SORRY FOR REPEATING THIS BUT SOME GLITCH IN THE SYSTEM CAUSED THE QUOTE (WHICH ALERTS THE PERSON I WAS RESPONDING TO OF MY REPLY) NOT TO WORK.
Any idiot can use physical violence to force/teach behaviour.
The skill is to do so without resorting to such ridiculous means.
I remember when my mother used to spank me, it bothered me less and less as I got used to it (fortunately, she never increased the severity of the spankings); so much so that in the end, it became little/no incentive not to screw up.
Finally, there are those parents that simply do not wish to hit their children.
The thought is so uncomfortable that they cannot bring themselves to do it.
Which speaks volumes about you - and all the others who do it - as a parent and a person.
The bottom line is you consider striking defenceless children acceptable...noted.
DA60, I respect your opinions, and have agreed with you on other issues where you have posted. In this case, while I have absolutely no problem with your absolute right to handle matters with your own children as you see fit, I find your arguments against allowing other parents the option...less satisfactory.
I think your premise that spanking is always merely "violence" inappropriately applied to a "defenseless child" is a bit extreme. While I can agree that some parents can be prone to the use of excessive force, enhanced by using inanimate objects as weaponry, I cannot agree that the use of controlled, focused pain will necessarily result in harm to a childs development.
My advocacy is based upon a reasonable expectation that parents love their children and will not punish with the intent to cause lasting harm, only to imprint negative effects of bad behavior. I also agree this is not something you should attempt with mature children because it has less on the intended effect and a greater chance of instilling resentment and disharmony.
However, from the "terrible twos" to perhaps the "rebelious sixes," I think is serves a useful function. In the first place, it should never be done in anger, or in public. The child should always be punished in the home, and only after the parent has calmed down enough to remember that the punishment is to teach a lesson, not to vent against the child.
My ideal of the process would be as follows: Before it occurs, the parent should explain the purpose for the spanking, and that they are not angry at the child. It should then be done with the open palm of the hand on the meatiest portion of the body, the buttocks. It should consist of 1 - 5 swats administered with reasonable force and at a moderate speed. The child should then be reminded again of the reason for the spanking, then comforted and told that you still love him/her. The use of the open palm is to allow the parent to feel and share in the pain, and to moderate the force being applied properly.
This process should cease completely when the child is old enough to be disciplined through the use of reason coupled with restrictions of privileges. A 10 year old is likely to respond to not being able to go out and play with freinds for a weekend, while a 15 year-old would not want to give up having freinds over or giving up the use of his XBox for a month.
Of course other parents would expand on my suggestions or even think them unrealistic. But the point is, corporal punishment adminstered properly, still has a place in a parents chest of options. That perhaps you are being a little too extreme in your blanket condemnation of the practice, because even you seem to admit that during some point the practice it had an effect on your own behavior when used on you as a child.
