Talk:Corporal punishment in the home

Recentism

The article begins as follows:

Domestic corporal punishment or corporal punishment in the home may also be described as parental corporal punishment. It involves a spanking or slapping administered to a child by a parent or guardian, typically with the parent's open hand but sometimes with an implement such as a cane, slipper or paddle.

This is a recentist view. Historically the authority to use physical violence as a means of punishment in the home was not limited to parent-upon-child violence; it also included husband-upon-wife violence. Although that is today considered a different category of behavior in the West today, ("domestic violence" or "wife beating"), historically both descend from the authority of the "man of the house" to use violence to maintain "discipline". For examples from other cultures see also, e.g., Islam and domestic violence. --FOo (talk) 21:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you really think that, your proper course would be to add a sentence or two to that effect (with citations) to the article. But the point is already effectively covered in Spanking, which is where I think people would more expect to find it. I don't really it think it belongs in this context but I suppose it all depends what you mean by recent.

By the way, you betray your bias on this subject by describing corporal punishment as "parent-upon-child violence". The idea that an ordinary moderate spanking can be equated with "violence" is very much a minority view. Alarics (talk) 23:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there is already a comprehensive and well-sourced article called Domestic violence (to which "wife-beating" redirects) which is primarily about violence between spouses, and does cover your Islam point. I think it just muddies the waters to bring that issue into "Corporal punishment in the home" which is well understood as something quite different. Alarics (talk) 09:19, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In a former time, the activity which is today called "wife-beating" was considered to be a form of "punishment" -- that is, a proper exercise of authority to impose discipline. What is today considered a wrongful and criminal exercise of rage or machismo was then considered to be a wholly appropriate use of authority; a man who would not discipline his scolding or otherwise misbehaving wife was considered to be henpecked, and ultimately to be less than a man.

My point above is not to damn modern "corporal punishment" or, for that matter, to praise wife-beating. To the contrary: my point is to assert that the two activities are cut of one cloth; are of common cultural and social origin. The notion that the strong must impose discipline upon the weak, the elder upon the younger, the male upon the female -- meeting rebellion with violence, is a common thread throughout human history. You can like it and follow it, or hate it and try to reform it; but to deny it is simply ignorant. --FOo (talk) 05:47, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute your general point as regards the background cultural history. But in those former times, was what we now call "wife-beating" or "domestic violence" ever referred to as "corporal punishment"? If not, I don't see why we have to mention it in an article called "corporal punishment in the home". Anyway, as I said before, if you disagree, nobody is stopping you from adding a sentence to the article accordingly, with a link to Domestic violence. Alarics (talk) 08:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV check?

119.224.14.7 calls for a POV check on the grounds that there "seem to be way too many editorial comments in favor of spanking".

What??? Adding together the "pro and con", "alternatives to spanking", "crime rates and spanking bans" and "agencies that ppose spanking" sections, by my calculations the opinions mentioned and referenced (these are not "editorial comments", by the way, but attempts to reflect the debate as reported in secondary sources) are divided as follows:

Broadly in favour of corporal punishment: 28 lines
Broadly against corporal punishment: 79 lines

It appears to me that, if a POV check were needed, it would be because there are "way too many" comments against spanking. Alarics (talk) 23:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with 119.224.14.7, I don't think this article has a problem with undue weight given to the pro-spanking opinion. So there's no reason for a {{POV check}}. True, there are some statements given in the article which are unsupported by sources, but that's a problem with WP:OR and WP:V, not WP:NPOV. And there is an ongoing effort to make the whole article more well-cited. Feel free to join in that, 119.224.14.7! Gabbe (talk) 09:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Italy in the map

119.224.14.7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) complained that the map is in error in showing Italy as a state where domestic corporal punishment is not prohibited, citing the 1996 Supreme Court case. While this case has the status of law, in the decade since, the law has not been updated to reflect this. As the map (based on this source) treats all countries the same based on what the codified law explicitly says, it is coloured to show Italy as a non-abolition state. Gabbe (talk) 08:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Split pros and cons

This section is in the wrong place. It is a section that belongs to the main corporal punishment article as a Main article redirect from its Pros and cons of corporal punishment section. None of the arguments are specific to the home as they also apply to school.
It is the right length for an article.
It is a specific topic that readers be will looking to read particularly in terms of different pro and con sides of the argument
A separate article would allow better structure--at present it is not easily read because it lacks subheadings. for example it could be divided up into

Pro arguments
Con arguments
Relevant resesarch
official policy statements
Alternatives

--LittleHow (talk) 05:41, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the split in principle, but what should the new article be called? Also, the split has to be handled carefully to avoid making it a content fork. Gabbe (talk) 07:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The usual wording for pro and cons articles seems to use the word debate such as Abortion debate, Capital punishment debate, and Nuclear power debate. The existence of these articles suggests that content forking is not a problem though issues of NPOV might--LittleHow (talk) 13:54, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "Corporal punishment debate" seems like a good new name. And just as you say, the mere splitting does not necessarily constitute a fork, but rather how the split is conducted. As long as we replace the old section(s) with a summary of the new "corporal punishment debate" article I think we should be alright. Gabbe (talk) 00:30, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I do not see much problem here since this involves writing brief summaries. The problems seem to me to lie in organizing this long section in way that respects pro and con arguments so that both sides of this issue feel it reads with a NPOV.--LittleHow (talk) 06:00, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"None of the arguments are specific to the home as they also apply to school." Wrong, all the contested research is about parental/domestic corporal punishment. The history of arguments over school corporal punishment is altogether a different subject, and one which I am proposing to develop as I look into the sources. I therefore oppose the suggestion that the "pro and con" section ought to be split off. Alarics (talk) 22:25, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you read through this section, it is all about parental punishment. The issues in school corporal punishment are not the same at all. One of the main reasons why we created these different subarticles for corporal punishment (school, parental, judicial) was precisely because they are different enough from each other to require to be discussed separately. For instance, most of the debate and the research around parental/domestic corporal punishment has to do with mothers spanking toddlers and quite young children, often on the spur of the moment, in a context of debate about parenting styles and the nature of mother-child relationships. This has very little in common with much school paddling in the USA or school caning in Singapore, for instance, which is more often than not of teenagers in high school (the offenders concerned can be aged up to 19) and tends to be reserved for specific, relatively serious violations of a published set of rules, typically carried out with a certain amount of due process and in a much more formal manner than a parental spanking is likely to be. So if you want to float this section off into an article of its own, it must be clearly named something like "Pros and cons of parental spanking" to distinguish it from discussion of the arguments for and against school corporal punishment, which will be a section in the "School corporal punishment" article. In fact I am going to rename the section in question now. Alarics (talk) 10:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Psychotraumatological effects of physical child abuse

Many psychological studies have shown that severe physical abuse can have psychotraumatological effects that can be compared to those of sexual child abuse. Whereas sexual abuse is - for a very good reason - comdemned in almost any Western society, physical abuse is still widely accepted in many countries, as children are often not regarded as citizens with human rights, but as the legal property of their parents (or even their teachers). Nevertheless, in many European contries the sensitivity towards this issue has risen a lot during the recent decades. If parents really mistreat their children by severely beating them (or even by emotionally abusing them in a very sadistic way), the kids will be taken away from their parents in order to protect them from developping a severe trauma. Of course, no one will take your children away from you, if you once gave them a slap in the face because you lost control (although this is illegal, too, and will often be discussed if it happens). I live in Germany, and to us it sounds unbeleivable that children may legally be beaten even at school - in almost half of the US-American states, and even in France (what I did not know). Using things such as belts makes it even more sadistic and traumatizing. In Germany, no one could slap their kids in public (except in some very rural areas) without provoking the severe protest of bystanders (or even provoking that people inform the "Jugendamt" - a part of the ministry for family matters). The real difference between physical and sexual child abuse refers much more to the different perception and evaluation in society (similarly in the USA and in Europe): The objetively measurable psychological effetcts it may have on children are much more similar than many people might (want to) believe. (And of course, in both cases it depends on the degree of brutality and violence.) As a victim of severe physical and emotional child abuse, and after years of psychotherapy, I know what I am talking about. Physical child abuse is absolutely trivialized - obviously even more in the USA than in Western Europe. If one considers that sex between an 18 and a 17 year old is considered to be a sexual crime in many American states, but severe and sadistic forms of real (physical) child abuse are often enough considered to be OK or "POV", then one could ask the question what this tells us about American society (and maybe in a lower degree about Western societies in general). Maybe, a big part of the criminalization of harmless sexual experiences (that are mistaken as abuse) are a result of what psychoanalysts call "projection": People tend to blame others for their own failures that they refuse to see: Severely harming the psychological health of another person. That does - of course - not mean that one should ignore or trivialize real sexual abuse - but inventing sexual abuse, where it does not exist at all, and almost completely ignoring physical abuse instead, won't help any of the victims - it only helps the physical abusers to prevent themselves from asking too many disturbing questions that could harm their self-esteem and their feeling of being morally good. Many Europeans, especially psychologists and sociologists, claim to see such tendencies in the USA - which is of course just a "point of view" - a point of view from a different culture. 77.24.183.249 (talk) 22:18, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Talk page of a Wikipedia article is not meant for debate about the subject itself, only for discussing improving the article to which it relates. All the above may be very interesting but it is does not belong here unless you are proposing a rewording of the article. If you are, please be more specific and more succinct. Alarics (talk) 07:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK, my comment was rather subjective - sorry. I was kind of irritated when I saw that there seems to be a real controversial debate about the justification of corporal punishment (even in extreme forms). We don't have that kind of controversy here, especially corporal punishment at school is no longer a matter of discussing pros or cons since it is generally regarded as abusive. I have never heard that any psychologist had ever doubted that in the recent 30 years(although some might tend to think that the effects of a single slap in the face might be overestimated - no one would ever try to justify severe beating, since it is regarded as a severe violation of basic human rights. It seems as strange to me as if one would want to discuss if sexual activity really needs to be voluntary - it's absurd and self-explaining if you believe in basic human rights, which are widely accepted in almost any Western society).

I have read articles about several psychological or sociological studies that have shown that the traumatizing effects of severe physical or emotional abuse in childhood may be quite similar to those of sexual abuse, but are often underestimated. This is not mentioned in the article. It was German studies, though. I could link those sources, but I don't know if this would really be helpful for the English Wikipedia. Nevertheless, there should also be a number of similar studies in English, I guess. The article mentions that corporal punishment often leads to an acceptance of violence as a means of acheiving ones aims. But at no place it is described how painful and traumatizing the effects of such educational methods can really be. Or it suggests that the question whether there can be such traumatizing effects or not is a matter of political attitude - which it is not, it's a matter of proven reality that is widely accepted by the scientific community. Promoting a certain (preferred) version of reality in order to justify political or ideological attitudes is pseudo-science. Of course corporal violence is an effective means of instrumental conditioning (in Skinner's tradition) - at least when a very specific behavior shall be suppressed - but the traumatizing and violence-generating effects of CP have been proven and are NOT part of a scientific controversy. Maybe the scientific controversy refers to the question from which degree of violence on there is really a severe traumatizing effect, and there may be controversial evidence in this point. But no one who is engaged in real science (and not just pseudo-scientific promotion of political ideologies) would denie that corporal violence often has severely traumatizing effects - because it has clearly been proven and one could just as well try to discuss if two plus two really makes four. The article suggests, though, that it's a question of attitude. The fact that the traumatic effects could be proven was the reason why any form of corporal punishment (even at home and "just" a slap in the face) has been forbidden in many countries.

77.24.42.140 (talk) 12:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"the traumatizing and violence-generating effects of CP have been proven and are NOT part of a scientific controversy". That is much too sweeping a statement. Nothing in such a field as this is ever likely to be conclusively "proven", and academic studies disagree, so there IS a controversy, and that is reflected in the article. Wikipedia has to deal with the subject neutrally and reflect various points of view. That is what this article does. You can be as "irritated" or "surprised" as you like about the fact that not everybody agrees with you, but that is irrelevant here. This is not the place for debating the issue itself, which seems to me still to be what you are trying to do. As for "severe physical and emotional abuse", what you say is no doubt true, but most ordinary moderate corporal punishment (which is mainly what is covered here) doesn't fall into that category. There is a separate article about "child abuse". Meanwhile, the balance of quotations in this article are already heavily on the side of those who oppose CP - probably too much so, from the point of view of those who take a different view from you. Please don't add more and more of your opinions to this page - that is not what it is for. Alarics (talk) 13:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We are limited to English language sources. While research from Germany certainly would be useful, it needs to be accessible to us non-German speakers it order to investigate.

But really, the pro/con section doesn't seem too biased to me. Among the scientific community, the pro-spank findings are Baumrind, Larzelere and ... well that's basically it. They are opposed by, well, everyone else. The section basically speaks for itself.Legitimus (talk) 23:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, it's not my personal opinion that those traumatizing effects could be proven in almost any serious study. It's nothing new that there's always people who disagree; e.g. there are also people who (want to) believe that HIV had nothing to do with AIDS, but since there is a general consent that this is a mere belief that just claims to be scientific, the HIV and AIDS articles do of course not refer to these "studies". (Or if they do, critical comments are added, and Wikipedia mentions that these views are not accepted by the major scientific community, because the methods are regarded as pseudo-science). An encyclopadia should not mention any point of view that claims to be scientific. The only thing that is relevant is the question whether the methods really meet scientific standards. Otherwise you could also write an article about evolution and mention that some "scientists" are convinced that Earth has been created by a personal God, and evolution is a lie. Being unbiased means being objective. It does not mean writing an arcticle that is a compromise between science and (religios or political) dogma, so that noone would feel offended, or everyone feels offended to the same acceptable and inavoidable degree. There is often such a misconception of what being "unbiased" means. It really means objective facts. Of course, there can also be controversy about what the facts are, but some part of the controversy may often be due to people who refuse to accept facts. Claiming that some "softer" forms of CP do not harm psychological health, whereas other scientists claim that any form of CP harms psychological health - this may refer to a real scientific controversy. But if "scientists" claim that generally, there are no negative effects of CP, except in some very extreme cases, this contradicts tons of psychological research that they also know but want to ignore for some personal reason. I simply wonder if what I have learned in my studies during the last three years was all wrong or biased or just one side of the scientific controversy (of which I never even knew that it existed in this form). Are we learning trash or political attitudes at the University? Or are we maybe learning scientific facts (as far as there can ever be facts) and do not need to protect the feelings of large parts of the population who would feel offended by the results of research? However, if you feel that a scientific article has to be "politically balanced" to be objective or unbiased, I will no longer try to convince you that not anything that a scientist claims needs to be scientific. I have never argued that I feel that CP is wrong and therefore several claims could not be objective - this would be dogmatic thinking, of course. What makes the article biased, is, that personal opinions are presented as part of a scientific controversy, although they are opinions, since they ignore the results of tons of research. Some people (and scientists are people, too) will always refuse to accept facts because they want to believe what they have always believed, want to keep on doing what they have always done, and do not want to question their social attidues.

90.187.40.232 (talk) 13:15, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The scientific evidence is nowhere near as clear-cut as you seem to think. Baumrind and Lazarlere keep on publishing scientific studies (not mere personal opinions) which find the evidence that moderate, occasional spanking is harmful simply does not stand up. They are respectable scientists and we have to record their point of view, as well as that of their opponents, in a neutral encyclopaedia article. To compare them with the people who denied that HIV causes AIDS, or with religious fundamentalists who deny evolution, is absolutely ridiculous. Alarics (talk) 16:03, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I will reserve my take on Baumrind and Larzelere for another more appropriate forum.

But while where on the subject, can get a more direct ref to Baumrind's paper? It's just an NY TImes article right now. I think they are talking about "Does Causally Relevant Research Support A Blanket Injunction Against Disciplinary Spanking By Parents?" which for the record is not a peer-reviewed study, it was a talk she gave at an APA Convention. That is to say, it sounds like an opinion speech, unless I can get a hold of it and find otherwise.Legitimus (talk) 17:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - I must admit that I misunderstood the word "spanking". English is not my mother tongue. I looked it up now. I thought spanking would refer to beating children with a spanking stick (that's the word association I had), with a belt, or with other very painful things. I had read that such practices are legal in many US states, so maybe my misconception of "scientists" claiming that "using spanking sticks" would have no traumatical effects, was due to my own prejudices. I know that there is a scientific controversy about the question if any kind of CP is harmful, and I did not want to give the impression that I regarded all that as pseudo-science by definition. I thought "spanking" meant beating somebody with a (spanking) stick.

90.187.40.232 (talk) 17:34, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Legitimus: the main Baumrind paper is (see footnote 37) Baumrind, Diana (October 1996). "A blanket injunction against disciplinary use of spanking is not warranted by the data". Pediatrics 98 (4 Pt 2): 828–31. PMID 8885981. Unfortunately it requires a fee to view it on line. There is also a much more recent Baumrind/Larzalere paper, rubbishing the 2002 Gershoff meta-survey, which we ought to include. I will try to find it. Alarics (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Luckily I can access it in full. But if that's right, then why is the NY Times article from 2001? It took them 5 years to pick up the story? It can't be referring to the recent (2002) one because that was after this article was published.Legitimus (talk) 20:08, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was maybe another one in between, referred to in the NY Times article. You are welcome to try to find it. Alarics (talk) 20:37, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

90.187.40.232, thats quite alright. Corporal Punishment is the broad overall term. "Spanking" in common parlance itself includes both using an object and using the empty open hand. In the case of the work done by Larzelere and Baumrind (the scientists that support spanking) they define it specifically as "striking the child on the buttocks or extremities with an open hand without inflicting physical injury with the intention to modify behavior." This definition is made with the idea to exclude abusive behavior. You may also note that this excludes the use of any object to strike a child. This is quite different than the religious/dogmatic pro-CP voices who often feel it is right to strike a child with a slender stick ("rod" or "switch") or paddle on bare skin. This is allowed under US law, but there is little to no support for the practice in psychology to my knowledge.

Regarding Baumrind's work, fortunately, I was able to dig up my old copy of talk she gave at the APA conference, and it would appear this is indeed what NYT was quoting as "findings". The paper is dated August 24, 2001, the day of the conference. The NYT article is the very next day, August 25. And Straus was commenting on the talk (point out the flaws) on August 27, 2001. I'm not saying toss the thing per se, but this is technically isn't a "published study" with peer-review even if NYT makes it sound that way. This is not at all unusual for American news sources to do. I am constantly finding stories that improperly represent peer-reviewed research when I read newspapers.

In addition to this, I took time to read her earlier 1996 paper from Pediatrics. It is a "response" paper (that is, a comment on other people's research, specifically Larzelere's)and also not technically a study. Baumrind carries a great deal of respect in the practice for her research on parenthood, much of which is very good. But these papers are in effect, little more than a rendering of an opinion much like a judge in a US Appeals Court.Legitimus (talk) 23:16, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Crime rates and spanking bans

The entire section titled "Crime rates and spanking bans" is original research, so I've removed it. [1] Discussing any effect of "corporal punishment in the home" on crime rates in particular areas is synthesis unless that connection is reported by reliable sources. None of the listed references mention this topic at all, except the long anti-anti-spanking quote, and that was from an opinion essay in an out-of-print local paper, with no peer-review and no particular qualifications listed for the author, not a reliable source. --Jack-A-Roe (talk) 06:20, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pros and cons"

Do we see a "Pros and cons" section in the article "Female genital cutting"? No. Adding a "Pros and cons" section in an article describing violence towards children (whether legal or not) is insulting and represents a pro spanking attitude. This should be changed to something more neutral. "Different aspects" or something. 82.181.98.100 (talk) 16:01, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As the section currently (more or less) lists differing scientific opinions, how about "Scientific opinions" or "Research on corporal punishment" or something? Gabbe (talk) 16:14, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd agree with that. Perhaps "Scientific Findings and Opinions" since it is a combination of expert opinions and empirical research.Legitimus (talk) 18:31, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Pros and cons" just means the arguments for and against, which is a perfectly legitimate title. I think many people will think any comparison with "female genital cutting" is completely absurd. Ordinary spanking is not remotely commensurable with mutilation. Nor in many people's view is it reasonable to describe it as "violence towards children". It is discussing it in terms of "pros and cons" that is the neutral, objective stance, which is what Wikipedia should be doing. It is you, 82.181.98.100, who are importing your own prejudices into the issue by declaring otherwise. The article should be left as it is. Alarics (talk) 20:27, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Both female genital cutting and corporal punishment are forms of violence that are legal/socially acceptable in some countries and illegal/socially unacceptable in some other countries. You can see from comments above that there is more neutral terminology that could be used here, so I think it should be used. And yes, it is violence, it is just legal violence in many countries. Similarly self defence, for example, is a form of legal violence. 82.181.250.242 (talk) 21:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what could be more neutral than "pros and cons". By saying that this "represents a pro-spanking attitude" you betray your own bias and lack of neutrality. There are mainstream opinions in favour as well as against, and Wikipedia must represent all these opinions fairly and not take sides on the issue. If you feel so strongly about it that you can't stomach a neutral stance being taken on this subject, you disqualify yourself from involvement here. -- Alarics (talk) 22:17, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it's no secret that I'm personally disgusted when people discuss "pros and cons" of causing physical pain to someone. But regardless of that, terms mentioned above like "different aspects of", "research on" and "scientific findings and opinions" etc. are more encyclopedic than "pros and cons", which I think is a bit too casual term for an encyclopedia anyway. 82.181.250.242 (talk) 22:47, 7 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]