There's a difference between discipline and aggression. Which is the entire reason there's such an anti-physical punishment movement amongst parents nowadays, like spanking, etc., mainly because many individuals in the past didn't comprehend that difference and beat the shit outta kids in the guise of "discipline". --So it's the rubberband effect where parents are prone to give too little discpline.
Setting boundaries, making limits, being the parent (as opposed to the child's "best friend"), and enforcing consequences are all possible without taking out the razor strap-- or, might I add, clipping a kid about the ear.
Which is total bullshit, because the kids in today's society run rampant and laugh at authority. Had we still had the discipline of the 60s and earlier, like the strap at school and a clip across the ear now and then, then there would be less violence in the schoolground, and less violence on the streets. It's protectionist nanny pseudo-intellectuals who know fuck all about raising kids while writing books on the subject who have fucked things up entirely. Time-outs don't work for kids when they have all the luxuriies in their rooms. Setting boundaries does fuck all when the kid says 'no, fuck that. I'll do what I want! And you can't stop me!' The crap on about so called rights. The only rights they should have are the rights that their parents give them, and the authorities that set the rules. The day that 'spare the rod and spoil the child' went out the window was the first step to the bullshit we have in the school system and the gang violence we have on the streets. Generation Y is a direct result of Nanny state discipline, and have a lot to answer for.
Once again, clearly you are not comprehending the differences between:
1. this so-called sensitivity training and being the kid's "friend"
2. true discipline with well-defined parent/child roles and appropriate boundaries
3. beating the fuck out of your kid
Gosh, gee, I know the differences are so
SUBTLE, Chosen One, so let me explain a little further. The first option lets the child run amok (one which it sounds like the both of us thinks is a crock of shit, no?); the second is where physical means are usually not used but discipline and consequences are still properly enforced-- at the same time the child doesn't fear getting the crap beat out of him for doing something wrong; and third, your option, is where the answer is physical. So in your alternative, the child only learns to avoid certain things just out of fear... so once the parent is no longer in the picture to clip the person about the ear (like say when the kid grows up), then they're more prone to revert to doing what they like.
Is fear an unuseful motivator? No, absolutely not. Should it be
the answer to a child's development? I hope not.
In 1 and 3, the person remains the moral equivalent of a 3 yo who fears getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar. Ideally, the 2nd option instills responsibility in the child, something they can take with them through life, since it is more of a cooperative relationship rather than the parent beating the shit out of the child and the child just submitting to avoid further pain.
I know it's subtle, but...