Man dragged through caught to be taught lesson???..antismacking
When I heard on the AM show that a man was dragged through court for smacking his four year old child once on the bottom, they also slipped it in there that the mother thought he may have needed to be taught a lesson, the Father that is.
Since when are Mothers an advisory to the police force.
He was discharged without conviction..thank goodness, but made to do a parenting course.
I read that story too.
I feel sorry for guys in this position, where mothers with limited parenting skills raise obnoxious children, who them perform twice as badly when they can’t get their way and put the father in an untenable position.
Reading between the lines though,
… a PC mother separated from her husband who was looking after the children on that day.
… the police did not favour any side in the prosecution. That smells of ordered to take a prosecution because of the complainant’s political sway … since it was a minor matter.
Greetings Mama and Downunder.
I’m guessing that both of you are familiar with the work of Professor Murray Struas (RIP) who I suggest should, in men’s rights circles, be considered a saint. Professor Straus uncovered gender symmetry (50/50) in acts of (but not harmful effects from – 70% female / 30% male) intimate partner violence. He went on to expose the very widespread feminist falsification of domestic abuse statistics.
But did you know that Professor Straus also did extensive research into smacking children? He found that smacking children caused them considerable and life-long harm. In response to his findings Murray Straus was attacked by both the feminist left and the conservative religious right. Murray didn’t care who he was pissing off. He just did good research and he reported his data. Murray was only interested in the truth, as best as he could ascertain it.
Downunder: You have no idea about the mother’s parenting skills, whether the child was obnoxious, or whether the father was placed in an untenable position. You are simply constructing a narrative to match your beliefs. My advice to you sir, is not to seek out information that confirms your beliefs, but to in lieu (like Murray Straus) seek the truth.
Hello Audi,,, I am not familiar with Professor Murray Straus,, I will definitely read about him now though.
Hey the so called ‘smacking debate is a real one’ in that most parents do not need to use this tool, largely because that did it once when the kid was wee and it was to keep them from danger or some seen necessary adjustment, I did not need to smack my kids, but some kids need limit shown if only the once. This is nothing to do with “child abuse” and the stats of such.
Possibly though our children have grown to treat discipline as a joke, for I wonder how many, many , oh so many times a parent may have told them that they might get a smack if they do not behave, these social issues are slow to change and slow to catch up but a generation can mean change to a whole generation and we are left with aparantley unteachable children, or at least some that make a teachers career unbearable.
This is a big reason why the hysteria the now around Me Too etc. bug me so much, because I keep asking myself where are the new cases of sexual harrassment, we are suffering this metoo stuff because of old cases brought to the fore.
I want to propose that our young guys are not DV deviants, so why are they being treated like they are , it is a really fat miscarraige of justice, carried to the shore by this wave of disregard.
My wife and I raised 4 children who are now all well-adjusted, successful and highly contributing adult members of society. We never, ever, not ever, smacked our children nor ever threatened to smack our children. We did however discipline our children in other ways. In my opinion smacking is simply unnecessary and highly undesirable.
More to the point though, is that in fighting for men’s rights we need to find things that unite us, not divide us. Smacking is an issue, but it is not a gender right’s issue.
Hi Audi, we too as parents of our children had the same wonderful experience with our two.
Our generation were the really lucky ones as far as balance went.
This issue of smacking came about because a chap was made a bit of an example of this bill.
It would have greatly affected all his relationships, and the shame with what he was having to take time off work to go to court for.
Would have been better for it not to have been on the news, for his sake, but it sparked the debate again surrounding this issue, and most people want the bill repealed. democracy in motion, or rather should be.
I just did, and Sir, may I thank you for your willing cooperation and assistance.
Is there a phrase for people who stop reading and thinking as soon as they have found what they want, Audi.
If this was a minor matter that otherwise would not have come to court as a criminal prosecution and the police did not defend their prosecution then it becomes a civil dispute that the man has been prosecuted for.
If we’re happy to see this man vilified in a criminal court then let’s get rid of the secrecy in the Family Court.
As MoMA says, we wish well, all those attending.
I do not like that we can talk (NZ public/media) so vigourously about the issue of smacking whilst avoiding the MAJOR problem of child bashing/harming.
I have tried to find a breakdown of the statistics around this but have not yet been successful.
We used to have Merepeka Tait to speak out honestly and John Tamahere has things to say around the subject but no one is talking outwardly of recent times.
What I do know is that, these terrible happenings have gone on to strongly effect the laws that are so harsh on men here in little ol’ NZ!
The research into smacking has always confused various factors. Even in the best research mild smacking is not distinguished from more severe physical punishment or from smacking in the context of unaffectionate parenting. Correlation is confused with causation.
The smacking debate is a gender issue. Men tend to take no-nonsense approaches to fix things. Men were previously relied on to provide strength to back up parental authority. This is anathema to feminists and anti-smacking attitudes arose in large measure from feminist rejection of all things male. Women mostly prefer the idea that families and communities should always be nice and there is no need for male strength and control functions. There is no good evidence that such feminist ideology including stopping physical punishment has brought about reductions in school bullying and other misbehaviour or in community violence. Quite the contrary. Parental authority has been seriously eroded by feminist ideology and has been handed over to agents of the state. Very foolish.
Smacking is not necessary for most children but alternative methods for effectively setting limits require a level of knowledge and skill that some parents don’t have. Infrequent smacking is more desirable than allowing children to dominate the adults.
Thank you Moma, a well written run down that covers this issue well, especially when you talk of Parents who may indeed not have the greatest of skills to be sucessful ar reeling in behavioural problems with their children. The community support is not what it was and grandparents are often not available or close by.
There are soooo many problems that factor in this issue of discipline, but we are seeing evidence that whatever is being done or not done has not been reflected positively on child behaviour.
All the proposing of throwing counselling at mental and behavioural problems is NOT a CURE.
It is a victim encouraging way forward, I have said it before and I will say it again, it is a bad thing to turn people with problems into VICTIMS.
I think the biggest issue is that it is not an issue.
Anti smacking becomes an issue when someone makes it an issue.
The law removed the word “force” out of discipline
And effectively turned physical discipline into abuse.
Now instead of us as judges of our actions.
They removed that right and vested it in the police’s discretion not to prosecute.
I have seen more women smack than men.
So the theory it’s gender based is not valid.
What is true however is:
Parents are busy arguing whose style is best
Whilst Fathers and mothers are prosecuted for exercising their right to discipline.
Most time the lower courts find guilty and the high courts overturn them.
But the harm done to a child or a parent child relationship is untold.
It is unlawful- that is the only thing wrong with it.
This law is unlawful and a vicious instrument of retaliation.
So parents that do not use force will be prosecuted too.
All it takes is a disclosure or a report of concern from someone specially concerned to turn you into an abuser.
Maybe the relationship is good now. And I Hope it lasts.
But when custody is at stake, all bets are off.
Feminism views mother as the sole authority over the child as a starting point. The role of ‘a parent’ is then the subject of rights.
When someone does make it an issue it smacks of enforcement of Feminist dogma.
10, 11, Just Curious and Evan @12,,, yes CUSTODY is the WORD, I wonder what the stats on non Mothers and DV?, had a quick search once and was unsuccessfull.
I too have seen Womens’ attitude to their child not as you would expect in public.
My thinking is that it is not driven by the feminist agenda.
But a drive by Police to get given more powers to police inside the family home.
Here it is no longer the mother as the “sole authority” but rather the state as the sole authority.
Their vehicle is the domestic violence act.
The sate does not want to raise our children.
They ensure we do the parenting and they sit in judgement.
# 14,, Just Curious,, I tend to think that the POlice would rather not take more to do with the Family,,,
In our case they seemed a little reluctant to be harsh toward the guy, maybe a Sth Auckland thing as they are probably very busy with more pressing issues and worse family violence than was involving my son and his ex.
It is the smudged laws around DV that they have to keep on their toes about. How to discern one case from another, so everyone starts to get treated the same, as the Perp, regardless of circumstance or severity.
My – Oh – My! What strong feelings and beliefs we all have about smacking children. No contributors to this thread support bashing or abusing children, but everyone here (well, everyone except me) thinks it is ok to smack children as part of responsible parenting that includes setting boundaries and providing disciple to control errant childhood behaviour.
I’m going to strongly disagree with a lot of what’s being said (so no change there) but before I get accused of ad hominem attacks I would like to clarify that I think a lot of what is being said is dumb… not that the people who are saying it are dumb.
@8 MoMA reckons that the research has always confused various factors. He could be right, but it does seem to be a very bold accusation that all these academics are so ignorant that they confuse smacking with abuse.
Really! Where’s your data on this wild assertion MoMA? I thought as men’s rights activists we would be seeking to break-down gender stereotyping! By corollary you must think that women take nonsense approaches to fixing things. Frankly your statement is utter nonsense and it was made by a man!
Gosh those poor weak women, who lack the strength to smack a child. Lucky that there are big strong men like you MoMA who can deliver a real manly smack to a small child. Most physical abuse of children is perpetrated by mothers. If women are strong enough to beat the crap out of their children, I’m confident that they can deliver the odd judicious slap without the help of a man.
Is this just your opinion MoMA or do you have evidence to back up this assertion? In the UK 250 separate organisations got together under the “Children are Unbeatable” alliance to seek legal reform to make corporal punishment of children illegal. Only a very small number of these 250 organisations could be considered feminist. Opposition to smacking children is widespread and is not something I have ever seen in my extensive viewing of feminist literature.
You have said some stupid things on this site MoMA, but that takes the cake! The feminists are petrified that men will seek to use power and control over women and children. Men’s rights activists need to convince the public and moderate feminists that these fears are unfounded, that men are good decent people and we have no intention of exercising male strength to effect control. And then you go and make it sound like a good thing. Unbelievable!
Which children need smacking and which don’t? Suggesting that parents lack the skills and knowledge to effectively use alternatives to smacking is like suggesting that parents who lack skills and knowledge regards nutrition makes it okay to feed the family exclusively on McDonalds.
@10 JustCurious suggests:
That is your opinion. I along with screeds of academic researchers and social work organisations disagree with you. We could perhaps have an interesting chat about that sometime. We’ll probably just agree to disagree But, there is no need to make repeal of the anti-smacking legislation a men’s rights platform. If we do we will alienate at least half of the New Zealand population. We need all the support we can get.
@ 12 Evan says:
Evan’s brave assertion there is simply unsupported by any data. If we become conspiracy theorists then we will get all the credence that they get. (i.e. zilch!) When someone does make an issue of it, normally the police don’t prosecute. When they do prosecute (and remember they are duty bound to enforce the law) it is normally thrown out of court. Some feminists do a lot of really harmful things. Supporting the anti-smacking legislation is not one of them.
@14 Just Curious Says:
Whew! Man… what a lot of pent-up pain there. You’ve had some terrible experiences with the police it would seem. The police have to enforce the law. If they are biased in doing so we can challenge that. But to say that the police want more power inside the family home is a bizarre thing to say. I bet most police officers would prefer to never again be assigned to attending a ‘domestic’. I suggest that there is nothing at all wrong with the Domestic Violence Act, but there may well be things wrong with how it is applied. If you don’t want the state to sit in judgment then vote at the next election for an anarchist party – if you can find one. The state (who are voted in every 3 years by you and I) must sit in judgment. If they don’t sit in judgment then horrific abusers will continue killing children. If you want to talk about how that judgment is applied then I’m all ears, but if you want there to be no judgment at all then society will collapse.
Audi,,, it is so that our generation grew up with strong Father figure, in my family, the original saying was ‘children should be seen and not heard’. We came so far from there, and now it has gone too far so fast, so fast it has left things missing. The respect for Fatherhood is one of these things. It is raw situation, PC has tightened the girth of men.
Whilst some of us have enjoyed a good life, good wife, nice children, nice life there are indeed people caught in the poverty trap that leaves them wide open to uncomfortable lives, along with their children they struggle to keep head above water. I think it a normal assumption that Moma makes when considering the difficulty surrounding good grounding for the families who are stuck in small life.
Pick up the shoe and put it on the other foot, nothing is black and white any more.
My Father was sole constable in small town NZ,,, he looked after a whole community, he also had the strap hanging over the door, never used it, but when their are eight of you it seemed that he did a pretty good job at containment, containment is not an ugly word.
…and remember this one “go ask your father”
@17 Hi Mama.
On hearing your story I have an immediate affection for your father. He had a strap hanging over the door probably because he was strapped as a child and that was how he learned to discipline. But something inside of him told him it was better not to use it.
Just as within your father, there is a tension between progressives and conservatives. Many progressive feminists have gone way too far and are causing considerable harm. That gives conservatives (and there seems to be no shortage of them on this site) reason to be dismissive of all things progressive. In my view progressives are not all bad or all good. Similarly conservatives are not all bad or all good. For those of us who task ourselves with being good people, providing good families and creating good societies, decisions are required. We need to keep assessing what to hang on to and what to change.
18,, Audi,,,Assessing what we need to hang on to and what to change has been made near impossible, there is so much to change once things go too far, for men the task is now massive and some would indeed say virtually impossible.
I get sick to the teeth of women taking and then taking more again, they have not earned such a right and I am not talking of radical feminists, I have meet too many women who are abusive of the system, of the men that have come and gone and given them the children whom have the state support them. Radical Feminism has it in the bag, been given strength on a platter by emcompassing every group they can manage to scoop up along the way.
It is anger and frustration and sadness not conservatism that shows its face on many men and their families today.
..and Audi, my Dad included, men go all lovely gooey over their children, women seldom go gooey, this is why I believe in men, they have Big Soul, this is how our world has been built to date, Big Soul.
The State does not get voted in every 3 years, the Government may change, but The State waving the big stick after the event is going to cure all?
Nothing wrong with the Domestic Violence Act?
20,,DownUnder,,, yes, and like welfare decisions they are never renovated, just added to , no refurbishment for the better good, our State has turned these women with babies into ultimate and never ending victims, to the degree they feel and stand untouchable.
Smacking a child on the bum to shock into reality can teach humility by way of humiliation.
Bashing children is the ugly truth that is hidden behind some veil of ‘what’ I do not know , but I do know that the kind of persons who carry out such pathetic warfare on kids are not going to be ‘cured’,, and there is no way that throwing some counselling their way will work either.
Oh, this wouldn’t have something to do with how Winston Peters gained a significant vote percentage by promising a referendum that hasn’t been delivered on but you know the outcome already, Audi?
Audi @16: Your response is typical of the way the anti-smacking brigade communicates with anyone who disagrees with them. Full of patronizing, ridiculing, demonizing language and ad hominem attacks. Your terms “dumb”, “utter nonsense”, “stupid things…but that takes the cake” add nothing to the debate or to dialogue, trust or cohesion between men.
From time to time we have delved into the complex and copious research on smacking and found that those studies purporting to show harm from (infrequent, open-hand, non-injurious, i.e. normal) smacking always confused this with harm from more severe physical punishment and/or other factors. Those studies that took great care to study only what is generally understood as smacking tended to find no evidence of harm. For example, our NZ Dunedin longitudinal study did take such care and found that those who had been smacked (as opposed to beaten) had similar or slightly better life outcomes than those who were not smacked.
Sarcastic and personally abusive stuff Audi (aside from your false assumption that those who represent MoMA are all male). Are you denying that mothers often used to call upon fathers to do physical discipline? The phrase “Wait till your father gets home” was very common. Nowadays it’s not uncommon for sole mothers to call the police on unruly young children. We know several separated fathers whose ex partners did exactly that. But it’s not only small children who need limit setting and when it comes to teenagers many mothers cannot physically stand up to them. Fathers often would be able to do so but have now been rendered unconfident by the law. However, don’t imagine that we no longer use physical force in rearing children; it’s simply that we have handed over that role to agents of the state where we continue to rely mainly on male strength for such purposes. And the consequences for the children can be much worse than if the incident had been managed within the family.
In schools we have thrown out physical discipline and replaced it with much more violent methods such as ostracizing children from their group through suspensions and expulsions. This promotes self-beliefs in those children that they are so abnormal and unacceptable they weren’t allowed to remain with their peers or to be educated normally. Better the much less violent approach: “You broke the rule, here’s your punishment, now that’s over, see you tomorrow hopefully at your best”. Suspensions and expulsions were rare in NZ schools when corporal punishment was used. (That’s not to say we would support the way corporal punishment was managed in the past, but the pendulum swung too far in discarding physical punishment completely.)
This whole issue has a lot to do with feminist rejection of all things male, even if many of the anti-smacking groups are not feminist. Just like the male-denigrating White Ribbon Campaign that was started by white-knight men. Feminism has saturated western societies in ways and to an extent that people don’t recognize.
Where to begin on this one? It honestly is problematic for anyone purporting to support men’s welfare to hold and express this belief. Sure, there is justification for some process of state management of domestic violence, but the DVA does this very poorly mainly because it was designed from the basis of false beliefs, largely promoted by feminists, about the nature and causes of family violence. Really, we suggest you read previous analyses of the DVA here on MENZ Issues for a start.
Wow Audi, you have missed this boat by a few light years.
You are still debating whether it is ok to smack or not.
Your points may be valid but sadly they are irrelevant.
– You and I can both find research to validate our every argument against one’s opposite stance and position.
But I forfeit that argument. It is of no value here. My argument instead is that:
Once you wrap your head around that, maybe we can feed each other data.
But if you do want to do something for anyone in this country, that is the first law to repeal.
AS far the police, if you think and you truly believe what you say, then I am seriously baffled.
It seems you got a long way to go to get that silver spoon out of your throat. Life has been too easy for you.
@23 Hi MoMA,
I do apologise for being sarcastic. I do not however resile from my admittedly scathing attack on your comments posted at 8 above. Suggesting that my comments are typical of any sort of brigade does not address my very serious concerns about the veracity or desirability of your comments. Should you wish to defend what you said then please do so, or in the alternative be a strong enough man / organisation to apologise for the inappropriateness of your comments. Your comments at 8 above smack (only the slightest hint of a pun intended) of male chauvinism and are demeaning of women. That does not help men’s rights. It does the opposite. It hardens the attitudes of feminists and that in turn causes men to suffer even more.
You are welcome to your personal views on corporal punishment but don’t try to shove those (in my opinion abhorrent views) down my throat as some sort of requirement for me to be a staunch supporter of men’s rights. This having to agree with every view that conservative right-wing MoMA holds actually divides men. If you seek cohesion and a more united voice on issues that are hurting men, then stick to those issues exclusively and leave your personal views on other matters to other forums. I’m a bleeding-heart left-wing liberal who vehemently opposes the grossly harmful excesses of feminism. You need me and people like me to support the cause. Don’t push me away because of your narrow view of what a men’s rights activist should look like.
There are times when physical strength is required and the police and military are two examples that come to mind. Physical strength is not be required in any functional family. My sons are much bigger and stronger than me now. If I had taught them from when they were young that might is right, they would kick my arse now should I chose to disobey them.
We agree on the White Ribbon Campaign. It is very denigrating of men and is perpetuated by gynocentric white knights. My understanding though is that the campaign was started in Canada and instigated originally by UN Women. We need to learn from that in mobilising women to support the cause of men’s rights and men’s well-being.
I very much appreciate your sharing of the copious information related to the Domestic Violence Act. That sort of cooperation is what I had hoped for from this site and what Murray Bacon had been suggesting in other posts. It will take me some time to digest all of that. However from my very brief perusal of the info provided, it seems that the concerns are about the application of the Act rather than specific concerns about the actual wording of any sections of the Act. As I have suggested extensively in other posts, discernment is essential if we are to be heard. We need to be very clear about what is a problem and what is not. If we fail to do that, we will be seen as a mere bunch of moaning malcontents whose views don’t warrant consideration.
So, you have data on
Successful prosecutions v unsuccessful prosecutions.
What constitutes a successful prosecution?
How can a man charged in these circumstances not be discharged?
@24 Thanks for your response JC.
Yes, it seems that we were addressing different issues. To miscommunicate is the nature of human communication it seems.
Your point (if I am getting a few light-years closer now) is about what matters should be legislated and what should be left to personal freedom and choice. That is a perennial political debate between the left and the right. You have your view that the anti-smacking legislation must go and I see things slightly differently. Though I do tend to believe that education would be better than legislation on this matter. The legislation is, I agree, somewhat cracking a nut with a sledgehammer.
[Trigger Warning: Some parts of the rest of this message may contain sarcasm masquerading as comedy masquerading as a serious thought.]
Of all the things that might happen on this site, I never expected to be asked to check my privilege. I must admit that your assumptions are correct. I have never been arrested let alone had a police officer knock on my door. Would the odd speeding ticket count? No, no! You are quite correct. My abject failure in failing to ever get arrested is a sure sign that I have a sliver spoon jammed in my throat and life has been way too easy for me.
If only I’d been born a recalcitrant black lesbian woman with a disability, then (and only then) could I lay claim to not having an easy life. I feel so ashamed of myself. I’m going to give up all this men’s rights palaver forthwith. From now on I’ll focus solely on my privilege as a law-abiding, straight, cis-gendered, white, male. Silly old me. I feel foolish now for ever having thought that I could be oppressed for being a man and that could have made my life very hard indeed.
There was once a wise man wishing to belong to a company of fools.
Tried as he might, he was always shown for the wise man he was.
Doubtful, he checked himself thoroughly and, scrutinized himself and, still finding nothing;
Frustrated and defeated, he sat on a wall outside and pondered out loud “How do they know I am not of them?”
A passing child overheard him and replied,
“because your mind is still showing!”
I thank you for discarding this argument into the political bin and not the legal/lawful bin.
Otherwise we could have had fun.
You are right. It is political.
This is the perfect example of a political party stance becoming law.
One that ensures good parent as well as bad parents are prosecuted.
It was only political until it became law.
Now it is law and it still political
and it is still controversial.
I wonder why it is so controversial?
And Why are the higher courts so consistently overturning the lower court decisions?
This is how the Police sees it as
Here is a fool legal analysis
Note – you might have to download before reading – PDF
some legal advice and opinions
quite a bit of history behind the bill and exactly how it came to be
a pamphlet from the ministry of Justice
Here is an interesting media article from last year accepting failure shit got worse with new bill
I think this below is what you are missing Audi
So it is a political brain fart turned into law affecting good parents also.
They went for child abuse but mistook it with disciplining.
In the process all parent are criminalized whilst “non force using parents” support a law that will one day be used to nail them.
aaah one last one
To JC,, thank you for the research and the stance.
LOL! Have you considered a career in comedy? Or perhaps this duplicity would be better suited to a role in the Family Court!
We have already done so in every comment we posted.
Well actually there was nothing ‘inappropriate’ about our comments in #8 above, they were simply our opinions stated rationally and respectfully. But now you want people to apologize for daring to express opinions you and the feminists don’t like.
My, you have done well in learning the shaming tactics used by feminists in lieu of facts and rational argument. Aside from buying into feminist ideology hook, line and sinker. You really will be approved of by the feminists, for a few weeks.
Actually, no. Good luck with your rules.
I think what we’re seeing here is not a debate as such;
This is the policy
The research that supports the policy must be right.
Our good research must be defended.
Don’t debate the ‘bad’ research.
Make generalizations and ridicule the opposition.
Freedom of speech comes from opinion,….mama, “let it be”…John Lennon.
And some opinions reveal wilful ignorance.
Who was it that said …
sorry Paul…https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQxQv-qwOLE ..Paul McCartney
Sometimes you have to risk being seen to be a fool when you draw attention for opinion.
We are very fortunate that John Potter hosts this site with minimal censorship so that sages can sometimes appear foolish, and the converse.
But you wouldn’t want him sleeping on the couch, though?
There is nothing at all comedic or duplicitous in what I said. Can you explain your allegations?
I can’t find in your other posts where you defend your assertions that men are “no-nonsense” with the implication that women’s parental disciplinary style will be nonsense. I state again that your statement is male chauvinist and is demeaning of women. It seems that on this site you are treated with too much deference and when you make misogynistic statements no one challenges you. I am challenging you now. So stand up and have a fair fight. Explain with reasons why your “no-nonsense” comment is not sexist, or apologise like a man whose self esteem is strong enough to admit making a mistake.
I am not shaming you. You are shaming yourself! Attacking me personally is no defence of your sexism.
I don’t have a problem with feminism. Do you? Feminism is defined as seeking the equal treatment of men and women. Do you have a problem with that? I don’t! What I do have a problem with is the excesses of feminism, where feminists’ sense of grievance morphs into contempt of men, that in turn morphs into the denial of men’s rights and the establishment of privileges for women. I would hazard that most everyone on this site is aware of how widespread that is and moreover how harmful it is. The problem is not ‘feminism’ as such, it is man hating and female chauvinism.
My challenge is that you MoMA are not any better than the feminists. That you have taken very legitimate concerns about men’s rights and men’s well-being and (just like the feminists) allowed yourself to get carried away with a narrative that sees ‘them’ as all bad and ‘us’ as all good. Don’t stoop to their level MoMA. We men (and women) can do better than that. Can’t we?
I am not proposing rules. I am espousing the application of common sense. If you or anyone else requires men’s right activists to hold a whole bunch of particular views on various subjects, then that will fracture any men’s rights movement. That is not a rule. It is an inevitable consequence.
You are it would seem (somewhat sadly) locked into a mindset where you have to be right, and anyone who challenges you about anything, has to be wrong about everything. I think it’s called grumpy old man’s syndrome.
My limited experience and common sense tells me that about 30% of parents ( both, father and mother)in NZ don’t know the difference between bashing children and gently smacking. When i smacked few times my children I put first my own hand on their back and hit ti with my other hand . The sound effect was more productive than the physical gentle contact. Have you ever trained a young puppy ?
So this 30% group should be held to full account of the law. The next group of 40% combine education with some sort of gentle smacking . I belong there .
The last 30% of parents ( fathers) are unjustly persecuted by their exes ( mothers) when actually trying to bring their children up in any constructive /productive way. This group should be protected against aggressive without scruples feminists
Does the existing law and its application protects the last group from frivolous mother’s accusation – A BIG NO
We , the men, are all judged by the most violent men criteria . Why ? Because of the agressive feminists , that is why.
The same , more or less, can be said for Protection orders .
The point is , the DV legislation is based on over compensation for some historically deprived/. abused women and now the whole NZ men population should suffer because of that. For few bad apples , all the men in NZ should pay .
@ Audi . Altough I am your supporter and will always be , I don’t need researches to claim the above.
44,,George and anyone or everyone,,,This is where it is for me as well.
That’s it George.
He who feels it knows it.
Everyone else just shows their mind.
@ 45 and eventually 46
Dear Just curious and mama
Thank you for sharing your similar thoughts with me .
@ Just curious
We both know what w e know, unfortunately , don’t we and we don’t need researches to state the obvious facts .
Bit i would like to stress the following :
It is obvious that me and my Audi differ in some aspects , but that would not stop me to support him in any possible way because his fight and efforts he put behind it far out-weights not so important differences . For the sake of his noble action I will disown some of my beliefs just to give him a fair go .HE deserves that as anyone of us would deserve it . It just happens to be him at the moment .
So please don’t sap his energy and good will by opposing him more than it is necessary.
I guess Audi has an ability to make some people around him insecure ha ha which is Ok with me . If I am right he has already paid the price for that so we don’t have to additionally penalize him.
Go Peter aka Audi
All good George,
I shall support the vision and volunteer any assistance I may be able to afford to give.
In fact, He did hit a raw nerve and I am thankful for that.
I reacted thinking – “how could someone so astute make such ridiculous claims”
Turns out he never made any claims of being astute. I did in my own mind.
And case in point, his challenging of the anti smacking law and DV Act has been instrumental in good solid information being provided to this board.
#47, HI George,, I think it good that differences can be aired here. If every one thought the same it would make life less interesting and stagnant. These differences can some times spark a new idea or way of thought.
As Just Curious pointed out research was done around the issue and now we know where people stand on this issue, it need not be a divisive issue.
@49 Well said Mama.
On Saturday the 3rd November we will get together to discuss what actions we can take in support of men’s rights and men’s well-being. Mama and George have shown that they have very different ideas to what I have about smacking children. I can accept people having different ideas and hopefully you all can as well. My beliefs about smacking, or my religious beliefs, or my political affiliations should make no difference to our shared concern about men.
After proposing the meeting MoMA said they would consider sending a representative. They are now not sending a representative. I have made some (for this site) radical comments about #MeToo, about name calling, about feminism, about misogyny, and about the Domestic Violence Act etc. I am clearly not what your average men’s rights activist looks like. I’m heartened that some here can accept alternative way of looking at men’s rights and saddened that others can’t.
The desire is to criminalise everything.
They in effect desire to have 0 of anything.
Good luck to them. Lol.
After the laws to criminalise everything.
What next to have 0 of anything.
What would that solution be.
AI robots programmed to be parents.
Obviously you can’t have humans do the job.
Then they be humans, pretending to be parents.
What then of the child that knows the robot.
It can abuse the limitations of the robot.
So it can’t parent.
How would the robot parent if the child ignores the robot.
Who can do nothing to the child.
What then of the perfect parenting.
With all children being perfectly the same.
With 0 of anything different.
Spare the rod, spoil the child.
It translates to me as something else personal, but in general.
Give them nothing, they will want everything.
Don’t guide them, then they will get lost.
Withhold wisdom, then they be ignorant.
Remove reward, so they not try.
The difference between abuse and discipline.
The child is falsely judged, abuse.
The child is excessively punished, abuse.
The child is physically injured, abuse.
The child did not understand, abuse.
The child made a mistake, abuse.
The child doesn’t have the discipline explained, abuse.
The child is punished while the other is not, abuse.
So the need for discipline as an option is very limited.
The possibility of abuse is nearly inherent.
I guess there is perfect parents.
With children that can’t cope with hardship, as adults.
Be certain of this.
Risk aversion applied to humans.
Guarantees the abuse of the humans rights.
A hard thing to comprehend but I see it everywhere.
I have tried hard to think of an example where that’s not true in some way.
Yet to find one.