It isn't often the Internet can agree on something. But apparently it has: the Baltimore mom beating her son for participating in looting is a hero. Mom of the year, in fact.
Sure, I'll give her major credit for stepping in and extracting her child from this awful situation. But isn't anyone just a tad bit outraged by the fact that she does this by beating her child?
I realize I've got a fairly unique perspective on the topic of corporal punishment. As a foster parent, that's simply a no-no in our world, end of story. This isn't just because of the silly notion that we shouldn't be hurting children, but because there are more effective means of instilling discipline. (Yes, there are more options than: (a) hit my child or (b) let my child run wild; and yes, discipline is a critical part of parenting and isn't just a euphemism for hitting your child.)
I mean, not to be picky, but if Mom was truly MomOfTheYear, would her child be out there rioting in the first place? And how can you say that beating your child is effective if you need to beat him as a teenager?
And what, pray tell, is the message your child is learning from getting assaulted? Violence is wrong, unless I'm doing it to you, in which case it's OK. Uh, see in flaws in that logic? If he struck his girlfriend *exactly* the same way his Mother hit him, we'd be outraged.
The whole scenario makes my brain just hurt.