It really depends on the application, and on the child. My mother spanked me almost daily for years, and it did no good. My father spanked me twice, and I still remember both times, what I did, and why I would never do those things again. The difference was that my father was not angry when he spanked me, and he took the time to explain and get me to think about my actions. My mother swooped in from nowhere, angry, and hit, with me never figuring out what exactly I'd done to make her angry (or at least not figuring it out for a long time). The one time my mother made me sit in the time-out chair, I remember. Now, I hadn't done the thing I had to sit there for, but at least I remembered that it was a bad thing and new I'd get in trouble if I ever actually did do it.
I think it's really the inconsistent application of ANY form of discipline that makes it ineffective. How many times in the store do you see a parent with an ill-behaved child, and the parent is telling the child over and over, "Stop that, or you'll get X punishment," but the parent says it 20 times and NEVER follows through? They've taught the kid that they're really just saying, "Stop, or I'll tell you to stop again."
Maybe they took lessons from the U.N.
I agree generally.
But all the categories of discipline styles must be assumed to be applied JUDICIOUSLY, not viciously or weakly. The problem is, today, everyone assumes "spanking" means incessant, never-ending hitting (abuse), and "time-out" is applied only when needed. I.e., they're trying to make the "mean" stuff look as mean as possible, and the "time out" as nice as can be.
As far as the old "don't be angry", I don't go for that. I'm not saying there aren't times when you aren't really that angry about something, but to me, a spanking should be when:
a) something really egregious was done
b) something immediate and intense needs to be applied
If something is egregious, it's likely to make 1 very angry. Frankly, if you are not angry when applying something, I think that's a little "mental". I'm not sure I'd be happy knowing my mom was going to hit me even if she wasn't obviously angry. If she's angry, I know a consequence might be coming!
Again, like spanking in general, people ASSUME it's "mean" and "vicious" and "cruel abuse" as a rule when they say you "can't be angry". Because they ASSUME that spanking is inherently cruel, and they ASSUME that if you're angry, you're likely to be abusive. That's not true. My parents as well as many like them have shown plenty anger as well as been totally judicious about their physical discipline. Not any abuse there at all.
I.e., spanking <> abuse, nor does anger = abuse.
Thank you. Seriously, I think the thing about discipline is that there is no "one right answer" that applies across the board to every child. Each child is different. Some children can be disciplined with a look, others a loss of privileges (if it is serious and done correctly), others with a spanking. It depends on the child, the parent, how the parent applies the punishment, the age of the child, a number of factors.