Why does there seem to be a stigma attached to advocate for Men's Rights?

Chula Vista · 08-12-2017, 06:51 PM

^^^^

Agreed.

Aloysius · 08-12-2017, 07:04 PM

Spanking is one of those areas where people tend to wholeheartedly believe what was done to them is right. For example I was never smacked - and I would never dream of hitting my kids. I've never even hit an adult let alone a child - the idea is completely abhorrent to me.

djchameleon · 08-12-2017, 07:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paedantic Basterd

I mean, you're basically pitting your science against mine, and I've been studying the field of psychology (including child development) for half a decade soooo.

If you've got research to link me to, I'd be interested in reading it and evaluating it, but if not, I'm sticking with the information I trust and can validate.

Quote:

One camp of experts argues that an openhanded swat to the buttocks is harmless -- and, in fact, can be helpful. Den A. Trumbull, M.D., president of the American College of Pediatricians (which split from the AAP in 2002 over various policy differences) believes spanking is a proven way to reinforce milder disciplinary tactics. He cites a 2005 review of 26 spanking studies published in Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review. The researchers concluded that spanking disobedient 2- to 6-year-olds worked just as well at reforming their behavior as 13 alternative disciplinary approaches (such as giving a time-out, reasoning with a child, and taking away privileges) as long as the parent lovingly and rationally explained the reasons for the action. Only when the corporal punishment was severe (such as striking the face) or when it was the family's sole discipline method was it deemed harmful compared with other methods.

"Some kids are difficult to parent. At times, they simply won't stay in a time-out and they can't be reasoned with," says Robert Larzelere, Ph.D., author of the Clinical Child review study and professor of human development and family science at Oklahoma State University in Stillwater. That's where conditional spankings -- those that are intended to back up these milder disciplinary tactics -- come into play. Drs. Larzelere and Trumbull contend that many older defiant kids learn to cooperate with time-outs and reasoning so they won't require corporal punishment anymore. "They will have learned through spankings to take parental warnings more seriously and to respond appropriately to the milder method," Dr. Trumbull says.

Sauce

Paedantic Basterd · 08-12-2017, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

Sauce

Okay, well even without reading the article in full, the section you quoted stated that striking a child works as well as alternative methods. Not better than.

So see point (B) I have been making: If you don't have to hit someone, why the **** are you hitting them?

EDIT: Furthermore, "The researchers concluded that spanking disobedient 2- to 6-year-olds worked just as well at reforming their behavior as 13 alternative disciplinary approaches (such as giving a time-out, reasoning with a child, and taking away privileges) as long as the parent lovingly and rationally explained the reasons for the action."

So even in the material you quoted, the study suggests that it's the explanation that makes the difference in behaviour, not the hitting itself, so again, why the **** are you hitting someone??

EDIT 2: The article you cited literally says there are 13 OTHER ways to effectively train your child apart from hitting them. This is exactly what my point is. Your research backs me up entirely.

djchameleon · 08-12-2017, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paedantic Basterd

Okay, well even without reading the article in full, the section you quoted stated that striking a child works as well as alternative methods. Not better than.

So see point (B) I have been making: If you don't have to hit someone, why the **** are you hitting them?

EDIT: Furthermore, "The researchers concluded that spanking disobedient 2- to 6-year-olds worked just as well at reforming their behavior as 13 alternative disciplinary approaches (such as giving a time-out, reasoning with a child, and taking away privileges) as long as the parent lovingly and rationally explained the reasons for the action."

So even in the material you quoted, the study suggests that it's the explanation that makes the difference in behaviour, not the hitting itself, so again, why the **** are you hitting someone??

EDIT 2: The article you cited literally says there are 13 OTHER ways to effectively train your child apart from hitting them. This is exactly what my point is. Your research backs me up entirely.

The article I cited shows both points of view but also goes on the state further that neither points of the debate are definite. It also backs up what I said earlier about the spank followed up with the explanation.

The spank is used to reinforce the warnings and to take them more seriously. The reason for the spanks is because explanations alone don't work.

Paedantic Basterd · 08-12-2017, 07:31 PM

I went to click the link to read the study in-full only to find that it's not even a study. It's an article on a parenting website.

The article also refers to research suggesting that spanking is outright harmful, which you ignored when you pasted the bit about it being a neutral form of discipline.

In fact, the author of the article appears to conclude exactly what I'm trying to tell you: If you don't need to hit someone, don't hit them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Article

Despite these risks, many parents have no intention of abandoning corporal punishment -- a fact that concerns the AAP. "It's very hard to make a violent act loving," says Dr. Siegel. "Although it's true that a lot of spanked kids will never develop serious problems, why would you take the risk? There are healthier ways to raise a well-behaved child."

No-Spank Strategies

If you use your hands to punish because nothing else seems to work, try one of these alternatives -- and stick with it for at least 21 days, suggests Parents advisor Michele Borba, Ed.D."

djchameleon · 08-12-2017, 07:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paedantic Basterd

I went to click the link to read the study in-full only to find that it's not even a study. It's an article on a parenting website.

The article also refers to research suggesting that spanking is outright harmful, which you ignored when you pasted the bit about it being a neutral form of discipline.

In fact, the author of the article appears to conclude exactly what I'm trying to tell you: If you don't need to hit someone, don't hit them.

The Dr. in the quote cites a specific study though, I just didn't go to that exact one to link more information from there.

Edit:

Quote:

The studies cited by both spanking supporters and detractors are hardly infallible. For starters, you can't study physical punishment in the randomized, double-blind way you can with, say, drug trials. The findings can merely point to an association between spanking and negative (or positive) outcomes rather than a clearly defined cause and effect. So it comes down to a chicken-and-egg problem of sorts: Are kids spanked because they misbehave, or do they misbehave more because they're spanked?

There's also the issue of intent. "A parent who spanks as a form of discipline is quite different from one who strikes with the goal of injuring a child," argues Dr. Trumbull. "Clearly, the long-term effects will be vastly different in these two instances." For this reason, he contends, studies that lump openhanded spanking with potentially abusive methods, like kicking, face-slapping, or paddling with painful objects, are misleading.

Those two entire paragraphs backs up my earlier point about both sides of the argument citing studies that only back up their side of the point and how it boils down to the individual's stance.

In fact, you ignored those two paragraphs right above the one you just posted to jump down right below it because of course it goes against what you are saying.

Paedantic Basterd · 08-12-2017, 07:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

The Dr. in the quote cites a specific study though, I just didn't go to that exact one to link more information from there.

Time for my PSA about source citing (this is for the patronizing benefit of everyone, not to single you out): The number of times news articles misinterpret the findings of a scientific study is staggering and it's a major problem present in science. There's a rift between academia and public reporting that needs to be filled. Scientists write articles for other scientists, not for the general public, and that means people who write news articles or blogs or whatever are left trying to decipher the scientist's intentions on their own.

The problem is worse when you look at itfrom the perspective of a researcher because the amount of time scientists spend agonizing over the exact wording of their findings is painstaking. If the precision of your language isn't exact, people can draw differing conclusions from your research that can have wide-reaching impacts when practitioners, businesses, policy-makers, etc. try to implement changes in the real world based on a misunderstanding or insufficient data.

Anyways, just to explain my unyielding preference for firsthand research. You can barely trust a scientist to report their findings accurately, let alone people unstudied in science to interpret those findings.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deej

Those two entire paragraphs backs up my earlier point about both sides of the argument citing studies that only back up their side of the point and how it boils down to the individual's stance.

What? What are you even saying? That because some studies conflict, you should just go with what you feel is right? How about "because some studies conflict, maybe you shouldn't hit people just to be on the safe side, especially since alternative options are available"?

EDIT: Even if you were definitively correct that hitting children causes no long term harm and is equally effective as other methods, shouldn't you opt out of hitting people, simply because you don't have to do it?

OccultHawk · 08-12-2017, 08:01 PM

Not if you enjoy bright red bottoms!

Paedantic Basterd · 08-12-2017, 08:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djchameleon

In fact, you ignored those two paragraphs right above the one you just posted to jump down right below it because of course it goes against what you are saying.

My point is that you can't back up your claims with the source you cited. My point is that seeing as the jury is out on whether or not hitting kids is explicitly harmful, maybe don't hit kids. I don't need those two paragraphs to make that point and they don't contradict it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

Not if you enjoy bright red bottoms!

I'm not gonna lie, this is a weird thing to say, even by MB standards.

08-12-2017, 06:51 PM	#971 (permalink)
Chula Vista Toasted Poster Join Date: Oct 2014 Location: SoCal by way of Boston Posts: 11,332	^^^^ Agreed. __________________ “The fact that we live at the bottom of a deep gravity well, on the surface of a gas covered planet going around a nuclear fireball 90 million miles away and think this to be normal is obviously some indication of how skewed our perspective tends to be.”

08-12-2017, 08:01 PM	#979 (permalink)
OccultHawk one-balled nipple jockey Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Dirty Souf Biatch Posts: 22,006	Not if you enjoy bright red bottoms! __________________ 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Member of the Year & Journal of the Year Champion Behold the Writing of THE LEGEND: https://www.musicbanter.com/members-...p-lighter.html

08-12-2017, 07:04 PM	#972 (permalink)
Aloysius Music Addict Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Adelaide, Australia Posts: 353	Spanking is one of those areas where people tend to wholeheartedly believe what was done to them is right. For example I was never smacked - and I would never dream of hitting my kids. I've never even hit an adult let alone a child - the idea is completely abhorrent to me.