Tags
On a slightly different note to Deane’s posting on the Referendum(b), it seems to me that underlying a lot of the arguments in this debate – in general, not necessarily on his post – is the fear by some that “the family” is being undermined … That certain people feel that this “smacking issue” is just one more way in which their (oft-called Christian) model of family is being “attacked” – not a lot dissimilar to the anxiety the same groups express that if gays are allowed to marry then somehow that will mean “the family” (ie. Christian, white, middle class, nuclear, capitalist etc.) will be threatened ..
(Just type family, slippery slope, gay marriage etc into Google …)
Somehow gay/lesbian families, or straight families which have a more egalitarian view of children/adult and male/female “roles” threaten what are seen as “traditional” families (with their “traditional family values”) … The “rise” of this egalitarian-style of family is seen as a direct (and deliberate) challenge to the traditional-style. But why is this?
I think that is a stone worth peering under – what nasty things are crawling around under there??
My suspicion is that underneath this anxiety lies the fear that what will really be lost is the authority of the father – the patriarchal right to discipline, to be the head of his home, to be THE authoritative figure in perhaps one of the few remaining places where he can be assured of this status …
And for some of these people, this of course equates with the loss of authority of the God-Father figure – once that has been “undermined” then all chaos breaks out (supposedly). And for the State to be a party to this emasculating of both men/fathers/God, then no wonder the debate is fierce!!!
The Dunedin School 
Hey Gillian :)
I’m not really that familiar with the concern about this law undermining “the family” (I think that may have been more common in the debacle over civil unions).
If the only kind of families that existed were two parent families with a mother and a father (where the father does most or all of the disciplining or correction of children), or solo parent families with a father and no mother, then I could see how the prohibition on the use of force would be a prohibition on male action. But the reality is, I’m not sure that this is a fair reflection of New Zealand families. In my own anecdotal experience, discipline is often carried out more by mothers than fathers (often because of a closer role played in their children’s lives), and solo mothers are no fewer than solo fathers.
I can understand the “capitalist” reference, however. The “capitalist” approach to life is one where the right to raise and discipline children is a private one belonging to families, whereas the far opposite approach (I guess, following your lead with the term “capitalist,” this would be called the “socialist” approach), the right to raise, educate, use force, etc, belongs to the state as the benevolent caregiver of society.
I think that, political alignments aside, Christians from the earliest of times were right to reject this view of the role of government in the lives of families.
Hi!
Thanks for your comments …
The capitalist/socialist divide is an interesting one … Curiously, for all the comments I hear from more conservatively-minded folk, about the State reaching too far into the home, and interfering in the private affairs of parental rights to discipline (for example), I see a conflicting belief on websites such as Family First:
“We reaffirm that the family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to the widest possible protection and assistance by society and the State”
See the rest of their statement on what they call on the government to do – the “hand” reaches WAY into the home!!
Yes, I’ve noticed that oddity as well. I do wonder (and worry about) just how much “assistance” they have in mind. It bothers me that for some interest groups (and I have nothing against interest groups), what they sometimes seem to be advocating is replacing one type of intervention with another.
For my part, I think that when it comes to a lot of things that touch on issues of family, state regulation or endorsement of relationships and so forth, it’s either going to be run by the government the way one interest group (on either side of disputes like, say, civil unions) want it, or the government won’t control it at all. When it comes to civil unions (just because that’s an issue mentioned in the blog post), I think the best answer is for the government to step out of the business of manufacturing relationships altogether, not inventing new ones to manufacture.
I was thinking more about the references to patriarchalism after replying earlier as well. Although I don’t think that’s a real motivator in this case because of the makeup of so many NZ families, even if we lived in a somewhat different society and all families were a unit with a mother and a father, all under the clearly defined authority of “Dad” who is the sole distributor of correction for children, I still don’t think that would be enough to invalidate the objections that such families raise against the legislation that we now live under. While it’s possible that some of the fathers involved could be simply driven by the patriarchal ego trip that you refer to, it would still be true that there are issues of justice involved, even for those ego driven men. The way I see it, whether a man is a patriarchal dinosaur or not is beside the point when we are asking whether or not he should be criminalised for using some degree of force in his role as a correcting parent.
Genuine question here Glenn (and anyone else!), cos this has confused me since the whole debate began …
Why do certain parents feel that they need to engage in “correction” through the use of “some degree of force”? What’s the deal there? Two things: why “correction” and why “force”?
As a parent I can understand the need to remove my child from certain situations with “some degree of force” – let’s say, just for instance, from the Warehouse and into the car-seat while throwing a tantrum cos a certain pair of gumboots were not going to be bought by a certain mother – “some degree of force” was required to carry the kicking screaming child out of that store and to put them into that car-seat – NOT EASY!!
But as far as the law goes, I am entitled to do that. In fact the law allows me to use “some degree of force” in quite a few situations, thankfully …
What I don’t get is the need for some parents to want to CORRECT their children through the use of force … To me that implies punishment. To “correct” my young child I might model better ways of doing things, remove the toy (or other item), put them somewhere else; for older children the same things apply – removable of privileges, time-out, modeling, and talking … I really can’t think of any situation where I could improve my child’s behaviour/attitude (the essence of correction?) through physical force ie. smacking.
So why the big need to return the concept of CORRECTION into the law?
Enlighten me please!!
Gillian, nobody at all is talking about “returning” to the concept of correction. it never went away. All that is now prohibited is the use of any force. For example, after a child has done something, physically putting that child in time out, or on the naughty stool, or giving a smack, all of which are intended to have the same effect. Correction strikes me (no pun intended) as something that is obviously necessary, as it’s not just punitive (looking back at past behaviour) but also… well, corrective (i.e. looking forward to future outcomes).
I don’t see any reason to find that unusual or improper. You say you can’t think of a situation where you could use force in correction. Maybe it’s just that you don’t believe it would work. I have found that it does work. In any case, the question isn’t whether either of us thinks it works as the best method. After all, we don’t make criminals out of people just because we think their methods could be improved. :)