Southerly by David Haywood

Read Post

Southerly: If You Don't Hit Them, You Must Hate Them

106 Responses

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

  • Hamboy,

    Thanks Don.
    So it's actually worse than I thought. I just assumed it was a number reached through a few 'logic' leaps, not just one pulled out of someone's a**.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 162 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Yes, some friends of Families First who popped over from Scandinavia recently making all sorts of claims. Most of which have been discredited by people back in Scandinavia.

    I'm really tired of that number being quoted like it's authoritative, when everyone who says it knows it's extremely questionable. It's one of the Family First talking points.

    On a wholly subjective and unscientific level, I was annoyed to some degree by all the pro-smackers on the programme, especially the woman who rudely interrupted Olo Brown's mum while she was talking - where did she learn her manners? And of course, my views on Christine Rankin are well enough known by now.

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18969 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    The Creepy Gang of Three reminded what could become of NZ if...

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Russell Brown,

    Oh, and some more research, this time from Arizona State University:

    Parents who smack their children may gain short-term relief, and even immediate obedience by their child, but both parents and children pay a heavy price for this indulgence. This is the thrust of a powerful and wide-ranging meta-analysis of 30-years of research into the consequences of corporal punishment.

    The messages from the research are that smacking doesn't create citizens with pro-social values, doesn't make effective citizens, sends confusing messages to children, blinds them, through fear, from telling right from wrong, and is ultimately self-defeating. There is also evidence it may be more harmful to younger children - and in Britain 75% of children are smacked before they are 1 year old.

    The report concludes that while a mild smack may be better than no discipline at all, non-violent parenting is by far the best for family and society. For many parents hitting begins the slippery slope, oiled by stress or emotion, to physical abuse. Not one single study was found which showed corporal punishment was necessary. Parents should therefore be helped to learn non-violent means of disciplining and training their children - the advice of bodies as widely spread as the NSPCC in the UK, Save the Children in Sweden and the UK, and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

    This ties in with the experience of Sweden, which banned corporal punishment in 1979. Whereas in 1971, 65% of Swedes thought children could be reared successfully without corporal punishment, by 1994, with greater experience of such parenting, the proportion had risen to 89%.

    I suspect that last part's what some of the pro-smackers are really afraid of.

    Would anyone who's arguing against the bill care to comment on the study I've cited above?

    Auckland • Since Nov 2006 • 18969 posts Report Reply

  • Rob Stowell,

    Stephen: it seems your reference to

    all the fundamentalists here

    was to the fundamentalists from both sides in this debate while I took it here to refer to PA. To that extent your comment was more ambiguous than illogical. You do, however, seem to equate the whole tarnation-difficult and time-consuming business of "raising a child" to a simple question of how a child is disciplined which is almost as annoying!
    While "repeal of s59" is more accurate, I don't mind it being called the anti-smacking bill. As you say, while there's no likelihood of arrests etc happening, the intent is broadly anti-smacking. And the pro-smacking lobby are not, of course, necessarily pro-beating with heavy metal obects. Wide support for the Burrows amendment suggests that.
    What you don't seem to acknowledge is that in the end it doesn't come down to problems with the logic of either side. It comes down to differing opinions about what are the legitimate rights of children and parents- and how the law can best and most profitably interact with the largely private and very personal business of bring up kids.

    Whakaraupo • Since Nov 2006 • 1574 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    smacking doesn't create citizens with pro-social values... [it] blinds them, through fear, from telling right from wrong

    hang on a minute - if we stop doing that then where will the next batch of fundy Christian Soldiers come from?

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    Exactly, seriously, this is exactly the point, smacking kids is training for those kids in the way to deal with dissenters further down the line.
    God and my right! That's the way the west was won.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    After watching that TV3 "debate" last night, I've worked out why the government didn't push the bill through before Easter after all. Their cunning plan is to give Christine Rankin more air time.

    "childless Prime Minister ... spitting Sue Bradford" ... boy, does she have issues.

    My family had an intervention and switched over to Futurama before I had an embollism.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4369 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    Hehhe, your family love you, I had the embolism!

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Hamboy,

    if we stop doing that then where will the next batch of fundy Christian Soldiers come from

    Exactly! Who would we laugh at and feel superior to?

    S'pose we've still got morning show DJs.

    Christchurch • Since Dec 2006 • 162 posts Report Reply

  • Emma Hart,

    Hehhe, your family love you, I had the embolism!

    I'm pretty sure they just wanted me to stop yelling 'but that's not even TRUE!' at the telly and looking for things to throw.

    Christchurch • Since Nov 2006 • 4369 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    I had an Old Drunk Priest from Father Ted moment, but then again I always do when that much BS comes from the telly from self-interested wankas who should really know better, see, high horse me and I'm on myself...head explodes.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    why are the media continuing this way?

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    Because they hate us more than they loathe themselves.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    i thought they were there to like be a watchdog on power and facilitate democratic discussion and decision-making and stuff.
    you mean there are other reasons too?

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    Yes Master Riddley, once they have completed their Death Star...

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    ...then the Rapture?

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    First The Quickening, then The Big R, but not for all Master Riddley, not for all...

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    oh hoorah, we shall be saved, ever to cycle the lonely planet in our Hallensteins' polyesters. Praise Be!

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • Kyle Matthews,

    in Britain 75% of children are smacked before they are 1 year old

    It's truly sad that 75% of parents anywhere think that kids, before they turn one, can associate being hit with any sort of positive parenting message or behavioural adjustment. At least there's an 'excuse' when they're older that you can explain your reasoning and they might understand.

    Kids under one must be so confused about why their parents are hitting them (and I'd suggest the parents are pretty confused as well).

    Since Nov 2006 • 6205 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    yeah that's nuts when you take a moment to think about it.

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    If you have ever caught public transport in London and seen how the children are treated by presumably their parents, and this is a huge generalisation that I'm sticking to...they are all treated very shabbily.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    but that would be 'lovingly shabbily' right, as in if you don't hit them, you must hate them?

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

  • merc,

    And so, beautifully, is the Circle Now Complete...
    I have read the opinion that the main reason Britain painted the globe never sun setting red is because simply, the British are the most stroppy, pugilistic, malcontent lot to ever get press ganged and go for a wee scrap some place foreign...just for the hell of it and because it's better than being beaten senseless at home.

    Since Dec 2006 • 2471 posts Report Reply

  • Riddley Walker,

    that and the meat the 3 veg, i mean they're kind of culinary refugees too

    AKL • Since Feb 2007 • 890 posts Report Reply

First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 Newer→ Last

Post your response…

Please sign in using your Public Address credentials…

Login

You may also create an account or retrieve your password.