Corporal Punishment
Just read the comments on section 59 theme from 14. March 2007, – and felt the need to write this:
Family violence produces social violence. Violence in the home is trans-generational. Violence in the home produces violent children. researchers can and have accurately predicted boys criminal behaviour, based on which boys had a history of violence in their upbringing.
‘Socialising mode’ parents emphatically deny that spanking is violence, when the same spank, applied to a nursing home resident, or a psychiatric patient, would be unequivocally treated as assault.
When we deny the violence of a smack, this simply means that we have become personally de-sensitised to violence at that threshold. the hitting we experienced as children has made us insensitive to the pain and humiliation suffered by our own children as we swat them in the name of discipline.
So we don’t see our blows as violent, but our children-who are much more vulnerable and sensitive than ourselves-certainly experience them as violent.
In 1998 in the UK, National Children Bureau asked a large group of 5-7 year olds how they felt when they got smacked. All of them spoke of wounded feelings, hurt, embarrassment, and shock. The childrens responses, reproduced in their own words, are moving testimony to the violation they experience at the receiving end of parental ‘dicipline’.
It would take a very thick skin for anyone to read these childrens messages, and continue to deny that smacking or spanking constitute violence. The evidence of the childs emotional wound does not appear until later.
Furthermore, because not all children who are hit by their parents become violent or depressed, many of the negative effects are less obvious.
STUDY: Children who had been spanked or smacked were more likely to be aggressive towards their peers-had behaviour problems such as lying and bullying-had less remorse for hurtful behaviour, are more destructive and more disobedient, regardless of how warm their parents were.
The link between corporal punishment and aggressiveness in children is so strong that the best predictor of violent behaviour is the frequency with which children have been spanked.
Not all spanked become aggressive in thoughts or deeds. Corporal punishment has been linked to a host of other psychological problems = conduct disorder, anxiety disorder in children, depression, suicidal thoughts and alcohol abuse, decreased confidence and assertiveness, low self esteem and alcoholism, lack of empathy, social skills and personal autonomy.
The main reason why children learn to be violent is that they are natural imitators.This means that parents who rely on corporal punishment or verbal abuse to ‘control’ their kids are unwittingly acting as models for bullying behaviour.
‘Those whose anger boils over become ‘bullies’, those who are paralysed with fear become ‘victims’.
The school bully or juvenile delinquent is an emotionally injured individual trying to compensate for an inner feeling of powerlessness. To consider bullies as offenders is superficial, when in fact they are first and foremost victims.
The Israeli Supreme Court says: “Corporal punishment as a remnant of a social-educational outlook that has lost its validity. The child is not the parents property and cannot be used as a punching bag”.––-
This was an extract from a book: “Parenting for a Peaceful World”, by Robin Grille.
–highly recommended.
This is a typical load of wooly woofter social worker speak. I note that the author fails to point to any reputable independent study. It appears to only represent her poinion.
It appears to be based on isolated incidents, trumpeted as a majority.
Could I remind the author that in independent surveys truely representitive of all New Zealanders over 80% (84% from memory) are opposed to the anti smacking bill.
The real danger of this is not the liklihood of criminal conviction, but of having children stolen by cyf. CYF, a group of people not renown for their veracity. (Reference CYFSwatch http://www.cyfswatch.org) Presently featured are articles from independent bodies on the integrity of social workers.
The reality views such as this can be likened to the mother watching her little son in an army parade and says “Look at little Johnny he is the only one in step”
Comment by Alastair — Wed 11th March 2009 @ 1:53 pm
Can you provide the exact references for the studies you report, especially the one you introduce by the word STUDY? My understanding is that mild physical punishment has only been shown to cause fleeting effects on children’s behaviour, as would any consequence such as time out. I am not aware of any good evidence that non-injurious physical punishment causes significant harm to children. Much more harm is caused by ineffectual behaviour management.
Most of what you claim is based on an overestimation of the impact of modelling and no attention to the importance of behaviour shaping through consequences.
Your posting purports to be in response to statements made recently on MENZ but it does not actually respond to any of the challenges made in those statements. Your post appears to be simply more of the propaganda and misrepresentation that we have long seen from the anti-punishment lobby. As usual, your post interchanges words like “smacking” and “spanking” with “violence”, and you attribute measured effects of violent abuse to ordinary smacking.
Asking children how they felt about being smacked may be an interesting enough exercise but cannot sensibly be used as the basis for determining child-rearing. Many children speak also of their distress at being made to eat vegetables, to go to bed on time and to go to school. Shall we ask children to design society’s rules and processes?
One important role provided by human pain receptors is learning; those behaviours that lead to painful consequences are thereby punished and avoided in future. To ban humans from sensibly utilizing that most natural system in their training of children about social and safety boundaries is foolishness based on faulty ideology.
It is invalid to argue that smacking children is no more justified than smacking other adults. Many parental actions would not be acceptable when applied to adults. One could not legally lead a neighbour to a time out room or attempt to make them stay there, stop them from watching television or make them go to bed early. As a society we accord adults certain rights and freedoms that cannot sensibly be granted to children. In our particular society adults are protected from the use of disciplinary force against them by anyone other than authorized agents of the state such as police and prison officers. Adults are generally protected from any force or even touch from other civilians except when the need to protect them or others from harm can be proven as a defence. However, children on average require a much higher frequency and immediacy of consequence and at times force to make them follow instructions. Limiting such tasks only to state agents is unrealistic. Aside from that, it is difficult to argue that our society’s way of providing consequences to bad behaviour from adults is effective when our criminal re-offending rates are 80% plus. Many sensible people would argue that there is a greater place for corporal punishment of adults, and for the right of citizens to respond punitively to those who disrupt the security of their own neighbourhoods.
Your post uses the tired old manipulation favoured by Bradford’s supporters: that arguing in favour of any smacking means one is violent, uncaring, or (by your reckoning) desensitized to violence.
Anyway, let’s see your references.
Comment by Hans Laven — Wed 11th March 2009 @ 2:11 pm
Hear Hear Hans. Extreemly well put and with your normal clarity. I find this totally credible.
Comment by Alastair — Wed 11th March 2009 @ 2:16 pm
I don’t think there can be any denying that spanking is violence, but I don’t think that’s a meaningful or significant point to make. If you believe all violence is bad, then perhaps it would be a relevant observation to make, but no person in their right mind could possibly believe that.
Our society is safeguarded by the threat of violence in response to all kinds of undesirable behaviours. Check out any police station – weapons of all kinds: night-sticks, tazers, guns, tear-gas, pistols, pepper spray, shot-guns, manacles, vicious dogs. All of these are instruments of violence. Few people would argue that we should do away with all of them in the interests of creating a non-violent society – we would create the opposite.
I wonder what sort of survey would be returned if all violent criminals were asked about how they felt about being man-handled and punched to separate them from their own favoured weapons, bitten by dogs and subsequently bundled into cages with their wrists manacled? None would call it a pleasant experience. But I, for one, am glad of that.
Violence must be met with violence if it isn’t to morph into something far more sinister. Most of us understand this without need to resort to academic studies. Until recently, we trusted parents with the discretion to meet their own children’s violence as their own judgement best saw fit – and anyone who has children or can remember their own childhoods is well aware of how innately violent a lot of children are. Children are not born perfect and then spoiled by an imperfect world – they are born wild, and depending on their natures and environments, ideally learn behaviours that make them able to live with others in more peaceable ways.
The recent banning of parents from being able to intervene when their children unilaterally launch into violence is a serious failure of our legal systems and an unnecessary burden on police. Anyone who really doubts that our youth will become more violent and harder to guide to adulthood deserves to be one of their future victims.
Comment by Rob Case — Wed 11th March 2009 @ 10:37 pm
Hey “FIF”, how about giving a name if you want anybody to give your opinions serious consideration?
Otherwise, people might think that you don’t you have the courage of your convictions.
Comment by Darryl Ward — Wed 11th March 2009 @ 11:02 pm
You dinosaurs are funny….
Go to http://www.nospank.net/grille-ch14.pdf (at the very bottom) and you and the others will get
more references than you can handle.
And if you go to http://www.naturalchild.org/robin_grille
(e.g. ‘natural born bullies’)and
read more extracts from Robin Grille (Psychologist and Psychotherapist)
it might make you (hopefully) rethink your odd beliefs about parenting.
After all, as the Buddhist say: “Ignorance causes Suffering”.
And i also recomment you STUDY the subject before you carry on Parenting
for the sake of OUR children and their children’s children.
Its never to late to learn new and better ways, Brother.
And “Always frame conflict as a clash of ideas, not persons”.-ROBERT KEGAN
Comment by FIF — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 8:14 am
See above
Comment by FIF — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 8:19 am
It gets funnier by the minute….who said i give a stuff what people think
about me, bro.
Comment by FIF — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 8:23 am
This is not so much about what the real men here think of you, but your credibility. As you judge us, remember that you to will be judged by the same measure. The fact is you are providing us with much entertainment.
It may be a good point to throw into the mix, Sue Bradford has never been elected to Parliament. She has crept in via the back door after being rejected in a fair vote.
I note all your references are basically opinions, not based on facts or independent research.
Come on, who are you and what gives you the right to dictate to Men.
Comment by Alastair — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 8:31 am
I could think of a few F and I words to make her name match her better. But I like her. She brightens the place up a bit with her energy. If we are all dinosaurs then she reminds me of my younger whipper snapping days.
She might even hit a few words of wisdom while she is here and say, “What, are you serious?” and then slow down a little to take a good look around her.
Comment by julie — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 9:02 am
Miriam and I are both sucessful parents, and share the same views on discipline.
We would believe that parents MUST have authority over their children, and be able to insist that they be obeyed. This way the children develop their own self discipline.
I cannot remember if I ever smacked any of my children, however I would have if I had needed to.
DOGS
We now raise dogs, we have four, two of which we show. We watch “The Dog Whisperer” and make an effort in training our dogs. We are amazed at the similarities with child raising. You NEVER smack dogs (ours are all small dogs) but you CAN show anger. (E.G the puppy is seen weeing on the carpet- we GROWL TELL HER OFF, rub her nose in it, and put her outside ALONE) The CRUCIAL thing is that you establish the relationship of MASTER. The dogs are then relaxed, because someone else has the resposbilty for the pack.
With Children, it is sad to see children carrying on misbehaving and challenging their parent(s) to BE the authority figure that they so desperately need.
Thousands of authoritive studies (by sucessful parents!) show that-
Parents MUST be in charge. They MUST be consistent, and act out of love. They MUST have meaningful rewards and penalties, including as a last resort physical punishment.
Comment by John Brett — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 9:25 am
FIF. I asked for specific references to the studies you claim made the findings you report. You have not done so, only referred us to one politically-motivated web site and a similar book. I have trawled through research put forward by the anti-punishment people and I never find their claims about that research to be accurate. I don’t have time to trawl through more of it. If you are prepared to report the findings of research using the introductory word STUDY, then surely it’s reasonable to expect you to provide the reference to that study. Your refusal to do so suggests either that the study does not exist or that you are misrepresenting it.
Instead of providing evidence to back up your claims, you resort to patronizing insults, such as referring to our opinions as “odd”, “ignorant”, “funny”, implying that we have not studied the subject (even though well-considered and well-informed responses have already been made to your post), and claiming that your preferred views are better. You then have the hypocrisy to quote something suggesting you prefer to deal with a clash of ideas rather than people.
We have unfortunately come to expect little more from the anti-punishment zealots. I would appreciate some straight answers to the challenges made against your claims, and exact references to the studies you report.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 9:27 am
If you call ‘over a dozent Psychologist’, ‘the journal of Psychohistory,
the ‘Human Rights’, ‘American Sociological Review’,
‘Journal of Family Violence’,
and the ‘World Corporal Punishment Research’ “personal opinion” then you
have to go back to school.
And who said i am a women?
If its entertaining.Thats part of the purpose.Yours isn’t, sorry Alistair,
you need to work on that.
Like in the FC, you need to laugh at the lawyers and judges….
– Have Fun.
Comment by FIF — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 9:33 am
One never NEEDS to smack.THERE IS WAY BETTER WAYS (and i am not talking about ‘permissive parenting’). However what one needs to do is study the subject (and practice…). After all its one of the most important jobs in ones life. Read the book (get it through the library search), you will be amazed by the historical facts alone (some brutal and eye opening), i promise. And corporal Punishment is only a small part of that book with lots on different ways of parenting throughout history, children’s emotional development at different ages, why people (some famous) became the way they are etc. and the latest research on ‘better parenting’. (a more ‘hands on’ book is “Children are from Heaven” by John Gray, but there is of course many others.
Then we talk again.- Nice to hear from you.
Comment by FIF — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 9:40 am
You are not all dinosaurs. I hope its just a few.
Take it easy sister.
“S/He who shall teach the child to doubt / The rotting grave shall
ne’er get out.-WILLIAM BLAKE
Comment by FIF — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 9:47 am
Brother, we all suffer from ignorance, some more some less, one way or another.
(depends on the way you have been brought up and ‘programmed’).
The difference is whether we are prepared to face up to it,
see it clearly, not judge ourself and then try to change it.
These days there is less and less excuse for ignorance.
But don’t forget: “Even monkeys fall out of trees”.
See above post for website with all the references ….
Comment by FIF — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 10:00 am
See my reply to Alistair above.
And by the way, where is YOUR REFERENCES???
Comment by FIF — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 1:15 pm
….and that without pointing to any reputable independent study,
“DUH”.
Comment by FIF — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 1:24 pm
You know who ever you are, you ask why I said that you are female. The same reason computers are female.
Only their creator understands their internal logic.
You have had your 5 minutes of fame. No doubt have been rewarded for your posts. You (And your ilk) only serve to reinforce my opinion.
I have been to sweeden and used to work for a sweedish company. Have you experienced the country first hand?
I now intend and I invite others to do likewise, treat your posts with the contempt they deserve.
Comment by Alastair — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 4:36 pm
I think you all should have a good Google search for Oppositional Defiant Order. Some kids are born difficult; smacking and yelling ONLY MAKES IT WORSE! Then you should have a rethink about “parental alienation syndrome.”
Comment by Angela — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 5:26 pm
Been to Sweden 3 times. Done 10.000km in Scandinavia on a motorbike..
..got to the same latitude in the north as ‘scott base’ in antarctica
is in the south….
The last wilderness in europe….24 hours of daylight….mosquitos as
big as sparrows….
-Fame, me, wooow.
And just so you know, i haven’t even warmed up yet,brother.
And please please don’t treat me with contempt, i love
you so much….
Comment by FIF — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 8:33 pm
Oh look,
Sweden the great socialist role model!
In 2005 they spent US$3.5 billion on treating depression amongst a population of only 9.4 million Swedes.
According to the same article “the burden of depression doubled in Sweden between 1997 and 2005”.
Wow! they must have superbly enlightened social policy eh!
What super adults they must turn out with their ‘progressive’ child rearing techniques!!…….
So shut down emotionally that instead of healthily projecting anger outward they implode into the black hole of depression.
Seems very unhealthy to me.
Comment by skeptik — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 9:50 pm
The above is representitive of this persons standard of education. The wors “Is” is singular. The word “References” is plural. NCEA leval 1. Failed to achieve!
Comment by Alastair — Thu 12th March 2009 @ 11:15 pm
Ok, well actually that’s $3.5 billion euros, not US$. To quote the site:
“The cost of depression increased from a total of €1.7 billion in 1997 to €3.5 billion in 2005, representing a doubling of the burden of depression to society. The main reason for the cost increase is found in the significant increase in indirect costs due to sick leave and early retirement during the past decade, whereas direct costs were relatively stable over time. In 2005, indirect costs were estimated at €3 billion (86% of total costs) and direct costs at €500 million (16%). Cost of drugs was estimated at €100 million (3% of total cost).”
In New Zealand:
“What is the National Depression Initiative (NDI)?
The National Depression Initiative (NDI) is a national project which is part of the Government’s commitment to addressing suicide prevention, as well as improving the mental health and wellbeing of all New Zealanders.
“How much will it cost?
$6.4 million (GST excl) was initially allocated for the National Depression Initiative public health campaign over the three years 2006 — 09. This was part of the funding package for the new suicide prevention strategy allocated as part of the Progressive Party Coalition Agreement. Additional funds have since been added to bring the 2008/09 budget to over $3.7 million.”
The above was copied from:
http://www.moh.govt.nz/moh.nsf/indexmh/national-depression-initiative-faq#cost
So:
New Zealand – Population: 4,173,460 (July 2008 est.)
Converting Euros to NZ$, NZ$1.0638 per person in Sweden and that includes drugs and time lost at work. NZ$.8865 per person in New Zealand only for a health campaign to raise awareness. I do not believe that amount covers the direct and indirect costs as set out in the Swedish study.
I’m sure you can draw the logical conclusion yourself.
Comment by Angela — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 6:23 am
This “no smacking’ idea is not new. They have been manipulating school children for at least one decade over it.
I remember my son coming home from school at 10 and saying, “Mum, you can’t smack me any more”.
“OK”, I said. “What should I do with you when you are naughty? Shall I take your play station off you or TV time?”
Anyhow, it came to the May school holidays and my son was being sooo naughty it even got to the stage he was throwing his toys in the fire place.
I put him over my knee and gave him a smack. He got up and and starting being mouthy. So I put him over my knee again and gave him another smack. Best boy for the rest of the holidays.
But that was him. He has always been one of those children that needs tough love. My other son, you never smacked. He was a sensitive boy.
But the son I smacked was dangerous especially to himself. He loved fire, he found it really fascinating and useful. One time he burnt down a barn full of hay at the Handicap’s horse ranch. They had just purchased a whole lot of hay that filled the barn. My son and his friend decided to smoke out a rat and lit a small fire.
That fire got out of control. They said they thought they put it out and then ran into the paddocks to play. The fire brigade came and the hay was lost. But it was the children we were worried about the most.
He didn’t get into trouble with the police because the other boy was the son of one of the cops in the town.
It is not just my son who is someone who reacts to fear to do what is in their best interest.
We have an epidemic of autistic boys. You know the ones. ADD (Alienated dad disorder).
They are angry at everything, frustrated to the max. Their minds are not mentally stimulated as boys and girls but instead you can watch them pick up weapons to attack another child over pride. The only way to resolve their problem is to take away their pride. They have to learn to lose. they have to learn to tolerate others. They have to learn that someone is better than them.
You can’t do that by being nice. You need tough love for them.
Else you can have someone respected above them. like their parents.
Anyhow, I think you would be better off on my site for single parents. We are the ones at highest risk of having our children taken off us for abuse or possible abuse.
Fathers are just targeted because they are men.
Comment by julie — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 8:37 am
Extreemly well put Julie, Thank you.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 8:40 am
Ok, Julie, so you’re saying that you used this tough love approach and smacked the boy, but he STILL burned a barn down. And, uh, you know I’m just one of those female whose internal logic is out of whack, but you’re saying that the tough love approach worked??
Sounds to me like the boy was unable to forsee the consequences of his actions yet and wasn’t properly supervised.
Comment by Angela — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 8:52 am
Sorry Angela. I had to edit my comment so I don’t come across as shaming you.
I’ll start again.
Are you a parent Angela?
Comment by julie — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 9:50 am
I most certainly am a parent – eight years now. And just to correct your grammar – you should have written “…, you’re not a parent …”.
Comment by Angela — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 9:56 am
Ok, settle down.
Being passive aggressive is abuse.
CYFS would say, “If this is how you treat an adult, then you must also treat children this way too.”
But let’s talk adult to adult and if I misspell something please be kind enough to tolerate it.
How are you involved in all this?
Comment by julie — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 10:04 am
I have copied from above in this debate:
“Alastair says:
Thu 12th March 2009 at 11:15 pm
The above is representitive of this persons standard of education. The wors “Is” is singular. The word “References” is plural. NCEA leval 1. Failed to achieve!”
Alastair was commenting on a contribution by FIF (he by the way, made three mistakes in HIS comment). But he was not accused of being aggressive, although I certainly cannot read it any other way. I, on the other hand, just wanted to see the reaction I would get if I corrected your grammar. There was no aggression on my part – you simply interpreted it as such. I just happen to be an English buff who usually scored perfect marks in school in grammar and spelling. I find it an enjoyable pastime.
Read my entries again – this time imagining my tone as soft and sensitively questioning, not accusing anyone of anything; simply interested in the debate and commenting as an outsider looking in? Would you still accuse me of abusing you and feel the need to mention CYFS?
How am I involved in all this? I am a member of the human race and interested in saving the world.
Comment by Angela — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 10:36 am
Julie, I see now that you have edited your comment so as to appear more reasonable. Your original question, which you have deleted, was “OMG, your not a parent are you?”. Are we all able to do this to comments we have already submitted? Is this ethical and approved of on this site?
Comment by Angela — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 10:48 am
Oh, come on.
It was better for our discussion if I treated you as a deserving person, don’t you think?
And yes, you too can change things to come across in a better manner. Nothing like improving oneself, eh?
Since we have both now acknowledged my fault, can we continue?
I want this fair so I ask again, “What is your involvement in this issue?”
Why are you passionate about restricting parents disciplining their children by smacking them?
Comment by julie — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 10:58 am
Ok, how do I edit my posted comments?
In answer to your question regarding my interest. I believe I have already answered this. But if you require a more specific response: I’ve studied sociology – I’m thinking about using comments from this site in future research.
You, likewise then, have not answered my question. Do you believe, in light of the fact that your son went on to burn down a barn, that smacking was the appropriate means of behaviour modification for him?
Comment by Angela — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 11:07 am
If you are a member you can go into the dashboard and edit what you wrote. When you log in you are automatically taken there and can see the latest comments. You have the option to edit your own comments.
I missed this but thank-you for repeating it.
I didn’t have to smack my son over the fire. He could see himself what he created. I guess you could say he was pretty traumatised over his own behaviour. hehehe.
Comment by julie — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 11:26 am
Julie, to which part of the Dashboard are you referring? I’m there now but I none of the options seem to allow for editing of posted comments.
And you still haven’t answered my other question, Julie. Are you avoiding the issue now? 🙂
Comment by achurch001 — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 11:41 am
The last person I know of that tried to save the world was nailed for his efforts 2000 or so years ago. BTW Angela, I never learnt to type properly, hence typo’s. I am fond of English literature and good theatre.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 1:15 pm
And you are achurch001
Am I dealing with multi personalities here? The idea to learn sociology did come across to me as someone who hasn’t learnt to be social as a child. With soooo many one child families I can understand this traumatic turn of events.
Comment by julie — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 1:15 pm
My experience of those who study sociology (And I was employed at Massey University for 14 years)are people, normally female, who chhose this as the easiest path to get a university degree.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 1:22 pm
Comment by FIF — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 1:27 pm
WTH?
Comment by Alastair — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 1:47 pm
Julie, yes, well I had to register with this site to access the Dashboard. Sorry but it is not possible to change that now. So yes, I am Angela and achurch001. Angela Church. Why do you keep avoiding the question? You have changed a comment after posting it and have indicated that anyone can do this. You said this could be done via the site’s Dashboard. I have accessed the Dashboard but can find no way to edit past comments – and I’m rather good at navigating the web, if I do say so myself. So how do you change comments?
Alastair, your comment is not worthy of an answer.
You mention multiple personalities. A wise person once said that what someones says about another is usually more a reflection of the person speaking than the person being spoken about.
Why do I have the feeling that “julie” is really John Potter (webmaster of this site) and that “Alastair” is really Stuart Birks (webmaster of Stuart Birks Gender Pages – which is hosted by Massey University). Do-do-do-do-do-do-do-do. Also, some of julie’s comments don’t sound as if they are written by a female. For example above, women do not usually refer to themselves as “young whipper snapper(s)”. Food for thought? Could be why my question concerning julie’s editing of comments after being posted is not being answered.
Comment by achurch001 — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 1:53 pm
Alistair, the saddest part about these women getting sociology degrees is that they are outdated.
They have been outdated for some time now.
The people who survived the feminist ideology are the ones sought after.
There are going to be major changes coming and I am really sad that women are losing out. All their work was trial and error. But they don’t know the meaning of work and that is a worry.
I know a thing or 2 about a thing or 2 because I am in touch with the feminists movement up high.
Young feminists think they are rebuilding but they aren’t even in the picture any more.
I am just glad that the single parent women have decided the radical feminists are crap. There is hope for them to progress this country.
Comment by julie — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 1:55 pm
You mock real women by the way you behave. Shame on you for doing this.
Comment by julie — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 1:57 pm
I think you might want to revise your numbers.
3.5 billion euros a year is roughly $NZ 8.75 billion (exchange rate of 0.40 euros equals 1 NZ dollar). Spread over a population of a little over 9 million, that’s almost $NZ 1,000 per Swede (man, woman or child, mentally healthy and depressed alike) for the year.
As for the spending in New Zealand on the National Depression Initiative, the claim is made that it is $3.7 million for the current year. Spread over our population of approx. 4.2 million, that amounts to 88 cents/person, as you correctly evaluated.
I think you’d agree that there’s a world of difference between $1,000 and 88 cents.
Furthermore, even having arrived at the correct numbers, no useful conclusion can be arrived at by comparing an estimate of cost of depression to Sweden with the cost of an awareness raising campaign in New Zealand.
You may be interested to know that Sweden once routinely ranked as having one of the highest rates of suicide in the world. It is no longer the most depressing country in the world in which to live, as the following WHO rankings will indicate. They now rank equally with us – about twice the UK rate and higher than the US and Australia. The European social democratic paradises are all over-represented amongst those countries where people find death preferable to living, and to men by a large and consistent margin. Only in China do women suicide more often, and even there, the difference isn’t much.
Table of Suicides by Country (source: World Health Organisation)
Comment by Rob Case — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 2:01 pm
A Church. Sorry but it is extreemly difficult to counteract facts as opposed to opinions.
I have known Julie for many years. When you have been through what she has, when you have risen above your circumstances as she has, when you have achieved even a quarter what she has, Then I will start listening to you.
I have met John Potter and Stuart Birks. I assure you that they both have extreem integrity and do not suffer multiple personalities.
In my philosophy, I look to deeds, not to words.
What have you achieved?
This whole thread is getting to personal. It started as a discussion of the Merrits of Bradford S. “s anti-smacking bill.
The point being made was that the vast majority (over 80%) of people have deeply entrenched positions. They see this type of article as an attack. Clearly you are using the wrong approach. Try again.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 2:10 pm
Angela, ones you logged in, go back to your past comment or post
and you will see (Edit) beside your post or comment at the top beside the date.
Click (edit) and you can change your post or comment.
Or you can delete it, ones the ‘Edit Comment’ page has opened, in the box on the right (in red).
Then click ‘Update Comment’ in the same box.
To go back to the ‘Main Site’ click on ‘MENZ Issues’ in the top left.
You can change your ‘Name’ in the ‘Author’ box.
And don’t take the ‘Dinosaurs’ too seriously. Evolution has a way that they can’t stop, its just a matter of progressing either slow or fast. After all, as humans in history, we have come a long way allready.
Comment by FIF — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 2:29 pm
FIFI what are you doing?
You came across as a female who cares for children and now you are acting like a child yourself. Why must you girls let me down so much? Can’t you act equal to men. At least try not to let our side down.
Comment by julie — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 2:38 pm
Sorry FIF, but there is no “edit” option on my screen even when I’m logged in. Further I got an email indicating that you have posted “There is a new comment on the post “Corporal Punishment”.
http://menz.org.nz/2009/corporal-punishment/
Author: FIF
Comment:
Good skills, Angela.
See all comments on this post here:
http://menz.org.nz/2009/corporal-punishment/#comments:”
But I don’t see that above either. Or Rob Case’s comments on my maths skills – I’ll recheck that.
Comment by achurch001 — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 5:02 pm
I now see Rob Case’s comments, sorry.
Julie, I am over the age of 40 and know the difference between Gloria Steinem and Betty Friedan. Now you’re trying to say that young people don’t work hard? You make gross generalizations and rely on negative stereotypes far too often to be taken seriously.
Comment by achurch001 — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 5:13 pm
You have to come back to these posts right here, after logging in
and you should be able to see the (Edit) sign BESIDE THE DATE of your entry.
Comment by FIF — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 5:57 pm
@fif,
Between being smacked by a parent and being removed(kidnapped) by a governement the choice
is not hard to make. Ask any soul in the street, it will give you the right answer
No need for qualifications in psychology or what not.
(By the way people have spoken and gave Labour a humiliating defeat. I was a labour guy, until last year that is)
a government that takes a child from parents is the violence on the child, parent and the society at large.
Women’s refuge, Barnardos and other are competing for funds and for that they need to fabricate violence in order to show good performance indicators.
Domestic violence is a business nothing else.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 6:52 pm
The funniest part (very funny) about the argumentation so far is that there is no professional research/study/reference etc. etc. WHATSOEVER
that found in favour of Corporal Punishment: NONE, ZERO, ZILCH….
And it’s clear, because none of yours could come up with any
because there isn’t any, just words that hang like washing on the line, blowing in the winds of your minds: Exposed? Oh yeah! (Haha)
(In stark contrast to the extensive professional research/studies/references etc. from over 13 counties agains CP)…and that knowledge makes me smile (i should be crying for all the childern, really, but it’s too funny right now….), because you know what that means, i am sorry but there is no other word for it but ‘Ignorance’ (hence: ‘Ignorance causes suffering’, and together with your insistence that your thinking is right, you, who haven’t studied the subject, and all those hunderts if not thausends of professionals who did, are wrong, the word ‘Arrogance’, unfortunatly, has also to be added).
So your ‘Dinosaurs’ have not even got a foot to stand on (it’s soooo funny), and that makes your insistence that you are right and your lack of reception and argumentation even more ridiculous (and because its sooo obvious its even more funny). Nananananana….
Comment by FIF — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 7:05 pm
The whole FC System (and not just them) is a power- and money hungry and corrupt…. business, brother, but we are gonna kick their asses, you wait, just need to channel all the sh..t they have given us and our children back to where it came from.
Just wrote a new post, you might like it (maby not, anyway) have a look: Fri 13th 7.05pm (between post 22. and 23.)
Comment by FIF — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 7:27 pm
You know FITH why don’t you support our common goal in bringing reform to the Family court, CYF, and a full enquiry into all family ligislation. You don’t make progres by name calling and ridiculing those that disagree with you. To train any animal, (Human animals included) you wait, catch them doing something right, then reward them. Encouragement is the best path forward. We don’t need winners and loosers. The Family court went this way, encouraged by lawyers. There are groups and organisations supporting, and encouraging people self representing in the Family Court. The lawyers hate them.
Comment by Alastair — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 7:39 pm
progress at last. amen.
Comment by achurch001 — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 7:51 pm
FIF,
What you don’t appear to get is this.
The movement in various countries to promulgate corporal punishment is based on the idea that kids not smacked will grow into adults with good self esteem who become responsible citizens.
I think that notion falls down on at least four counts and therefore side with the majority of NZers who abhor Labor’s social engineering on this issue.
First as I’ve amply demonstrated on another thread in Sweden where corporal punishment has been criminalised for many years there’s been A LARGE INCREASE IN CRIME. (To see the stats supporting this which appear to be from very respectable sources go to the MENZ thread here and read my attached comments with links.
Secondly I’m reasonably confident that I could find similar statistics to show that in any of the 13 countries that you mention have banned corporal punishment CRIME HAS GONE UP.
More specifically youth crime has gone up.
I’m well aware also that you could quibble and say crime detection has become better in recent years, crime prevention agencies keep better records and various behaviors have either been decriminalised or criminalised.
However, when all 13 countries stats show an increase in crime then that speaks very powerfully in favor of the idea that criminalising smacking is inneffective in reducing adult criminality.
Then there’s the idea of low self esteem being associated with criminality and high self esteem being associated with civility.
I’ve met MANY criminals who’s criminality rests upon having HIGH self esteem.
Last and equally as important you take the position that kids who are smacked automatically develop low self esteem. I don’t think that’s a defensible position to take as the population around us shows there are millions, perhaps even billions of people around us who got smacked as kids who have really GOOD self esteem.
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 9:26 pm
Adendum to previous post –
Sorry FIF,
I should have said the movement in various countries to promulgate the banning and criminalizing of corporal punishement……
Comment by Skeptik — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 9:28 pm
Perhaps the problem is that parents have not been given the means of appropriate discipline techniques to be used in place of smacking. I’m not being smug Skeptik. I’m very serious. There’s something called “the power stance”. Body language to be used when giving instructions to children. It works.
Comment by achurch001 — Fri 13th March 2009 @ 9:40 pm
There’s another darker side to this too as some political commentators have pointed out.
Socialist feminists like Sue Bradford and many in the NZ labor party have the aim of supplanting the family with the state. They therefore tend to enact legislation which puts the state right into the midst of out most private familial relationships where they can exact control.
Comment by Skeptik — Sat 14th March 2009 @ 4:28 am
Interesting that you bring Ceasar Milan, ‘the dog whisperer’ into this debate. As a family we too watch this program, or at least have done before last weeks ‘special’ episode when he exposed his central ideology as feminist. He claims to ‘rehabilitate the dogs’ whilst ‘training the humans’ but what does this ‘training’ involve?. In most of his previous cases, there were dogs behaving badly within a family environment, not having been correctly disciplined or trained in the first place. In most cases there was a female human that was acting out some emotional fantasy, being unwilling to behave in any other way because of her self perception as being ‘right’ and in ‘control’. Then along comes Ceasar, all charismatic and handsome and empowers her and so solves the problem. And she goes on to take over the world. Hail to Ceasar!!
Comment by Vince — Sat 14th March 2009 @ 9:15 am
achurch001 asks:
My guess is because you have an overactive imagination. Many of the problems NZ men face are caused by women who confuse their fantasies with reality.
Futhermore, I can assure you Julie is definitely female – one of these days she will no doubt figure out how to display a photo by registering at gravatar.com.
Before you can edit your comments and post articles you need to be approved as an author, which requires you to reply to the email I sent you when you first registered (I’ve just re-sent a copy).
It is best to get comments right before you submit them because the first version is what gets emailed to subscribers.
Comment by JohnPotter — Sat 14th March 2009 @ 9:52 am
If you have never lit a fire that got out of control and created a panic, then you missed out on a central facet of childhood. A lesson perhaps. Pity about the starving horses, but hey, they are still edible.
Comment by Vince — Sat 14th March 2009 @ 10:20 am
My sincere apologies to you John, however, it was Julie who brought up the subject of multiple personalities. Do you think that there a serious problem in NZ with women who “confuse their fantasies with reality?” Should this be addressed by the mental health system?
Thank you for sending the form.
Comment by achurch001 — Sat 14th March 2009 @ 10:27 am
Lawyers and Courts are adversarial, full stop. A lawyer has no interest in justice, merely to win, both for itself and hopefully its client. They also get paid if they lose, but winning gives them better career options. When are humans going to realize that cooperation is a more advanced form of behavior that competition?
Comment by Vince — Sat 14th March 2009 @ 10:41 am
The ‘power stance’ is what ‘the dog whisperer’, Ceasar Milan, demonstrates but also what shoulder pads, and lipstick and lace are all about. All work in there own way but all are also forms of manipulation to obtain control and influence so that the user has more power and the responent less. Hail Ceasar!!
Comment by Vince — Sat 14th March 2009 @ 10:49 am
WARNING this site is not safe to post on
Who has read the website Rules
here a little piece i copied and pasted
“This site has subscribers from a number of government departments, and ill-considered
MENZ postings are regularly produced in hearings as evidence of abusiveness”
anyone posting on this website puts themselfs at futher risk of being unjustly prosecuted
there is no such thing as freedom of speech we are all being monitored
Comment by narks — Sat 14th March 2009 @ 12:06 pm
I asked FIF to refer us to the actual studies whose results (s)he claimed to report. FIF did not do so. Perhaps FIF subscribes to a common attitude among anti-smacking zealots: “Hitting children is not a subject to which rational debate applies.” (Mike A. Males, The Scapegoat Generation, 116).
Here is a reasonably definitive study: Comparing Child Outcomes of Physical Punishment and Alternative Disciplinary Tactics: A Meta-Analysis. Robert E. Larzelere and Brett R. Kuhn, Clinical Child and Family Psychology Review, Volume 8, Number 1 / March, 2005. (You can see it for free at http://www.familyfirst.org.nz/files/Larzalere%2005%20Meta-Analysis.pdf)
The leading author was an associate professor of psychology at Oklahoma State University. The study reviewed the literature to date that compared physical punishment with alternatives. Larzelere wrote to the NZ government when Bradford’s bill was being considered. As usual, the anti-smacking people simply ignored his scientific work and his challenges to their claims, simply continuing their manipulative and dishonest propaganda and misrepresentation of the research picture. As far as I recall, the “literature review” commissioned by anti-smacking campaigner Cindy Kiro, Children’s Commissioner, failed to mention this important study and certainly did not report its findings. Here are Larzelere’s conclusions from his research:
Comment by Hans Laven — Sat 14th March 2009 @ 1:37 pm
National Radio, 13.03.09, broadcast another of many analyses of modern school problems, in this case “disengagement” by pupils from the education process through for example truanting or tuning out that is now common from the age of about 14 years, and a large proportion of children leaving school without qualifications. The speaker, Professor Stuart Middleton from Manukau Institute of Technology, noted that these problems had increased markedly in some countries since the 1970’s and he attributed them to the move by those countries to require children to stay at secondary school longer. While this may well be a significant causal factor and I admired some of his suggested solutions, Mr Middleton made no mention that the lack of corporal punishment may also have contributed. Corporal punishment was banned in those same countries from about the the 1970’s. Since then it has been remarkable that experts have studiously avoided mentioning it or acknowledging that serious deterioration in behaviour and safety in our schools may at all be related to its removal. That is the point I made in a recent post that presumably inspired FIF’s contribution. Activism against physical punishment was always based on a high level of manipulative tactics such that anyone who dares question the anti-punishment position is immediately labelled as violent or as suffering from other deficits such as those levelled by FIF, e.g. “dinosaurs”, “odd” and “ignorant”. This tactic apparently has worked very well, creating in experts a fear of even considering the lack of physical punishment as a possible factor in the deepening problems we now see. Until corrective lenses are developed for such blindness, we are likely to endure much more of the ineffective approaches that are inherently more dangerous and more violent than the corporal punishment many of us grew up with ever was.
Comment by Hans Laven — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 11:28 am
I think you should be wary of giving people advice that has the effect of deterring them from expressing themselves.
If you believe your fears are well-founded, offer alternative ways of expression that circumvent your perceived risk, or at least invite others to suggest alternatives for you.
Telling us that there is no freedom of expression in this country, and that therefore we should all be silent, is the surest way of bringing about that which none of us would want to see.
You also run the risk of appearing to want to silence freedom of expression through scare-mongering, which I’m sure you didn’t intend.
Comment by Rob Case — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 12:14 pm
“researchers can and have accurately predicted boys criminal behaviour, based on which boys had a history of violence in their upbringing.”
And what about the girls? That’s right women/girls aren’t violent.
‘Socialising mode’ parents emphatically deny that spanking is violence, when the same spank, applied to a nursing home resident, or a psychiatric patient, would be unequivocally treated as assault.
No… Children get spanked so they learn, look at how other animals discipline!!! Spanking and beating are two different things.
When we deny the violence of a smack, this simply means that we have become personally de-sensitised to violence at that threshold. the hitting we experienced as children has made us insensitive to the pain and humiliation suffered by our own children as we swat them in the name of discipline.
Rubbish. I never felt humiliated. There was very little pain either.
So we don’t see our blows as violent, but our children-who are much more vulnerable and sensitive than ourselves-certainly experience them as violent.
Again rubbish, I or no-one I have spoken to ever felt like that!
In 1998 in the UK, National Children Bureau asked a large group of 5-7 year olds how they felt when they got smacked. All of them spoke of wounded feelings, hurt, embarrassment, and shock. The childrens responses, reproduced in their own words, are moving testimony to the violation they experience at the receiving end of parental ‘dicipline’.
Hmmm yeah ok!
It would take a very thick skin for anyone to read these childrens messages, and continue to deny that smacking or spanking constitute violence. The evidence of the childs emotional wound does not appear until later.
Furthermore, because not all children who are hit by their parents become violent or depressed, many of the negative effects are less obvious.
In other words… Oh yeah, not everyone, in fact most people don’t so what can we say now?
STUDY: Children who had been spanked or smacked were more likely to be aggressive towards their peers-had behaviour problems such as lying and bullying-had less remorse for hurtful behaviour, are more destructive and more disobedient, regardless of how warm their parents were.
The link between corporal punishment and aggressiveness in children is so strong that the best predictor of violent behaviour is the frequency with which children have been spanked.
Not all spanked become aggressive in thoughts or deeds. Corporal punishment has been linked to a host of other psychological problems = conduct disorder, anxiety disorder in children, depression, suicidal thoughts and alcohol abuse, decreased confidence and assertiveness, low self esteem and alcoholism, lack of empathy, social skills and personal autonomy.
The main reason why children learn to be violent is that they are natural imitators.This means that parents who rely on corporal punishment or verbal abuse to ‘control’ their kids are unwittingly acting as models for bullying behaviour.
‘Those whose anger boils over become ‘bullies’, those who are paralysed with fear become ‘victims’.
The school bully or juvenile delinquent is an emotionally injured individual trying to compensate for an inner feeling of powerlessness. To consider bullies as offenders is superficial, when in fact they are first and foremost victims.
What a huge load of crap. So all children are either abused and are either bullies or victims! What a total crock!
Comment by Scott — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 2:13 pm
Hmm, I do not believe anyone has Googled “Oppositional Defiant Disorder” – it’s listed in the DSM. Traditional methods do not work with these kids. In fact, physical punishment makes things much worse and often leads to “Conduct Disorder” in teenagers. FYI – many Canadian schools have time out rooms.
Comment by achurch001 — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 3:53 pm
But Scott, we are not animals. We have the ability to reason. Most adults have this ability and children achieve it by about the age of 10.
Also, your final comment is an incorrect summary of the paragraph to which it refers. You may wish to read it again.
Comment by Angela — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 5:15 pm
Sir, It seems you have a lot to gain from your warning.
I, especially, gave, in my interventions, enough clues to authorities to know who i am.
Kipich?
We are not hiding here anything sir. We are denouncing an abusive and violent system
that is intent on destroying and traumatizing children for life. It may not know better,
may be a victim of barbaric laws or lobbies or dark agendas etc
Seeing abuse and violence and remaining silent is the crime.
I hide my identity only for the benefit of my children and partner.
Comment by tren Christchurch — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 5:34 pm
Why would I bother? You’re surely not suggesting that all problems with kids can be addressed, without exception, by non-violent means?
Take, for example, the case of a 4 year old child who attacks another at a children’s party with a hammer. The child could be suffering from all manner of conditions listed in the DSM. But that’s not the problem. The problem is getting that hammer out of that kid’s hands before he takes to someone else, or throws it through a glass window. Under our current law, trying to get that hammer out of the kid’s hand is assault on a child and makes any adult who attempts it liable for charge. Presumably the job should be left to police (who, incidentally, are authorised to tazer, punch, pepper-spray, etc).
Not matter how probable it may seem for any adult to take on the risk and be given a reasonable hearing by police, the fact is some busy-body somewhere, with an agenda and a desire to dictate to others, will lay a complaint. Off go the wheels of bureaucracy turning again. Once more the police are trained to respond in a one-size-fits-all policy, to avoid all the negative publicity that surrounds controversial subjects like this. Once more the average citizen learns how dangerous it is to assume any kind of responsibility when there is a state agency competing for monopoly control of that responsibility. And once more, kids, parents and wider society loses out.
The anti-punishment debate is not simply about what is the best way to raise children. It is about who can be best trusted to raise them – their parents or the state. It seems obvious to me that parents have a natural interest in the welfare of their own children, and that nearly all will be open to better methods of raising children if they are confident the method works.
Comment by Rob Case — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 5:50 pm
Well, Rob, most people skilled in the art of debate would at least consider another bit of information that could be pertinent to the subject – even if only to possibly save face later.
Comment by Angela — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 7:51 pm
Why are you using 2 names Angela?
And what is the debate you want over?
I think Rob has given wonderful argument but as someone watching, I am curious what you point is.
Comment by julie — Sun 15th March 2009 @ 8:25 pm
If we are not animals/mammals then what?
Comment by Scott — Mon 16th March 2009 @ 12:23 am
Julie, apologies regarding the two names – I’ve justed ticked the “Remember Me” option on the Login page and so now should always appear as achurch001.
Obviously, the debate is regarding corporal punishment. I believe Rob’s comment above is actually not very well written or reasoned.
Scott, I am referring to the difference in mind between humans and animals being that (most) humans have the ability to reason. Both animals and humans are of course mammals.
Comment by achurch001 — Mon 16th March 2009 @ 7:06 am
Sorry it’s off topic but you need to look up what mammals are.
Comment by Scott — Mon 16th March 2009 @ 8:16 am
Re reply to comment #35 by Angela: Reasoning is not something that is “attained” at 10 years old, although some basic kinds of reasoning may have been acquired by then. The ability to reason increases into adulthood. Even adults vary widely in their ability to reason, and this ability can be improved through education in logic.
Also, even though a person may have some ability to reason that doesn’t mean their behaviour will reflect any such reasoning. The reasoning human cortical brain is often not in charge of behaviour. In children and teenagers, lower brain centres driven mainly by irrational emotions will motivate and direct their behaviour more so than their reasoning human brain. This happens also in adults quite often, but human societies choose to hold the adult consciously responsible for their behaviour from a specified age.
It is foolish to rely on reasoning to manage the behaviour of children and young teenagers, but this is often what the anti-punishment idealists recommend. Behavioural training through consequences is also important but that is rarely mentioned by the anti-punishment lobby.
I want to make it clear that I don’t necessarily recommend smacking. I would support clear guidelines and legal boundaries around smacking and corporal punishment. I believe that most adults are capable enough in reasoning to understand such guidelines and to keep to them. Many children will never need to be smacked because gentler consequences will be sufficient. And smacking loses its effectiveness when used frequently on any child. Aversive punishment such as smacking, when used infrequently, will generally bring about a faster cessation in targeted behaviour than will time-out or other alternatives. When children’s behaviour needs to stop quickly (e.g. when it is dangerous), or when other disciplinary approaches have not worked (perhaps due to the strength of habit or to the existing rewards for that behaviour), then smacking may be the best approach. The last thing parents (or teachers) need is to have their disciplinary options reduced without good cause. Until good evidence arises to the contrary, corporal punishment should have a place in the range of methods available.
All this has been said before and is always steadfastly ignored by the anti-smacking people. On the other hand, I have never heard an argument used by the anti-smacking lobby that stands up to close scrutiny through reasoning, e.g. the argument that children should have the same rights as adults when it comes to how their behaviour is managed.
Comment by Hans Laven — Mon 16th March 2009 @ 2:08 pm
Thanks for this.
Comment by julie — Mon 16th March 2009 @ 6:29 pm
Actually Hans, the point of my comment regarding reasoning was in response to Scott’s comment “No… Children get spanked so they learn, look at how other animals discipline!!!” and had nothing to do with a comparison between how adults and children differ when it comes to behaviour management. However, thanks for that. I would agree with you. But can anyone quote me a case where a parent smacked a child for say, something like going near a woodburner without a protective cage and subsequently being arrested and charged? (Stories from Women’s Weekly, The National Enquirer and the like do not count).
I can recall an incident where I saw a mother smack a small child, probably 1 1/2 to 2 years when the child nearly ran into a busy street. Fair enough. But the father then did not need to carry on and kick the child, with a fair amount of force, in the backside. Another time a child was cheekily hiding up the round staircase outside a shopping mall did not deserve the comment from his father “Get down here you f***in’ little shit”. And yes, I did tell him that this was verbal abuse and yes, his wife told me to mind my own business.
Comment by achurch001 — Mon 16th March 2009 @ 10:03 pm
yes the guy who flicked his kids ear when was running onto a main rd or something like that.
Comment by Scott — Tue 17th March 2009 @ 7:53 am
Julie, I am interested in your idea as expressed by: “I am just glad that the single parent women have decided the radical feminists are crap.” Have you any links/references that demonstrate this idea.
Comment by Vince — Tue 17th March 2009 @ 9:34 am
Of course, Unfortunately was witnessed by a female police employee, + an female employee of an educational instituite. Shock horror he got done. Wasn’t the child on a his bike?
Comment by Alastair — Tue 17th March 2009 @ 10:02 am
Angela, I for one consider myself to be definitely an animal, a primate, an ape and a human. Human animals might have more advanced ability to ‘reason’ when compared to other animals, but in no way are they the only species to have this ability. If you need proof, then google ‘kanzi’, or ‘panbanisha’ and read.
IMO, the issue is about the basis that we use when we ‘reason’. It is evident from this thread and its various contributor’s opinions and positions that this basis for ‘reason’ varies from one individual human to the other.
What this is telling me is that one’s individual version of ‘reason’ is highly subject to the opinions of the other people that we have alliances with that reflect and agree with our personal opinion. We each take this collective agreement as the basis for our logical and ‘reasoned’ conclusions. These ‘reasoned’ conclusions become what we think we believe. Belief and reason are therefore related and inseparable in the mind of the believer.
Then we express those conclusions in forums, like this one, actually believing that we are ‘right’, simply because we exist in alliance of others who share the same basic opinion, regardless of what the content is.
Either way, I am a reasoning animal and can see that others come to different conclusions about the very same topic, but in the end ‘belief’ overcomes ‘reason’ simply because it has emotional content. And since emotion is the basis to all violence, the topic should be about the violence that is inherent in emotion. A circular argument perhaps. Reason perhaps. Belief perhaps. Or all of those at the same time.
Comment by Vince — Tue 17th March 2009 @ 10:42 am
Scott
I, for one, do not think this is ‘off topic’ at all. The traditional basis for much human reasoning in the past has been based on the assumptions that are contained in our cultural and religious teachings. ‘Spare the rod and spoil the child’ being one that I often hear. Possibly some folk here agree with that, which would kind of prove my point regarding beliefs and reason, and indeed my comments on alliances. (after all ‘A CHURCH’ is a religious organization that generally believes that human kind was created in gods image..da da etc. and is therefore superior and should therefore be eligible to squander all of the planets resources in its own rush to procreate itself)
My other point is about the connection between emotion and violence, and the inseparability of the two, and from that leads my other favorite topic. That of a female humans ability to use emotion as a tool of power and control and how that advanced ability has led us to some quite dumb forms of ‘reasoning’.
I guess I use a different model to explain things to myself than others use, so I don’t expect my words to have any influence or impact. They are simply my reasoned conclusions based on the evidence that has been my life so far.
Comment by Vince — Tue 17th March 2009 @ 11:07 am
This topic is about corporal punishment and the rights and wrongs of it. My logic tells me that it is both right and wrong, depending on ones point of view. To me the issue is all about FEAR.
As most of us should know by now, fear is a primary emotion and arises in the limbic center of the brain and is a common experience that we share with all animals, birds, insects etc. Fear is a primal response that is designed to protect us from dangerous situations and therefore is absolutely important to our survival.
But fear can also be used as a tool of power and control, and it is this ability that attracts parents to use it to control their children, religions to use it to control their flock, and bullies to use it to control their victims.
But fear is also an emotion, perhaps the most base emotion that exists, yet it underpins our very existence and most definitely underpins this topic. After all fear of the consequences of ones actions has to be thing that we all should use to guide us in what we do and how we respond to situations. It should also be what our children learn by whatever means that we teach it. Fear of the consequences.
In the case of children, could it be assumed that we need, as parents, to engender a sense of fear in our children in order that they respond in a way that suits what we believe? Obviously there are many ways to achieve such fear, including physical punishment, threats of violence, threats of loss of something they like, time out, threats of the police, threats of expulsion from school etc. All of these things have their active means based in fear and are therefore limbic centered and emotional.
Reason is another thing entirely and is based in logic and arises in the higher cortex centers of the brain. Yet thoughts and emotions are inseparable with one leading to the other, automatically and in real time, yet in different centers of the brain. Memory plays a big part in this and it is the memory of previous consequences that produces fear, irrespective of the context.
From this perspective, the question of corporal punishment distills down to whether it is justified to use physical aggression and the threat of physical aggression as a means of creating a level of fear that results in desirable behavioral modification.
Either way it appears from the logic of what I am saying that fear has to come from somewhere and that without it the issue is lost. ie no fear, no control. Perhaps it is merely a matter of choosing your weapon: your hand, a stick or your tongue.
Comment by Vince — Tue 17th March 2009 @ 12:26 pm
So, sort of like the fear the Nazis controlled the Jews with during the holocaust?
Your comments would lead one to believe that you have studied developmental psychology – which I think all new parents should be obligated to do. Sometimes a little understanding goes a long way.
Comment by achurch001 — Wed 18th March 2009 @ 8:07 pm
Reply #42: I don’t agree that fear is a necessary ingredient in reducing behaviour, or even in aversive punishment. Certainly, the aim of administering punishment need not be instilling fear. An aversive correlate or immediate consequence will reduce the future likelihood of a behaviour. Ensuring there is no reinforcement of the behaviour will tend to make that behaviour fade out after an initial increase. These processes work through sub-cortical parts of the brain but may or may not significanly involve fear. I don’t think it’s a good idea to punish with the aim of producing fear. And, of course, mostly it’s better to shape behaviour by building up desired behaviour through reward.
Comment by Hans Laven — Thu 19th March 2009 @ 11:05 pm
Corporal punishment or not…
There are mechanisms for law to deal with criminal behavior against anyone, including children.
Children need to be punished and disciplined.
We all make mistakes occasionally. That does not make parents criminal.
As bad as some parents are at dispensing punishment, either too much or too little, the gov’t is much worse concerning its dispensing punishment, and it has no business EVER interfering with parents and their parenting. The gov’t should stay out of families, unless there are egregious crimes committed. And that is not common.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 12th August 2010 @ 10:51 pm
The question of corporal punishment is irrelevant in the context of the gov’t. On a list of priorities, gov’ts interfernce in families (including the context of punishing children) is very high. Keep gov’t OUT. We can discuss value of corporal punishment once that has been achieved. Until the gov’t is out of the picture, then no good solution can ever be identified. The gov’t is a bureaucracy and is looking for any reason to expand and interfere, especially in families, as they pose the greatest threat to its existence. The gov’t is populated by psychopaths, and the simply will not stop interfering and profiting from such issues until you get them out. No one hs the right to tell me how to discipline my children, including their mother. I, the father, am the ultimate and final and only authority over my children. Period.
Comment by Darryl X — Thu 12th August 2010 @ 10:57 pm