The use of spanking as a way for a parent to get what they want has unforeseen consequences. It may produce compliance in the short run but in the long run it damages the child’s emotional well being it also reflects the parents pathetic lack of authority without the physical means to back it up.
In anger management we frequently hear stories as to how men were treated as boys. They were regularly hit to enforce compliance. The fact they are in an anger management class is indication that these men are not happy and use some form of force to get what they want. The message they got as boys is “It’s OK to hit” that’s what dad does so why shouldn’t I. It has left them with probable depression and resistance to authority in later life.
The law has backed them up with ambiguous words such as reasonable physical force. In contrast in the domestic violence scene that sort of coercion is illegal, it’s a criminal act. Its seems odd that there should be one law for women and a different law for children. In both cases wanting to hurt someone causes pain.
Hitting doesn’t teach kids problem solving or how to handle difficult situations, it doesn’t allow for the integration of short and long term goals. To do that the parent has to take stock and ask “Are there alternatives to hitting the kid?” Generally asking question lead to an answer from somewhere. Otherwise he parents are really short changing their kids when they hit. Meantime it is the law that is polluting the thinking and needs to shift.
Source: Globe and Mail