The above article is prompted by the recent appointment of a former police policy-wonk to Minister of Police.
Ginny Andersen replaces the disgraced Stuart Nash who swapped jerseys to take up the bottom position in cabinet as punishment for his mouth
… again. The boy was trying to talk tough and broke the rules.
This in itself is interesting as we haven’t seen a conflict of interest appointment, with former police staff as Minister, since Clem Simich in the middle of last century.
I’m not sure if that is a gender issue, lax left-wing arrangements or a very shallow talent pool in Labour.
There’s a podcaste interview by Mike Hoskings, which I won’t comment on in detail, other than to highlight these points.
Youth offending, which is really a euphemism for mother’s failing to raise young men, is out of control.
A notable period of history where this has happened before occurred in England where Lord Baden-Powell, ordered by the monarch of the day, to sort it out, started Boy Scouts.
The Minister’s problem is attributed to the recent discovery of the impacts of domestic violence, and the recent increase in reporting of domestic violence which was never reported before because it was a private matter.
Now this rubbish by Andersen needs to be called out as the private issue and non-reporting of domestic violence ended last century in the 1980s. It had to because the introduction of the Family Court by the mid 80s was responsible for conflicts that led to homicides.
These rhetoric crutches which support policy that creates “successful programmes” that somehow can’t explain the increase in youth offending aren’t propaganda, they’re bullshut dripping from this woman’s mouth, so we’d expect someone like Hoskings to dig for answers.
He didn’t get any.
Nice post, with good arguments.
“Youth offending, which is really a euphemism for mother’s failing to raise young men, is out of control.”
Actions, create actions.
If you do something, then something happens.
Teach them they are bad, they will be bad.
Teach them they are good, they will be good.
Teach them they are respected, they will be respectful.
Show them disrespect, they will show you disrespect.
The mother disrespects the father, setting the example.
As a man, they will be disrespected.
Society gets what it makes, in the end.
Yes, good points. Another related causal factor is the erosion of parental authority. Bradford’s law was only one of the steps in the process that included United Nations declarations and treaties, prioritization of children’s rights over parents’ rights, the Family Court being put above parents, encouragement and economic facilitation of family break up, and more generally the war on men and fathers and the demonization of all things male including male approaches to raising children. While there was justification for encouraging alternatives to smacking for discipline, the way this was done along with the other developments has led to generations of youth with increased proportions of self-entitled, irresponsible, over-cocky, unrestrained delinquents causing great disruption and harm. Exactly as predicted at the time Bradford and her lying bunch were campaigning.
DJ Ward @1. Yes, but the emphasis on social modelling has long been excessive. Limit-setting and consequences are much more important in shaping behaviour than is modelling.
Ms Anderson cited “family violence, drugs, addictions and a range of other factors” as the causes of youth offending. She repeatedly doubled down on blaming family violence, claiming that “the main thing that I found” looking into offending committed by some young people in her ‘patch’ was that they “were all from homes that had really high levels of family violence”. So the solution was to reduce family violence. That is, after removing bus stops.
This woman will be a menace to New Zealand and especially its men. It seems unlikely that it’s a lack of intelligence that brings her to apply such ill-informed nonsense to her ministerial role, so she’s probably just using her favourite hobby horse for politicking. Blaming family violence will easily get knowing nods from the indoctrinated masses.
Her claims about family violence were not accompanied by any figures or research. Even if ‘all’ the youth she looked into had some claimed history of family violence, how many was that? Establishing a statistically significant correlation between things requires a representative sample and careful mathematics. And even if a significant correlation is found, that doesn’t establish any causal link. They probably all had noses, i.e. a 100% correlation, so were noses the cause and should police be cutting them off?
The meaning of ‘really high levels of family violence’ was not clarified and no evidence was provided. Surely such a claim could be supported by a couple of references to imprisonments for murdering or maiming a family member, or by giving us the number of police call outs to the youths’ homes? The lack of reference to any such evidence suggests it doesn’t exist.
It seems likely that Ms Anderson’s finding of family violence histories was based on the existence of protection orders. We know that protection orders provide no worthwhile evidence of violence because they are routinely imposed purely on the basis of allegations, especially women’s allegations against men.
Based on a great deal of international research, one correlation that would likely have been found if Ms Anderson had looked was that between father absence and youth offending. That also wouldn’t establish a causal link but the ubiquity of those findings across different situations and research methods begins to justify an inference about cause. Sadly, Ms Anderson’s intended response, to increase policing of family violence, can only result (under current laws and practice) in even more fathers being forced out their homes and children’s lives. Those fathers had probably provided the only real discipline that the youth offenders ever experienced. Even for that small proportion of banished fathers who actually had committed anything that could reasonably be called violence, some initial effort at training them in the use of more effective and less violent disciplinary methods could keep their families intact. But laws based on misandry and false Duluth ideology have ruled out such sensible approaches for now. If father absence is a causal factor in youth offending, we can all sit back and watch delinquency rise and rise.
It’s like living in fantasyland, nobody want to fix anything.
The police already, do everything to stop family violence.
Certainly in a bigoted way, so they are trying but failing.
Are these feminists, going to give them magic wands.
What are the policy changes, for them to do more.
What do the boys experience, to not like society.
Boy racers, have no respect for the law.
Gang culture, has no respect for the law.
The male sex offender, has no respect for the law.
The violent male, has no respect for the law.
Yet society makes them, and lots of them.
Some crimes had few offenders, now there’s lots of them.
All the increase, is from fatherless homes.
Boys raised by mothers and fathers, rarely become rapists.
“If father absence is a causal factor in youth offending, we can all sit back and watch delinquency rise and rise.”
Are the daughters of solo mothers, more likely to be solo mothers.
Are the sons of solo mothers, more likely to be absent fathers.
The absent fathers, creating more absent fathers.
Generations take time, so each government sees little change.
But over time, it gets worse and worse.
In 50 years of feminism, boys were never considered.
If they get another 50, fathers will hardly exist.
We will have transitioned, to gendered parenting.
Society not bothered with fathers, mothers only automatic.
Society like Ms Anderson, not seeing the problem.
Nothing women do, is a cause or problem to them.
Where was the demand, to increase male parenting.
The Labour Party isn’t what you’d call a representative body of politicians.
It’s a political processing plant.
Ginny Andersen served as the Labour Party’s Vice-President from 2015 to 2017, when she stood down to focus on her parliamentary candidacy.
Her husband, a former police inspector, escaped a drink driving conviction on the basis of his promising career at a government ministry.
Would that have happened if Ginny Andersen wasn’t in the Labour Party Executive at the time.
This couple moved house in order to stand in the Hutt South electorate when Speaker Mallard went list only.
They ended up in the small claims court over the mess they left behind which they were ordered to pay compensation.
I’m hesitant to delve into politicians private lives, however in this case, I see a dangerous trend of political elitism that establishes a category of citizen not subject to the rule of law.
Then I notice what the Ministry of Men said above, about saying what suits a cause rather than what resolves a country’s current issues.
Members of parliament based on ideology not representative of society.
Political party’s, are like religion.
If you don’t believe, you are not welcome.
Those who do, can become part of the club.
Promoted, into positions of power.
Keeping the religion, pure without dissent.
Labour is a broad church, as long as your a feminist.
Labour’s members obey either out of fear or out of a desire to appear cooperative.
Even when acting against their own better judgment and desires.
Feminism is an authority that demands this compliance within the Labour Party.
[…] Youth Offending […]