Corporal punishment is more common in less affluent/educated societies than it is in wealthy/well-educated ones. This is common knowledge. I never said anything about inferiority. It's not about judging anyone, it's about contradicting bad advice.
I've always figured that Corporal punishment is like banging rocks together to make fire. sure it _can_ be done, our ancestors used it effectively and it can be useful as a last resort; but a lighter or matchsticks are significantly more effective.
In my experience, those who argue strongly in favor of beating children do so not because they know better but because that technique is all they know. essentially: "but if i don't beat him how will I get him to behave??"
My point is that who is the AAP to say how best to raise children? I seriously doubt the validity of any study that claims to be conclusive on how to raise children, and would make a bet that any research they did was localized to the US. Anecdotally, several of my friends were beaten as children and turned out fine. All this proves is that sometimes physical punishment works and sometimes it doesn't. But the same goes for "establishing a loving relationship with your child;" since you can hardly do that when they're threatening to stab you with a knife.
> is rather telling evidence that our forebears
> found it to be the most effective way to bring
> children in line
- Slavery / Indentured Service as a means of generating wealth.
- Punishing women for sexuality (because all women were temptresses, and a man couldn't be blamed for infidelity, rape, etc).
- Torture against criminals / political prisoners.
- Religious wars.
I don't think that "our forebears did it, so there must be something to it," is a generally effective argument.
Can you back up your claim that beatings produce poor outcomes for children in "highly educated societies?" Or that 'less educated societies" are inferior because they don't have qualms about spanking their kids when they misbehave?