Tough love dad arrested and charged.
Out of control child disciplined by dad. Child calls separated mum – mum tells child to call police. See video to find out what happen next.
MENZ Issues: news and discussion about New Zealand men, fathers, family law, divorce, courts, protests, gender politics, and male health.
5 Comments »
RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL
Leave a comment
Please note that comments which do not conform with the rules of this site are likely to be removed. They should be on-topic for the page they are on. Discussions about moderation are specifically forbidden. All spam will be deleted within a few hours and blacklisted on the stopforumspam database.
This site is cached. Comments will not appear immediately unless you are logged in. Please do not make multiple attempts.
What is tough love, is a good question.
Spare the rod, spoil the child an example.
A literal meaning, was to be physically violent.
Of all the punishments, it’s the easiest and quickest.
Obviously violence is not an option, in today’s world.
But in the case, there was violence towards property.
Wrecking things, is no solution.
One violence, was just replaced with another.
Children are challenging, demanding little monsters.
They test crying and nagging, anger and storming off.
No parent can avoid, moments of confrontation.
Test by test, the parent has no choice to fight.
Tough love, is therefore necessary.
The ego of the baby, is absolute.
Inevitably the ego experiences no, and gets angry.
The child must experience, the parent problem solving no.
So any violence is wrong, as it’s not problem solving.
The ego sees violence, as problem solving.
More likely creating a violent adult, anger becomes violence.
Far better the rod, just means the word parenting.
Comment by DJ Ward — Sat 15th October 2022 @ 3:27 pm
Good to see this: https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/parents-at-war-judge-rules-on-which-school-child-should-attend/AOGBIVHS3M5EUU47UWG2PEBHBA/
Comment by ErasingDad — Mon 24th October 2022 @ 7:44 am
Yeah we wouldn’t agree with the “A parent must always follow through” code. Threatening to smash someone’s possession is unhelpful in the first instance and likely to be motivated by anger and frustration, contrary to this father’s claim. He would have done better if he simply maintained his position of holding on the phone for a period of time. Following through on an impetuous threat does not have merit. Foolish threats can arise in conflict situations, are understandable and they may have some beneficial purpose in showing one’s level of frustration, hurt or anger at the time, but there is no risk to parental authority in then apologizing for the threat and referring to the frustration level. Carrying out the threat is simply compounding the unhelpful effects of making it.
Incidentally, when using a time-based consequence for managing and shaping children’s behaviour, e.g. withholding a desired toy/phone, disallowing tv or internet, grounding a child, sending a child to his/her room, it’s important to specify the duration and/or the terms of the consequence, and to keep it quite short. E.g. “Go to your room until you calm down” or “You are grounded for tonight” or “I am removing your phone for 2 hours and you will then get it back after you talk about this problem with me calmly.”
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Mon 24th October 2022 @ 10:50 am
It seems how to punish children, is politics.
https://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/opinion/130504271/christopher-luxon-reheats-the-big-mac-with-his-new-boot-camp-announcements
It seems for the father in the post, punishing a child is wrong.
And we can agree, he didn’t make a good decision.
Do politicians who get it wrong, also face consequences.
It was just a parent, trying to deal with a problem.
Now politicians, propose there own solutions.
How is one solution, a left solution.
While another, is a right solution.
I haven’t even heard, a solution from the left.
The article does not present, the lefts policy.
Often it’s labeled, the soft on crime policy.
Does the right propose a punishment, but not the left.
What punishment does the parent get, in bad cases.
Are they by law, powerless to stop the child.
How can they be blamed, if the law prevents them parenting.
But is that a left argument, with no one responsible.
Certainly in many cases, you can prove bad parenting.
It’s to late by then, blaming parents.
Was it the schooling, or culture.
Mental health, or a gang of friends.
It’s even to late, to blame the government.
The crime is committed, and there must be consequences.
Just as the child misbehaves, just as the parent must act.
It seems politicians, must make a parenting decision.
Comment by DJ Ward — Thu 17th November 2022 @ 10:36 pm
Warren Farrell points out that father absence is the most consistent factor among school shooters in the US. The same will apply to the ram raiders, delinquents and youth offenders in NZ. Yet none of our leading political parties have policies to:
– strengthen family cohesion;
– stop incentivizing family break up and sole parenthood (which has now long been done both financially – through benefits that bring in more money if parents live apart, and through so-called child support – and through funding male-hating organizations that spread propaganda against men and fathers and that encourage women to deprive their children of their biological father);
– restore authority to parents rather than children, including the right to punish using reasonable force;
– legislate for equal shared care after parental separation.
Boot camps for children will mainly turn out even more disturbed adults who had to be treated inhumanely in order to make them obedient to the boot camp bosses. We have seen that over and over with such initiatives as borstals, homes for delinquent youth, Da Silva’s Great Barrier Island program, and psychiatric hospitals prior to about 1980.
Comment by Ministry of Men's Affairs — Fri 18th November 2022 @ 2:18 pm