Posts by Rob Stowell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Just posting to see if that ole gravatar has turned up... but it's kinda hard to generalise about Americans. Read the New Yorker for an irony mine.
But they're off on a weird weird trip with christianity: marrying it to capitalism to a large degree, with mega-churches and massively wealthy tele-evangelists. But there's no checks and balances- they pays no taxes and you can't be charged with false advertising for claims about the here-after, or about anything supernatural: "you worked hard and you pryed long and you didn't get rich? seems god has something else in mind fo' you, brother- ".
So it's a small thing, but movement towards believing in evolution AND a whole 20% of atheists- and these are probably not the dumbest young americans! is a promising trend. -
Mr Holden seems to have left some carnage- or at least baggage- in the Shortland St hallways... But I don't think it's just him: the combined pressure of falling ratings and "the charter" have induced a cycle of chaos at tvnz that seems to feedback onto itself. In terms of sport- an NZ biggie- they're as marginalised as the gay community. They're not getting the big dramas "as of right" anymore- with sky/prime (and to some extent canwest) able to feed on programmes they or other branches of the same outfit have acquired rights for in other territories- and perhaps lacking some of the top programmers- much of the best drama (deadwood- shameless-dr who) is going elsewhere. And because they're still a blinkin' big, quite rigid and top-heavy institution, they make less news and current affairs for the dollar and it's often not as good. (There's nothing like being an independent, and knowing getting your next job hinges completely on your current job being a cracker, to keep you honed in on quality. Quite different from the life of a salaried producer.) It's kind've sad to watch.
Somewhat off-topic and with regard to this from the "executive summary":In terms of labels, ‘Gay’ is the most preferred label; however there is a great deal of pain and annoyance caused by
the term being used in a derogatory way “that’s so gay”.Isn't what's happened to the word "gay" in my/our lifetimes extraordinary? From "blythe and carefree" to "homosexual- in a nice way" to "boring, and somehow slightly off"- a remarkable lexical journey, that sez a lot about a/ social engineering and its pitfalls and b/ the enduring power of prejudice. I'm still missing having a word for the original meaning- while my teenage kids are unintentionally re-inforcing anti-gay stereotypes with their everyday usage. I know getting annoyed about it- or the routine rubbishing of the language that is msn messenger and txt-spk- makes me an old fogey and pedant. But Hrrmmmph! anyway.
-
Damn. And I thought it was funny.
-
Ooops- ... of believing in)... should have been "of believing that parents have not just a special role in children's lives, but a special insight into what is and isn't approriate punishment.)
-
Stephen, you make some good points, and as one who's immersed in the daily battle of turning wild beasts into civilised adults, I have some sympathy for what you're saying.
But: you don't give David credit for realising that adults and children ARE different and that we're only talking here about one particular issue; nor do you seem to give credit to the bill itself (as modified) for realising that force is sometimes quite appropriate. And while it's easy (and we're all probably a bit guilty) to paint the opposition as "just not getting it" it rather demeans this debate.
Further: the "system installation" metaphor is grating. It implies a "blank slate" theory of mind/knowledge, and it also implies a reasonably sharp division of learning into (in your software terms!) installation and modification/upgrades. In fact learning is life-long; and there are times when we all have to- or should- go back and re-learn some of the basics (a partial re-format?!) about how to treat each other.
To some degree, questions about the relevance of corporal punishment to education have been answered in schools. (I have an atavistic streak and sometimes think misbehaving children and adults would benefit from a 'good' beating. But by whom? And who and what process would I trust to make that decision? None, as it happens- I have seen parents do things- and have smacked myself- that make me wary of believing in)
As you say, the agency does matter. For some parents, I'm prepared to believe "This is going to hurt me more than it hurts you" is actually true. But the intimacy of the violence (or "corrective smack"- it sounds so much better!) makes it, to me, more rather than less disturbing, and certainly no less able to be challenged.
Deborah point is good: shouldn't we presume all human rights extend to children, and roll them back one-by-one in a considered manner? There's a lot of agreement that the arguments are strong for most age-related laws (not that they don't need debating). Putting this issue under the spotlight is timely and instructive.
You claim that by conflating the human rights of adults and children we're missing the point. Most people get that, but disagree. To move on to your own point (which is simply to take Russell's original- "why should children not have the same rights as adults to freedom from assault?" as a genuine question and not a rhetorical flourish) then: is parental smacking the only- or the best- or one of many acceptable- or a poor and discredited way to "install the system" or civilise our little lovelies? -
I'm bemused at the sudden proliferation of the term "light smacking". It fudges the essential nature of what's going on, in part at least because we all know that a "light smack" need not hurt. Anyone who's ever smacked a kid knows that if it doesn't hurt, it simply doesn't register. Put the other way- smacking is about inflicting pain- and we hope, and I think sometimes at least reasonably expect- that this will change behaviour. But if you look at it in this light, it all becomes rather clearer. This is something we have long abandoned in our criminal justice system with regard to the correction of adults. And it's hard to justify with regard to children.
(Part of my reluctance WRT this bill, is that it seems to cover "the use of force" more generally- and I've felt obliged to forcibly pick kids up and put them into "time out" enough to become a/ sceptical that any kid in "tanty" mode will go willingly and not have to be forcibly moved, and b/ quite surprised at how much more effective "time out" is when compared to a smack (perhaps the message is undercut by my immediate feelings of remorse and being a dreadful bully). -
Another thought: they say "Never hit a child when you're angry." Gotta agree. But it's also the only time I've ever done it- I don't think I COULD if I wasn't angry/frustrated. And I just plain don't trust the people who can hit kids "calmly". (Or who say they can. They may claim they're prefectly calm, but deep down I reckon there's usually fury at work.) So: don't hit 'em when you're angry- and don't trust anyone who hits 'em when they're NOT angry. Hm?
-
Nick- good point, insofar as parents have a particular legal set of obligations with regard to children- ties, if you like- so it's a special legal relationship. On the other hand- and I'm not discounting the efficacy of quickly stopping a behaviour with a sharp smack- there's not a lot of evidence that violence is a worthwhile educational tool- unless you want to teach kids about violence (and that's not just meant sarcastically; when one has just whacked another- yeah, there's a great temptation to give them a swipe and say- how do you like it? It's not necessarily empty rhetoric- it may even teach a little empathy.)
I do feel very torn on this: in some ways we're a society that loves eg rugby and mountaineering, but also hates "risky behaviour". I'm worried this could be another turn on the road to us becoming a nation of snitches- did you SEE that woman, she SHOUTED at her poor kid- quick, get the number plate. (Actually I already feel a bit like this, without quite the inclination to ring anyone. But I've carried my own partly autistic son kicking and screaming out of public events and felt pretty exposed to public scorn- it's not pleasant).
But but but- why do I deserve more legal protection than my kids?
The idea that the police will be involved in every minor family scrap is just silly. But if you want absurdity- our children are probably breaking the law when they hit and kick and push us. Noone is going to stop this happening- even little kids have an instinct to strike out. But equally, I'm not going to turn pale and ring the cops because the 15-year-old has had a rush of hormones and attacked what she sees as an invader of her sacred mess (actually she's just taken up kick-boxing, I may have spoken too soon.)
As a parent I can handle a fair level of hypocrisy- there is stuff I do that I just don't want my kids to do, at least til they're older- and then there are little things like hoarding the chocolates- but demanding the law validate the hypocrisy is a little steep. -
It's curious that noone seems to want to take on the nub of the moral argument- "...is there in fact a good justification that we should sanction - in whatever detail - an act against a child that we would not sanction against an adult?
I have similar feelings about a/being criminalised: I've smacked my kids, always in "the worst" way- in anger- and always immediately regretted it. But it's never felt like The Law should step in. And I absolutely agree with just about everything people have said with regard to laws that aen't enforced, etc. I've found Bradford rather annoyingly morally confident (something few non-religous people seem to manage!) and I still have a deep misgiving about a law that criminalised- I suspect- most parents, without any "intention" of it being applied- yes that seems nuts. (And yes, I can also hear already the sarcasm and sour wit of the 15-year-old: "No, dad, I'm not going to school today. And you touch me- I'm right onto CYFs... and you can think about it all in prison...)
But why should children have less legal protection that the rest of us? I can't find an adequate justification. Yes, we do treat children very differently legally- but you can make a good case- not always perfect, but a damn good case that denying them the right to smoke, drink, have sex drive etc before a particular age is generally for their own good.
Hit 'em for their own good? We've all heard it, but should we believe it?
In many ways- although the family raises a lot more passion- isn't this a replay of the debate about corporal punishment in schools? Wasn't there trumpeting that without the cane and the strap, there'd just be no discipline? Yet I work with teachers and I've never met one who's not glad corporal punishment has gone. It was quite hard on them too- appart from the few who liked it. And would anyone really want their kids taught- and hit- by a teacher like that?
We'd certainly not feel comfortable with the notion that our boss, or spouse, or the police- could quite legally use force to discipline us for our own good. Why demand that power over our children?
I don't think this is easy or simple, but I think Russell's right: the moral argument is strong enough- not to make me feel completely comfortable about this- but to support it. Waiting for a perfect bill or the perfect moment to introduce is futile- and it's nice to see the govt actually sticking to what could be some pretty unpopular principles. -
Yeah, I think the "arrogant" meme has begun to stick- even to the point where labour supporters have started to use it.... I hope if Key's gonne be PM he has to earn it and doesn't get to just walk in with a smarmy grin and a fistful of "no-comment".
Otoh- I still admire Cullen a lot and I think he pushed this forward because it's worth considering (and possibly he thought he had Key on record as agreeing) and (disclosure: my mortgage is not- at least by Auckland standards- large!) I reckon it IS worth considering. EVERYONE who's looking agrees the economy is unbalanced and the exchange rate too high for it to adjust. As we're visibly sliding slowly into the sh*t, we ought to be hunting around pretty franticly for some new hand-holds/leverage to shift the balance back towards exporting. I like the way Cullen brought this up, and I think Clarke made a big mistake squashing it the way she did- just looks cheap, short-sighted, and knee-jerk. And haven't we started to see quite a lot of that from the Govt?