Comments on: Feminist Radio http://menz.org.nz/2007/feminist-radio/ - promoting a clearer understanding of men's experience - Mon, 1 Dec 2008 22:28:27 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Benjamin Easton http://menz.org.nz/2007/feminist-radio/#comment-125337 Benjamin Easton Thu, 27 Sep 2007 02:42:24 +0000 http://menz.org.nz/2007/feminist-radio/#comment-125337 The educative practice condoning corporal punishment, or alternatively rejecting, for their substance, provide a very good model on how important decisions are made that miss the qualitative component recognising differences between genders, and their subsequent behaviours. Girls, I would believe are most unlikely to get the cane: strapping possibly but not the cane. This isn't simply because of the fact that we do not wish to damage girls but more likely to be a compounded affect that women's violence is not factored to be any different from that of boys. This conclusion means that when we removed corporal punishment it recognised in my opinion, reasonably, that there was no necessity to hit children in order to affect more appropriate behaviour but overlooked the condition of violence, its constitution, and that by focusing primarily on the negative behaviour of boys the intention to alleviate their violence by not hitting them missed that the intiative was only focused on boys. So only one strain of behaviour received the focus of needing alternative measures to curb its impact on society. This lopsided view, where not recognising violence meant that the measure to compete with violence had not been researched and that the alternatives on how the teachers should cope with the problems were not instruments at their disposal. Exactly the same has happened with the Anti - Smacking Bill. The idea might be right but the families are just quite simply not able to cope. This exasperates the problem it doesn't remedy it. Like for the teachers the parents don't know what to do and there isn't the help out there that has been researched and developed adequately to provide advise that is remedial. It simply redistributes blame, from the child onto the adult. The detail of this may appear convoluted but I do not believe it is. If you stop physical violence you have to have alternatives accessible in order to achieve the principle hope that demands the removal of that violence. If the full body of violence isn't recognised, girls general practices in being violent as against boys, then the disparity to cope with violence is bigger than any mechanism outruling physical discipline. So the measures removing the need to hit children may be valuable but because we do not have a full comprehension on what violence means then we cannot accurately affect a measure to contain its affect. The girls get away with more blue murder than ever before: and the boys cop the blame because they tend to commit the murder. The thing that I find most stunning, most especially through this recent debate on the no smacking of children is that those who impliment the rules ignore this basic issue. They won't listen. Women behave badly and it is not seen as bad behaviour and it is therefore encouraged and the blokes cop it. If the blokes bad behaviour is not contained in a form that is more specific to their natural responsive nature and there is no direct alternative in place to contain that behaviour then it will get worse. In the end we have everyone being judged on one set of principles - those in this example of women's. So who suffers as the adults haven't worked it out? Eventually the teachers, eventually the parents but obviously the child, where our obligation to encourage children responsibly misses out that we haven't mapped human behaviour. We've got the human genome mapped but still have no idea on how to compete with spite and hatred: which in turn manifests. The educative practice condoning corporal punishment, or alternatively rejecting, for their substance, provide a very good model on how important decisions are made that miss the qualitative component recognising differences between genders, and their subsequent behaviours. Girls, I would believe are most unlikely to get the cane: strapping possibly but not the cane. This isn’t simply because of the fact that we do not wish to damage girls but more likely to be a compounded affect that women’s violence is not factored to be any different from that of boys. This conclusion means that when we removed corporal punishment it recognised in my opinion, reasonably, that there was no necessity to hit children in order to affect more appropriate behaviour but overlooked the condition of violence, its constitution, and that by focusing primarily on the negative behaviour of boys the intention to alleviate their violence by not hitting them missed that the intiative was only focused on boys. So only one strain of behaviour received the focus of needing alternative measures to curb its impact on society. This lopsided view, where not recognising violence meant that the measure to compete with violence had not been researched and that the alternatives on how the teachers should cope with the problems were not instruments at their disposal. Exactly the same has happened with the Anti - Smacking Bill. The idea might be right but the families are just quite simply not able to cope. This exasperates the problem it doesn’t remedy it. Like for the teachers the parents don’t know what to do and there isn’t the help out there that has been researched and developed adequately to provide advise that is remedial. It simply redistributes blame, from the child onto the adult.

The detail of this may appear convoluted but I do not believe it is. If you stop physical violence you have to have alternatives accessible in order to achieve the principle hope that demands the removal of that violence. If the full body of violence isn’t recognised, girls general practices in being violent as against boys, then the disparity to cope with violence is bigger than any mechanism outruling physical discipline. So the measures removing the need to hit children may be valuable but because we do not have a full comprehension on what violence means then we cannot accurately affect a measure to contain its affect. The girls get away with more blue murder than ever before: and the boys cop the blame because they tend to commit the murder.

The thing that I find most stunning, most especially through this recent debate on the no smacking of children is that those who impliment the rules ignore this basic issue. They won’t listen. Women behave badly and it is not seen as bad behaviour and it is therefore encouraged and the blokes cop it. If the blokes bad behaviour is not contained in a form that is more specific to their natural responsive nature and there is no direct alternative in place to contain that behaviour then it will get worse.

In the end we have everyone being judged on one set of principles - those in this example of women’s. So who suffers as the adults haven’t worked it out? Eventually the teachers, eventually the parents but obviously the child, where our obligation to encourage children responsibly misses out that we haven’t mapped human behaviour. We’ve got the human genome mapped but still have no idea on how to compete with spite and hatred: which in turn manifests.

]]>