, which turns out to be a disaster!!
They end up raising kids like mentioned in the OP...
Parents need to ramp up their authority to what ever level it takes when verbal requests aren't followed. Severe punishment, loss of privileges and if needed, physical persuasion to get the kids to follow the rules. If I parent doesn't get control of their kids behaviour at a early age, they'll turn out to be the whiny, disrespectful Millennials we see here at Patnet!
It doesn't have to be either/or. I agree parents do not need to be their children's "friends". This is detrimental for the child -- the parents needs to be an authority figure, absolutely. But physical punishment isn't the only alternative. You can have authority over your child without having the threat of physical punishment hanging over the childhood. Hitting someone else (adult or child) is invasive, violent and humiliating.
It's the difference between ruling with fear or ruling with quiet authority. Physical punishment makes children fear that person.
Abstract: This study examined separate and combined maternal and paternal use of spanking with children at age 3 and children's subsequent aggressive behavior at age 5. The sample was derived from a birth cohort study and included families (n = 923) in which both parents lived with the child at age 3. In this sample, 44% of 3-year-olds were spanked 2 times or more in the past month by either parent or both parents. In separate analyses, being spanked more than twice in the prior month at age 3, by either mother or father, was associated with increased child aggression at 5 years. In combined analyses, there was a dose-response association; the greatest risk for child aggression was reported when both parents spanked more than twice in the prior month (adjusted odds ratio: 2.01; [confidence interval: 1.03-3.94]). Violence prevention initiatives should target and engage mothers and fathers in anticipatory guidance efforts aimed at increasing the use of effective and non-aggressive child discipline techniques and reducing the use of spanking.
Sweden is a terrible example since it has been in a downward spiral since the regressives (who may call themselves progressives) took over. The country is fiscally in bad shape due to massive handouts and crime has skyrocketed (mostly due to "refugees").
What is the world does Sweden's fiscal or immigrant policy have to do with abuse/punishment to children?
There is no such research, just opinion and emotion.
"Numerous studies have been conducted in recent years to support the theory that physical forms of discipline do more harm than good, said George Holden, a professor of psychology at Southern Methodist University, who has published five books on parenting and child development.
"The line between discipline and abuse is a gray area, and it's also sort of fluid because a parent might begin with using what they consider appropriate or reasonable discipline. But in the course of seconds, it can easily escalate based on a child's reaction or a parent's rage," he said. "It's easy to inadvertently cross the line, wherever it is."
Hurting your child can also harm the parent-child relationship by infusing it with pain and negative emotions, he said. Children who are spanked are also more likely to be aggressive toward others because they don't know any other way to behave.
When physical force is combined with derogatory or emotionally abusive comments, like the ones in the YouTube video, the damage can be even greater, said psychologist Gregory Jantz, author of "When Your Teenager Becomes the Stranger in Your House."
"You're degrading their personhood, attacking them as a person, their character, their worth and value," he said. "Combine that with the anger and the hitting, that's what we call violence, and that's about power and control: one person, through physical force, exerting power and control over the other."
Studies have also found an elevated risk of heart disease related to childhood trauma, said psychologist Melanie Greenberg, who studies the effects of stress and trauma on the mind and body.
"There is evidence that child abuse changes brain function in areas related to processing threat. Chronic stress can lead to imbalance of the autonomic nervous system," she said, referencing the Adverse Childhood Experiences Study, a collaboration between the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Kaiser Permanente.
Such an imbalance can distort one's fight-or-flight perception, causing a tendency to overreact or magnify perceived threats, she said."
"While there are laws against child abuse, it's legal in all 50 states for parents to hit their children, and for schools in 19 states to physically punish kids. About 80% of American parents said they've hit their young children, and about 100,000 kids are paddled in U.S. schools every year, researchers said.
Kids are still hit with hands, belts, switches and paddles, said Elizabeth Gershoff , an associate professor of human development and family sciences at University of Texas, despite research that shows it doesn't model or teach behavior parents are looking for, that it damages trust between parent and children and that it can lead to increased aggression...
...The United States and Somalia are the only two countries that haven't ratified the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, an international treaty that recognizes the human rights of people younger than 18."
This is a national and international generational disparity issue:
From the article:
“What is playing out here is the result of housing equity being concentrated in the hands of the boomer generation, with generation Y being excluded from the housing market by the amount of deposit they have to raise.
It's still used today in a modified form called burka. And ironically it's mostly women who welcome that cultural "enrichment" into the west.
Are you saying western women are welcoming the burqa? I would have to disagree.
"...The claim that covering yourself up in public is an empowering choice insults the intelligence and dignity of women everywhere, just as the theological claim that the burqa is a necessary defence against predatory male sexuality insults Muslim men insofar as it treats them as fundamentally incapable of responsibility for their sexual behaviour.
The reason Western feminists (male or female) object to seeing women in burqas is not that we can’t tolerate diversity, but that the burqa is a symbol of patriarchal Islam’s intolerance of dissent and desire to contain and repress female sexuality...."
"It is an imported Saudi Arabian tradition, and the growing number of women veiling their faces in Britain is a sign of creeping radicalisation, which is not just regressive, it is oppressive and downright dangerous.
The burkha is an extreme practice. It is never right for a woman to hide behind a veil and shut herself off from people in the community. But it is particularly wrong in Britain, where it is alien to the mainstream culture for someone to walk around wearing a mask.
The burkha is the ultimate visual symbol of female oppression. It is the weapon of radical Muslim men who want to see Sharia law on Britain's streets, and would love women to be hidden, unseen and unheard. It is totally out of place in a civilised country.
"Precisely because it is impossible to distinguish between the woman who is choosing to wear a burkha and the girl who has been forced to cover herself and live behind a veil, I believe it should be banned.
Some houses had a hook in the wall at the side of the fireplace where the wife would be chained, until she promised to behave herself and curb her tongue. Although sometimes fitted to a nagging wife by the local gaoler (jailer) at the request of her husband, or by the husband himself, it was more often a punitive sentence ordered by a magistrate. Judicial bridles were more elaborate than the basic type; they always had at least one spike and they could be locked. They also had a chain attached to the side of the bridle, with a ring on the end. This could be used to publicly humiliate the woman by leading her through the town, or staking her at a designated area for a set time period. The amount of time the bridle was worn could be from 30 minutes to several hours, depending on the seriousness of the offence, during which time the miscreant would not be able to eat or drink. It was also said to be used on witches to prevent them from chanting or casting spells.
Scold's Bridle: This was a metal frame place over a woman's head. It had a bit that stuck in her mouth to prevent her talking. The scold's bridle or branks was used in Scotland by the 16th century and was used in England from the 17th century. It was last used in Britain in 1824
Let the Woman be Silent in Church: Over four centuries, thousands of women were subjected to the wearing of these contraptions. The main principle behind the scold's bridle was: let the woman be silent in church, though the word 'church' referred to the Parish community, or to be more precise; the male hierarchies of a community, rather than the building of bricks and mortar. Further translation would suggest more accurately - 'Let the woman be silent in the presence of the male'.
A scold's bridle is a British invention, possibly originating in Scotland, used between the 16th and 19th Century. It was a device used to control, humiliate and punish gossiping, troublesome women by effectively gagging them. Scold comes from the 'common scold': a public nuisance, more often than not women, who habitually gossiped and quarrelled with their neighbours, while the name bridle describes a part that fitted into the mouth. The scold's bridle was also known as the 'gossiping bridle' and the 'Brank(s)', and was commonly used by husbands on their nagging or swearing wives. The device was occasionally used on men; however, it was primarily used on women who agitated the male-dominated society of the era.
Yes, as well as grammar. In fact, we should just get rid of English and create a standard language that the entire world has to learn
How about Elvish? It's a beautiful sounding language, and mostly complete. Tolkien-heads can teach the rest of the world.
Llie tula mellonea, vasa ni ulna en mereth en amin. = Come friends, eat and drink of my feast
Il'quen sinta mellonamin Lywnis? = Does everybody know my friend Lywnis?
Uma, lye sinta he. = Yes, we know him.
I just got some news from a few cousins. My ancestors' families didn't fight on the American side for the Revolutionary War. A few were Tories and others, were actually in the British army, fighting against Washington and company
And if you think England's empire is non existent then you are lost my friend. It took them a couple hundred years but the bloody Brits didn't give up and they've won the war, finally.
"Let’s take a moment to think about what’s going on just four weeks after birth. Babies haven’t even cracked their first real smiles yet. Mothers are still physically recovering from birth, particularly if they’ve had C-sections. They’re both probably getting up several times during the night to nurse. In fact, they’ve barely begun what’s supposed to be half a year of exclusive breast-feeding, according to the American Academy of Pediatrics.
Yet going back to work in such a short amount of time isn’t just tiring or unpleasant, new research demonstrates that it’s bad for both women and children. We now have enough evidence to blame the short amounts of time mothers have with newborns for developmental delays, sickness, and even death... "
And this article is not even advocating long term maternity leave, ala Wesern Europe.