I voted for #2, but reject the premise it's about "women's feelings".
It's more about property rights.
Men shouldn't be able to hit their dependents BUT shouldn't be legally responsible for caring for them either.
The solution to a disobedient wife or bratty child is to throw them out on the street for a a few days, then a week, then escalate with repeated offenses & wait for them to come crawling back to you, having learned their lesson on how dependent they are on your resources, protection, and stability to maintain their current quality of life they deem acceptable.
Worse case scenario they never come back- in the case of your son, he's either getting tough and learning the way of the world on his own (good) or dead (good, because if he was too weak his genes deserve to be eliminated).
In the case of your wife, novia, or daughter, ey another likely quality whore for men to fuck when they need relief on the street.
Either way, everyone wins.
If you aren't willing to deal with the "social consequences" of that, then you deserve disobedient, ungrateful, spoiled wives/children, unironically.
And if they are doing even reasonably well, they should be spoiled, for the fact that they have to give themselves up to be a part of your vision and a baby factory for you rather than having independent adventures- since women mix with men genetically, they are unfortunately oppressed with a modicum (admittedly lesser on average- still) of desire for this, but biologically can't pursue it.
It also depends on how disobedient/what we're talking about.
I'd be willing to bet the average Muzzie, TradCath, LARPer, or glowie who asks this question is imagining a much more "minor" consequence that would deserve such extreme punishment as I, and has much higher standards for what to expect for her to deserve to be "spoiled" than I, but that's just a hunch.
If you disagree you hate humanity, LMAO.
