Smacking Law Has Caused Decline In Discipline – Poll
Media Release 15 January 2020
Family First
A nationwide poll has found that half of New Zealanders believe that the 2007 anti-smacking law has caused a decline in discipline (with a further 16% unsure – 33% said it hadn’t), and that they would continue to smack their child to correct their behaviour if they believed it was reasonable to do so. Almost 40% of mothers of young children say they have smacked despite the law change. Opposition to the law is still significantly higher amongst National and NZ First voters.
The Curia Market Research poll of 1,000 respondents surveyed at the beginning of December also found:
Low income families (63%), those living in rural areas and National & NZ First supporters were far more likely to flout the law
70% said they would not report a parent who they saw smacking their child on the backside or hand (including two out of three Green & Labor voters), while 20% would
Showing posts with label Child Discipline. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Child Discipline. Show all posts
Friday, 31 January 2020
Tuesday, 23 February 2016
NZ's Anti-Family Madness
A Huge Failure Born of State Overreach
In 2007 the NZ Parliament passed a law which made the parental smack of a child a crime. It represented at the time a gargantuan sledgehammer to crush a nut. But the do-gooders meant well. They were convinced that violence against children perpetrated by adults was endemic in New Zealand. In this they were right. They were convinced that passing the law would set a bright line in societal consciousness--violence against children was never to be tolerated. In this they were completely wrong.
But politicians exist to make laws. For the vast majority, if not all, of them making laws, rules, and regulations are they only tools they have to "change things". Adult violence against children was endemic in New Zealand; passing a law would fix things up. Three politicians stand out (there were many others) as believing most passionately that the anti-smacking law would stop violence against children.
Serial protester, Sue Bradford had increased her sense of self-righteousness and self-worth over many years campaigning to make the parental smack of children for purposes of training and disciplining them a crime. In Parliament at the time, she seized the opportunity to introduce just such a bill to the House. She promised, she vowed, she gave solemn oaths that if her bill became law, the tidal wave of abuse against children in this country would begin to recede. She misled the nation.
In 2007 the NZ Parliament passed a law which made the parental smack of a child a crime. It represented at the time a gargantuan sledgehammer to crush a nut. But the do-gooders meant well. They were convinced that violence against children perpetrated by adults was endemic in New Zealand. In this they were right. They were convinced that passing the law would set a bright line in societal consciousness--violence against children was never to be tolerated. In this they were completely wrong.
But politicians exist to make laws. For the vast majority, if not all, of them making laws, rules, and regulations are they only tools they have to "change things". Adult violence against children was endemic in New Zealand; passing a law would fix things up. Three politicians stand out (there were many others) as believing most passionately that the anti-smacking law would stop violence against children.
Serial protester, Sue Bradford had increased her sense of self-righteousness and self-worth over many years campaigning to make the parental smack of children for purposes of training and disciplining them a crime. In Parliament at the time, she seized the opportunity to introduce just such a bill to the House. She promised, she vowed, she gave solemn oaths that if her bill became law, the tidal wave of abuse against children in this country would begin to recede. She misled the nation.
Thursday, 23 July 2015
Hunger Is a Great Discipline
Indulgent Parenting Leads to a Nanny State
There are at least two perspective on offer when it comes to the nurture and raising of children: the first is the world-views requiring parental indulgence; the second is world views requiring parental discipline.
Whilst it is a generalisation-- we trust not a hasty one--the Chattering Classes and the Commentariat generally favour parental and societal indulgence when it comes to raising children. The little tykes are assumed to be nascent adults and the more they are treated as if they were adults, the more quickly they will mature. In contrast, those adults whose parenting involves consistent rules, structure, and discipline are regarded as harmful agents, implicitly guilty of child abuse.
A recent newspaper piece illustrates this great divide. The issue was food--the right food--for children. Some parents complain that whilst they know sugar-saturated food is bad for their bairns, the whole world conspires against them
There are at least two perspective on offer when it comes to the nurture and raising of children: the first is the world-views requiring parental indulgence; the second is world views requiring parental discipline.
Whilst it is a generalisation-- we trust not a hasty one--the Chattering Classes and the Commentariat generally favour parental and societal indulgence when it comes to raising children. The little tykes are assumed to be nascent adults and the more they are treated as if they were adults, the more quickly they will mature. In contrast, those adults whose parenting involves consistent rules, structure, and discipline are regarded as harmful agents, implicitly guilty of child abuse.
A recent newspaper piece illustrates this great divide. The issue was food--the right food--for children. Some parents complain that whilst they know sugar-saturated food is bad for their bairns, the whole world conspires against them
Monday, 2 June 2014
Family Concerns
When the Bogeyman Comes
New Zealand has one of the silliest and most draconian anti-smacking laws on the planet. It is opposed by over eighty percent of New Zealanders. But our politicians know what's best for us, and the law remains on the statute books.
The only saving grace is not in the law, but in the discretion exercised by the police in prosecuting proceedings under the law. But this is not sure nor certain to continue. All it will take is a future Jacobin prime minister to insist that the police apply the law rigorously, without minimal discretion. A couple of notorious and terrible child abuse cases should prove sufficient grounds for the change in operational police policy. The fact remains that under the present draconian law, any parent who smacks a child for disobedience commits a criminal offence.
A notorious corollary of the legislation is that the state child welfare agency, CYFS has a policy of shooting first and asking questions afterwards. Under no obligation to have a standard of proof that would required in a court of law, CYFS has operated in the past on a "where there's smoke, there's fire" policy. [See here, here p.40] Any hint of a parent smacking a child can result in the child or children being removed from the parents. The struggle to get them back can be both herculean and devastating.
New Zealand has one of the silliest and most draconian anti-smacking laws on the planet. It is opposed by over eighty percent of New Zealanders. But our politicians know what's best for us, and the law remains on the statute books.
The only saving grace is not in the law, but in the discretion exercised by the police in prosecuting proceedings under the law. But this is not sure nor certain to continue. All it will take is a future Jacobin prime minister to insist that the police apply the law rigorously, without minimal discretion. A couple of notorious and terrible child abuse cases should prove sufficient grounds for the change in operational police policy. The fact remains that under the present draconian law, any parent who smacks a child for disobedience commits a criminal offence.
A notorious corollary of the legislation is that the state child welfare agency, CYFS has a policy of shooting first and asking questions afterwards. Under no obligation to have a standard of proof that would required in a court of law, CYFS has operated in the past on a "where there's smoke, there's fire" policy. [See here, here p.40] Any hint of a parent smacking a child can result in the child or children being removed from the parents. The struggle to get them back can be both herculean and devastating.
Thursday, 16 January 2014
Dogs' Breakfasts and Demagogues
Next Election More Interesting
Ideologues and demagogues were successful in New Zealand is getting a law passed in 2007 which ostensibly outlawed all physical discipline and correction of a child. We say "ostensibly" because the actual statute is a dog's breakfast. It outlaws smacking, but then it doesn't. Here is the actual text of the law:
Ideologues and demagogues were successful in New Zealand is getting a law passed in 2007 which ostensibly outlawed all physical discipline and correction of a child. We say "ostensibly" because the actual statute is a dog's breakfast. It outlaws smacking, but then it doesn't. Here is the actual text of the law:
Friday, 7 June 2013
Manifest Foolishness #2
The Tender Mercies of Early Childhood Education
When men turn away from God they become stupid, worse than dumb animals. Sense departs to be replaced by a degraded sensibility. Here is a second example of what we have in mind, as reported in Stuff:
When men turn away from God they become stupid, worse than dumb animals. Sense departs to be replaced by a degraded sensibility. Here is a second example of what we have in mind, as reported in Stuff:
A woman has been banned from a Wellington childcare centre after a Ministry of Education staff member saw her "inappropriately restraining" a child. . . . A ministry spokeswoman said a staff member saw someone "inappropriately restraining" a child during a visit to the centre on April 23. . . . The daughter of the centre's supervisor had been on the floor with the children and was seen "stopping" a 4-year-old boy from hitting another child by putting her hand on his arm, she said. However, she did not see the incident, so could not be sure. . . . The centre had a no-hitting policy, but staff usually told children verbally to stop if they were found to be "rough-playing".Here is Lucia's comment on this piece:
Friday, 12 October 2012
The Uber Parent
Beware Government "Help"
New Zealand, we are told, has a high incidence of child abuse. It was, therefore, entirely predictable that eventually the government would move to establish a national database of children of some sort. The governmental authorities have a demonstrated record of incompetence in the area. A most frequent failing is the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Too many children being "helped" by too many government agencies who are unaware of what others agencies are doing.
To address the "information gap" the Minister of Social Development is proposing a national database of at risk kids be set up. It is estimated that 30,000 children will eventually be on electronic record.
Whenever Big Brother proposes something like this the issue of official abuse percolates to the surface.
New Zealand, we are told, has a high incidence of child abuse. It was, therefore, entirely predictable that eventually the government would move to establish a national database of children of some sort. The governmental authorities have a demonstrated record of incompetence in the area. A most frequent failing is the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing. Too many children being "helped" by too many government agencies who are unaware of what others agencies are doing.
To address the "information gap" the Minister of Social Development is proposing a national database of at risk kids be set up. It is estimated that 30,000 children will eventually be on electronic record.
Whenever Big Brother proposes something like this the issue of official abuse percolates to the surface.
Friday, 22 June 2012
Let Righteous Anger Build
New Zealand Tyranny
It is now official. The Child Youth and Family service ("CYF") has publicly revealed that any parent who smacks a child will probably have that child removed from the family. It is government policy not to allow such a parent to have their children.
The particular case that has brought the awful situation to light has been highlighted in the NZ Herald. It concerns two exemplary parents who have been refused by the state to be allowed to care for their grandchild. Why? Because responsible and lawful smacking is part of their excellent parenting care.
It is now official. The Child Youth and Family service ("CYF") has publicly revealed that any parent who smacks a child will probably have that child removed from the family. It is government policy not to allow such a parent to have their children.
The particular case that has brought the awful situation to light has been highlighted in the NZ Herald. It concerns two exemplary parents who have been refused by the state to be allowed to care for their grandchild. Why? Because responsible and lawful smacking is part of their excellent parenting care.
Tuesday, 5 June 2012
Discretionary Justice
Whimsically Destroying Families
In New Zealand it is a criminal offence to smack one's child. Well maybe. Our Prime Minister, John Key in one of his most feckless moments once announced that "good parents" who smacked their children would not be prosecuted. In other words, the police and the courts would, despite the law, show discretion and leniency to good, mainstream, decent Kiwi parents.
Except that, by definition, any parent who smacked cannot be a good, decent, mainstream Kiwi parent. They are committing a crime. Mr Key "promised" that if such good, decent parents ended up being prosecuted, he would change the law. Again, Mr Key--whilst being no-doubt genuine in his "decent bloke" kind of way--meant well, but was and continues to be remarkably naive.
He apparently has little comprehension of what pre-dates a criminal conviction:
In New Zealand it is a criminal offence to smack one's child. Well maybe. Our Prime Minister, John Key in one of his most feckless moments once announced that "good parents" who smacked their children would not be prosecuted. In other words, the police and the courts would, despite the law, show discretion and leniency to good, mainstream, decent Kiwi parents.
Except that, by definition, any parent who smacked cannot be a good, decent, mainstream Kiwi parent. They are committing a crime. Mr Key "promised" that if such good, decent parents ended up being prosecuted, he would change the law. Again, Mr Key--whilst being no-doubt genuine in his "decent bloke" kind of way--meant well, but was and continues to be remarkably naive.
He apparently has little comprehension of what pre-dates a criminal conviction:
Saturday, 4 February 2012
Letter from the UK
Riots Clarify Issues
It appears there is a silver lining to the dark cloud of last year's riots in the UK. Labour politicians are calling for a walk-back on the UK's anti-smacking legislation. We in NZ should take note. If a peaceful petition where 80 percent of the electorate wanted Parliament to amend anti-smacking legislation so as to recognise the rights and responsibilities of parents had no effect, maybe a few riots should be the order of the day.
Where are those "Occupy" people when you need them? It might be very helpful if they would get serious and raise a decent riot.
This, from the Guardian.
It appears there is a silver lining to the dark cloud of last year's riots in the UK. Labour politicians are calling for a walk-back on the UK's anti-smacking legislation. We in NZ should take note. If a peaceful petition where 80 percent of the electorate wanted Parliament to amend anti-smacking legislation so as to recognise the rights and responsibilities of parents had no effect, maybe a few riots should be the order of the day.
Where are those "Occupy" people when you need them? It might be very helpful if they would get serious and raise a decent riot.
This, from the Guardian.
Tuesday, 20 September 2011
Bring Back the Cane, Sir
Even Pupils Agree
Necessity is the mother of invention, they say. Maybe it's not surprising, then, that in the UK half the parents want corporal punishment to be brought back into schools. Many schools resemble war zones and a growing proportion parents have apparently had enough. They no longer believe the naive idealism of their governments; they are ready for some hard headed realism. And that means support for reintroducing the cane to government schools.
Necessity is the mother of invention, they say. Maybe it's not surprising, then, that in the UK half the parents want corporal punishment to be brought back into schools. Many schools resemble war zones and a growing proportion parents have apparently had enough. They no longer believe the naive idealism of their governments; they are ready for some hard headed realism. And that means support for reintroducing the cane to government schools.
Tuesday, 19 July 2011
Blood Boiling Stuff
We Will Fight Them On the Beaches . . .
Some have said the abiding legacy of current Prime Minister, John Key will be that he single handedly managed to turn upstanding, decent New Zealand parents into criminals. In this he has not just been a naive fool; he has done irreparable harm.
The organization Family First has just published a video detailing the damage done to families by the brute force of tyrannical government.
Some have said the abiding legacy of current Prime Minister, John Key will be that he single handedly managed to turn upstanding, decent New Zealand parents into criminals. In this he has not just been a naive fool; he has done irreparable harm.
The organization Family First has just published a video detailing the damage done to families by the brute force of tyrannical government.
Friday, 8 July 2011
Indulgent Parenting
How to Land Your Kid in Therapy
There is a great article written by Lori Gottlieb, published in the July/August edition of The Atlantic, entitled "How to Land Your Kid in Therapy". It exposes the damage done to children through child-centric, indulgent parenting. (Incidentally, child-centric, indulgent parenting is why state educators are so resistant to testing regimes in schools. We are repeatedly told that testing against national standards for reading, writing, and maths will do "damage" to children. In fact, as Gottlieb argues, the reverse is the case.)
The complete article is worth reading. Gottlieb is a psycho-therapist, who, early in her practice began to meet young adults who had perfect parents and who had come from really happy families, yet were empty and depressed. We reproduce some excerpts from the piece.
There is a great article written by Lori Gottlieb, published in the July/August edition of The Atlantic, entitled "How to Land Your Kid in Therapy". It exposes the damage done to children through child-centric, indulgent parenting. (Incidentally, child-centric, indulgent parenting is why state educators are so resistant to testing regimes in schools. We are repeatedly told that testing against national standards for reading, writing, and maths will do "damage" to children. In fact, as Gottlieb argues, the reverse is the case.)
The complete article is worth reading. Gottlieb is a psycho-therapist, who, early in her practice began to meet young adults who had perfect parents and who had come from really happy families, yet were empty and depressed. We reproduce some excerpts from the piece.
Friday, 3 June 2011
Slow Learners
Foolishness Bound Up in the Heart
Sometimes we Christians find ourselves wondering at the foolishness on display in our society. Things which to us are so self-evident and obvious appear beyond the ken of the average Unbeliever. Take something as basic as whether depravity and perverseness is native to the human soul, or not. Christians, realizing that this is something about which we cannot be neutral, turn to the revelation of God to find that indeed we are all corrupt.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is often misunderstood. The Scriptures do not teach that man is corrupt as can be, but that every part of the human being is to some extent corrupted by evil. The "total" in Total Depravity refers to universality not degree. The poison of sin is traceable in every part of our being. In some times and cultures the poison is more advanced than in others. The ante-diluvian civilization, for example, saw a maturation and flowering of evil everywhere: every intent and thought of the heart of men was only evil continually, we are told (Genesis 6:5). But at other times the redemptive record reveals that Unbelieving cultures are a long way short of being filled up with evil (Genesis 15:16).
This being so, it is expected that children, for example, will manifest aspects and manifestations of self-will, disobedience, contumacy, stubbornness, and selfishness from a very early age. "I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me" says the Psalmist (Psalm 51: 5). The Borg is already on-board the ship, as it were.
Sometimes we Christians find ourselves wondering at the foolishness on display in our society. Things which to us are so self-evident and obvious appear beyond the ken of the average Unbeliever. Take something as basic as whether depravity and perverseness is native to the human soul, or not. Christians, realizing that this is something about which we cannot be neutral, turn to the revelation of God to find that indeed we are all corrupt.
The doctrine of Total Depravity is often misunderstood. The Scriptures do not teach that man is corrupt as can be, but that every part of the human being is to some extent corrupted by evil. The "total" in Total Depravity refers to universality not degree. The poison of sin is traceable in every part of our being. In some times and cultures the poison is more advanced than in others. The ante-diluvian civilization, for example, saw a maturation and flowering of evil everywhere: every intent and thought of the heart of men was only evil continually, we are told (Genesis 6:5). But at other times the redemptive record reveals that Unbelieving cultures are a long way short of being filled up with evil (Genesis 15:16).
This being so, it is expected that children, for example, will manifest aspects and manifestations of self-will, disobedience, contumacy, stubbornness, and selfishness from a very early age. "I was brought forth in iniquity and in sin my mother conceived me" says the Psalmist (Psalm 51: 5). The Borg is already on-board the ship, as it were.
Saturday, 4 September 2010
Idolatry and Maori Child Abuse, Part II
The Destiny of Those Maori Remaining in New Zealand
We have spoken of the great Maori diaspora—many of whom have left New Zealand to escape the pervasive influence of Maori whanau culture, which hangs as an albatross around their necks. We believe it to be an indirect cause of the high incidence of child abuse amongst Maori today.
The problem with whanau culture is that it elevates the whanau above the nuclear family, thus undermining the roles and responsibilities of parents to their own children. It represents a rejection of God's command that a man shall leave his parents and shall cleave to his wife when he marries. In modern Maori culture, whanau claims regularly supersede and trump the legitimate claims of children upon their own parents. This, in turn, entices and tempts far too many Maori parents to look to their extended families to take over what it is their responsibility to provide for their own children. This has led to the neglect of Maori children, since passing responsibility over to the whanau for one's children fails far too often. The extended family has not soul to damn and no butt to kick. All too often no one couple ends up standing as a strong tower of refuge for vulnerable children. Shared parenting all to often produces neglected children who slip through cracks.
A third reason for such an appalling record of child abuse within Maori communities is state welfare. Sir Apirana Ngata is reported to have said, when social welfare was first introduced by Michael Savage, that “this will be the death of our people”. To be sure, it has been the death of a good many pakeha as well. But Maori have proved particularly susceptible to its deadly effects. We believe the reason is the combination of secular state welfarism with Maori whanau culture. Maori extended families and whanau socialism easily combine with the ideology and values of state welfarism to make a destructive and deadly cocktail. Sir Apirana Ngata was right.
The whanau socialist model was already in place when European Fabian socialism was institutionalised in New Zealand in the nineteen-thirties by the first Labour government. Because whanau socialism already undermined private property rights, and forced many Maori families to look to the whanau for economic support and sustenance, it was a small step for Maori to extend this beyond their extended family to the government. Hence Maori to this day have been strong supporters of socialist political doctrines and institutions. Their culture leads them to regard national social welfare as intrinsically right and therefore receiving support from other people not only an ethnic right, but a fundamental civil right as well. Maori are culturally inclined to socialism and progressive political and economic doctrines fit hand in glove with Maori cultural beliefs.
Those who argue that it is relative Maori poverty which inclines them to socialist doctrines over-simplify the case. Relative Maori poverty continues entrenched first and foremost because the economic demands of the whanau keep many Maori families in a state of poverty and dependency. In such a culture if any Maori family prospers, their economic obligations to their blood relatives rise. Consequently children rapidly become dependent upon “others” and when the increasingly impoverished whanau will not provide, Maori naturally look to the state. It is just exchanging one form of socialism for another.
Welfare dependent families, which are disproportionately represented in the Maori population, often reproduce their welfare dependency, binding the next generation to degradation and destruction. Husbands and fathers as providers become an optional extra. Women become the dominant adult in such families because welfare is normally dolled out by the State through and around the power matrix of mother or the woman who happens to be the designated care-giver du jour. In such a degraded state, children easily become an economic tool, a means of extracting more money from government. Welfarism leads to inter-generational cycles of poverty, which causes and results in the neglect and abuse of children. Throwing more money at the “problem” is the worst possible thing that could be done. It is also the most naïve, simplistic, and stupid.
Does this mean that Maori are beyond hope? Not at all. This is not primarily an ethnic or cultural problem. It is a spiritual problem. Religious constructs have pervasive cultural consequences. False and wrong religious constructs normally have pervasively bad cultural consequences. But Maori are not beyond the grace of God; His hand is not shortened that it cannot save. There is a great need in our day for biblically informed teachers to help Maori Christians, in this particular instance, reform their ethnic cultural inheritance around the constructs of the Scripture, to enable the development of a reformed Christian Maori culture and a reconstruction of biblical families. This will necessitate a rejection of aspects of the whanau culture and a reformation of those aspects which are redeemable. The need is great.
It is from the Church and the Believing community that the answers and help will come, not from more government-extorted welfare and a paradigm of victim-entitlement. Let us pray for the Lord to raise up Maori leadership which will completely reject the ungodly claims of whanau upon Maori families and the much vaunted “Maori way of doing things”. Such racial and ethnic pride is completely unbecoming true faith in God. Maori long ago tragically decided they would adapt the pakeha's God to their own way of thinking. Maori must reject such pernicious idolatry.
Let us ask God to raise up Maori who will call for Maori to repent of their Unbelieving cultural assault upon biblical marriage and family. The idol of whanau-uber-family must be broken and Maori must do it—in faith, with their eyes upon the Lord, not upon the State.
One final word—some may be wondering whether Brian Tamaki and the Destiny Church might be the first signs of a reformation within Maoridom back to biblical faith. We fear not. Without discounting or denigrating whatever good Destiny may have done, we believe it is right at the point of neglecting to reject the idolatry of whanau culture that Brian Tamaki and the Destiny Church have failed the Maori people. To our mind they have simply substituted the blood whanau culture for an ecclesiastical whanau culture. The prior claims of the ecclesiastical whanau—which has elided across from the ethnic whanau culture—continue to undermine the biblical insistence on the primary authority of the nuclear Christian family.
To this extent we believe Destiny represents a false dawn and a pseudo-reformation. You cannot serve God and mammon. You cannot give the old household idols a new coat of paint and claim, thereby, that you are serving the Living God. The God of our fathers, it will do us all well to recall, commands first and foremost that there will be no other gods brought into His holy presence.
May it please God to be gracious to the people at Destiny and lead them to understand this. May He also once again remember mercy to those Maori who remain in New Zealand.
We have spoken of the great Maori diaspora—many of whom have left New Zealand to escape the pervasive influence of Maori whanau culture, which hangs as an albatross around their necks. We believe it to be an indirect cause of the high incidence of child abuse amongst Maori today.
The problem with whanau culture is that it elevates the whanau above the nuclear family, thus undermining the roles and responsibilities of parents to their own children. It represents a rejection of God's command that a man shall leave his parents and shall cleave to his wife when he marries. In modern Maori culture, whanau claims regularly supersede and trump the legitimate claims of children upon their own parents. This, in turn, entices and tempts far too many Maori parents to look to their extended families to take over what it is their responsibility to provide for their own children. This has led to the neglect of Maori children, since passing responsibility over to the whanau for one's children fails far too often. The extended family has not soul to damn and no butt to kick. All too often no one couple ends up standing as a strong tower of refuge for vulnerable children. Shared parenting all to often produces neglected children who slip through cracks.
A third reason for such an appalling record of child abuse within Maori communities is state welfare. Sir Apirana Ngata is reported to have said, when social welfare was first introduced by Michael Savage, that “this will be the death of our people”. To be sure, it has been the death of a good many pakeha as well. But Maori have proved particularly susceptible to its deadly effects. We believe the reason is the combination of secular state welfarism with Maori whanau culture. Maori extended families and whanau socialism easily combine with the ideology and values of state welfarism to make a destructive and deadly cocktail. Sir Apirana Ngata was right.
The whanau socialist model was already in place when European Fabian socialism was institutionalised in New Zealand in the nineteen-thirties by the first Labour government. Because whanau socialism already undermined private property rights, and forced many Maori families to look to the whanau for economic support and sustenance, it was a small step for Maori to extend this beyond their extended family to the government. Hence Maori to this day have been strong supporters of socialist political doctrines and institutions. Their culture leads them to regard national social welfare as intrinsically right and therefore receiving support from other people not only an ethnic right, but a fundamental civil right as well. Maori are culturally inclined to socialism and progressive political and economic doctrines fit hand in glove with Maori cultural beliefs.
Those who argue that it is relative Maori poverty which inclines them to socialist doctrines over-simplify the case. Relative Maori poverty continues entrenched first and foremost because the economic demands of the whanau keep many Maori families in a state of poverty and dependency. In such a culture if any Maori family prospers, their economic obligations to their blood relatives rise. Consequently children rapidly become dependent upon “others” and when the increasingly impoverished whanau will not provide, Maori naturally look to the state. It is just exchanging one form of socialism for another.
Welfare dependent families, which are disproportionately represented in the Maori population, often reproduce their welfare dependency, binding the next generation to degradation and destruction. Husbands and fathers as providers become an optional extra. Women become the dominant adult in such families because welfare is normally dolled out by the State through and around the power matrix of mother or the woman who happens to be the designated care-giver du jour. In such a degraded state, children easily become an economic tool, a means of extracting more money from government. Welfarism leads to inter-generational cycles of poverty, which causes and results in the neglect and abuse of children. Throwing more money at the “problem” is the worst possible thing that could be done. It is also the most naïve, simplistic, and stupid.
Does this mean that Maori are beyond hope? Not at all. This is not primarily an ethnic or cultural problem. It is a spiritual problem. Religious constructs have pervasive cultural consequences. False and wrong religious constructs normally have pervasively bad cultural consequences. But Maori are not beyond the grace of God; His hand is not shortened that it cannot save. There is a great need in our day for biblically informed teachers to help Maori Christians, in this particular instance, reform their ethnic cultural inheritance around the constructs of the Scripture, to enable the development of a reformed Christian Maori culture and a reconstruction of biblical families. This will necessitate a rejection of aspects of the whanau culture and a reformation of those aspects which are redeemable. The need is great.
It is from the Church and the Believing community that the answers and help will come, not from more government-extorted welfare and a paradigm of victim-entitlement. Let us pray for the Lord to raise up Maori leadership which will completely reject the ungodly claims of whanau upon Maori families and the much vaunted “Maori way of doing things”. Such racial and ethnic pride is completely unbecoming true faith in God. Maori long ago tragically decided they would adapt the pakeha's God to their own way of thinking. Maori must reject such pernicious idolatry.
Let us ask God to raise up Maori who will call for Maori to repent of their Unbelieving cultural assault upon biblical marriage and family. The idol of whanau-uber-family must be broken and Maori must do it—in faith, with their eyes upon the Lord, not upon the State.
One final word—some may be wondering whether Brian Tamaki and the Destiny Church might be the first signs of a reformation within Maoridom back to biblical faith. We fear not. Without discounting or denigrating whatever good Destiny may have done, we believe it is right at the point of neglecting to reject the idolatry of whanau culture that Brian Tamaki and the Destiny Church have failed the Maori people. To our mind they have simply substituted the blood whanau culture for an ecclesiastical whanau culture. The prior claims of the ecclesiastical whanau—which has elided across from the ethnic whanau culture—continue to undermine the biblical insistence on the primary authority of the nuclear Christian family.
To this extent we believe Destiny represents a false dawn and a pseudo-reformation. You cannot serve God and mammon. You cannot give the old household idols a new coat of paint and claim, thereby, that you are serving the Living God. The God of our fathers, it will do us all well to recall, commands first and foremost that there will be no other gods brought into His holy presence.
May it please God to be gracious to the people at Destiny and lead them to understand this. May He also once again remember mercy to those Maori who remain in New Zealand.
Friday, 3 September 2010
Idolatry and Maori Child Abuse, Part I
Whanau Culture's Collateral Damage
There was a small furore inside the Wellington beltway two weeks ago when Paula Bennett, Minister of Social Development had the temerity to suggest that Maori elites and the controllers of millions of dollars of Maori assets had a responsibility to commit more resources to looking after their own Maori children. The reason is that whilst representing around ten percent of the population, Maori account for 50% of the children identified on government roles as being at risk—which is to say, they don't have parents or caregivers that either parent or give proper care.
The risible response of the Green co-leader Turei was to accuse the Minister of racism. Such a response must be dismissed contemptuously. But, it begs the question: why are Maori children at such risk? Always the reasons are complex. We do not mean this sarcastically. Life is complex; all human culture is complex; it is exceedingly thick, with layer upon layer of reality (as God has wonderfully ordained it to be). Turning a culture so that it moves in a different direction is a complex undertaking—too complex for any one agency to achieve. Impossible for government agencies—for God has not ordained such tasks for government.
In general, however, Maori elites and those who control the power structures within Maoridom are agreed on where the problems lie and what the solution must be. To them the solution is monocular and straightforward: more money. Or, to be more precise, more of other people's money. Money poured forth is the simplistic naïve materialist solution offered. Yet the majority of non-Maori power elites would agree. So, the only debate in our society over the solution to the plight of Maori children is how much money of other people's money can be delivered, and by whom. The right generally argues for lesser amounts, citing the weak economy, national debt levels and so on, whilst the left always argues for more. The Maori party, in turn, always argues for much, much more.
It is noteworthy that the recent brouhaha was, once again, over money. The Minister of Social Development was arguing for more money for at risk Maori children—but was trying to source it from Maori elites (those tribal leaders who control the billions of dollars in various tribal settlements for historical grievances genuine and manufactured). For some reason, beyond the ken of rational people, this was deemed racist.
Why does Maoridom have such an appalling childcare record? (We generalise, of course. There are many salutary and excellent Maori parents, and fine Maori families. Sadly, however, they are relatively smaller in proportion to their population than non-Maori ethnicities.) Why?
Whilst the reasons are legion, there are at least three which we believe are the more pernicious. The first is the degradation of the nuclear family at the expense of extended family or whanau. Maori apologists have hailed their whanau-culture as a point of great superiority over pakeha culture. The paradigm of the extended family, we are told, means that every child grows up within a community of blood relatives, aunts and uncles, cousins, and more distant blood relatives. The whanau culture creates a bond of responsibility to many children, not just one's own. Children ostensibly grow up within a far wider and richer group of adults and children. Any weakness in parents can be compensated by the influence of the wider whanau.
Western culture is seen as inferior at this point, for the nuclear family is believed to be narrow, isolated, restricted and shallow. It does not have the breadth, colour, depth, and richness of an extended family structure.
To be sure, an extended and strong community, whether based on blood or other bonds should be a great blessing—but, and it is a colossal “but”, the extended community in the long run is destructive unless it takes up its roles and responsibilities upon the foundation of strong nuclear family structures. A true oneness of the community can only be sustained upon the solid ground of many strong nuclear families. When the community is misshapen to where it substitutes for a nuclear family, the outcome is most often destructive.
The problem is that the extended family has no soul to damn and no butt to kick. The whanau concept, as currently manifested within Maoridom, does not hold birth parents primarily accountable and responsible for their children. A major reason so many Maori children are neglected is that it is impossible to hold a community accountable for their care; there is no primary caregiver by definition. Thus, the Maori concept of whanau has in general become a hindrance to the proper care of children. Until Maori acknowledge that God gives children to parents first and foremost, and only to the community secondarily and indirectly, and that He holds birth parents responsible and accountable, and until Maori reform their whanau culture accordingly, high rates of child abuse amongst Maori will likely continue.
A second major cause of putting children at risk is the concept of whanau socialism—which of course is related to the first. Maori parents are inculcated in the heinous idea that commitments to whanau supersede their duties and commitments to their own children. So, when somebody dies all are obligated to attend the tangi, often taking days off work; all are obligated to contribute. Maori parents are continually needing to expend their cash and assets upon extended family obligations—most often at the expense of the care and provision for their own children. And when such impoverished families get into strife, whanau socialism makes it acceptable to cast them upon the whanau for care and help—as a sort of payback or return for having been a dutiful whanau member.
Many Maori have migrated to Australia for this reason: to escape the perpetual impoverishment that comes from the never-ceasing demands of the extended family upon their income, time, resources, and assets. The obligation to “share” and pay koha are often overwhelming. Until Maori cleanse their culture of such notions, and build their communities upon the principles of the sanctity of private property; the rejection of theft and immoral expropriation of the property of others; a rejection of whanau claims upon the income and assets of extended family members, and affirm the fundamental truth that commitments and duties to one's own children are more important than duties to one's whanau, high rates of neglect of children will continue.
The latter principle of commitment to one's marriage and family being more important and a higher priority than commitment to one's extended family is, of course, derived from the beginning of the human race, where God declared and commanded that a man, in marriage, should leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife. The modern whanau socialist model at root constitutes a rebellion against this divine plan and command. Evil consequences always flow when individuals and cultures think themselves smarter than the Living God.
God will not be mocked—and the truth of this is showing up in the incidence of child abuse amongst Maori.
There was a small furore inside the Wellington beltway two weeks ago when Paula Bennett, Minister of Social Development had the temerity to suggest that Maori elites and the controllers of millions of dollars of Maori assets had a responsibility to commit more resources to looking after their own Maori children. The reason is that whilst representing around ten percent of the population, Maori account for 50% of the children identified on government roles as being at risk—which is to say, they don't have parents or caregivers that either parent or give proper care.
The risible response of the Green co-leader Turei was to accuse the Minister of racism. Such a response must be dismissed contemptuously. But, it begs the question: why are Maori children at such risk? Always the reasons are complex. We do not mean this sarcastically. Life is complex; all human culture is complex; it is exceedingly thick, with layer upon layer of reality (as God has wonderfully ordained it to be). Turning a culture so that it moves in a different direction is a complex undertaking—too complex for any one agency to achieve. Impossible for government agencies—for God has not ordained such tasks for government.
In general, however, Maori elites and those who control the power structures within Maoridom are agreed on where the problems lie and what the solution must be. To them the solution is monocular and straightforward: more money. Or, to be more precise, more of other people's money. Money poured forth is the simplistic naïve materialist solution offered. Yet the majority of non-Maori power elites would agree. So, the only debate in our society over the solution to the plight of Maori children is how much money of other people's money can be delivered, and by whom. The right generally argues for lesser amounts, citing the weak economy, national debt levels and so on, whilst the left always argues for more. The Maori party, in turn, always argues for much, much more.
It is noteworthy that the recent brouhaha was, once again, over money. The Minister of Social Development was arguing for more money for at risk Maori children—but was trying to source it from Maori elites (those tribal leaders who control the billions of dollars in various tribal settlements for historical grievances genuine and manufactured). For some reason, beyond the ken of rational people, this was deemed racist.
Why does Maoridom have such an appalling childcare record? (We generalise, of course. There are many salutary and excellent Maori parents, and fine Maori families. Sadly, however, they are relatively smaller in proportion to their population than non-Maori ethnicities.) Why?
Whilst the reasons are legion, there are at least three which we believe are the more pernicious. The first is the degradation of the nuclear family at the expense of extended family or whanau. Maori apologists have hailed their whanau-culture as a point of great superiority over pakeha culture. The paradigm of the extended family, we are told, means that every child grows up within a community of blood relatives, aunts and uncles, cousins, and more distant blood relatives. The whanau culture creates a bond of responsibility to many children, not just one's own. Children ostensibly grow up within a far wider and richer group of adults and children. Any weakness in parents can be compensated by the influence of the wider whanau.
Western culture is seen as inferior at this point, for the nuclear family is believed to be narrow, isolated, restricted and shallow. It does not have the breadth, colour, depth, and richness of an extended family structure.
To be sure, an extended and strong community, whether based on blood or other bonds should be a great blessing—but, and it is a colossal “but”, the extended community in the long run is destructive unless it takes up its roles and responsibilities upon the foundation of strong nuclear family structures. A true oneness of the community can only be sustained upon the solid ground of many strong nuclear families. When the community is misshapen to where it substitutes for a nuclear family, the outcome is most often destructive.
The problem is that the extended family has no soul to damn and no butt to kick. The whanau concept, as currently manifested within Maoridom, does not hold birth parents primarily accountable and responsible for their children. A major reason so many Maori children are neglected is that it is impossible to hold a community accountable for their care; there is no primary caregiver by definition. Thus, the Maori concept of whanau has in general become a hindrance to the proper care of children. Until Maori acknowledge that God gives children to parents first and foremost, and only to the community secondarily and indirectly, and that He holds birth parents responsible and accountable, and until Maori reform their whanau culture accordingly, high rates of child abuse amongst Maori will likely continue.
A second major cause of putting children at risk is the concept of whanau socialism—which of course is related to the first. Maori parents are inculcated in the heinous idea that commitments to whanau supersede their duties and commitments to their own children. So, when somebody dies all are obligated to attend the tangi, often taking days off work; all are obligated to contribute. Maori parents are continually needing to expend their cash and assets upon extended family obligations—most often at the expense of the care and provision for their own children. And when such impoverished families get into strife, whanau socialism makes it acceptable to cast them upon the whanau for care and help—as a sort of payback or return for having been a dutiful whanau member.
Many Maori have migrated to Australia for this reason: to escape the perpetual impoverishment that comes from the never-ceasing demands of the extended family upon their income, time, resources, and assets. The obligation to “share” and pay koha are often overwhelming. Until Maori cleanse their culture of such notions, and build their communities upon the principles of the sanctity of private property; the rejection of theft and immoral expropriation of the property of others; a rejection of whanau claims upon the income and assets of extended family members, and affirm the fundamental truth that commitments and duties to one's own children are more important than duties to one's whanau, high rates of neglect of children will continue.
The latter principle of commitment to one's marriage and family being more important and a higher priority than commitment to one's extended family is, of course, derived from the beginning of the human race, where God declared and commanded that a man, in marriage, should leave his father and his mother and cleave to his wife. The modern whanau socialist model at root constitutes a rebellion against this divine plan and command. Evil consequences always flow when individuals and cultures think themselves smarter than the Living God.
God will not be mocked—and the truth of this is showing up in the incidence of child abuse amongst Maori.
Thursday, 19 August 2010
Douglas Wilson's Letter From America
Skanky Movie III
Education - Education
Written by Douglas Wilson
Friday, July 30, 2010
One trap that parents fall into is the trap of not wanting sin around their kids. But I suppose this requres some explanation.
The mistake arises because there are a bunch of sins that parents should keep away from their kids -- kidnappers, for starters, and cocaine dealers, and pornographers, and seducers, and Cartesian dualists. One of the accusations leveled against private Christian education is that conservative parents are sheltering their kids. What next?! Parents sheltering children! We feed them too.
But here is where the mistake come in. There is a question of degree here. We are not supposed to keep our children away from the presence of all sin whatever. And that's a good thing, too, because it is impossible. There is a type of sin, common to the human condition, that your children will encounter (on a daily basis) on the playground of the finest Christian school imaginable. If you don't send your kids to that school (because of all the sin there), they will encounter even more of it at church, in their relationships with their siblings, in their bedroom all alone, and in the midst of all the dirty thoughts between their ears. The task of parents in this is not to avoid this kind of sin, but rather to teach their children how to battle it. You cannot learn to battle something if you are constantly endeavoring to stay away from it.
In short, with this kind of sin, there are two errors -- equally bad. One is to accommodate yourself to the presence of this kind of room temperature sin, in such a way as to assume room temperature yourself. That is the way of spiritual death. The other is to pretend to yourself that the choices you have made have somehow successfully distanced you from all that icky stuff. But it is as close to you now as it ever was, but is now invisible because you have daubed your eyes with a special Pharisee salve. This is another way of spiritual death.
The mere presence of sin discredits nothing and no one. A school is not a poor school because junior high girls are catty at lunch, because one of the boys in the fourth grade makes earthy observations about certain bodily functions, or because some blonde named Kimberly gets great grades and the word among the kids in the back row who don't like to study is that she might be the teacher's pet. Welcome to earth, everybody. This is not the kind of sin parents are required to keep their kids away from. They are in fact required not to try. This is the kind of sin that parents need to teach their kids to handle, and avoidance is not a biblical strategy. Because it will be necessarily unsuccessful, avoidance is simply a pretence of avoidance, with the down side -- because you are too busy kidding yourself -- of having children who are not learning how to respond and resist.
Suppose your child is in the classroom of a fine Christian school, one with a great reputation. You know the teachers and administrators, and they really love the Lord. But you know for a fact that two/thirds of the kids in your son's class are all hot about the latest skanky movie. Just last night, after the youth group get together, they all went to see Skanky Movie III, one that has set records for both kinds of box office gross. What will your temptation be? Your temptation will be to think that however well-intentioned the folks running the school might be, the "tone" of the school is not nearly "high enough," and that all these families clearly have poor standards. You regret having to do this, but you are considering pulling your son, wrapping him up in cotton batting for two final semesters of Mom School.
You think the problem is low entertainment standards, when the actual problem is that no Christian parents -- including you -- are teaching their kids what moral leadership looks like. About a third of the kids who went to that movie didn't really want to, and wouldn't have gone if someone in the class -- I am thinking of your son in particular -- had done more than simply studied his shoelaces when the subject came up. You are tempted to think that the others have low entertainment standards, when the real lesson is that your son is not a moral leader. The response ought not to be to do something that will make him even less of one.
Education - Education
Written by Douglas Wilson
Friday, July 30, 2010
One trap that parents fall into is the trap of not wanting sin around their kids. But I suppose this requres some explanation.
The mistake arises because there are a bunch of sins that parents should keep away from their kids -- kidnappers, for starters, and cocaine dealers, and pornographers, and seducers, and Cartesian dualists. One of the accusations leveled against private Christian education is that conservative parents are sheltering their kids. What next?! Parents sheltering children! We feed them too.
But here is where the mistake come in. There is a question of degree here. We are not supposed to keep our children away from the presence of all sin whatever. And that's a good thing, too, because it is impossible. There is a type of sin, common to the human condition, that your children will encounter (on a daily basis) on the playground of the finest Christian school imaginable. If you don't send your kids to that school (because of all the sin there), they will encounter even more of it at church, in their relationships with their siblings, in their bedroom all alone, and in the midst of all the dirty thoughts between their ears. The task of parents in this is not to avoid this kind of sin, but rather to teach their children how to battle it. You cannot learn to battle something if you are constantly endeavoring to stay away from it.
In short, with this kind of sin, there are two errors -- equally bad. One is to accommodate yourself to the presence of this kind of room temperature sin, in such a way as to assume room temperature yourself. That is the way of spiritual death. The other is to pretend to yourself that the choices you have made have somehow successfully distanced you from all that icky stuff. But it is as close to you now as it ever was, but is now invisible because you have daubed your eyes with a special Pharisee salve. This is another way of spiritual death.
The mere presence of sin discredits nothing and no one. A school is not a poor school because junior high girls are catty at lunch, because one of the boys in the fourth grade makes earthy observations about certain bodily functions, or because some blonde named Kimberly gets great grades and the word among the kids in the back row who don't like to study is that she might be the teacher's pet. Welcome to earth, everybody. This is not the kind of sin parents are required to keep their kids away from. They are in fact required not to try. This is the kind of sin that parents need to teach their kids to handle, and avoidance is not a biblical strategy. Because it will be necessarily unsuccessful, avoidance is simply a pretence of avoidance, with the down side -- because you are too busy kidding yourself -- of having children who are not learning how to respond and resist.
Suppose your child is in the classroom of a fine Christian school, one with a great reputation. You know the teachers and administrators, and they really love the Lord. But you know for a fact that two/thirds of the kids in your son's class are all hot about the latest skanky movie. Just last night, after the youth group get together, they all went to see Skanky Movie III, one that has set records for both kinds of box office gross. What will your temptation be? Your temptation will be to think that however well-intentioned the folks running the school might be, the "tone" of the school is not nearly "high enough," and that all these families clearly have poor standards. You regret having to do this, but you are considering pulling your son, wrapping him up in cotton batting for two final semesters of Mom School.
You think the problem is low entertainment standards, when the actual problem is that no Christian parents -- including you -- are teaching their kids what moral leadership looks like. About a third of the kids who went to that movie didn't really want to, and wouldn't have gone if someone in the class -- I am thinking of your son in particular -- had done more than simply studied his shoelaces when the subject came up. You are tempted to think that the others have low entertainment standards, when the real lesson is that your son is not a moral leader. The response ought not to be to do something that will make him even less of one.
Saturday, 5 June 2010
Show Trials--of Children!
When Society Becomes Permanently Puerile
Sometimes things are just so bizarre, so bad as to defy belief. Humanist pride and idolatry is now so reflected, so entrenched in the culture making and culture shaping institutions in the UK that there seem to be few options, but to let it run its destructive course. Even the administration of justice in the highest courts of the land reflect its arrogant ignorance and puerility. How could a once-Christian country have fallen so far, into such degradation?
Overstating and sensationalising the case? Read this latest article by Frank Furedi, and, as they say, you be the judge.
Sometimes things are just so bizarre, so bad as to defy belief. Humanist pride and idolatry is now so reflected, so entrenched in the culture making and culture shaping institutions in the UK that there seem to be few options, but to let it run its destructive course. Even the administration of justice in the highest courts of the land reflect its arrogant ignorance and puerility. How could a once-Christian country have fallen so far, into such degradation?
Overstating and sensationalising the case? Read this latest article by Frank Furedi, and, as they say, you be the judge.
A showtrial of children for being naughty
The conviction of two boys for attempted rape is not only a travesty of justice – it also exposes society’s screwed-up attitude towards childhood.
Frank Furedi
The conviction at the Old Bailey in London of a 10-year-old boy and an 11-year-old boy for attempted rape is bad enough. That the children were convicted despite the fact that the eight-year-old defendant admitted in court that she had made up the story of her ordeal is even worse. But what was worst of all was the very public exploitation of these three children for the purposes of working out adult fantasies.
This sordid spectacle had nothing to do with justice. As the trial judge Justice Saunders acknowledged, the case would have collapsed if the defendant had been an adult, because the evidence provided by the young girl was so inconsistent. That’s another way of saying that in these proceedings, what really counted was not the evidence on offer, but adult prejudices and the imperative of sending the ‘right message’.
What makes this case particularly important is that it exposes the insidious consequences of the disintegration of adult control over children. In recent decades, parents and adults more broadly have come under tremendous pressure not to discipline children. Punishment has become a dirty word in child-rearing manuals, smacking has become stigmatised, and parents who raise their voices to their children are denounced for being ‘emotionally abusive’.
Teachers, too, face tremendous pressure to pretend that they don’t see any misbehaviour in their classrooms. They have very few effective means of disciplining youngsters. Consequently, most of the time children’s behaviour is relatively uncontained by adult behaviour. By the time they are 10 or 11, far too many children know that if they use the f-word in public or misbehave on the streets, the grown-ups around them will pretend that they heard and saw nothing.
The flipside of grown-ups’ paralysis towards containing children’s behaviour is a new reliance on formal processes to compensate for the loss of adult authority. So when the situation with a certain child appears to get out of hand, we issue an anti-social behaviour order or, as in this Old Bailey case, carry out a showtrial. Through such a showtrial, the prosecution can pretend that it is punishing individuals who are ‘criminally responsible’ rather than admitting what it is really doing: disciplining children. As is the case with all showtrials, the aim was not just to punish the so-called offenders but to send a message to a wider audience.
Predictably, this showtrial and the subsequent miscarriage of justice have provoked a debate about the age of criminal responsibility. And of course, dragging 10- and 11-year-old boys into the Old Bailey is utterly wrong. However, this trial raises a far more disturbing issue than the unacceptably low age at which children are treated as criminals these days. It exposes society’s inability to make any meaningful distinction between forms of behaviour that are appropriate between adults and forms of behaviour that are appropriate between children.
British society has become so morally disoriented about childhood that it has lost the ability to make a moral distinction between childhood and adulthood. It looks upon adults as simply biologically mature children, and children as physically underdeveloped grown-ups. This leads to a tragic state of affairs where children’s behaviour is continually interpreted through the prism of adult imaginations. At its worst, contemporary British culture attributes adult motives to children’s behaviour. Consequently, even infants in nurseries are told off for their ‘harassment’ of other kids or for their ‘racist’ behaviour.
Adult obsessions with sex are recycled through the discussion of children. As a result, society tends to sexualise children through interpreting youngsters’ behaviour as if it is driven by adult motives. The adult world – including many child experts and policymakers – often see sexual motives behind normal children’s behaviour. We live in a world where six-year-old children are expelled from school for inappropriate sexual behaviour, where a 10-year-old boy is put on the Sex Offenders’ Register for touching a girl, and where playing ‘doctors and nurses’ is increasingly interpreted as the precursor to an act of sexual violence.
Sadly, ‘inappropriate sexual behaviour’ by young children has become a new policy obsession. Typically, the difference between ‘inappropriate’ and ‘appropriate’ behaviour is in the eye of the beholder. New guidance for social workers says they should recognise that children are at risk from their peers and that they should not interpret sexual play as ‘normal’. Social workers are advised not to have any kind of ‘high threshold’ before taking action. But the truth is that there are a great many forms of behaviour and experiences that are entirely harmless in the context of children’s lives, yet which would take on a more sinister meaning if they were carried out by an adult. Today, officialdom is falling into the trap of rediscovering the dark side of adult behaviour in the playpen.
One final point. This showtrial is not just a classic example of how not to treat children. It is also symbolic of the broader infantilisation of English justice. The spectacle at the Old Bailey had nothing to do with a normal courtroom drama. The transformation of the court into a make-believe primary-school classroom – with specially lowered chairs and break-times for the kids – was fuelled by an adult fantasy that pretend justice is the equivalent of the real thing. The adults played their bit – with the judge leaving his wig and gown at home – as they went through the motions of treating the proceedings as if they were a proper trial. The mothers of the boys sat by their children as if they were waiting in a dentist’s surgery.
But in truth, this make-believe court scene was part of a ritual which criminalises children who play doctors and nurses and which incites eight- and 10-year-olds to act out the role of ‘rape victim’ and ‘sexual predator’ for a watching adult audience. In their hearts, everyone involved in this mock-trial knew that everything about it was fake.
Frank Furedi’s latest book, Wasted: Why Education Isn't Educating, is published by Continuum Press.
Saturday, 3 April 2010
How Not to Raise Narcissistic Children
Schooling and Self-Esteem
When a culture turns away from God, such as our own has done, it becomes rootless. It does not stand for anything and so falls for everything. Each generation is subjected to the latest "bright" idea--particularly ideas about human beings, family, marriage, an raising children--that comes down the pike. Then within a generation, the unintended side effects of these "trendy" concepts begin to show up, and society says, "Oops. That was a bad idea". But by then the damage is done.
One really bad idea in our generation has been the notion that children must have their self-esteem constantly reaffirmed and reinforced. This has led to a praxis in the home and in the classroom of constantly affirming children, and minimising criticism--particularly telling children and pupils they are wrong, or allowing them to fail. But now the results are showing up from a generation's application of this half-baked idea to children. They are not good.
A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald documents the problems and the emerging consequences.
Successful parenting and educating must above all be grounded in honesty and integrity. When a culture turns its back upon God, honesty and integrity quickly become seen as old-fashioned concepts, well past their use-by-date. Instead, parents and teachers want to be loved and liked and replace tough, honest love with cheap psycho-babble "love" which denies their children access to the truth that hurts, but also builds character and resilience and appropriate self-respect that does not tolerate in oneself a perpetual narcissism, believing that the whole world exists to serve me.
We thank God that He has delivered us, through His Son, from such folly and self-deceit.
When a culture turns away from God, such as our own has done, it becomes rootless. It does not stand for anything and so falls for everything. Each generation is subjected to the latest "bright" idea--particularly ideas about human beings, family, marriage, an raising children--that comes down the pike. Then within a generation, the unintended side effects of these "trendy" concepts begin to show up, and society says, "Oops. That was a bad idea". But by then the damage is done.
One really bad idea in our generation has been the notion that children must have their self-esteem constantly reaffirmed and reinforced. This has led to a praxis in the home and in the classroom of constantly affirming children, and minimising criticism--particularly telling children and pupils they are wrong, or allowing them to fail. But now the results are showing up from a generation's application of this half-baked idea to children. They are not good.
A recent article in the Sydney Morning Herald documents the problems and the emerging consequences.
The belief that regular praise will improve the self-esteem of students has backfired, with educators urging over-anxious parents to let their children fail so they can learn from their mistakes. Parents were also doing too much for their children who were becoming less resilient and unable to cope with failure. Some were even too scared to put up their hand in class and risk giving the wrong answer.One Sydney principal has stated bluntly that the principle of educating to build a child's self-esteem is the most damaging educational concept that has ever been thought up.
As new research shows that members of Generation Y are entering the workforce with an inflated sense of their abilities, principals are warning ''helicopter parents'' against putting too much pressure on children to be successful, which could discourage them from risking failure.
Rod Kefford, the headmaster of Barker College, has warned: ''We are creating a generation of very fearful learners and the quality of our intellectual life will suffer as a result.''A generation of pampered, cosseted, self-indulged children are now entering adult life. They are failing!
Today's students are let down lightly by teachers and wrapped in cotton wool by some parents. But in the 1960s, it was not uncommon for teachers to tell students bluntly that they had given a wrong answer.
''Then someone invented the concept of self-esteem,'' Dr Kefford said. ''In some ways it has been the most damaging educational concept that has ever been conceived.
''We couldn't do anything that would upset or harm the self-esteem of students, which was very fragile, we were led to believe … That is when we stopped our proper work in the character formation in young people. If we are serious about building resilience, we have to let them fail. It is only through our failings in the learning process that we learn anything.'' He said schools needed to give children the confidence to risk failure to encourage more creative thinking.
''[Through] this fear we have of ever allowing them to fail, we are selling them short as human beings and as future adults,'' he said. One of the first empirical studies on generational differences in work values shows Generation Y or the ''millennials'' (born between 1982 and 1999) are entering the workforce overconfident and with a sense of entitlement. The research, led by Jean Twenge at San Diego State University and published in the Journal of Management, shows this generation wants money and the status of a prestigious job without putting in long hours. When they do not get the marks they expect at university or rise quickly enough in their jobs, they turn into quitters.Our parents raised a previous generation on the maxim, "Spare the rod and spoil the child". Our generation has reversed this, replacing it with the faddish, "Spoil (aka, build self-esteem) the child, and spare the rod." The fruits of this indulgence are now becoming evident.
''More and more students are reaching university not knowing how to do things for themselves. Parents think they are helping young people by doing things for them but they are actually making them less independent,'' Professor Twenge said.
''It is now common for parents and teachers to tell children, 'you are special' and 'you can be anything you want to be'.'' While such comments are meant to encourage students and raise their self-esteem, experts say they can inflate students' egos.
''Feeling special often means the expectation of special treatment,'' she said. ''Your parents might think you're special but the rest of the world might not. This can be a difficult adjustment.''
Successful parenting and educating must above all be grounded in honesty and integrity. When a culture turns its back upon God, honesty and integrity quickly become seen as old-fashioned concepts, well past their use-by-date. Instead, parents and teachers want to be loved and liked and replace tough, honest love with cheap psycho-babble "love" which denies their children access to the truth that hurts, but also builds character and resilience and appropriate self-respect that does not tolerate in oneself a perpetual narcissism, believing that the whole world exists to serve me.
We thank God that He has delivered us, through His Son, from such folly and self-deceit.
Tuesday, 19 January 2010
So That's It, Then
Parents are the Problem
The appearance of Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD) is one of those mad ideas that inevitably arise in a culture controlled by a systematic and programmatic rejection of original sin. Children are at worst regarded as pure, blank slates upon which good things can be written. More often they are thought of as angelic beings, at least until reality intrudes. Even more common is the notion that they are "just like adults", only smaller.
It is not surprising, then, that when children begin to show signs of acute self-absorption and self-will, coupled with a strong resistance to anyone telling them what to do or how to do it, the Unbeliever naturally concludes that the child must have a (physical or psychological) malady of some kind. Such behaviour cannot be the fault of the child. To make it official the "experts" rush to give this phenomenon a name, so that it can be written about in the academic journals and text books. It can also be formally diagnosed, since symptoms can be codified. Moreover, thankfully, as we have been reminded in a recent article in the Daily Mail, it can be treated with "powerful amphetamine-like stimulant drugs, which work by affecting levels of brain chemicals known as neurotransmitters, aiding concentration and reducing hyperactivity," otherwise known as Ritalin.
And so a couple of generations of kids (most of them boys) have been fed a steady diet of drugs to quell their intrinsic and natural rebelliousness. Now, however, recent British research has concluded that "children suffering from the behavioural disorder can control their symptoms - simply by learning self-discipline."
Well, actually, that is a bit of an oversimplification. Researchers have had very positive results from a computer game which requires concentrated thought in order to win. After playing the game, the researchers at University of Hertfordshire's School of Psychology in Hatfield reckoned that their subjects had reduced their self-absorbed impulsive behaviour by twenty-five percent. Wow. ADHD can now be treated by the child learning self-control.
Ah, but here's the rub. The child must be willing to be taught self-control, right? If not, no treatment can occur. They have to be willing to play the game in the first place. Actually, come to think of it, a lot of money, effort, and psycho-babble could have been saved by having the ADHD child directed to a chess board. No doubt the outcome would have been the same.
Let's be very clear. ADHD is a condition in children caused by parental neglect and abuse. Neglect, because Unbelieving parents have wilfully ignored the intrinsic selfishness and lust for personal autonomy that has been in every human heart since the Fall, Messiah excepted. This is as stupid and short-sighted as the parent who thought he was successfully feeding and clothing his child by ensuring there was food in the cupboards and clothes in the closet. Abuse, because modern parents have failed in their duty to correct, train, and discipline their children out of their selfishness and natural rebellion, and so left them imprisoned and racked by their impulses, lusts, and self-absorption.
We did not need some very expensive research scientists to tell us this. Well, actually, Unbelievers do--because in large measure Science has become their holy writ. Will it change anything? Of course not. At least not until our culture faces the uncomfortable truth of intrinsic human depravity--and traces its implications appropriately through to child-rearing practice. But that will not happen because it would cut far too close to the bone. Some much-loved idolatries would come under threat.
So here is what will happen. The valiant researchers, clutching their fresh research grants, waving scientific papers, and presenting myriads of variants of new computer games to teach self-discipline will eventually discover that virtually the whole bunch of children diagnosed with ADHD resist playing such games. Consternation will generate need for a new disorder to be discovered which will eventually be named "Game Phobia Syndrome" or "GPS". Drug companies will work feverishly to discover a chemical treatment for this disorder. And so it will go.
But this fact remains. One of the great tragedies in the West is the systematic abuse and neglect by parents of generations of children in the name of an "enlightened" denial of the true moral guilt and sin before a Holy God, with which they and their children were born.
The appearance of Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder(ADHD) is one of those mad ideas that inevitably arise in a culture controlled by a systematic and programmatic rejection of original sin. Children are at worst regarded as pure, blank slates upon which good things can be written. More often they are thought of as angelic beings, at least until reality intrudes. Even more common is the notion that they are "just like adults", only smaller.
It is not surprising, then, that when children begin to show signs of acute self-absorption and self-will, coupled with a strong resistance to anyone telling them what to do or how to do it, the Unbeliever naturally concludes that the child must have a (physical or psychological) malady of some kind. Such behaviour cannot be the fault of the child. To make it official the "experts" rush to give this phenomenon a name, so that it can be written about in the academic journals and text books. It can also be formally diagnosed, since symptoms can be codified. Moreover, thankfully, as we have been reminded in a recent article in the Daily Mail, it can be treated with "powerful amphetamine-like stimulant drugs, which work by affecting levels of brain chemicals known as neurotransmitters, aiding concentration and reducing hyperactivity," otherwise known as Ritalin.
And so a couple of generations of kids (most of them boys) have been fed a steady diet of drugs to quell their intrinsic and natural rebelliousness. Now, however, recent British research has concluded that "children suffering from the behavioural disorder can control their symptoms - simply by learning self-discipline."
Well, actually, that is a bit of an oversimplification. Researchers have had very positive results from a computer game which requires concentrated thought in order to win. After playing the game, the researchers at University of Hertfordshire's School of Psychology in Hatfield reckoned that their subjects had reduced their self-absorbed impulsive behaviour by twenty-five percent. Wow. ADHD can now be treated by the child learning self-control.
Ah, but here's the rub. The child must be willing to be taught self-control, right? If not, no treatment can occur. They have to be willing to play the game in the first place. Actually, come to think of it, a lot of money, effort, and psycho-babble could have been saved by having the ADHD child directed to a chess board. No doubt the outcome would have been the same.
Let's be very clear. ADHD is a condition in children caused by parental neglect and abuse. Neglect, because Unbelieving parents have wilfully ignored the intrinsic selfishness and lust for personal autonomy that has been in every human heart since the Fall, Messiah excepted. This is as stupid and short-sighted as the parent who thought he was successfully feeding and clothing his child by ensuring there was food in the cupboards and clothes in the closet. Abuse, because modern parents have failed in their duty to correct, train, and discipline their children out of their selfishness and natural rebellion, and so left them imprisoned and racked by their impulses, lusts, and self-absorption.
We did not need some very expensive research scientists to tell us this. Well, actually, Unbelievers do--because in large measure Science has become their holy writ. Will it change anything? Of course not. At least not until our culture faces the uncomfortable truth of intrinsic human depravity--and traces its implications appropriately through to child-rearing practice. But that will not happen because it would cut far too close to the bone. Some much-loved idolatries would come under threat.
So here is what will happen. The valiant researchers, clutching their fresh research grants, waving scientific papers, and presenting myriads of variants of new computer games to teach self-discipline will eventually discover that virtually the whole bunch of children diagnosed with ADHD resist playing such games. Consternation will generate need for a new disorder to be discovered which will eventually be named "Game Phobia Syndrome" or "GPS". Drug companies will work feverishly to discover a chemical treatment for this disorder. And so it will go.
But this fact remains. One of the great tragedies in the West is the systematic abuse and neglect by parents of generations of children in the name of an "enlightened" denial of the true moral guilt and sin before a Holy God, with which they and their children were born.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)