Supporting positive parenting!

Professor Paul Moon has a curiously negative approach to the new initiative by Te Kahui Mana Ririki to encourage Maori parents to embrace a loving tradition of child raising.

Te Kahui Mana Ririki spokesperson Anton Blank has made no romantic claims that pre European tangata whenua culture was always peaceful, but he is promoting some aspects of the history which might be helpful to Maori parents looking for a positive and uniquely Maori view of child rising.

Paul Moon today dismissed this initiative on the grounds that infanticide had occurred under some circumstances.  Te Kahui Mana Ririki is championing a recall of a gentle and loving tradition in whanau towards children which was impacted by the history of the last 170 years.

I would love Paul Moon to discuss the European child raising tradition we come from and to acknowledge that many Pakeha children of my generation remember the strap and the slap, in school and at home. Our tradition was once focused around “spare the rod and spoil the child” and it was extraordinary to see the abuse including death threats Sue Bradford received when championing legal changes that would protect children from legal beatings.

The Professor might like to do a study of the violent tradition in boys schools from the Victorian era until the 1970’s and the role of the graduates of those schools in empire building and colonisation.

The place of the child in our culture remains marginal with resources being focused on privileged children and the children of beneficiaries experiencing deprivation.

Violence towards all children is abhorrent and there is a great need to invest in parental education which is culturally effective.

The Green party applauds the initiative for reaching out to Maori parents.

Academics might like to consider who benefits from their knee jerk critiques when a child protection groups are being innovative in their outreach to parents in interests of children.

63 thoughts on “Supporting positive parenting!

  1. Kia ora tatou, Everyone, please read ‘Parenting for a Peaceful World’ by Robin Grille (Aus). The most outstanding psycho-historical analysis of the evolution of parenting I have read.

    Even a ‘light smack’ is a reptilian brain response as far as I’m concerned. We can be much more mindful and creative with our approaches to child ‘discipline’ than that, without becoming too permissive.

  2. “kids didn’t carry knives around fifty years ago”.
    Yes we did. A pocket knife was a permanent fixture and scouts etc carried sheath knives.
    It was considered unmanly use weapons instead of fists.

  3. I don’t have anything against the Maorian way of upbringing a child and i don’t know if it’s true that they apply violence in disciplining their children. Enough disciplining is correct but too much of it would be considered as abuse. It’s good to hear that Prof. Moon is making a move.

  4. Had a quick look at the report (http://www.occ.org.nz/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/8307/TraditionalMaoriParenting.pdf) and it doesn’t seem to bear out the claim that the programme tells people “family violence has arisen only because of European missionaries”.

    Actually it seems at times positive about missionaries, e.g.: “By the 1830’s, treatment of slaves had improved overall particularly where chiefs were close to missionaries.”

    And doesn’t claim that there was no domestic violence in pre-colonial times: “Domestic abuse was reported but not as a common practice.”

    So I reckon my previous assumption that some ignorant or racist journo was making things up was accurate.

  5. greenfly says “I’m gobsmacked that a commenter who seeks to be taken seriously would repeat such a fundamental error like that. Your ideology has blinded you photonz, so much so that you are irretrievable, you cannot, it seems, be helped from your erroneous position. Never mind.
    Fester there for eternity but please don’t expect to be taken seriously here.”

    Can you please repeat that and make if far more ambiguous and long-winded.

    It’s far too clear and consise for me to comprehend what you’re on about.

  6. photonz@1:30 does it again!
    I’m gobsmacked that a commenter who seeks to be taken seriously would repeat such a fundamental error like that.
    Your ideology has blinded you photonz, so much so that you are irretrievable, you cannot, it seems, be helped from your erroneous position.
    Never mind.
    Fester there for eternity but please don’t expect to be taken seriously here.

  7. Shunda, you have no idea where ‘most Greens’ live.

    Actually, I have a very good idea!

    Actually, guys, I’m pretty sick of most of this discussion.

    Oh Janine, that is simply terrible!!

    If ANY group of parents is being urged to look for their nurturing selves and be kind to their children then that is much more positive than the old-fashioned idea that children had to be ‘controlled’ all the time.

    Yes, yes it is.

    I’m old enough to remember being strapped, caned, walloped with the jug cord etc – it didn’t do me any good.

    And who here has suggested that this is acceptable? that is abuse and no one is talking about abusing kids, light smacking is not abuse and the best studies available prove that conclusively.

    I had a lot of self-control to learn as a parent and it wasn’t easy – these cycles are hard to break and you have to start somewhere.

    Just because you had difficulty controlling yourself doesn’t mean everybody else does.

    One place to start may be reminding people that it was not always culturally acceptable to hit children, here or anywhere else.

    And it still isn’t!! smacking is not ‘hitting’ it is discipline, and it is completely harmless.

  8. Shunda, you have no idea where ‘most Greens’ live. Actually, guys, I’m pretty sick of most of this discussion.

    If ANY group of parents is being urged to look for their nurturing selves and be kind to their children then that is much more positive than the old-fashioned idea that children had to be ‘controlled’ all the time. I’m old enough to remember being strapped, caned, walloped with the jug cord etc – it didn’t do me any good. I had a lot of self-control to learn as a parent and it wasn’t easy – these cycles are hard to break and you have to start somewhere.

    One place to start may be reminding people that it was not always culturally acceptable to hit children, here or anywhere else.

  9. Think on this is terms of crime and punishment!

    Think on this!

    The luxury cruiser “Oasis of the Seas” cost 1.24 billion US dollars to build and houses 6,300 happy cruisers.

    That is about $200,000 per happy cruiser. It also has about 2,000 resident crew – say 8,000 beds all up.
    So that is about US$150,000 per happy cruising sailor.

    NZ is building three new prisons at a cost of NZ$600,000,000 to house 1,400 unhappy inmates. (the “crew” live off site.”

    That is NZ$430,000 per unhappy inmate, or say US$350,000 per inmate. That’s more that twice the cost of the accommodation on the world’s newest most luxurious cruise liner.
    SEE: http://www.oasisoftheseas.com/image.php?ship=oasis
    And: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MS_Oasis_of_the_Seas

    So why don’t we ask the Fins to build us a luxury cruise liner to accommodate ,1,000 inmates, sail it down here and park it in the Manukau Harbour – our own floating Alcatraz.

    Thank goodness we don’t have “Sea Use Planners” otherwise everything at sea would be as expensive as everything on land.

    Whoops!. Too late. The planning industry will never let a chance go by.
    See Gary Taylor’s plans for Sea Use Planning in yesterday’’s Herald. Go to:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10729054

    Another grand plan, another bundle of decimated enterprises.

    It would be cheaper to build a luxury cruise liner and send them out into the open ocean.

    Thank goodness we don’t have “sea use planners” otherwise everything at sea would be as expensive as everything on land.

    Whoops!. Too late. The planning industry will never let a chance go by.
    See Gary Taylor’s plans for Sea Use planning in this morning’s Herald. Go to:

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/environment/news/article.cfm?c_id=39&objectid=10729054

    Another Grand Plan, another bundle of decimated enterprises.

    But honestly, how can this be. Read the specs for the cruise liner, look at the seven neighbourhoods, and ask can this cost less than half of the price of a prison bed on Auckland soil?

  10. “A new parenting programme targeted at Maori tells them they are inherently loving and nurturing caregivers and family violence has arisen only because of European missionaries.”

    As I pointed out already, hysteria is not evidence. This just reads as if some idiot journo has decided to write the standard ‘loony-Maori’ puff piece. Is there some actual evidence that the programme is doing what is claimed here? From a credible source?

  11. Sam asks “How about providing some evidence that this programme considers it an acceptable excuse before you start maligning it?”

    The first sentence of the link Catherine gives says….

    “A new parenting programme targeted at Maori tells them they are inherently loving and nurturing caregivers and family violence has arisen only because of European missionaries.”

  12. “blaming the missionaries from 1850 is an accceptable excuse for beating your kids in 2011? (like the programme Catherine supports)”

    How about providing some evidence that this programme considers it an acceptable excuse before you start maligning it? (public hysteria isn’t evidence by the way)

  13. The idea that liberalism is some organised dogma or religion for those of the left wing of secular society is peddled by both conservative (Catholic and fundamentalist) religion and the political right.

    Well wadaya know, they got something right.

    And SPC reveals his/her own ‘us and them’ mentality carefully disguised with a gentle but authoritative tone.

    Where oh where have I seen that before?

  14. photonz

    There is an intellectual case for the proposition that a culture that taught parenting by physical discipline harmed Maori society.

    The question is whether restoring pride in the Maori culture is one way to improve the parenting by Maori of their children. It may the liberals way of doing it, but it may work.

    Are kohanga reo kids better raised than others, I suspect so.

  15. Bascially shunda admits he is reactionary against the some aspects of organised religion and just about all of “liberalism”.

    The idea that liberalism is some organised dogma or religion for those of the left wing of secular society is peddled by both conservative (Catholic and fundamentalist) religion and the political right.

  16. toad says “Because some incompetent parents will take any other messaging to be an excuse to justify violent assaults on their kids.”

    But blaming the missionaries from 1850 is an accceptable excuse for beating your kids in 2011? (like the programme Catherine supports)

  17. @photonz1 9:25 PM

    I wasn’t arguing the “slippery slope” hypothesis.

    I was just saying the best messaging is “Don’t hit kids”. Never!

    Because some incompetent parents will take any other messaging to be an excuse to justify violent assaults on their kids.

  18. there used to be similar debates over whether owners should beat their slaves..

    ..it helped keep ‘order’..was one argument..

    ..they were ‘grateful for the guidance’ was another..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  19. phil says “tell ya what..u go find something ‘nice’ u have said about them..eh..?”

    phils comment translated

    “I’ve made another extreme claim that I have no evidence for. Duh!. When will I ever learn”

  20. toad tries to perpertrate a myth – “A “smack” can so easily become a “bash” because an adult loses control.”

    The researchers say toad’s myth is b/s

    “Dr Millichamp said the Dunedin study so far found no evidence of the “slippery slope” theory – that parents who started off smacking often progressed to abusive punishments.”

    Meanwhile we have people putting all their effort into arguing against something that has BETTER outcomes for children than not smacking – instead of concentrating on actual abuse.

    What’s more important – fighting child abuse, or fighting parents who occasionally use a light smack? (and whose children on average have slightly better outcomes)

  21. tell ya what..u go find something ‘nice’ u have said about them..eh..?

    even something faintly civil will do…

    that’ll be like looking for a humanist at an act party do…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  22. @john-ston 8:53 PM

    For that matter, kids didn’t carry knives around fifty years ago.

    I can’t go back quite that far, but I can go back 40 years ago, and kids did carry knives, at least at my school.

    I recall several instances of knives being flourished at my school in the 1970s, including one where a kid was stabbed.

    And I recall a teacher (whom I think deserved it, because he was sexually exploiting 6th Form girls) being strung up on a coat hook (feet on ground, so not fatal) in the locker room by some kids.

    Don’t assume every school is like the one you went to john-ston – then, or now!

  23. Shouldn’t be too hard to go and retrieve some then Phil.

    Oh, and by the way, what is your point? I am kind of speaking my mind right here on frog blog don’t ya think?

    Do you think me attacking dairy farmers on kiwi blog is a good way to make “friends” with the regulars over there Phil?

  24. are you seriously claiming you don’t seriously slag/dump on the greens…in yr comments @ kiwiblog…?

    ..are you fucken kidding..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  25. kids now are far more advanced/civilised…

    Really? I don’t think that a kid fifty years ago would have dared stab his teacher. For that matter, kids didn’t carry knives around fifty years ago.

  26. you should see what shunda says about you greens…when he is over with his buddies/kin-folk @ kiwiblog…

    Come on then Phil, front up….(or shut up).

    Go get some evidence and paste er up dude.

    make sure you date it.

  27. Shunda – do you think it’s possible that you have been indoctrinated to hate liberals?
    It’s a very interesting question, suggested by SPC, who, if I may say so, has brought a fascinating element to this discussion.

    No I don’t think that is even slightly possible, to be honest, the group I struggle with the most is the Red necks that don’t think much about anything.

    What I can’t stand from the left is the constant deference to ‘oughts’ rather than a truly objective look at what is actually working and what isn’t.
    I find it infuriating.
    There are those of us that actually live among the poor and the troubled (and lets be honest, most Greens don’t) and can see things a little more directly.
    SPC relishes the chance to study the odd and scary ‘Shunda’ and jumps at the chance to psychoanalyse and explain why I am the way I am, and it is just utter bollocks.
    And for the record I can guarantee that I (and my wife) have probably endured far more crap from organised religion than most people on this blog.
    Perhaps the reason I am so reactionary at times is because certain individuals and ideas I encounter here remind me so strongly of the dogma and control I escaped from.
    I will say this, the similarities are often uncanny and bloody scary.

  28. The left focus on this bullsh!t anti smacking nonsense and completely misunderstand the real issue facing children.

    Shundu, my curiosity really has the best of me here, but, what IS the “real issue facing children”?

    Are you saying that there are parenting courses that teach parents to verbally abuse their children?

  29. Shunda – do you think it’s possible that you have been indoctrinated to hate liberals?
    It’s a very interesting question, suggested by SPC, who, if I may say so, has brought a fascinating element to this discussion.

  30. Violence is of the cult of authoriy imposed by force. All adventists aplogise for the use of godly force to assert their primacy over others.

    The idea of Kings ruling by force over the people is age old. Democracy, the empowerment of the people, reduced the exercise of this force as government became accountable to the people. With this change came the emancipation of women and the end of violent abuse of them by their husbands, including rape.

    But the old order used religion to justify the exercise of force to discipline the property of her father or her husband, the head of her household. And the the property of empires was their colonies. And so of course came the exercise of authority over children. And Maori were informed not to spare the rod if they were to be good parents.

  31. you should see what shunda says about you greens…when he is over with his buddies/kin-folk @ kiwiblog…

    ..he dosen’t hold back…eh..?

    ..he loathes you…

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  32. You can take the pentecostal out of shunda but the indoctrination to hate liberals is harder to remove.

  33. Did anybody say verbal abuse was OK?

    The left focus on this bullsh!t anti smacking nonsense and completely misunderstand the real issue facing children.
    I have seen the results of these garbage parenting programs that are favoured by the left and most of them them are just utter unsubstantiated theoretical nonsense.
    Sue Bradford hasn’t done a damned thing, not even a slight improvement in the fight against real violence against children.
    A total waste of time, money, and resources and an erosion of genuine parental leadership.

  34. @Sam Buchanan 7:24 PM

    Did anybody say verbal abuse was OK?

    I certainly didn’t, so not sure why Shunda dragged me into that comment.

  35. “We didn’t see children act in stupid ways because they knew that they would get smacked when they got home, or would get the cane from the teacher.”

    Yeah right.

  36. ““A new parenting programme targeted at Maori tells them they are inherently loving and nurturing caregivers and family violence has arisen only because of European missionaries.”

    You’re never going to fix things by teaching violent parents to blame someone else every time they asault their children.”

    True. But is anybody actually suggesting violent parents should blame somebody else? Nope. We just have some journo claiming that somebody else is doing that, and judging from the caricatured ‘stir-things-up’ tone of the intro to the piece Catherine links to, I don’t see any reason to take it seriously.

    Frankly, if you rely on the mainstream media for your picture of the world, and particularly of things Maori, you are going to spend all your days frothing at the mouth about fantasies and misunderstandings.

  37. “..a little bit of occasional smacking..”

    sanitising-language..

    and the outcomes..had you not hit them..?

    too horrific to contemplate..eh..?

    “..can work wonders for a child’s development and well being…”

    really..?..just from taking your hand…and smacking your child with it..?

    ‘works wonders’..eh..?

    ..ever asked them how they feel/felt about you smacking them..?

    ..or would they be too scared to answer honestly..?

    ..in case they cop yet another ‘loving-smack’…?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  38. “..Also, the reality is that when physical discipline was more commonplace, children were far more behaved…”

    bullshit..!..we were animals..

    ..parents didn’t know what we did..’cos we were never at home..

    (when i was about twelve we would hunt each other through the bush..using air-rifles…f.f.s..!..)

    ..and we just took our school-canings as they came..

    kids now are far more advanced/civilised…

    ..than those in yr nostalgia-drenched ‘old-times’..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  39. However, that does not justify physical discipline. The difficulty with going down that path is that parents often act spontaneously out of anger or embarrassment over what their child has done. And when a parent acts irrationally and disproportionately to the actual problem, as humans do given that we are not always rational creatures, a “smack” becomes a “bashing”.

    But verbal abuse is ok Toad? please.
    I have witnessed the verbal abuse more ‘liberal’ parents give their kids at times and it is far, far, more destructive than a smack on the bum ever would be.
    One carefully worded verbal assault on a child can do an incredible amount of damage and is absolutely a bigger issue than the odd smack for bad behaviour.
    Left wing ideology has a hell of a lot to answer for as far as I am concerned.
    My kids are well behaved and happy, we can go on holiday, camping, whatever and still enjoy each others company and have a great time, a little bit of occasional smacking between the age of 2-7 can work wonders for a child’s development and well being.
    Our family is better for it and my kids are generally nice to be around and socially well adjusted, and they have empathy and respect for other people.

  40. However, that does not justify physical discipline. The difficulty with going down that path is that parents often act spontaneously out of anger or embarrassment over what their child has done. And when a parent acts irrationally and disproportionately to the actual problem, as humans do given that we are not always rational creatures, a “smack” becomes a “bashing”.

    Toad, don’t forget that historically, smacks did not turn into bashings – it has been a more recent occurrence, and there are some who argue that bashings might be due to the presence of step-parents (i.e. they don’t have the blood connection which would keep actual parents from going overboard).

    Also, the reality is that when physical discipline was more commonplace, children were far more behaved. We didn’t see children act in stupid ways because they knew that they would get smacked when they got home, or would get the cane from the teacher.

  41. that’s quite a funny link there..helena…

    (i think you should click on it..frog…it isn’t actually about the republican nomination…(blush..!..)

    ..and it could be argued…an apt/whimsical aside…

    ..not a thread diversion attempt…

    ..well..that’s two for two…eh frog..?

    ..it get’s so complicated when you decide to play god/the great moderator..

    ..eh..?

    ..a very slippery slope..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  42. Go Frog!
    Rein in those old-chestnut sellers!
    I’m with samiam. Don’t hit them.
    You could manage your children’s behaviour without hitting them, ever.
    How hard is that?
    Not.

  43. it’s a barbarity-package frog…it was an aside…a dismissal..

    ..not an attempt to start a conversation on that subject…

    gee..!..i wonder what percentage of ‘keen’ hunters also fight for their right to smack/hit their children..?

    ..i reckon you’d be nearing 100%…(no i don’t have a link..)

    ..they are connected frog…there is a continuum…

    ..much like children who torture animals..go on to do it to humans..

    ..it’s all to do with a lack of empathy..

    ..and a disregard to others’ hurt/pain…both human and animal..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  44. y’know..you torture/kill/eat defenceless animals..

    ..you hit yr children…

    you are fucken barbarians..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

    [frog: And, in addition to what I said to Helena above, this is not an animal welfare thread either, Phil. This thread is about parenting. If you want to talk about animal welfare, there is always the General Debate thread if there are no recent posts on the issue.]

  45. i was not smacked..

    my children have never been smacked/physically-punished..

    ..my (now teenage) son and i have discussed this..

    ..and both find it extremely weird that people who purport to love their children..

    ..feel the/some need to hurt them…

    ..and will passionately argue for their right to do so…

    ..primitive savages..

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  46. phil u: or is it just another of yr orifice-plucks..?

    Santorum, Phil?

    [frog: Let's not go down that path. Depending on what happens with the GOP Presidential nomination process in the US, there may be a thread on that in the future, but it is not on topic here.]

  47. @Shunda barunda 3:25 PM

    It is correct that the Dunedin Multi-disciplinary Health and Development Unit study showed little difference in outcomes between children who were occasionally and lightly smacked with a hand and those who received no physical discipline.

    However, that does not justify physical discipline. The difficulty with going down that path is that parents often act spontaneously out of anger or embarrassment over what their child has done. And when a parent acts irrationally and disproportionately to the actual problem, as humans do given that we are not always rational creatures, a “smack” becomes a “bashing”.

    Adults sometimes lose control. It may be because of other things going on in their lives at the time that are stressing them, it may be because they are under the influence of alcohol or other drugs, it may be because of mental health issues, but it happens. A “smack” can so easily become a “bash” because an adult loses control.

    The best message to be putting out imo is the one samiam suggests above:

    Don’t smack any child (or adult) ever. Ever. the world would be a better place. I was NEVER smacked as a child, my brothers weren’t. I have raised three kids without smacking them once.

  48. “..Lightly smacking children has been proven to be harmless,..”

    Phil asks “gotta link/any evidence of that..?”

    Yes – “… those who were merely smacked had “similar or even slightly better outcomes” than those who were not smacked in terms of aggression, substance abuse, adult convictions and school achievement. ”

    From the world-reknowned University of Otago long term study. See
    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10404809

    “”I have looked at just about every study I can lay my hands on, and there are thousands, and I have not found any evidence that an occasional mild smack with an open hand on the clothed behind or the leg or hand is harmful or instils violence in kids,” she said.

    “I know that is not a popular thing to say, but it is certainly the case.

    “The more honest researchers have said, let’s be honest, we all wish we could say it’s all very clear and that no parent should ever lift a finger on a child – although I think that is totally unrealistic as a single parent myself – but the big problem is that a lot of the studies have lumped a whole lot of forms of physical punishment together.”

    Dr Millichamp said the Dunedin study so far found no evidence of the “slippery slope” theory – that parents who started off smacking often progressed to abusive punishments.

    “We couldn’t find any,” she said.

  49. “You’re never going to fix things by teaching violent parents to blame someone else every time they asault their children.”

    Rarely do we see a point being so widely mis-taken.
    I don’t think photonz is being wilfully oppositional here, nor do I think he is stupid, it’s just his ideology getting between him and reality.
    Sadly, there seems to be no way of curing that ill in him. We’ll just have to accommodate him and hope he has little influence in the world.

  50. “..Lightly smacking children has been proven to be harmless,..”

    gotta link/any evidence of that..?

    or is it just another of yr orifice-plucks..?

    phil(whoar.co.nz)

  51. Good for you Samiam, my experience is different, and it is good to know that studies conclusively show that you and I are doing no harm to our kids.
    But people that beat children are, let us focus on the real issues facing society instead of removing valid parenting tools from the mix due to an irrational fear driven by extremist left wing ideology.

  52. @ Janine, where did I say Catherine said the white guy was to blame? I didn’t.
    @ Shunda, Light smacking is bullshit. Don’t smack any child (or adult) ever. Ever. the world would be a better place. I was NEVER smacked as a child, my brothers weren’t. I have raised three kids without smacking them once. If an idiot father like me can, then so can others.

  53. You’re never going to fix things by teaching violent parents to blame someone else every time they asault their children.

    Exactly.

    This crap has got to stop, but quite frankly if the left stop it they will loose too much support.
    But don’t lie about it though, this support is due to the political exploitation of the dysfunction of others and it is an appalling way to gain a ‘mandate’.

    Lightly smacking children has been proven to be harmless, it is as simple as that, but still, they continue flogging this dead horse.

    But thank goodness for Sue Bradford! she ended child abuse don’t ya know!!

  54. @photonz1 1:50 PM

    I don’t know enough to comment on the historical accuracy of the assertions at that link, but I think the idea is to teach Maori parents that physical violence towards children is not the Maori way (rather than to blame Pakeha). Surely, that can only be good.

  55. Catherines link says ….

    “A new parenting programme targeted at Maori tells them they are inherently loving and nurturing caregivers and family violence has arisen only because of European missionaries.”

    You’re never going to fix things by teaching violent parents to blame someone else every time they asault their children.

  56. Where does Catherine blame ‘the white guy’ for Maori child abuse – she was merely suggesting that he look at his own history before dismissing someone else’s.

    It isn’t about teaching history but about looking for positive approaches that have dropped out of use. We can learn good things as well as bad from our history.

  57. The question is not whether having positive roll models is a good idea – I would argue that it is. The question is whether there are potential long term damages from teaching a history that is not based on evidence. Not that there is anything unusual about that – in fact it is often standard procedure.

  58. Blaming ‘the white guy’ for maori child abuse is a disgraceful cop-out.
    Giving kids (or anyone else for that matter) ‘the bash’ is unacceptable
    in any culture
    at any time
    any place
    Apportioning blame on anyone other than the immediate perpetrator is also utterly unacceptable.
    It snot, OK! As my kids like to say.

Comments are closed.