Reaffirming My Position Against Corporal Punishment Of Children

NOTE:  The opinions presented here are mine, and are not necessarily the same as those of others in the Matriarchy movement.  Caveat lector.

Recent research and current events have prompted me to reaffirm my position on an ethical issue that I feel strongly about.  I for one vehemently oppose the use of corporal punishment on children and teens.  There are literally reams and reams of social science research from over half a century now that conclusively show this outmoded practice to do far more harm than good on balance.  Seriously.  It is true that "edge" cases and outlier studies exist, of course, but these are essentially the very rare exceptions that only prove the rule.  The plural of "anecdote" is NOT "data", after all.  And besides, hitting is an inherently patriarchal and violent method of power and control, regardless of which gender practices it on whom, and I personally view it as immoral and incompatible with human rights.  And in order to be effective long-term, corporal punishment would generally have to exceed the bounds of what is currently considered humane for anyone (even POWs!) in the 21st century.  Again, not everyone in the movement will agree with me in that regard, but as a humanist this is a hill that I will die on.  Case closed, at least until the next meditation that tells me otherwise.

The late, great Jordan Riak (RIP) was right all along.  As is Elizabeth Gershoff, and Murray Straus as well as the late, great Alice Miller.

Of note, the late, great anthropologist Ashley Montagu, who wrote The Natural Superiority of Women, also strongly opposed corporal punishment of children.  As did the late, great Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., apparently, as well as so many other great thinkers from John Locke to St. Don Bosco to Maria Montessori to Dr. James W. Prescott.  Clearly, there is nothing Matriarchal about the practice, and it is fundamentally rooted in both patriarchy and adulto-patriarchy.

Frankly, all that hitting really teaches a child is 1) "don't get caught", 2) "might makes right", and 3) "do what you're told, or else!"  And the specious notion that violence is the go-to solution to problems.  It does NOT actually teach right and wrong, let alone empathy.  And even when it does superficially appear to "work", when the kids grow up, they become "Good Germans" in a society where 1/3 of the population is willing to kill another 1/3, while 1/3 watches.  Or at best, at least half of the population is happy on their knees.

In fact, further research has found a strong link between childhood corporal punishment and increased likelihood for political authoritarianism in adults.  That has actually been known since at least the 1940s.  And now in 2025, we are all now reaping the whirlwind from the wind that such budding authoritarians have sown.

Also, keep in mind that many of the same specious and often Machiavellian arguments used to justify hitting children can also just as likely be used to justify elder abuse as well.  Or any other vulnerable person as well for that matter.  So be very careful what you wish for, since we all know what they say about karma.  (By the way, the Law of Karma is really the "Law of Cause and Effect", not the "Law of the Carrot and Stick".)

Perhaps even the whole concept of relying on extrinsic motivation needs rethinking?

And that's before one even scratches the surface of the sexual aspect of spanking.  Disturbing as it sounds, that right there is most likely by far the number one cause of S&M behavior, both real and simulated, in the adults that those same kids eventually become.

So yes, there is a science to it.  And that science does NOT support it.  Perhaps one should learn nonviolent communication (NVC) instead.

In other words, it is LONG past time to dispense with the outmoded old husband's tale of "spare the rod, and spoil the child".  Which is actually a 17th century satire of the original words from that particular old husband, King Solomon himself, who was thought to be the original author of the Book of Proverbs in the Old Testament.

And ultimately, any religion or ideology that has to be literally beaten into a child is inherently a fatally flawed one.  Not like it is really a particularly Christian thing to do in any case.  Seriously, could you possibly imagine Jesus or Mary hitting a child for any reason?  You can't, can you.  So repent, and KNOCK IT OFF!

You wouldn't do it to an employee.

You wouldn't do it to a spouse or partner.

You wouldn't do it to a pet.

You wouldn't do it to a farm animal.

You wouldn't do it to an elderly dementia patient.

You wouldn't do it to a developmentally disabled adult.

You wouldn't even do it to a POW under the Geneva Conventions.

So why would you do it to a child of any age, especially one below the age of reason?

Oh, and by the way, the most recent pro-corporal punishment meta-analysis "study," by at least one author with an obvious axe to grind, has been roundly criticized as being biased if not totally rigged.  Meanwhile several other recent reviews and meta-analyses by different researchers continue to affirm the half-century scientific consensus that corporal punishment does more harm than good.

And finally, that leads to the next, more general question:  Is suffering good for the soul?  I personally don't believe that age-old, vexing question has a simple "yes" or "no" answer, but rather it is very, very nuanced.  One can argue that suffering is "the teacher of last resort", perhaps, and can indeed have utility at times, but it is not automatically or inherently good per se.  To argue that it is, is a very slippery slope, whose logic led to horrible atrocities like the Inquisition and the Burning Times, and ultimately by extension other horrible atrocities like the Nazi Holocaust as well.  Natch.

(The late, great Alice Miller, a survivor of the latter, must surely be spinning in her grave when anyone defends hitting/beating children!)

If it truly is God's Will for a particular individual to suffer in some way, it will happen regardless, without another person deliberately forcing it to happen to them.  To argue otherwise is to play God.

P.S. The racist and classist canard that children of some demographic groups (race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status) somehow "need" to be hit more than others has also been debunked as well.

(Mic drop)