Training your child to be obedient isn't (or shouldn't be---there are always pathological cases) something you do for the hell of it. Teaching obedience is important because children are wont to make bad decisions, sometimes with immediate negative consequences.

Example: parent walks along sidewalk with child. Child decides to run into the street, not noticing oncoming car. Parent, unable to do anything else, yells "no!" If the child doesn't know that when the parent yells a command like that he needs to listen now, the child stands a very good chance of getting run over.

In my mind, exercising a reasonable level of control over a person who might otherwise be a danger to herself is not some kind of dystopic nightmare, it's a rational approach to parenting.

Seems like both extreme positions are a little loony, though: "I hit my kids because that's how my parents did it" isn't a particularly fruitful argument. Fundamentally, you just need to think about why you do what you do as a parent, and carefully consider whether your actions are rational: I know a lot of parents who say things like "it's just so hard to put him to sleep because I can't stand when he cries!" It's very difficult to convince such people that their motivations are selfish, even when the message is delivered delicately.

This is a significantly emotion-laden topic that, while truly important, I'm not convinced belongs on HN. Here are some predictions:

* There will be much heat and very little light.

* There will be much anecdote and no significant, independent data.

* No one will change their minds

* There is no definitive answer.

Classic flame-bait.

So before you reply, consider - are you annoyed? Angry? Otherwise emotionally charged? To be so is natural and reasonable, the topic goes straight to the heart of many people's humanity.

Will debating it here help at all?

Vying for the title of "worst submission to HN this year", a political article in which a caricature argues with other caricatures in defense of hitting kids.

It's weird that english has a special word for hitting kids that people use as if it doesn't mean "to hit".

> Spanking is far less emotionally manipulative than twenty nagging reprimands, it’s fast, and it’s certainly effective.

I disagree. Spanking is coercive, psychologically harmful and it teaches the child their body is ruled by a bully.

I feel sorry for her kids. The opening story tells it all - obedience over love of learning.