As always, your mileage may vary.
Spanking is, like Rhythm said, an art form. What is not stated, however, is the obvious: context matters in every situation.
It is quite real there are kids for whom physical correction for egregious actions is required.
I, for one, see absolutely no issue with delivering a spanking or even a decent backhand to a child who has, for example, just tried to push their sibling down the staircase (which can kill, not that the child recognized that).
I do see an issue if physical punishment is being doled out in response to non-physical transgressions -- how is the child supposed to connect the dots between doing the "bad" non-physical action and the physical corrective measure? I can't come up with a viable model, and I'm a fully grown adult!
Punishment relies on context and being obvious in what it is punishing. Anything less is just abuse, because no one will learn, only hurt.
That is where we've crossed the line.
Unfortunately, people who've been abused will often eschew the possibility to spanking, even if it would be the most effective correction under certain circumstances. Which then either produces problem man-children (I know far too many of those spoiled man-brats) or good kids (in which spanking them probably never would've happened).
Limiting parent's options is the wrong solution. However, the correct solution involves education of temperance and pragmatism -- it teaches no one, for example, if you beat a child for mouthing off, except that no one should mouth off around you. Which could not be further from the mark, where the intent is to teach a child not to mouth off period. (Note, mouthing off is a term, from where I live at least, that would include constant smart-ass remarks intended for no other purpose than disruption).
However, haraunging said mouthy child does wonders for shutting them up, though the best measure is when the community itself expresses disapproval at churlish conduct (because suddenly it isn't "just mom and dad", but the whole world that is ignoring, shunning them for bad behavior).
Human beings are far more social creatures than we give credit for. It is of my opinion that a lot of physical correction on the part of a single person can be offloaded to the community in exchange for non-physical correction (e.g. the community expresses disapproval and distaste at the churl).
Spanking is, like Rhythm said, an art form. What is not stated, however, is the obvious: context matters in every situation.
It is quite real there are kids for whom physical correction for egregious actions is required.
I, for one, see absolutely no issue with delivering a spanking or even a decent backhand to a child who has, for example, just tried to push their sibling down the staircase (which can kill, not that the child recognized that).
I do see an issue if physical punishment is being doled out in response to non-physical transgressions -- how is the child supposed to connect the dots between doing the "bad" non-physical action and the physical corrective measure? I can't come up with a viable model, and I'm a fully grown adult!
Punishment relies on context and being obvious in what it is punishing. Anything less is just abuse, because no one will learn, only hurt.
That is where we've crossed the line.
Unfortunately, people who've been abused will often eschew the possibility to spanking, even if it would be the most effective correction under certain circumstances. Which then either produces problem man-children (I know far too many of those spoiled man-brats) or good kids (in which spanking them probably never would've happened).
Limiting parent's options is the wrong solution. However, the correct solution involves education of temperance and pragmatism -- it teaches no one, for example, if you beat a child for mouthing off, except that no one should mouth off around you. Which could not be further from the mark, where the intent is to teach a child not to mouth off period. (Note, mouthing off is a term, from where I live at least, that would include constant smart-ass remarks intended for no other purpose than disruption).
However, haraunging said mouthy child does wonders for shutting them up, though the best measure is when the community itself expresses disapproval at churlish conduct (because suddenly it isn't "just mom and dad", but the whole world that is ignoring, shunning them for bad behavior).
Human beings are far more social creatures than we give credit for. It is of my opinion that a lot of physical correction on the part of a single person can be offloaded to the community in exchange for non-physical correction (e.g. the community expresses disapproval and distaste at the churl).
Slave to the Patriarchy no more
