PDA

View Full Version : Researchers admit spanking behavior not rigorously tested


Fern5827
July 5th 03, 05:06 PM
http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_20851
59,00.html

Beal: A lot of parents are still conflicted about spanking.

Hulbert: So it seems. The American Academy of Pediatrics says you shouldn't
spank. But a quite significant proportion of its pediatrics membership says
that it tells parents it is on occasion perfectly okay to spank. Dip into
advice books and you'll find experts either categorically denouncing the
practice, defending parents' right to resort to it, or hedging their bets.
Meanwhile, many parents say they don't feel spanking is the best disciplinary
approach by any means, while many nonetheless confess that they have indeed
been known to spank their children. So there you have it, yet another hotly
contested ideological issue that turns out, on a practical level, to be more
about muddle than high principle. It's worth noting that scientific efforts to
resolve the spanking debate have been, as researchers have lately admitted, far
from rigorous.



**********************************

Ms. Hulbert has written a book on the history of child raising trends and fads
in the United States.

LaVonne Carlson
July 8th 03, 11:37 PM
What you fail to realize is that most pediatricians are not experts in child
development. Pediatricians are experts in child medicine. Spanking is not a
virus and spanking is not a bacteria. Spanking is not a syndrome nor is it a
medical condition. The vast majority of pediatricians are trained in child
medicine, not in child development. These are individuals who treat children with
medical conditions and who research medical issues. The exception is a
developmental pediatrician.

Child psychologists, child psychiatrists, and individuals trained in child
development and early education are the experts on spanking. These are the
individuals who understand development and who understand the potentially
devastating effect this commonly-used parenting strategy can have on young
children. These are the individuals who treat children suffering from emotional
problems, who educate young children, and who conduct research on children's
development -- including what is most conducive to short and long term positive
outcomes. These are the individuals who have researched spanking. The vast
majority of these individuals denounce the barbaric practice of raising your hand,
with or without an implement, and striking your child's body in a futile attempt
to parent.

If your child is ill or has a medical condition, consult a pediatrician. If your
child is suffering from emotional issues or if you have non-medical questions
regarding your child's development, consult a specialist in child development.

LaVonne

Fern5827 wrote:

> http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/opinion/article/0,1299,DRMN_38_20851
> 59,00.html
>
> Beal: A lot of parents are still conflicted about spanking.
>
> Hulbert: So it seems. The American Academy of Pediatrics says you shouldn't
> spank. But a quite significant proportion of its pediatrics membership says
> that it tells parents it is on occasion perfectly okay to spank. Dip into
> advice books and you'll find experts either categorically denouncing the
> practice, defending parents' right to resort to it, or hedging their bets.
> Meanwhile, many parents say they don't feel spanking is the best disciplinary
> approach by any means, while many nonetheless confess that they have indeed
> been known to spank their children. So there you have it, yet another hotly
> contested ideological issue that turns out, on a practical level, to be more
> about muddle than high principle. It's worth noting that scientific efforts to
> resolve the spanking debate have been, as researchers have lately admitted, far
> from rigorous.
>
> **********************************
>
> Ms. Hulbert has written a book on the history of child raising trends and fads
> in the United States.

Chris
July 9th 03, 07:19 PM
LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
: What you fail to realize is that most pediatricians are not experts in child
: development. Pediatricians are experts in child medicine. Spanking is not a
: virus and spanking is not a bacteria. Spanking is not a syndrome nor is it a
: medical condition. The vast majority of pediatricians are trained in child
: medicine, not in child development. These are individuals who treat children with
: medical conditions and who research medical issues. The exception is a
: developmental pediatrician.

This is correct. Parents often view their family pediatrician as
a kind of oracle with regard to all matters relating to parenting. But
pediatricians are child doctors by training. A pediatrician in training
who goes into his or her residency as a prospanker will likely come out a
prospanker and one who goes in as an antispanker will likely come out an
antispanker because there is little in the training of a pediatrician to
influence them to change their minds one way or the other.

For what it is worth, though, the professional organization of
Pediatricians in the USA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, has
officially taken a stand against all forms of spanking since 1998, after
the publication of Straus et al. (1997) and Gunnoe & Mariner (1997). These
two teams of researchers, each starting with quite different views on
spanking, both independently reached the same conclusions. The more the
children in each study were spanked at the outset of the study, the more
their age adjusted antisocial behavior scores were found to have increased
years later. The two papers were published side by side in a pediatrics
journal.

Pediatricians who favor spanking are hence taking a position at
odds with the position of their own professional organization.

Chris

REFERENCES

Gunnoe, M.L. & Mariner, C.L. 1997. "Toward a Developmental-Contextual
Model of the effects of Parental Spanking on Children's Aggression."
_Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine_ 151:768-775.

Straus, M.A.; Sugarman, D.B. and Giles-Sims, J. 1997. "Corporal
Punishment by Parents and Subsequent Anti-Social Behavior of Children"
_Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine_ 151(8):761-767.

Doan
July 10th 03, 06:21 AM
On 9 Jul 2003, Chris wrote:
> LaVonne Carlson > wrote:
> : What you fail to realize is that most pediatricians are not experts in child
> : development. Pediatricians are experts in child medicine. Spanking is not a
> : virus and spanking is not a bacteria. Spanking is not a syndrome nor is it a
> : medical condition. The vast majority of pediatricians are trained in child
> : medicine, not in child development. These are individuals who treat children with
> : medical conditions and who research medical issues. The exception is a
> : developmental pediatrician.
>
> This is correct. Parents often view their family pediatrician as
> a kind of oracle with regard to all matters relating to parenting. But
> pediatricians are child doctors by training. A pediatrician in training
> who goes into his or her residency as a prospanker will likely come out a
> prospanker and one who goes in as an antispanker will likely come out an
> antispanker because there is little in the training of a pediatrician to
> influence them to change their minds one way or the other.
>
LOL! Pediatricians are human being, they have experienced spanking
as children. Many are also parents, they deal with their kids just
as any other parents. Parents ARE THE REAL EXPERTS! Thus, many
pediatricians don't buy into the anti-spanking agenda, they have
seen the research and they know that the research are full of holes!

> For what it is worth, though, the professional organization of
> Pediatricians in the USA, the American Academy of Pediatrics, has
> officially taken a stand against all forms of spanking since 1998, after
> the publication of Straus et al. (1997) and Gunnoe & Mariner (1997).

Huh? So now they are experts???? :-) BTW, these two studies were already
presented at conferences on the issue of spanking way back in 1996. The
AAP reached the consensus in 1996 differently back then. The 1998
reversion was more of a political correct move - not based on any
scientific evidence!

> These
> two teams of researchers, each starting with quite different views on
> spanking, both independently reached the same conclusions. The more the
> children in each study were spanked at the outset of the study, the more
> their age adjusted antisocial behavior scores were found to have increased
> years later. The two papers were published side by side in a pediatrics
> journal.
>
A complete lie. They reached opposite conclusions.

> Pediatricians who favor spanking are hence taking a position at
> odds with the position of their own professional organization.
>
So what? They showed that they can think for themselves instead of being
a sheep and blindly follow what is PC at the moment.

> Chris
>
> REFERENCES
>
Chris likes to cite references hoping many don't read them. I read them
so Chris afraid to debate me! ;-) Here is why:

> Gunnoe, M.L. & Mariner, C.L. 1997. "Toward a Developmental-Contextual
> Model of the effects of Parental Spanking on Children's Aggression."
> _Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine_ 151:768-775.
>

Title: Spanking and Children's Aggression...
[Abstract, August Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:768-775] (c) AMA 1997

Toward a Developmental-Contextual Model of the Effects of Parental Spanking on
Children's Aggression
(Marjorie Lindner Gunnoe, PhD; Carrie Lea Mariner, MA )

Objective:
---------
To challenge the application of an unqualified social learning model to the
study of spanking, positing instead a developmental-contextual model in which
the effects of spanking depend on the meaning children ascribe to spanking.

Design:
------
Population-based survey data from 1112 children aged 4 to 11 years in the
National Survey of Families and Households. Controlled for several family
and child factors including children's baseline aggression.

Main Outcome Measures:
---------------------
Schoolyard fights and antisocial scores on the Behavior Problems Index at the
5-year follow-up.

Results:
-------
Structural equation modeling yielded main effects (P <=.05, change in chi
square) of children's age and race; spanking predicted fewer fights for
children aged 4 to 7 years and for children who are black and more fights
for children aged 8 to 11 years and for children who are white. Regression
analyses within subgroups yielded no evidence that spanking fostered
aggression in children younger than 6 years and supported claims of increased
aggression for only 1 subgroup: 8- to 11-year-old white boys in single-mother
families (P <=.05, F test).

Conclusions:
-----------
For most children, claims that spanking teaches aggression seem unfounded.
Other preventive effects and harmful effects of spanking may occur depending
on the child and the family context. Further efforts to identify moderators of
the effects of spanking on children's adjustment are necessary.

(Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1997;151:768-775)
> Straus, M.A.; Sugarman, D.B. and Giles-Sims, J. 1997. "Corporal
> Punishment by Parents and Subsequent Anti-Social Behavior of Children"
> _Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine_ 151(8):761-767.
>
The problen with this study is the "zero-group" contained children who
were spanked less than once a week (56% of the data!!!). Straus had to
admit:

"We are indebted to Larzelere et al for alerting us to the likelihood that our
no-spanking group includes occasional spankers. To the extent that this is
the case, the decrease in antisocial behavior that we found for children in
the "none" group may indicate an improvement in the behavior of children whose
parents spank, but do so only infrequently. Although that is a plausible
interpretation, data from another study enable us to investigate
this issue by classifying spanking as "never" or "not in the past 6 months,"
or the frequency of corporal punishment (CP) in the previous 6 months.[1] "

[1] -This is the Straus & Mouradian (1998) study, which we now know
that non-cp alternatives showed even a stronger correlation to antisocial
behavior than spanking!

Doan

Doan
July 10th 03, 06:33 AM
On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:

> What you fail to realize is that most pediatricians are not experts in child
> development. Pediatricians are experts in child medicine. Spanking is not a
> virus and spanking is not a bacteria. Spanking is not a syndrome nor is it a
> medical condition. The vast majority of pediatricians are trained in child
> medicine, not in child development. These are individuals who treat children with
> medical conditions and who research medical issues. The exception is a
> developmental pediatrician.
>
And we know that pediatricians were never children nor are they parents,
right, LaVonne? Parents are the real experts!!! They have been raising
children since the beginning of time, LaVonne! :-)

> Child psychologists, child psychiatrists, and individuals trained in child
> development and early education are the experts on spanking. These are the
> individuals who understand development and who understand the potentially
> devastating effect this commonly-used parenting strategy can have on young
> children. These are the individuals who treat children suffering from emotional
> problems, who educate young children, and who conduct research on children's
> development -- including what is most conducive to short and long term positive
> outcomes. These are the individuals who have researched spanking. The vast
> majority of these individuals denounce the barbaric practice of raising your hand,
> with or without an implement, and striking your child's body in a futile attempt
> to parent.
>
Really? So we are to believe Dobson, who has a Ph.D. in Child Development
and had written many books on the subject??? Or are we to believe in
Straus from UNH, who has a Ph.D. in Sociology??? ;-)

> If your child is ill or has a medical condition, consult a pediatrician. If your
> child is suffering from emotional issues or if you have non-medical questions
> regarding your child's development, consult a specialist in child development.
>
How about Dr. Diana Baumrind? NO! She knows nothing about child
development, right, LaVonne? ;-)

Doan
PS. Here is the summary of Dr. Baumrind study on spanking. Unlike, Chris
Dugan, I really do want you to read these studies. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE
TO GO TO THE LIBRARY! ;-)

"Recourse to some physical punishment was normative in the FSP sample, despite
the liberal politics of the Berkeley community, and the high educational level
and social status of the parents. Although by Time 3 when the children were 14
and 15, 62% of parents used no physical punishment, only 4% of the parents had
never used physical punishment at Time 1, when the children were preschoolers,
and only 16% had never used physical punishment between Time 1 and Time 2
when the children were ages 8 and 9. There was a considerable range of
frequency and severity of use of physical punishment by the FSP parents, with
a small minority, between 4% and 7%, at each time period resorting to
NON-normative, although not legally abusive, physical punishment. The
analysis that were intended to refer to child outcomes associated with
normative physical punishment excluded those parents."


And

"In fact, at T1 the reverse tended to be true. At T1, the 5 children in the
Green Zone who never experienced physical punishment tended to be somewhat
LESS well-adjusted then those other (six) chidlren in the Green zone who
experienced occasional but infrequent physical punishment, although contrasts
were typically not statistically significant."


To Summarize These Results:
--------------------------
"Prior to removing the few parents whose use of physical punishment was
unusually severe for this population and controlling the methodological
artifacts that could account for the associations, frequency of physical
punishment was associated with detrimental child outcomes, as antispanking
advocates such as Straus claim." However, once the Red zone families were
removed, there were few significant associations left to explain between
child outcomes and dimensional or categorical measures of NORMATIVE physical
punishment. Furthermore, the correlations with detrimental child outcomes
of physical punishment did not exceed those of verbal punishment. When
alternative explanations, including the adolescents' self-reported favorable
perception of their parents, are considered, there are NO effects of NORMATIVE
PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT on child or adolescent outcomes. The apparent effects of
NPP are explained by baseline child misbehavior and third variables that
contribute to a pattern of rejection and overcontrol in which reliance on
physical punishment is embedded. The 3 children (all girls) of parents
who totally abstainted from spanking at all time points, were not more
competent by adolescence than the whose parents spanked occasionally. All
were prosocial but two were very low on self-assertiveness and the one who
was self-assertive and achievement-oriented manifested severe internalizing
and externalizing symptoms. Unexpectedly, even the presence of above-average
frequency of normative physical punishment represented by the Orange zone
did not attenuate at all the positive outcomes associated with Authoritative
or Democratic parenting. Thus we found no evidence for unique detrimental
effects of normative physical punishment.

To my knowledge this is the only study using high quality data in a prospective
longitudinal design to assess the effects of normative physical punishment,
after controlling ofr the following methodological artifacts: shared source
variance, the intervention selection bias introduced by baseline child
misbehavior, and plausible thir parenting variables that were associated with
both frequency of use of normative physical punishment and detrimental child
outcomes. This is one of the few studies to contrast the effects of normative
physical punishment with another aversive disciplinary intervention, and to
contrast the effects of "no spanking" with those "low frequency" spanking.

Kane
July 10th 03, 03:09 PM
Doan > wrote in message >...
> On Tue, 8 Jul 2003, LaVonne Carlson wrote:
>
> > What you fail to realize is that most pediatricians are not experts in child
> > development. Pediatricians are experts in child medicine. Spanking is not a
> > virus and spanking is not a bacteria. Spanking is not a syndrome nor is it a
> > medical condition. The vast majority of pediatricians are trained in child
> > medicine, not in child development. These are individuals who treat children with
> > medical conditions and who research medical issues. The exception is a
> > developmental pediatrician.
> >
> And we know that pediatricians were never children nor are they parents,
> right, LaVonne? Parents are the real experts!!! They have been raising
> children since the beginning of time, LaVonne! :-)

Adn I'll put my parents who don't spank up against yours who do in the
arena of expert anytime. Parents who don't spank tend to look to other
means, exploring a far wider range of parenting and discipline
methods. Their repertoires are much larger than spankers as a rule.

It would seem, since it was voted on by pediatricians, that far more,
whether they were spanked as children or not, decided against spanking
than for it.

Makes yah kind of crasy to think of that, don't it now? r r r r

>
> > Child psychologists, child psychiatrists, and individuals trained in child
> > development and early education are the experts on spanking. These are the
> > individuals who understand development and who understand the potentially
> > devastating effect this commonly-used parenting strategy can have on young
> > children. These are the individuals who treat children suffering from emotional
> > problems, who educate young children, and who conduct research on children's
> > development -- including what is most conducive to short and long term positive
> > outcomes. These are the individuals who have researched spanking. The vast
> > majority of these individuals denounce the barbaric practice of raising your hand,
> > with or without an implement, and striking your child's body in a futile attempt
> > to parent.
> >
> Really? So we are to believe Dobson, who has a Ph.D. in Child Development
> and had written many books on the subject???

Most teen age boys beat off a great deal. That doesn't make them
Sexologists, now does it?

Dobson is a violent vicious piece of human scum that thinks that dogs
and children should be equated and he even mistreats dogs.

He assumes evil in children from the get go and behaves accordingly,
and of course produces what he predicts. He misnames and
misunderstands basic principles of child development and what the
tasks for children actually are.

He interprets their focus on trying to find out how the universe works
as a personal attack on himself and mounts a war against the child.

But you love him, of course.

> Or are we to believe in
> Straus from UNH, who has a Ph.D. in Sociology??? ;-)

Of course. Someone with a degree in child development hasn't
necessarily conducted any research beyond winning his Doctorate. And
sociology is almost entirely a research focused discipline. Not so
with child development.

>
> > If your child is ill or has a medical condition, consult a pediatrician. If your
> > child is suffering from emotional issues or if you have non-medical questions
> > regarding your child's development, consult a specialist in child development.
> >
> How about Dr. Diana Baumrind? NO! She knows nothing about child
> development, right, LaVonne? ;-)

In fact Dr. Baumrind is a darling of the prospanking set with a long
and lurid history of very strange "research" studies.

There are many who do not agree with your assessment of her "studies"

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=Dr.+Diana+Baumrind&btnG=Google+Search

The very "study" you refer to that she presented at a Berkeley
gathering of psychologists is a case in point. A remarkably small
study group, stripped of children who fell in what she called "the red
zone" that in effect removed children that WOULD have very likely
shown the results she didn't want, and NOT ever academically published
so as to avoid the rigors of peer review.

And you cite it like it was a valid and academically recognized study.
It was nothing of the sort.

You just pointed out to us, once again, the levels you will stoop to
to try and declare yourself in an argument you lost years ago.

>
> Doan
> PS. Here is the summary of Dr. Baumrind study on spanking. Unlike, Chris
> Dugan, I really do want you to read these studies. YOU DON'T EVEN HAVE
> TO GO TO THE LIBRARY! ;-)

I've read her "study" which consisted entirely of remarks she made at
the conference about it. It isn't a true study at all. It was a
presentation that completely avoided any chance she could be
challenged on her methodology as she submitted NOTHING to peer review.
We don't know if she actually even did the study she describes.

>
> "Recourse to some physical punishment was normative in the FSP sample, despite
> the liberal politics of the Berkeley community, and the high educational level
> and social status of the parents. Although by Time 3 when the children were 14
> and 15, 62% of parents used no physical punishment, only 4% of the parents had
> never used physical punishment at Time 1, when the children were preschoolers,
> and only 16% had never used physical punishment between Time 1 and Time 2
> when the children were ages 8 and 9. There was a considerable range of
> frequency and severity of use of physical punishment by the FSP parents, with
> a small minority, between 4% and 7%, at each time period resorting to
> NON-normative, although not legally abusive, physical punishment. The
> analysis that were intended to refer to child outcomes associated with
> normative physical punishment excluded those parents."

r r r r ... read it carefully. She stripped the group, forming a study
group she wanted for an outcome predetermined by her and the spank
happy set she slavishly cowtows to.

> And
>
> "In fact, at T1 the reverse tended to be true. At T1, the 5 children in the
> Green Zone who never experienced physical punishment tended to be somewhat
> LESS well-adjusted

And by what criteria is she determining "well adjusted"?

Most spanking proponents also strongly support obedience over normal
developmental exploritory behaviors. In other words, dimbulb, spankers
as a whole tend to have developmentally crippled children, one way or
another. You are a fine example yourself.

She uses the language as carelessly as you do to try and prove your
position. You and she fail miserably.

> then those other (six) chidlren in the Green zone who
> experienced occasional but infrequent physical punishment, although contrasts
> were typically not statistically significant."

I believe the entire group consisted of less than 20 individuals
studied. She addressed a crowd of extremely polite people who no doubt
did their gaffawing in the halls of UC during a break to spare her the
embarrassment such a "study" would bring to academics.

>
>
> To Summarize These Results:
> --------------------------
> "Prior to removing the few parents whose use of physical punishment was
> unusually severe

And we have absolutely NO way of knowing how that group was profiled
to remove. Just how severe did they spank, or not?

Since the public, and even pediatricians and academics don't agree on
what does and doesn't rise to the level of abuse and will call
spanking everything from a tap on the butt that wouldn't displace a
kitten, to beatings that draw blood using objects, this is a very
foolish thing for her to do.

> for this population and controlling the methodological
> artifacts that could account for the associations, frequency of physical
> punishment was associated with detrimental child outcomes, as antispanking
> advocates such as Straus claim."

This is unheard of in academic circles. It was a public insult to a
man in the audience, a highly respected researcher in his own right,
who was rigorous enough to point out in assessing his own work any
possible questionable conclusions.

> However, once the Red zone families were
> removed,

Yes, if I remove all the stinging ants in a mix, then I can prove that
ants don't sting by examining only the remaining.

> there were few significant associations left to explain between
> child outcomes and dimensional or categorical measures of NORMATIVE physical
> punishment.

And define "NORMATIVE physical punishment" please, won't you Doan?

> Furthermore, the correlations with detrimental child outcomes
> of physical punishment did not exceed those of verbal punishment.

Which simply proves, if true, that verbal punishment of children by
their trusted parent or caregiver is very painful for a child.

On the other hand entertain this thought: What would consist of a
"verbal punishment"? Just what would a parent have to say to punish a
child? And why?

Her focus on "punishment" as "discipline" is highly revealing. One is
not the other. For any study of "discipline" to be valid it has to
consider this issue. She did not. Neither do you.

> When
> alternative explanations, including the adolescents' self-reported favorable
> perception of their parents, are considered, there are NO effects of NORMATIVE
> PHYSICAL PUNISHMENT on child or adolescent outcomes.

Now there's a study for you. No blind. Just self-reporting.
Don'tchajustloveit?

That is the cardinal sin in research, to rely on self reporting by the
subjects.

And the fact they were adolescents probably escaped you. Years of
likely the same treatment dulls the child to the pain.

> The apparent effects of
> NPP are explained by baseline child misbehavior and third variables that
> contribute to a pattern of rejection and overcontrol in which reliance on
> physical punishment is embedded.

And what is "baseline child misbehavior" to the advocates of spanking?
I've never had the slightest trouble taking those same behaviors of a
child, and without punishment of any kind, using them for a teaching
opportunity for the child.

> The 3 children (all girls) of parents
> who totally abstainted from spanking at all time points, were not more
> competent by adolescence than the whose parents spanked occasionally.

Adolescent girls are by socialization, cooperative with their peers.
Hence they inhabit a milieu of sameness...or haven't you noticed?

> All
> were prosocial but two were very low on self-assertiveness and the one who
> was self-assertive and achievement-oriented manifested severe internalizing
> and externalizing symptoms.

Now what does that gobbledygook mean? It could very well mean that
socialization was more a factor than "spanking" or not spanking. It
could also mean that the more mentally healthy child in the group was
the last child.

Those who consider "compliance" by children as the measure of their
competence are asking for trouble when the child is older. And so is
society.

> Unexpectedly, even the presence of above-average
> frequency of normative physical punishment represented by the Orange zone
> did not attenuate at all the positive outcomes associated with Authoritative
> or Democratic parenting. Thus we found no evidence for unique detrimental
> effects of normative physical punishment.

Which demonstrates that attempts to control for variables is
unsuccessful. It could be, and she points it out above, that OTHER
factors might account for the differences. And we have that bugaboo of
"normative physical punishment" again. What is it? In one society it
may be one thing and in another society you might have to beat your
child half to death to be using "normative physical punishment."

> To my knowledge this is the only study using high quality data in a prospective
> longitudinal design to assess the effects of normative physical punishment,
> after controlling ofr the following methodological artifacts: shared source
> variance, the intervention selection bias introduced by baseline child
> misbehavior, and plausible thir parenting variables that were associated with
> both frequency of use of normative physical punishment and detrimental child
> outcomes. This is one of the few studies to contrast the effects of normative
> physical punishment with another aversive disciplinary intervention, and to
> contrast the effects of "no spanking" with those "low frequency" spanking.

Bull****. It had less than 20 subjects drawn from a tiny pool of
subjects.

It is not "one of the few studies" but in fact the only "study" of
it's kind ever produced and ranks right up there with Dr. Dobson the
Dachsund Disciplinarian for usefullness.

It was a yak fest to feed the pro spank defenders and their hysterical
agenda.

But I'm sure you'll insist you won another round in the ongoing pro vs
anti spanking debate.

Tah,

Kane

emery
August 2nd 03, 06:43 PM
(Kane) wrote in message >...
> Adn I'll put my parents who don't spank up against yours who do in the
> arena of expert anytime. Parents who don't spank tend to look to other
> means, exploring a far wider range of parenting and discipline
> methods. Their repertoires are much larger than spankers as a rule.

And there are also those of us who use spanking as a last resort.
Unfortunately, the arguement always seems to be all or nothing. We
have used positive rewards, charts, logical consequences, loss of
privledges (sp?) and yes, some spanking. I dont think spanking per
say is the problem, but how, when, why, etc it is used.

Diane