"If you believe that the average parent is untrustworthy enough to abuse it if not absolutely prohibited from spanking at all, there is a kinda sorta logic to this absolutist attitude, but I don't agree with it because I think most parents aren't quite that lacking in common sense."

All I'm saying is that what *I* do as far as not hitting my child is no different than what is required for a parent applying consistent boundaries around spanking.

You had said, "If you can successfully raise children without ever raising your hand to them, then you certainly have my congratulations."

As if it's a difficult thing to accomplish. It's no more difficult than being consistent about spanking. And if you're not consistent about spanking--you DEFINITELY shouldn't be doing it.

(If you don't grovel for the rich joke or smile for the single mom thing I'm gonna abuse you.)

Thomas: I just don't think it's right to hit people and I never have. I was not a perfect child. I spent time out and grounded and apologizing and doing extra chores. If I didn't understand why it was explained to me, but nobody ever hit me to try to make me understand that I was wrong. What kind of an argument is that?

If striking children is such a good idea, why don't we have rumbles with our neighbors when, say, a chainsaw goes off like an alarm at 7:00 a.m. the day we wake up with a hangover? That would seem to be a neighbor sorely in need of discipline and moral guidance.

I suspect part of the reason is that it would make us look stupid in front of the other neighbors. I suspect another part to be that the outcome is uncertain. We might (gasp) lose.

Striking a child offers the ability to do so in the privacy of one's own home, if desired, and the outcome is *never* in question. In addition, if outdoor striking is preferred, most neighbors will studiously ignore the proceedings out of respect for us and the sacred tradition of providing discipline to someone who has no chance at all against us.

Ariel

Ooooh. I like it! Can I spank my back-yard neighbor for his barking dog?

Bubba:

Of course, it's a natural progression. Ask Thomasd.

CG: No I was talking about two different things. Sexually inappropriate behavior that does not involve touching and emotional inappropriatness on par with your examples.

Well, you raise an interesting point ATS.

It's really only a late 20th century phenomenon to consider that children have *rights* at all. Through most of our history (American), and those of most western cultures, children were considered first the property of their fathers and later the property (amended to responsibility) of the parents. In some cultures this still hasn't changed. The child's needs are subsumed by the needs of the parents, or the family as a unit.

Certainly in law, childrens rights have only recently begun to be defined as separate from their parents. Perhaps the rise in reported abuses are directly related to our changing vision of just who *owns* children?

Not unless I get to body-slam that kid up the street who sits with her boyfriend in his car until 1:00 a.m, shrieking and blasting go-go.

in that case, I think I'll spank him with a shovel.

Re. 300 -

IMO, spanking wouldn't be justified if the child was emotionally maladjusted or if what the child had done was by accident or oversight. It should be considered only for conscious behavior that the child knew was exceptionally 'bad'. It also depends on the child's emotional makeup as to whether spanking would be justified in these instances. (I'm assuming an environment where *no* other physical punishment is allowed.) I think spanking should be a concrete demonstration of a parent's disapprobation, as well as an exceptionally unpleasant experience for the child, but any advantage (as a deterrent) is lost if spanking becomes a regular occurrence, or is doled out for any but egregious offences such as assaulting other children, stealing, severe abuse of a sibling, vandalism, etc.

ATS -

I see you have no point to make about spanking, since you immediately resorted to exaggeration and distortion. Sorry. Zero points for that.

MsIT:

Yes, you're right; I don't know if and when the idea of children as chattel will ever go away. I also don't think that there's been a breakout of child abuse per se, just that, as you say, our perception of what constitutes abuse (in conjunction with the developing area of children's rights) is changing, and for the better, in my opinion.

You didn't answer our questions TD. My neighbor has exhibited egregious behaviour by keeping his poor pup outdoors in all weather and the cur barks continuously. In this case, may I spank my neighbor with a shovel?

Re. 312 -

Wrong. Child abuse has risen dramatically in the last thirty years, as has child poverty. That much for our enlightened attitudes about raising children, I guess.

Re. 313 -

NyukNyukNyuk! Just keep that shovel away from my head.

Thomas

Okay, but why wouldn't a parent's verbal expression of disapprobation be enough of a deterrent? A child learns *nothing* from being spanked, IMHO. When a child misbehaves, she needs to be:

1. asked to explain her behavior

2.. told that what she did was wrong, and why

3. told what *is* acceptable behavior

4. given logical consequences to her behavior (i.e. if you throw that book one more time, I will take the book away)

5. hugged, kissed and told that she is loved *anyway*

IOW, the occasion of wrongdoing is taken as an opportunity to teach the child how to control her anti-social impulses.

This is not easy, especially when every fiber of your being wants to scream at the child. What you're doing, however, is demonstrating your own self-control in the face of adversity, and communicating your values.

Trust me, this works.

Thomasd, I don't post to receive 'points' from you. I posted to emphasize the minimizing in which you engage in your posts. Is it your contention that two-parent families are better because the chances of the children getting hit double?

Ms,

Message #296

A child can be hit over and over again--not all violence escalates to cigarette burns.

Sorry. Abuse is abuse is abuse.

random digit. Please disregard.

JJ,

Message #299

See, now, you're wonderful. How come you're a Republican again?

Diva,

Message #316

Yes, again. You must have learned my mantras, too. There's a book on Amazon about it, but I hear you've had a bad experience there. (g)

Cal

JJ's always been wonderful. Didn't you know?

Re. 316 -

Diva -

That's a question that the parent will have to answer. Obviously what I am talking about is the opposite to an 'anything goes' attitude wrt spanking.

ThomasD

I strongly dispute that child poverty has risen dramatically recently. You need to support this statement or drop it.

Secondly, I think the point of *what* we consider to be the mistreatment of children is very relevant to the measurement of child abuse.

Show me the statistics that support your ridiculous conclusions.

Ariel,

Sometimes I get anxious when I read your posts because they feel overstated. I realize that this is just my traditional "mealy-mouthedness" coming out. (thanks, Elliot.)

But I completely agree with the essence of what you're saying. Our perception of child abuse is changing, and for the better.

Cal

Amazon, hmph! Actually, this I learned from my own mother, a terrific parent if ever there was one. And really, it only makes sense. Imagine if your boss swatted you every time you screwed up at work. Sheesh.

Thomasd:

You have no comprehension of Message #312. Prove that what you say in Message #314 is true and not mostly a function of increased documentation and reporting.

Diva,

Re: JJ

Yes. I have.

I just nobly overlook his politics and zap him periodically.

It's just the sweetness of that post was notable, so I had to tell him, but in a typically "punch on the arm I love ya big fella" kind of way.

Re. ATS -

Now don't get mad. Talk about shooting the messenger, geez!

Diva

re: 326

You mean my boss is not supposed to spank me when I mess up?

Diva,

Actually, I swat my bosses when they screw up.

But I'm a consultant and they're paying me the big bucks.

I'm not mad, Thomasd; I want the proof I asked you to provide.

I second that request ThomasD

You can't drop crap like Message #314 and assume that you don't need to support it. The conclusions you draw are spurious.

Thomas

Well, with all due respect, actually, I'd like your opinion on that question. How would swatting a child accomplish what I describe in Message #316?

We as parents are charged with the *moral responsibility* of seeing our children into adulthood in the kindest and most loving way possible. That does not mean that we allow them to run roughshod over us - giving a child limits and self-discipline is a very loving act. There's nothing loving, as far as I can see, in whacking your child.

Bubbalah, Cal

Actually, if you guys met my boss, you'd want him to tie you up and spank you. ROWRRRRRR......

Well, ATS, in the US, child poverty has risen from 14% in 1969 to a current 22%. Child abuse has risen by varying hundreds of percentage points over the same time period, depending on which categories of statistics you are talking about.

I really don't care in the least if you deny these facts.

"We as parents are charged with the *moral responsibility* of seeing our children into adulthood in the kindest and most loving way possible."

This is an excellent example of what I was saying earlier. No where in our cultural history does it say this in the parenting manual. This is new, and directly related to our changing vision of the child, his rights, and our *ownership* of our progeny.

Re. 334 -

Diva -

The question really is: is it *always* indefensible to resort to *any* corporal discipline, no matter what the circumstances? I say, it is not.

MSIT -

If to you, the facts are 'crap', I can't help you. Maybe it's your foot being shot instead of the messenger, hmmm?

Tommy,

They're circling, dude. Pony up or equivocate!

Ms,

Message #337

Be that as it may, it is an utterly accurate reflection of the best way to get our kids to adulthood.

Way to be, Diva. Like I say, come out of the Corner more often.

I'm off to get my legs waxed. Speaking of abuse.

CalGal:

No, 'mealymouthed' I'm not, but then, neither are you. I say what I do out of conviction, and while I do see many, many gray areas, in the end I plump for that which makes the most sense to me. That doesn't mean there can be no further tinkering with ideas, but the basic structure should remain intact, for that constitutes the architecture of my belief system.

Stumbo had it right, I think, when he said that similar as our pasts are, he looks at ideas and actions that he doesn't agree with, and says to himself that they're in no way as bad as what he's already been through, while I look at them and say, 'Nope, *that's* never happening to me again'. and charge right in. Words are of utmost importance to me; I say what I mean.

Thomas

Well, if I had a son who was 6'3, 225 and played nose tackle, and he was beating me up, I think his father would be justified in socking the kid. All other circumstances, I'd say corporal punishment of children is wrong and indefensible.

Ms

You got a manual?

Thomasd:

How can what you state be 'facts' if you're unwilling to furnish proof? The flat-earthers are just as convinced of their 'facts' as you are of yours.

CalGal, Diva - (Blush!)

(Given my complexion, blushing isn't easy.)

Ms

I'm not sure I understand your comments WRT to mine you cited. Please expand.

"WRT to....."

how do you spell redundant?

how do you spell redundant?

ThomasD

As usual you are selective in what you uncover. For a more historical view of poverty rates among FAMILES look here.

As anyone with half a brain should be able to determine, poverty rates in this country have been declining since the turn of the century, but most certainly longer than you suggest. Long term trends show no such *alarming* rise in poverty recently. Rather there has been an opposite effect, and had we not recently kicked the feet out from under our social support systems, the rates wouldn't have moved back upwards again over the last 20 years.

You see, ThomasD, facts need context.

And here is yet more information that contextualizes the recent rise in poverty rates.

Poverty Rates since 1959.

You see ThomasD, children have been in poverty for a long time.

Besides the problem you have with contest, you entirely miss the point that measurement and reporting of child abuse alone, has risen dramatically in the last 30 years. You need a course in statistics.

that's context, context.

Tommy - You are going to have to document your statistics. It is my understanding that child abuse has always existed in similar numbers. It is only recently that reporting of abuse has risen. As MsIT and others have said, children were thought of as property for a long time so abuse was never considered. BTW, there is no relationship between poverty and abuse.

"The question really is: is it *always* indefensible to resort to *any* corporal discipline, no matter what the circumstances? I say, it is not."

Then provide us an example where corporal punishment is necessary. To me the only justification is necessity. If it is not necessary, it is not defensible.

Diva - Uh.....R,R,R,E,E,E,D,D......(g)

Diva

I have the manual.

And I agree wrt current views about parenting being more concerned with the whole child, mind, body and spirit. I simply note this is a very recent phenomenon.

So this is where the sociologists come in, they tell us that the views we have of children have changed, and as part of that change, we now identify behaviors as unacceptable, harmful, even evil, that 40 years ago were not even part of the dialogue. We change the assumptions behind the conversation, and we change our construction of reality wrt child abuse.

Ms

I don't *have* the manual. Damn.

Wait a minute.....

Hmmmmm........you mean you agree with me?

Good Lord, I've contributed to a substantive thread. I've got my reputation to think of, I'd better go now.

:-)

Diva, who agreed with you? Where? When?

I don't believe you!

Ariel

I think I have to go over to the mindless palaver thread and talk dirty to Niner.

Bubba: where'd you go? Was it you who agreed with me that spanking should be reserved only for adults who ask for it nicely?

[*whap*]

grrrrrrrrrrrrrr............(g)

May I have my spanking . . . . please.

Lovely form, Niner.

Chris

Actually, I also know which fork to use.

On thread:

You know what concerns me? That modern precepts may be consigning the parents of my entire neighborhood during adolescence into abusers, of varying degree. This makes me unreasonable, I think.

109 - There is a distinction between spanking a child and abusing a child. Even if the spanking isn't necessary, it doesn't necessarily qualify as abuse. Many factors have to be considered.

It occurs to me that arrogant and scathing as ScottLoar sounded to me, I'd still like to address his posts.

I MUST be a masochist.

Anyway.

Scott: You claimed that children are asexual. Several people including myself disagreed with you. You then restated your position in a manner that to me and apparently to Chloel showed that you had quite a bit invested in the idea of asexuality in children.

Now I'll admit that I made an inference at this point that you might not have been able to follow. Chloel seemed to have no difficulty so I ruled out the possibility that I was totally off base in my reasoning.

So maybe you can follow this. WHY would someone be heavily invested in the idea that children are asexual?

I only came up with two answers.

1) Because it is true------------except that it's not as several people have stated here.

2)Becaue the idea of children as sexual beings means something bad.

So I had to pick #2.

Then I had to ask "What is bad about recognizing that children are sexual beings?" This was a little tougher and I still only came up with two answers.

1) Sex is nasty and children are too innocent for such nastiness to exist in their world.

2) If we acknowledge that children are sexual beings then some sick pup is going to use it to justify molestation.

I discarded #1 because you don't strike me as someone with such obvious and fanatical sex issues. Pardon me if I'm wrong. That left me with option #2.

So if I've stepped off the path of reason here I'd appreciate it if you would guide me back. If you don't feel capable of doing that without sneering at me then please feel free to exempt yourself from this task. I did not intend to make you all defensive and huffy.

Sorry. Severe browser argument.

re Message #364, etc: You do not strike me as particularly perceptive. Am I "heavily invested" in the asexuality of children? No, only in the truth of a matter, independent of personal anectdotes (should be reserved for illustration and not proof) and popular fashion. Can you understand this?

Review my post numbers 50,74,78,105,119,148,154,157,159 (numbers 85,87,90,99,100,110,111,120,137,143,144,145 are not apropos) in which I come to maintain children have a latent sexuality, almost asexual. I cannot see how you fail to understand my reasoning, I had not considered the matter before that day, and your comments leave me undissuaded. Can you understand this?

Your last two conclusions are restatements of the same nature, that sex is repulsive, and I am to choose one or the other? You don't leave a person much choice, do you? Can you now understand why I take issue with your inferences and have little respect for your attempts at intellection?

Please don't address your comments to me any more, let others indulge you. It strains my courtesy to answer your questions just to allow you a primitive psychoanalysis of my supposed true meanings and intentions. Can you understand this?

Good heavens, get a grip. It was a polite post.

Don't ask me if you don't want an answer.

Possibly it is beyond your capability to imagine that I might be unclear on your motives. My post was meant to show you my thought process on the matter and why I asked what I did.

Asexual is not equivalent to latent. If what you meant is that children don't consciously know they are acting on sexual impluses then I agree with you, but appeared to me that you were claiming that children don't even have the impulses.

Having answered your question I will happily comply with your request.

After I posted my child poverty statistics in #336, MSIT and ATS erupted in an orgy of indignation (as if that would change the facts).

The Pedantry Award winner was: "You see ThomasD, children have been in poverty for a long time."

Anyway, the US Census figures show that families with children in poverty increased from 10.8% to 16.3% in the years from 1969 to 1996.

But the percentage of *children* living in poverty in the US is higher than that, because of the higher average number of children per impoverished family.

According to 'What Governments Can Do: Hunger 1997', prepared by Bread for the World Institute, 21.5 % of US children are poor. The National Center for Children in Poverty gives a figure of 23.2% of children under age 6 living in poverty.

Marian Wright Edelman's Children Defense Fund (CDF) was the source of the 14% and 22% figures I gave in the earlier posts for the years 1969 and 1997, two years of comparable overall prosperity, but with more extensive social programs during the latter period.

Now, are these figures still 'crap'?

Thomasd:

PPlease read MsIT's and JJ's posts to you to clarify any misapprehension you might have about your 'facts', the context within such 'facts' might exist, and their relation to child abuse.

Re. 372 -

ATS -

I'm satisfied that I suffer no particular 'misapprehension' wrt to the poverty figures I gave, or their relevance to child abuse. I do apologize for failing to give a full attribution then.

Thomasd:

I'm not being snide, but as JJ's and MsIT's posts show, there are many factors you have not considered, including the context in which your figures need to be addressed. You haven't proven your original point wrt child abuse.

Re. 374 -

ATS -

You presume far too much about what I have or have not considered.

A comparative study of child abuse which breaks down the relative prevalence of abuse for different family structures at the same time in a given society (such as the English study I referred to in an earlier post) largely neutralizes the assertion that the reported increases of child abuse over time are merely due to greater sensitivity to what constitutes child abuse among the subjects of these studies, since statistics also bear out that the family structures in which child abuse is most predominant have considerably increased as a proportion of families as a whole in the US.

Chris

I agree with you mostly. Spanking should be reserved for adult who ask for it, whether nicely or not. Like my back yard neighbor wrt his poor pup.

Thomasd:

I presume nothing; I can only go by what you post, and you have not proven your original statement wrt child abuse. There are many other factors to be considered, as was pointed out to you.

You presume with your 'merely'.

Well, anyway. Although this doesn't relate to child abuse per se, I remember reading British accounts of the relative permissiveness of American parents toward their children dating from Civil War times. The popular phrase for them then was "Young America".

ThomasD

You didn't look at my links did you? If you had, you would have discovered that the first one doesn't work (I'll repost that link later) but the second one does. It states the following

Families below the poverty level, with children under the age of 18:

(all races)

1959 20.3% of all families

1996 16.5% "" ""

For reference point:

1969 9.7% of all families

Which means, of course that the social redistribution policies of the 1960's had a huge and positive impact on poverty in this country, in conjunction with strong economic growth during that decade. The proof of the impact of social redistribution policies is in the 1979 data.

In 1979 the poverty rate for families with children was still only 10.3%, after nearly a decade of economic stagnation. When did the poverty rate begin to climb? When we began to systematically eliminate the support structures in place to help families during the 1980's.

So you see, your statistics don't show any great increase in poverty compared to historic periods and one can't say that child abuse would be any higher now as a result of poverty than in the past.

If poverty was high in 1950 and you link that to the higher incidence of child abuse (a spurious linkage, I think), then one certainly cannot say that child abuse would be higher now, when overall poverty rates are lower than at earlier points in the century.

Lets try that first link again.

Poverty Table, US Census Bureau.

Is this the same thomasd who today, in this thread, spoke out against exaggeration and distortion?

thomas, the more you try to hold up your shaky platform, the more you exaggerate and distort.

Let's see if I can use some of thomas' reasoning:

In 1980, I was 28 years old.

Today, I am 46.

Reagan must be responsible for my aging.

CharlieL -

Find the distortion and exaggeration in my figures, why don't you? You can't? Gee, what a surprise!

MSIT -

You insist on being obtuse and disingenuous. Today's social programs are much more similar to those of 1969's than either periods' resembled 1950's.

The fact is that you are flatly wrong about child abuse, if you assert that it is not on the upswing. Virtually any person knowledgeable on the subject is aware that absolute *and* relative levels of child abuse have increased dramatically in the last thirty years in the US. The weak-minded assertion that there is only a reported, not a real, increase in child abuse is nothing more than wishful thinking.

ThomasD,

50 years ago a man could not be prosecuted for raping his wife. The idea that a man could not have relations with his wife just because she didn't feel like it would have been preposterous.

That is not the case today. The idea that any man has a right to engage in sexual relations with any woman against her wishes is no longer acceptable.

So too with the treatment of children. There are laws now requiring that teachers and child care professionals and even neighbors report any signs of abuse. 50 years ago, Hell, even 20 years ago that was considered "Family Business" and not to be meddled in.

I'm trying to understand how you can fail to see that this makes any difference in reported incidents of child abuse.

CristinO says, "I'm trying to understand how you can fail to see that this

makes any difference in reported incidents of child abuse."

I *don't* fail to see it. OTOH, this effect doesn't come close to explaining the increase in child abuse over the last 30 years.

I'm wondering how you measure it. The last 30 years have seen the Civil Rights and Women's Movements. A huge boom in psychiatry and psychology and a staggering change in the way that we view children. I gather from your posts that you think this has had a negligible effect on the statistical evidence. Why do you think so?

If your position is that single parent homes and poverty are the cause of increased child abuse I wonder that you don't go to the roots of why poverty has increased.

ThomasD

You are blundering, badly. Unless you can show a strong statistical relationship (causality) between poverty and child abuse, your fallacious comments about changes in the rate of poverty over time are simply white noise.

Secondly, there is NO way to compare child abuse statistics from even 30 years ago to the current environment for the very reasons that Christin, ATS and others have stated. The definitions of what constitutes child abuse have changed considerably in this century, and certainly within even the last 30 years. Schools, doctors, and community social services agencies have all become increasingly aggressive in protecting children from abusive home situations. The LAWS protecting children, and allowing intervention have changed.

All of these mean greater incidence because of awareness, NOT BECAUSE OF AN ACTUAL CHANGE in the level of abuse against children in this country. The latter MAY have changed, but there is absolutely NO way this can be determined from either the data you present, or even the data that is readily available. We simply have no appropriate historical comparison point.

"Today's social programs are much more similar to those of 1969's than either periods' resembled 1950's."

Well, duh, no shit. There weren't any federal or even systematic state level programs that provided a stable floor against poverty.

Regardless of that fact, I fail to see the point of your statement. My comment is so what? You're the one arguing that poverty and child abuse are linked, not me. And you're the one who says that it has been on the rise, poverty. My point is that if current levels approach previous levels, AND you argue that child abuse rises with it, than child abuse MUST have also been higher in past periods with high poverty rates.

This still blows your simplistic hypothesis out of the water.

And do me a favor, try to get your mind beyond 1969. Is this some earth shattering turning point fixed in your head that all other historical points fall before?

Ahem.

I happen to have quite a bit invested in 1969.

Well, here's a couple of government studies covering approximately 1976-1993 that provide some perspective:

The US Office of Technology Assessment commissioned Howard Dubowitz, through a health program to evaluate child abuse. This report dated May 1987 entitled "Child Maltreatment in the US" points out that:

The increase in mother-headed households and the corresponding decrease in father-headed households parallelled a 158% increase in child abuse and neglect in the 8 years from 1976 to 1984. This is evidence of a problem from father-absence. The study concludes that 2.3% of sexual abuse of girls was by biological fathers, and 17% by stepfathers. In other words, girls in custody of divorced and remarried mothers were 7.4 times more likely to be sexually abused, as those who remain in father-headed households. It reports 37% of child maltreatment occurred in mother-headed households, versus 23% in all US families. It reported that 44,700 children were sexually abused in 1979 which was .07% of all children below the age of 18 years."

and:

"Sept. 18, 1996

SURVEY SHOWS DRAMATIC INCREASE IN CHILD ABUSE AND NEGLECT, 1986-1993

The Department of Health and Human Services today released a survey estimating that child abuse and neglect nearly doubled in the United States between 1986 and 1993."

"Releasing data from the third National Incidence Study of Child Abuse and Neglect, HHS Secretary Donna E. Shalala challenged states to enhance their child abuse prevention and detection efforts."

"The report estimates that the number of abused and neglected children grew from 1.4 million in 1986, when the last NIS report was conducted, to over 2.8 million in 1993. During the same period, the number of children who were seriously injured quadrupled from about 143,000 to nearly 570,000, the report says."

Re. 387 -

MSIT tries to fight reality by blustering:

"Unless you can show a strong

statistical relationship (causality) between poverty and

child abuse, your fallacious comments about changes in

the rate of poverty over time are simply white noise."

My comments have not been fallacious, unless you are prepared to say the same about virtually every study on the subject of child abuse and neglect.

And yes, there *is* a strong positive correlation between poverty and child abuse. Bluster your way out of that.

Cough cough, ThomasD

I hate to have to say this, indeed, its the last I'm going to say on this subject.

The data you present in no way shows a statistically causal relationship between increases in poverty and increases in child abuse. The data you present has more to do with changes in the family structure, and the higher incidence of non-biological adults entering into female headed families than with poverty, per se.

In any case, the data you present above is more interesting than what you first argued, although it too, needs more detail.

"My comments have not been fallacious, unless you are prepared to say the same about virtually every study on the subject of child abuse and neglect."

But you haven't even begun to present all the various studies available on child abuse. Nor have you dispelled the original critiques of mine or others that this IN NO WAY can tell us anything other than that since we've begun tracking child abuse (only very recently, to begin with) we've identified a dramatic rise in the reporting of incidents.

Here is what your hypothesis suggests:

if we simply reduce the divorce rate, keep more families intact, then child abuse will automatically fall.

Here's another one of yours.

As the poverty rate falls, so too will child abuse.

So, child abuse can be eliminated by eliminating poverty and outlawing divorce.

Finis.

CalGal...

"It blows my mind, still, to see you say "Discipline is sometimes used to justify physical abuse...but never sexual abuse. I would say that your dad thought he was disciplining you."

Are we doing some crazy new dance here or what? That's exactly what I meant. Yes, my dad 'thought' he was disciplining me. Many parents cross the line into violence only intending to administer discipline. But that is an intellectual decision one step removed from the actual behavior of the smack. Those who swat their kids do so in the thrall of anger, not in some dignified and removed pedogogical fashion. Frustration is the motivator there... not moral pedogogy. All justification lies distant...before or after the fact. And as others have noted here the real lesson imparted is that might makes right.

The manner in which parents themselves have been brought up most often determines the *form* discipline takes. The attitude that "by god what was good enough for me is good enough for my kids" has sure enough surfaced here in this thread. The problem is that anger sometimes turns even the most self-disciplined people into flailing brutes... they lose all capacity for restraint in that moment of heat. And one swat too hard or too many crosses that line into mutual humiliation for the discipliner and the disciplined.

Re. 392 -

MSIT says:

"The data you present in no way shows a statistically

causal relationship between increases in poverty and

increases in child abuse."

That's true, but recall that I haven't really addressed that aspect of child abuse in *this* thread. Not that I couldn't, but I don't intend to, at least today.

You also post:

"Here is what your hypothesis suggests:

if we simply reduce the divorce rate, keep more families

intact, then child abuse will automatically fall.

Here's another one of yours.

As the poverty rate falls, so too will child abuse.

So, child abuse can be eliminated by eliminating poverty

and outlawing divorce."

Your reductio-ad-absurdum extrapolation here is not what I'm aiming for. What I see is that there isn't a real consciousness among people that unique problems even *exist* for children that live with the average single parent that can't afford a nanny or good day care. Also, why not get rid of the marriage penalty, and maybe consider raising two parent family per-child tax deductions? The 1998 per child dollar equivalent of this deduction when initiated around 1950 was about $6,000. Then there's the fact that most countries in Europe have lower divorce rates, much lower child poverty and better social programs than the US. What do they know that we don't?

Well, for one, they tend to be much more favorable toward Socialism than the US. Somehow it doesn't gall them that they might be expected to contribute to the well-being of their neighbors for the good of the country.

"Your reductio-ad-absurdum extrapolation here is not what I'm aiming for..."

You could have fooled me and everyone else reading your comments earlier.

Nice try at backpedaling, however.

I agree with Christin, we have to pay for it. You willing to vote for higher taxes?

(MsIt awaits the mantra. "We can simply reallocate current expenditures." The classic no action answer.)

"Then there's the fact that most countries in Europe have lower divorce rates, much lower child poverty and better social programs than the US. What do they know that we don't?"

Now thomas this you should really take to FV for a new thread. I must say it surprises me to see you ask the question. You are aware that tax rates in the US are the lowest in the industrialized world, are you not? In other words, distribution to those below the poverty level is less in the US than the countries you cite. Are you for adapting our tax system to ameliorate the conditions you so rightly deplore?

Seriously now...are you simply asserting a correlation between child abuse and poverty? I can buy that general proposition, though the causal factors are probably tertiary effects like alcohol abuse and broken homes, e.g.

thomasd

I think that I mentioned the fallability of these crime statistics some time ago. Rates of crimes such as rape and child abuse are especially sensitive to awareness. I don't understand how you can make such an issue out of an apparent rise in the reported incidence of abuse without any chance of knowing what the real rate of abuse was over the same period.

"Then there's the fact that most countries in Europe have lower divorce rates, much lower child poverty and better social programs than the US. What do they know that we don't? "

When we brought my newborn daughter home from the hospital in Prague, we were soon visited by a social worker who by law had to inspect our home and report that it was decent and fit for a child to be raised in. This bothered me at first, but over time I began to see the sense of it. The social workers, doctors, etc. were all very professional while, at the same time, much less likely to advocate an idealogical position on the issues of neglect/abuse.

But there IS that thorny issue of socialized healthcare, eh?

Better come back quick Thomas or I'm going to start making up the posters that say "Thomasd is a Socialist!!" (g)