Corporal punishment
Lots of media coverage in the last couple of days about this release of Sue B’s, calling for the Ministry of Education to investigate allegations that some religious schools in New Zealand are practising corporal punishment against their students.
As well as several news items, the NZ Herald has a page inviting public comment on the issue, on which supporters of the school in question are disturbingly highly represented, and Morning Report this morning featured a pretty aggressive but quite alarming interview with the principal of another school who didn’t quite but everything but admitted that this goes on at his school as well.
As an aside, I was at primary school in 1989 when corporal punishment was outlawed. Our Deputy Principal played a joke on the senior school whereby he called every child into his office one by one to administer one last smack to each while he still could. Of course he didn’t, but kids were instructed to return rubbing their behinds and looking miserable to scare their classmates. In fact, he told each child that the strap was an arcane and cruel practice which hadn’t been used at our school for decades, despite its legal status, and that it should have been outlawed much sooner. Clearly the teachers at Tynedale Park Christian School could have benefited from similar “corrective discipline” in their own youth!
August 24th, 2006 at 1:43 pm
you go on this one ..eh..?
it has more ‘legs’ than a feckin’ caterpillar….
i’ve already done a story on it…
and am licking my lips with relish…
did anyone hear the christian pricipal on national radio breakfast digging a hole for himself with a frontend loader…?
he “..answers to god and parents..not the state..”
(um..about that state funding..?..and that law..?..)
you should whack that interview up on this site frog..
it’s a brilliant bit of anti-agit-prop…..
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 24th, 2006 at 1:54 pm
Christian = followers of Christ. otherwise known as Jesus of Nazareth
Sure! (Pull my other leg.)
August 24th, 2006 at 2:47 pm
Am I right in thinking that many of the (more recent) “Fundemental Christian” converts in Aotearoa have espoused largely Old Testament (of the Bible) based ideologies and practices introduced here via the USA?
Let’s face it, both “American Society”, as portrayed in the media, and the good old Patriarchal days of the Bible both exhibit (and condone) violent and punitive behaviour.
It is unfortunate when this mix is interpreted as “The Will of God” by some in Aotearoa!
Certainly NOT what Jesus of Nazareth would have supported, methinks?
The law must remain as it is, and I believe that most Kiwis would agree.
August 24th, 2006 at 9:00 pm
Nah
Whack the little buggers good and proper !!
just kidding,if my kids need whacking I will be the one to do it
August 24th, 2006 at 9:01 pm
“Let’s face it, both “American Societyâ€?, as portrayed in the media, and the good old Patriarchal days of the Bible both exhibit (and condone) violent and punitive behaviour.”
Certainly the American society protrayed in the media does show that sort of behaviour, but America is a huge continent, and there must be more to it than the parts the media want us to see … musn’t there??
August 24th, 2006 at 9:26 pm
I suggest you go there and find out !!!!
America is the greatest country in the world
it has paid in their blood for our freedom
Google “the battle of midway” and “the battle of the coral sea”
while you are there check out the “Cold War” and the Soviet Union”
August 25th, 2006 at 12:37 pm
This little toad remembers being strapped at primary school for some misdemeanour, then having such sore hands he could not write, so was strapped again for not doing his schoolwork. It was barbaric, and has no place in any school, Christian or not.
What’s more, it didn’t work. Some of the little boy toads, wanting to appear tough, held a competition among themselves to see who could get strapped the most in a term.
It is extremely disturbing that fundamentalists see themselves as above the law in this regard. This is the same mentality that has led to Christian crusades, Islamic jihad, and countless bloody wars over the centuries - that any level of barbarism is justified if it is done in the name of God.
August 25th, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Using “spare the rod and spoil the child” as a justification for one’s violent and un-educational behaviour has been justifiably legislated out of our education system.
Only those who wish to brutalize children, on the way to their inclusion in some form of brutalising institution (police, army spring to mind) are vested in defending this kind of behaviour, which apes the “Public” (actually, expensive private) schools of Britain.
The practices of flogging, caning and fagging were to accustom the boys to the pain of disobedience, as a threshold to gaining theri acceptance of oders transmitted by their superiors - to instill the kind of blind obedience which saw junior officers obey deathly orders, knowing full well that their command would be killed, but incapapble of disobeying an order, no matter how badly given.
The irony is that in this day and age, no-one in their right mind sends a child to a private school inorder to qualify their child to join the army, navy or air force (yes, snigger, we do still have one…)
The defence forces recruit during careers days like the ones held last week on Wellington’s Queen’s Wharf, and they focus on the disaffected and undereducated, who will sign up if they might get free tetriary education of some sort out of it. They’re pretty tame at the careers orientation events that happen on campus, too. (….although I did have an earnest young man offer me an application form for GCSB - an in-joke for the frogpond….)
It’s time to recognise that beating people, especially young people, will not make them learn in the way that intelligent, engaged and respectful dialogue can. And if we’re concerned about violence in our society, teaching young people how to speak respectfully to one another by the teacher’s example is a start.
August 25th, 2006 at 1:29 pm
kiore1 (and Panda!)
That got a reaction!!
Perhaps if you rearead what I said you would notice that I wrote “American Society” (in parenthesis) and then “as portrayed by the media”.
And YES, I have “been there and found out”.
My only sibling and his family are American citizens, having lived there for decades. (Also, when I worked in Canada for several winters, I travelled in the US extensively between seasons.)
Because of my knowledge I recognise the root of the new Christian movement in NZ, and recognise the introduction of words like “blessed” (rather than “fortunate”) and “passing” or “passing over” (rather than “dying”)… and watching “Pastors” (rather than Ministers”) like Brian Tamaki in action.
AND YES! Panda
As one who was born in 1941, I was brought up on the “Battle of the Coral Sea” and … and … !!! (However, I never think of the US “take” on the “Cold War” and the “Soviet Union” as particularly in “our” interests!)
Kia ora!
August 25th, 2006 at 4:06 pm
The school is breaking the law, and that’s that. If you don’t agree with the law there are other ways of protesting other than going ahead and doing what you like anyway…
BUT…
Why do so many people put ‘beating children’ as a one and only form of discipline, and smacking as a last resort in the same basket? If I say to my child “that is not appropriate behaviour because…” and they still keep doing it, and I say “I’ve told you not to do that, if you do it again I will put you in time out”, and they do it again, and I put them in time out, but they won’t stay there, so I say ” if you will not stay in time out until the timer goes off you will leave me no chice but to give you a smack”, that is not abuse, that is teaching my children a very valuable life lesson, that all actions have consequences. As parents we are often required to do things to our children that they do not like, for their own good, like giving immunisation shots, making them eat their veges, putting antiseptic on a cut, taking away toys or priveleges for bad behaviour…. Why is it that physical punishment is singled out as being against children’s rights, while the rest is considered good parenting?
August 25th, 2006 at 5:46 pm
B asks:
“Why is it that physical punishment is singled out as being against children’s rights, while the rest is considered good parenting?”
Let’s see if I can explain this correctly!
The first answer is that some parents go well beyond a(n occasional) “smack”.
To elaborate:
The law is such that “reasonable force” (section 59) has been interpreted more liberally in court cases because of “precedent”. Thus what would be recognised as “physical asault” upon an adult could be excused when the victim is a child.
The second answer is that there are more appropriate (and effective) ways of “disciplining” (or socialising) people (in this case children). Children learn by example.
To elaborate
If “it isn’t OK to hit people” (which is what we tell our children) WHY do any of us think it is OK to hit small people, especially in a “ritual” manner?
What do you do or say when your kid hits other kids who are smaller than him/her?
Early Childhood Educators can usually point out the kids who have been hit at home (regulary or on occasion) by the way in which they interact with their peers (especially when the hitting was recent … or frequent).
Children who are/have been hit tend to hit others.
Having said all of that: as a parent who does NOT believe in hitting, I did smack each of my two kids on occasion. (This was as an unsupported, working, sole parent without adequate sleep, and often under great stress, and I HATE TO THINK how it might have escalated had I believed that hitting was OK.) I still remember the look of total shock and surprise on each of their faces (and they are now adults.)
August 25th, 2006 at 9:59 pm
The fact that some parents go beyond what is reasonable force does not make smacking inherently wrong, just as binge drinking does not mean that all alcohol consumption should be illegal.
If a police officer uses force on someone who is resisting arrest, it is within their rights as an authority figure. The fact that some members of the police step over the line does not mean we should remove all police right of force against criminals, it simply means we should clarify further what is acceptable and get tougher on those that do step over that line. The same is true for the whole abuse/smacking debate.
What is the difference between me smacking my child as discipline, and a child hitting another child? The child is not in a position of authority over that child. If they took a toy off another child I would consider that wrong also, but when I do it as discipline it is reasonable behaviour.
Your comments about children being hit at home repeating that behaviour is true, for children who are HIT. The studies done that actually separate abuse from (what the majority consider) discipline have found no evidence to suggest that reasonable discipline increases violence.
The argument against Section 59, that parents have been let off for doing things to their children that if done against another adult would be considered assault is simple minded. Of course things that, if done to another adult, would be considered illegal have been found acceptable to a court -If I was to force another adult into a room and forcefully detain them there for any period of time that would be illegal, as a parent it is called time out. If I was to force another adult to undress and take a bath against their will I would be considered a sexual predator, as a parent , It’s simply giving my child a bath-STOP COMPARING CHILD-ADULT RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULT-ADULT RELATIONSHIPS, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!
August 26th, 2006 at 9:50 am
well you don’t need to SHOUT, B.
But it’s an excellent point.
I would never hit/smack my children (well, never… I think I’ve done it twice in thirteen years of parenthood).
But I won’t automatically consider another parent as “bad” if they occasionally smack their progeny.
Diffrent strokes for diffrent folks?
August 26th, 2006 at 1:01 pm
It interests me that in the discussions (over a period of several years) about the removal of Section 59 from the Crimes Act, men predominate in the “pro the right to smack” side of the argument.
Without Section 59 in the Act, parents will obviously not be prosectued for lightly smacking their own children. However, other vulnerable children in our society, in situations where excessive force is used, will have greater protection. That is the reason for the proposed law change, and the call has come from experts-in-the-field who see the results of current behaviour.
As with other laws, considering “the spirit of the law” and the reasons within our society for that law is very important.
Not making smacking inherently WRONG is not the same as making it inherently RIGHT.
Is it really too much, to ask adults to consider the potential wellbeing of other vulnerable, “at-risk” children in our society ahead of their personal “RIGHT” to physically punish their own children AND to feel virtuous about it at the same time?
(As a footnote: It is possible that our social mores will change over time so that smacking will be used less and less. That change tends to go hand in hand with a less violent society … which, from current statisitcs, is what Aotearoa needs!)
August 26th, 2006 at 1:37 pm
B:
I assure you that I am not “simple minded” in the way you use the term!
You seem to approach the world from an authoriotarian heirarchical model, and I live by (and have taught my now-adult offspring) a cooperative egalitarian model.
Therefore we see the behaviour of humans (and the relationship with, and the upbringing of children) through very different eyes.
It is the area in which I am (very) well qualified and have worked for most of my academic career, but I am retired now, so will follow my late (non-violent) father’s maxim: “There is no point in farting against thunder!”
Kia ora!
August 26th, 2006 at 9:11 pm
Actually, I said your particular view of Section 59 was simple minded; the difference being ’simple minded’ people as I presume you are referring to are unable to think things through with much logic or intellegence, while even intellegent people are capable of simple minded views if they choose not to think them through completely.
Furthermore, I ask you, is it too much to ask for anti-smacking brigaders like yourself to put aside your own agendas (outlawing smacking completely) to consider the possibility that there might be a compromise that will protect both at-risk children AND parental authority?
As for the view that a decline in smacking goes hand-in-hand with a decline in violence in society, how would you balance that with the drastic increase in violent crime in NZ since corporal punishment in schools was banned, or the 672% increase in child-against-child assaults that Sweden has seen since a similar anti-smacking law was passed there?
As for my parenting style, my own time studying Child Psychology taught me that an ideal parenting model was neither completely Authoritarian nor completely Egaliterian, but a balance of both which is something I have strived for. I ask for, and respect my children’s input into as many areas of our family decisions as possible; I always ask them for their co-operation rather than demanding it, and put my foot down over only the most important issues; we encourage healthy debate in our household and allow our children to question our decisions as long as it is done in a respectful manner. However, on the odd occasion that one of our children does not follow the rules that our family has agreed on, I do assert my authority and hold them accountable. This is to prepare them for adult life where they will have to answer to the authority of teachers, employers and the law. This does not make me overly authoritarian and I would have thought that someone with as much knowledge and experience in this area as you would not jump to conclusions with so little information about someone.
Lastly, like myself, cooperative egalitarian parents acknowledge their children’s intelligence (even if lacking in maturity), so I wonder why you can’t see the obvious elephant in the room which is this… police may not intend to prosecute parents for a ‘light smack’ but it will not take long for our intellegent children to figure out that if their immediate gratification immaturity does not correspond with our delayed gratification logic, there isn’t actually much that their parents can legally do to stop them doing what they like.
August 27th, 2006 at 5:30 am
b said..
“..STOP COMPARING CHILD-ADULT RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULT-ADULT RELATIONSHIPS, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!..”
um..apart from the age difference they are..aren’t they..?
in the sense of love/respect/care…?
do you hit adults you love/respect/care for..?
no..?….
so why do you it to children..?..and think it’s ok..?
phil9whoar.o.nz)
August 27th, 2006 at 8:08 am
B says: “STOP COMPARING CHILD-ADULT RELATIONSHIPS WITH ADULT-ADULT RELATIONSHIPS, THEY ARE NOT THE SAME THING!”
Indeed B, children need/deserve more tolerance, protection, guidance and care from the adults who are looking after them. As it stands, they are the least protected in our society, strange eh?
And tell me, what is the big lesson you are teaching a child when you smack/hit one?
August 27th, 2006 at 4:22 pm
John Key looks in the mirror: “We’ve now got to the stage where one in 50 jobs in New Zealand is as a bureaucrat,� says Mr Key. “This is doing nothing productive for the economy but filling office blocks in Wellington.�
So goes the gospel according to Mr 100k officesuit paid for by public money….who’s up bringing was in state housing wasn’t it?……was he belted when a kid, is that why the low self esteem? Has he heard of double think before?
Is private, not public, less bureacratic cause less oversight makes corruption less regulated giving less hassle in the production of concentrated private profits due to less competition from other bureacrats, especially the odd one or two actually functioning for the wider public good? Uknow, the type of unsavoury characters who back in the day would have played a part in creating public housing..
August 27th, 2006 at 9:38 pm
Actually Eredwen, I said your view on Section 59 was simple minded, the difference being ’simple minded’ people, as I presume you were refering lack the ability for logical and intellegent thought whereas even intellegent people are capable of simple minded views if they don’t bother to think them through properly.
And I ask you… is it too much to ask for you to put aside your own minority agenda to consider the idea that there might be a compromise that will protect both children at-risk AND parental authority? Defining reasonable force will close up whatever legal loophole may exist while still supporting parents in their role. After all, according to Sue B the purpose of this Bill is not to criminilise parents who lightly smack their children…or maybe it is, and you’re all just taking us for simple minded folk who won’t see through it?
As for my parenting style, my own time spent studying child psychology taught me that the best parenting method was not total Authoritarian OR total Egalitarian but a balance of both. Our children are respected as members of our family, they are included in decision making and encouraged to challenge and debate with us as long as it’s done in a respectful manner. I always ask rather than tell them and I only put my foot down when it is absolutely necessary, preferring mainly to let natural consequences take their course. I would have thought that someone with as much intellegence and experience as you Eredwen wouldn’t form conclusiuons with such little information.
However to answer your question Aladin…What am I teaching my children? If my toddler pulls away from my hand to run across the road, I can try to reason with him, but at his age he won’t understand the seriousness of it straight away, it will take repetition for it to sink in, so I guess I could wait for him to do it again and let natural consequences take their course and have him get run over? Or, I can give him smack on the hand (as well as explaining to him) so he associates running across the road with pain, which in my opinion is a good thing, I know my smack will hurt alot less than a car driving 50km. I know it works because from then on he would point to the road (not me) and say ouch! As they get older and can understand logic, I reason with them more and smack a lot less. If my older children get a smack it is always after I have tried reasoning with them and they have been warned, ‘if you do this again, you will get a smack’. That’s teaching them that no-one is above the law and everyone is accountable to someone (even principals of christian schools have to answer to the state)
And to answer you PhilU, Yes, both adults and chiildren deserve our love, care and respect, but they are different types of love and care. Do I love my children unconditionally, even if they cause me pain or discomfort? Yes.
Do I love my husband unconditionally? I’ll put up with an awful lot, but not unconditionally no.
Do I care for both my children and husband? Yes.
But do I tell my husband when to go to bed, or make him wear a sweater when it is cold? NO.
Do I respect both my husband and children? Yes.
Will I allow my children to make the final decision if an agreement cannot be reached? NO
Different Love, different care, different respect…what’s the difference?
Authority
August 28th, 2006 at 12:42 am
B:
Judging by the tone of your posts, I get the impression that you feel as if you are in “hostile territory” here ? That is certainly not the case (quite the opposite in fact). Unlike a lot of blogs, frogblog is generally genuinely friendly and non combatant. In case of doubt, please assume so!
As you are obviously a conscieintious parent who is very concerned about “Section 59″, I have collected your questions together so that perhaps I, and others can take some time to answer your concerns!
B asks:
1::Why do so many people put ‘beating children’ as a one and only form of discipline, and smacking as a last resort in the same basket?
2::Why is it that physical punishment is singled out as being against children’s rights, while the rest is considered good parenting?
3::After all, according to Sue B the purpose of this Bill is not to criminilise parents who lightly smack their children…or maybe it is, and you’re all just taking us for simple minded folk who won’t see through it?
4:: And I ask you… is it too much to ask for you to put aside your own minority agenda to consider the idea that there might be a compromise that will protect both children at-risk AND parental authority? Defining reasonable force will close up whatever legal loophole may exist while still supporting parents in their role. After all, according to Sue B the purpose of this Bill is not to criminilise parents who lightly smack their children…or maybe it is, and you’re all just taking us for simple minded folk who won’t see through it?
OK everybody: (gentle) answers please!
B: Watch this space!
eredwen
August 28th, 2006 at 12:49 am
Ay caramba! It’s not often you see a woman so fervently defending the right to smack children and I gotta say I find it downright creepy. B, I really think all the time you took to type that sanctimonious rave would have been better spent watching a few episodes of The Nanny.
I totally agree with Toad that “It is extremely disturbing that fundamentalists see themselves as above the law in this regard. This is the same mentality that has led to Christian crusades, Islamic jihad, and countless bloody wars over the centuries - that any level of barbarism is justified if it is done in the name of God.”
My mother, although not fundamentalist, was a Christian Sunday School teacher and her interpretation of “divine right to discipline children by smacking” - all of which would be dismissed as “reasonable force” under Section 59 - amounted to nothing less than domestic terrorism, leaving scars on my self-esteem for decades.
I have no time for argments that defend the merits of using smacking as a legitimate tool to educate or discipline children. When an adult raises their hand to a child they have failed in their duty to provide protection and guidance - not fulfilled it.
Section 59 has GOT to go!
August 28th, 2006 at 1:33 am
Woops:
The above post shold read as below.
(3 and 4 repeated the same question.)
B:
Judging by the tone of your posts, I get the impression that you feel as if you are in “hostile territory� here ? That is certainly not the case (quite the opposite in fact). Unlike a lot of blogs, frogblog is generally genuinely friendly and non combatant. In case of doubt, please assume so!
As you are obviously a conscieintious parent who is very concerned about “Section 59″, I have collected your questions together so that perhaps I, and others can take some time to answer your concerns!
B asks:
1::Why do so many people put ‘beating children’ as a one and only form of discipline, and smacking as a last resort in the same basket?
2::Why is it that physical punishment is singled out as being against children’s rights, while the rest is considered good parenting?
3::And I ask you… is it too much to ask for you to put aside your own minority agenda to consider the idea that there might be a compromise that will protect both children at-risk AND parental authority? Defining reasonable force will close up whatever legal loophole may exist while still supporting parents in their role. After all, according to Sue B the purpose of this Bill is not to criminilise parents who lightly smack their children…or maybe it is, and you’re all just taking us for simple minded folk who won’t see through it?
…………………………………………………………………………………………..
OK everybody: (gentle) answers please!
B: Watch this space!
eredwen
August 28th, 2006 at 2:14 am
Sue Bradfords next job will be head of the Unemployed Politicians Union. 3%>2%>1%>……..
F
August 28th, 2006 at 7:54 am
To B: If you believe that it is acceptable to hit a child for whatever reason, then you not only condone violence but you also contribute to the view that children are not entitled to the same rights as other people and surely you can see that this is wrong.
August 28th, 2006 at 10:07 am
B made an interesting pint that the parent/child relationship is one of authority and cannot be compared with that between equal adults. So far so good. But while other authority relationships (police, staff on ships or planes, firefighters etc.) do allow some leeway in terms of coercion, actually striking another adult is not allowed. So for example a police officer can restrain someone, and a firefighter may also restrain someone from going into a building if it is dangerous, but they may not hit them. Of course if the person insists on going into the building and punches the firefighter, then more rigorous restraint or even hurting the person may be necessary, and that would be analogous to B’s scenario of children refusing time out. But in that case a defence against assault could be made, and in any event how often would that actually happen in real life. In schools (which is what this blog is about), I have not come across students actually refusing time out or detentions where the detaining was just.
And I endorse previous comments about this blog being relatively friendly. I don’t always agree with everyone on these posts, but I don’t feel particularly threatened personally. Those who think that personal attacks are common here could perhaps try out some of the other blogs linked on the right in order to know what a really vicious blog is like!
August 28th, 2006 at 12:31 pm
Glad we can all have a friendly debate. Personal attacks are usually just a way of avoiding the real topic and as such a waste of time. I’ll add 2 more questions to your list also Eredwen:
If zANavAShi thinks I failed my children so by choosing to (occasionally) smack, what would s/he do in the situation I mentioned above?
Also, just in case there was confusion I do not support leaving Section 59 untouched either. I think genuine abuse, or even righteous crap like the booklet put out by one organisation (cant remember which) instructing that smacking should be a 10 minute affair abhorent. But forget smacking, even threatening time out will be illegal if Section 59 is fully repealed, let alone actually carrying it out. Now the police aren’t probably gointg to uphold it, but it is about perceived authority. It won’t take long for our incredibly smart children to figure out that physically there is nothing we can do to stop them doing whatever they like. SO second question, What would you do if your 14yr old daughter wanted to go to a party where you knew there would be drugs, alcohol and sex. You reasoned with her why it wasn’t a good idea but she stormed out anyway? Now she’s not actually attacking you, so you can’t claim self defence to stop her, what do you do?
(oh, and I don’t know how long it takes you to write your posts zANavAShi, but I’m a relatively fast typer, so 10 min on here seems alot more worthwhile than watching The Nanny)
August 28th, 2006 at 1:44 pm
Whew!
It’s amazing how fast a topic can run when you skip watching for a couple of days while the ‘flu takes over…
eredwen, thanks for the summarising, and B thanks for persevering with clarification of what is a very thorny topic amongst parent educators and peer-parent groups.
My own parenting journey began 17 years ago; so right now, I’m at the cliffface of the teenager who goes to school balls, after parties, class bbq’s in the hols, and discusses her boyfriend, her mates, the drinking and the drugs.
I’m very grateful that I left a fundamental christian group in time to stop smacking my kids, and to improve my skills verbally and non-verbally enough that my daughter *does* talk to me. I’m not holding my breath on my son developing the same skills of communication as quickly, as I’ve been reliably informed (I interviewed Celia Lashlie once, and thoroughly recommend her books) that a smile as he dashes out the door, and a few hugs along the way, plus rare sentences will be my lot, for about 4 years, starting soon.
My nephews, however, come from the later breeding members of my family, and are “Millenials”, wee folk whose parents have had a huge shock coming from their nice ordered careers into the maelstrom of parenting.
Their parents have watched me learn over the years, and in tandem with parenting group info, have chosen not to smack, and to change many facets of their work-life balance to help these little humans get used to modern life. I’m loving being an aunty, and I can understand why my sister was so happy with that role for so long!!
Yes, explaining things to toddlers is difficult. But guess what: human brains are wired to learn vocabulary as it is used in context, and the more language expressed to a toddler (and to babies) the faster they learn… so speak to your children BEFORE you go on adventures, use planning vocabulary, build anticipation and excitement into your family outings experience, and don’t forget that each phrase of meaning that you utter will need to be repeated at least once a week, sometimes daily, for the first decade of the child’s life, because cognitive acquisition of meaning is incremental: You are not nagging, you are teaching incrementally!
Economies of scale come into play with second and subsequent children in that one sentence aimed at all the children inthe room can save time and parental brain cells..
Using techniques such as distraction, diversion and chanelling interests by age group can stop inter-child rivalries turning into fights that might call for punishment. Pro-active parenting is much easier on your conscience than reactive. Just takes some conscious awareness of what are the available outcomes for particular parenting decisions, which generally gets learnt as you go, ans tends to be idiosyncratic to the personalities of the adults and children involved.
Being a parent implies growing human/s; not cloning oneself, but exploring the personality of a new person who happens to be in your own family. It’s a huge attitudinal adjustment, from being a non-parent, and it really does affect you for the rest of your life (especially if any of your children contemplate university study, at which point the powers-that-be inform you that you are responsible for them until they are 25!)
There are as many ways of parenting as there are colours on the L’oreal hair chart, but to paraphrase Barbera Coloroso, You are worth it, and Kids are worth it! The biggest thing that helps parents is feeling a sense of community with other parents, and learning to reach out and make friends with people you’ve never spoken to in your nieghbourhood, simply because they’ve got kids a similar age to your kids, can open up wonderful avenues in your life, for many decades. I’ve met many interesting adults through my kids, and they’ve met interesting kids who belong to adults that I know, so it runs both ways!
BTW, I’ve never seen an American sit-com about parenting that ever hit the mark with what we do here in NZ, because they are usually so far behind us in the social demographic sense that the ideas are outmoded by the time the shows hit the floor at TVNZ or TV3, or whoever.
New paradigms in educational theory never get a look in (When did you last see someone talk about Montessori or Steiner principles?) and it’s usually very upper-middle class american angst issues that really don’t translate across the culture to our basically british + polynesian + mulitcultural immigrants population of “modern aotearoa”.
August 28th, 2006 at 3:45 pm
“You reasoned with her why it wasn’t a good idea but she stormed out anyway?”
The nasty little secret of parenting is that you can’t control your kids like little robots, no matter how good a parent you are. You can just push them in the right direction.
Whether it’s a two-year-old dripping pee onto the floor while simultaneously claiming that she’s NOT peeing and she does NOT need to go to the toilet, or a 14-year old sneaking out to party, you just gotta perservere and hope it all turns out right.
I guess locking her in her room (or the toilet) might stop her for a few hours, but it’s hardly a long-term fix. But if she’s truly set against you, at 14, there’s just not much you can do about it. At least she’s not 17 and stealing your car.
[those parents whose 17-yr old son stole their car, and they refused to pay his bail because they thought a few days in jail would shock him into realising that being an adult means being responsible, and then the son died in custody because our prisons are brutal, nasty places... oh there is a lot worse than having your daughter sneak out to a party]
You could yell at her, or thump her. But my random sample of parents doesn’t show that as working very well on 2-year-olds, I can’t see it’d work much better on a 14 year old. We are humans, not rats. Social control is a mental game, not a physical one.
Parenting 14-year-olds is still almost decade away for me. But I’d say that you should cut her allowance, ground her, and talk to her about it. At length. Over and over. Calmly. Rationally. It’ll drive her nuts.
August 28th, 2006 at 10:34 pm
OK B, I’ll start with the easy one…
About smacking the hand of the kid who runs across the road.
When my firstborn was about 18 months old, I was working in the garden with her mother, while she slept in the house. Then she’s sitting on the 2nd floor window ledge, saying “cuckoo” to us…
(our fault for leaving the window open/ without bars, but never mind)
While her mother hovers under the window, I race upstairs and grab her off the windowsill. My emotion was so palpable that she burst into tears.
She never pulled that trick again!
I guess it’s a parenting style that requires a high degree of empathy, that not all parents have with their kids (from observation). A shame.
As for the party thing, I’m up for that next… and not sure how I’ll handle it… she’s thirteen now.
August 28th, 2006 at 11:15 pm
B:
I am interested in your point of view. (I’m also curious to know if you HAVE watched any episodes of “The Nanny”? I find it an excellent programme showing parents effective ways to interact with children and change behaviour patterns…)
Leaving aside your interpretation of, and fears about, the removal of Section 59 (which I do not share) …
Your hypothetical question: “What would you do if your 14yr old daughter wanted to go to a party where you knew there would be drugs, alcohol and sex. You reasoned with her why it wasn’t a good idea but she stormed out anyway? Now she’s not actually attacking you, so you can’t claim self defence to stop her, what do you do?”
My answer: Are you suggesting coporal punishment (or the threat of) as a possible way to make a 14 year old girl behave the way you want her to? … or are you talking about threatening/enforcing “time out” or restraining her in some way?
I’m quietly remembering my “darling little daughter” at fourteen (I found irony and humour kept me sane!) She was quite a challenge at times. ( I summed up our relationship as “One word from me and she does what she likes”!) Now she is a delightful, gentle, responsible and caring 23 year old .
I remembered MY parents (when, at 14, before I went to my first social occasion that they knew little about) saying “Just remember that we trust you.”
I remember clearly how well their “trust in me” worked as a VERY effective control mechanism. I was empowered by my parents to be responsible for myself and do the right thing, and therefore I felt that I must not let them down. (Only when a parent myself, I learnt that “trusting” one’s adolescent kid does not remove all parental anxiety, but also that it is the parent’s personal, and private, problem to deal with.)
In my experience, kids from families that rely on external discipline fare less well in these challenging situations. Internal discipline works best. (However, it takes time and nurturing to aquire). Some in our society obvouisly never really get there!
A partial answer, but it shows the flavour …
August 28th, 2006 at 11:36 pm
A corollary to that … at the age of 16 I was chosen for a “training squad” for
the up and coming in my chosen sport. That meant regular weekends away from home in communal bunkrooms in mountain huts, shared with my peers and with young adults of both sexes who were not part of our group.
My upbringing and the “trust” my parents placed on me saw me through with no problems. I slept through the suruptitious extra curricular activities of others… (and that was in the late 1950s.)
August 29th, 2006 at 2:10 am
Yes eredwen, The Nanny is a brilliant TV program and I would encourage anyone who is a parent or care-giver of children to watch it regularly. I learn so many new and empowering things from her show every week.
Another thing I highly recommend is Play Center Training. It is a wonderful education program for understanding what children of different ages are capable of understanding and teaches some many excellent techniques for dealing with toddlers which are totally non-violent.
August 29th, 2006 at 10:00 am
Great feedback, thanks. As for the 14 yr old scenario, no I wasn’t advocating smacking (I can see that having about as much effect as pushing water up hill with a sieve), and I agree that a relationship with your children is the best defence to situations like this (I still remember the worse punishment I ever recieved was my father looking at me and seeing how dissapointed he was). But even having having a great relationship with my Dad, when drugs and peer pressure get in the way, your priorities start to get a bit awol. I’m talking more about physically stopping your child hopping in the car with a bunch of drunk guys. Any type of physical restraint or even threat of physical restraint will be illegal is Section 59 is repealed. Now maybe the police won’t uphold it, but that to me seems just bad law making- changing a law, but saying you aren’t going to uphold it 90% of the time!
As for the toddler crossing the road, I never said I didn’t verbalise with them aswell, explaining why we don’t run across the road, but to me, a light smack on the hand helps differentiate between ‘we don’t run in house’ (you might get hurt) and ‘we musn’t run across the road’ (you might get KILLED). Obviously this works only if you use this method very occasionaly, as I do-I know alot of people don’t, but changing the law and saying ‘don’t worry, we’re not going to uphold it’ does nothing to change these poeple’s behaviour. Defining the law and strictly upholding it will have much more effect in my opinion.
And as for The Nanny, great porgramme I agree. Are you aware that in a recent interview of NZ’s top QC’s all of them agreed that if Section 59 is repealed alot of The Nanny’s most common techniques will be constitued illegal?
August 29th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
Alistair
Your “cookoo” story is wonderful !
(An excapsulated picture of parenthood … and all its emotions.)
August 29th, 2006 at 4:27 pm
woops!
“encapsulated” is better!
August 30th, 2006 at 1:18 am
B Says: Are you aware that in a recent interview of NZ’s top QC’s all of them agreed that if Section 59 is repealed alot of The Nanny’s most common techniques will be constitued illegal?
I find that pretty hard to believe, as I have never seen The Nanny promote techniques which are physically violent or constitute “unreasonable force”.
I would like to see a source link to verify that claim.
August 30th, 2006 at 7:03 am
I see you guys are STILL at it. Unreason and distraction being the chief problems we seem to inflict on ourselves.
What does this have to do with our core beliefs? Why is it we have to CREATE issues to divide us when perfectly good and far more acceptable and less divisive means of accomplishing the same end exist?
…and how the heck did this thread drift back to 59 vs the alternatives. It was, if I recall correctly, something to do with schools to start with, no?
I know some of you have it firmly in your OPINIONS that this opportunity to make illegal something you believe is unnecessary, is to be seized at any cost. However the politically prudent action was and remains, to delineate and make illegal the ABUSE that must be controlled, not the spankings you think are unneeded.
I note that you seem to be in the minority in this view, in this society, and in almost all others as well. The reduction of the Green party to complete political irrelevance seems a rather rather likely unintended consequence, and I regard your efforts as better serving National party than our own interests.
In other words, if this and other irrelevancies continue to shift the party to the left of left, left center we can kiss our electoral margin goodbye.
This is not a good idea when alternatives that accomplish the stated goal of reducing ABUSE, without committing political suicide, exist.
This is not a good idea when the planet is conspiring to kill off the human species and REAL issues threaten to overwhelm our tiny ability to influence policy and
politics.
I am aghast at the wasted time and effort and political capital here.
BJ
>
August 30th, 2006 at 9:28 am
Obviously you have no idea what repealing Section 59 actually means from a legal standpoint. By removing Section 59 ‘reasonable force’ will no longer apply, making all parent-child contact bound by the same law which governs adult-adult relationships. Consequently, anything constituting assault on an adult, would also apply to parents and children. This means that ANY force or even threat of force applied against a child would be illegal. This includes ‘get back into bed or I will carry you in there myself’, or ‘that behaviour is not acceptable, you need to go sit in the time-out chair’ and physically carrying them to time-out if they refuse. Like I said, the police may not uphold it, but that is just illogical law-making. The very fact the the police will not uphold this law will make people even more complacent in their abuse of children. As for the link to these interviews, I do not know if they are actually posted on the web, but check out the June issue of Investigate magazine, with an interview of your very own Sue B.
In the end though, BJ summed it up best- With the things that are really destroying society and the planet, why waste so much time on something you deem simply as unnecessary? There are enough real evils in this world to keep us busy for a long time.
August 30th, 2006 at 9:31 am
so..you’re aghast bj….at the wasted time and effort..?
i concur…
perhaps if you stopped trumpeting your pro-smacking view..on and bloody on…(CAPITAL-LETTER-WORDS..and all..)
my god man..!..you really are an american..eh..?
(a nation in chronic need of sub-editors..)
phil(whoar.co.nz)
August 30th, 2006 at 11:05 am
B - I believe many of your concerns are addressed by a proposed amendment to the laws governing assualt to clarify that some parental actions will not be offences. This amendment was suggested by two Victoria University academics making a submission on the Bill, and Sue B has indicated that she supports it. You can read about it here.
August 30th, 2006 at 12:12 pm
Shouldnt corporal punishment be seen in the wider context of maintaining discipline in class, so children can recieve an education?
There was an expert talking about this a few days ago on Nine to Noon, he sounded on the back foot to me; for instance ….　how do you get a bad kid out of a class? You cant physically remove them.
Why is it that we have people breaking their necks to get “into” certain schools? Isn’t it that they want to stay “out of” certain schools? In “solving” one problem you can cause another and I’m wondering at the paradigm that some of our feminist politicians carry (I.e ‘men are the problem’…..’capitalism is the problem’… Sounds bizzare but I don’t think we should dismiss such things too quickly) We need to see the big picture
F
August 30th, 2006 at 1:00 pm
Thanks Frog, I know, Sue has said she will support reformation over repeal -if necessary. I’m just trying to make sure that as many people as possible realise it is necessary. Something definitely needs doing in regards to section 59, I just think Sue’s bill in it’s original state was ineffective and flawed and I don’t need a degree from Victoria University to see that.
August 30th, 2006 at 1:27 pm
And bjchip, I am aghast that you do not get the connection that to have a non-violent world, it starts with becoming a non-violent person and modelling that to new generations. That is how I chose to break the cycle of violence in my own family. It stops with ME.
If children were raised from infancy with non-violent co-operation and conflict resolution as their role models I think your US military would have a very hard time finding new recruits.
The same might be said for not raising children under this particular form of fundamentalist coroporal punishment ideology promoted at Tynedale.
Don’t you think the high percentage of righteous young god-faring men who sign up in your US military is significant?
August 30th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
F:
I agree that “we need to see the big picture.”
The socialization of each child is a part of the “big picture”.
Children learn by example.
“I can hit you but you can’t hit me because I am bigger than you” is very much part of the “big picture” at many levels in our society and beyond, and I’m sure you don’t approve of it spilling over into the streets?
Look at the current behaviour of the USA in the world today. They would say they are “maintaining discipline”.)
Every one of these proponents started off as a small child …
Some societies do not condone the use physical punishment on their children, and it shows in their societies. I hope that Aotearoa will join them.
I am a retired teacher (whose parents and a grand parent were very successful, respected, and “liked” teachers) None of us ever used “corporal punishment” to “maintain discipline”. There are many more effective methods available … (such as an enthusiasm for what one is teaching, a genuine liking of and respect for the kids, a sense of humour, some skills in “crowd control”, the ability to remain very calm, and some acting skills!)
August 30th, 2006 at 5:44 pm
zAnavASHi
I have no intention of abandoning the most powerful learning mechanism in biology or history for lectures to a child who’s vocabulary has scarcely progressed beyond “Papa” and “Momma”.
I don’t think that total non-violence is achievable for the planet in any case. This is a lovely dream but is likely to be fatal in a real world.
Short answer? No. Not significant.
The significant problem in the USA is the self-righteous god-fearing liars and hypocrites who wound up in power without ever serving in combat or seeing death.
People don’t join the military because they were spanked as kids.
The balance between forcefully standing up for one’s rights and settling things by peaceful negotiation is not struck by removing one side of the balance…. and the need to strike that balance is real. Peace on Earth? I hope for it and I work for it, but I do not for one second believe that it can be had by my simply abandoning my own self-defence and self-preservation…. or that of the nation.
but then I am a guy….
Which doesn’t mean that I want kids whacked at school. I’d allow as if they’re going to get a spanking I need to know why… the parents need to be in control of this. It’s not appropriate for just anyone to do it, and it isn’t appropriate in a school. If physical force/restraint is needed when a child has reached the size and age where he/she can actually threaten a teacher, it is already too late for the lesson to take hold.
respectfully
BJ
August 31st, 2006 at 3:05 am
BJ : What does this have to do with our core beliefs?
Absolutely everything. If you don’t share our core belief in non-violence, then you can….
… er, look for a non-confrontational way of working around it.
(nearly said something un-nonviolent there!)
August 31st, 2006 at 7:29 am
Alistair - That’s a good point. I take my belief in non-violence and temper it with my knowledge that somebody has to protect my society from rude strangers. I temper it with my knowledge that the Vietnam war did not end because we all got together and decided “not to go”. That the people who’ve start wars in the USA are UNANIMOUSLY from the chickenhawk brigade, and have never served nor seen combat.
That said I DO agree with non-violent resolution of conflicts wherever possible. I don’t pick fights with friends or strangers. I am generally regarded as a “calming” influence in the office and completely un-objectionable (except that I cuss at some inanimate objects that are inhabited by Microsoft malware). My temper is quite controlled.
I just don’t think this training in non-violence applies to raising kids. Kids are quite capable of assaulting each other, and the first few times into the timeout they need some encouragement to stay. I think that teaching kids needs all the tools in the toolbox, and tossing out the one that has 40 million years of evolution behind it, is rather silly. We have enough minority opinions in the green party for at least 4 or 5 parties, and pushing those stones uphill is sufficient a task I should think, without adding yet another unpopular measure to the load.
respectfully
BJ
August 31st, 2006 at 11:22 am
eredwen Says:
August 30th, 2006 at 1:33 pm
F:
I agree that “we need to see the big picture.�
The socialization of each child is a part of the “big picture�.
Children learn by example.
Steven Levit in Freakenomics points out that a liberal justice system is positively correlated with a rise in crime. Weak systems lack incentives for good behaviour. In addition a radical drop in crime in the 1990’s in the US was due to a rise in abortions. One wonders what effect our state baby factory (DPB incentive system) has on our crime statistics.
F
August 31st, 2006 at 11:58 am
Three quotes:
BJ:
“I just don’t think this training in non-violence applies to raising kids.”
Francis Xavier:
“Give me the child until he is seven and I will show you the man.”
The Green Charter (of the Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand):
“Non violent conflict resolution. This principle applies at all levels.”
This is what “we in the Green Party” believe.
(As it seems that you are not familiar with the decision making within the Party:) Such decisions are normally reached “by consensus”.
August 31st, 2006 at 1:06 pm
F:
“a liberal justice system is positively correlated with a rise in crime.
Weak systems lack incentives for good behaviour.
In addition a radical drop in crime in the 1990’s in the US was due to a rise in abortions.”
This seems rather simplistic to me (to put it mildly!)
“One wonders what effect our state baby factory (DPB incentive system) has on our crime statistics.”
Don’t knock the DPB per se. Adopting children out is a minefield in itself, and endless abortions are not the solution!
The problems are much greater and more complex, have arisen in part because of “neglect”, and can only be “fixed” by what you would probably see as “at a large financial cost”
This is an area with which I worked in a closely related field for several years … and will write about in another reply later (when I have time!)
Unfortunately if these cycles are to be broken we need to “throw a lot more money at the problem” in the form of carefully organised and monitored high quality intervention.
August 31st, 2006 at 4:12 pm
eredwen Says:
August 31st, 2006 at 1:06 pm
F:
“a liberal justice system is positively correlated with a rise in crime.
Weak systems lack incentives for good behaviour.
In addition a radical drop in crime in the 1990’s in the US was due to a rise in abortions.�
This seems rather simplistic to me (to put it mildly!)
You can read about it in this book
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/006073132X/ref=nosim/102-2771341-4607 302?dev-t=D2WMCOIPS9D14E&n=283155
F
September 8th, 2006 at 11:04 pm
F: Thanks for the source!
If that book is not in our local library, I’ll have to take your word for it !
e
January 12th, 2007 at 10:20 am
sesso donna
news