Hard News: Feckless Solutions
178 Responses
First ←Older Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 8 Newer→ Last
-
It's just that violence in the home is way more important than violence on the sports field (how many kids get killed in sports fights). They are on the same continuum but it is kind of vital that we stop killing our children and probably not so vital that we stop bashing each other on sports fields. Note that I said that sports clubs could take the lead in promoting the unacceptability of violence.
As a society we have to move away from violence as a way to resolve problems but right now stopping bashing our kids is more important than stopping sports people fighting. Yes we should move on both fronts. -
But Daniel, you'd also see more women leaving abusive relationships, and a reduction in financial stress.
Now, which of those effects are going to be strongest? Yours or mine? I don't think that this thought experiment is helping at all.
-
3410,
The definition of unjust and unwarranted changes depending on context.
No it doesn't; that's why it's called a definition. It's what qualifies as unjust or unwarranted that is dependant on context.
Hence, a bit of biff on the rugby field doesn't count - just ask the crowd if it was "just" or "warranted".
What is "just" or "warranted" is not dependant on the opinion of the crowd.
-
3410,
so a fair tackle in rugby isn't violent, but a punch is?
Precisely.
-
Thanks for coming by Mikaere, and my sincere best wishes for the task ahead of your whanau.
Thanks.
We must stop condoning violence as entertainment, especially the unrealistic violence that has no consequences that is the staple of so many movies, TV programs, and computer games.
Brent, I think our approach needs to be more nuanced than what you suggest. I happen to enjoy specific kinds of violent entertainment. More on that in a moment.
The discussion re on-field assaults in rugby highlights an excellent example of the meme that violence is a valid mechanism to resolve a conflict. Now, I'm all for people agreeing to a set of rules about how to conduct a physically demanding contact sport. Playing hard rugby, fine. But describing on-field assaults as "biffo" or "argy-bargy" is patently irresponsible. Young men should never be granted permission to act in violent ways, which is exactly what happens when sports commentators gleefully attach euphemistic labels to activities that have no place on a sports field. And it's relatively easy to fix - the networks just need to lay down a policy that no longer condones violence in sports.
A lot of TV shows and movies attach a notion that the hero/heroine is allowed to be verbally and/or physically abusively, to the point whether it is an acceptable (and possibly desirable) attribute. This ranges from shows where the characters are nasty to each other on Nickelodean to those awful American cop/pseudo-cop shows populated by smug, abusive, righteous police officers. The assertion seems that as long you succeed (i.e. get the bad guys), then you can behave disrespectfully towards anyone who isn't complying with your wishes along the way.
Which brings us to games. Unlike TV fiction, which portrays "real" characters (as in the characters are supposed to be drawn from our global society) doing "real" things (as in a factitious representation of real world activities), games tend to be quite firmly fantastic. They just don't feel real to me at all, and I think that makes a major difference.
I run live action roleplaying games for kids once or twice a year. We use foam weapons and the kids fight against the adults (not each other). It's good, clean fun which promotes cooperation and teamwork and I can't see how connotations with violence have a negative impact on either the game or the kids.
So, I guess I'm saying that it's not about removing references to violence from our culture, rather it is about removing validation of violence that is based on "real life".
-
Stephen:
>Now, which of those effects are going to be strongest? Yours or mine? I don't think that this thought experiment is helping at all.Well, ok. But it seems to me that wondering about unintended economic incentives to abuse children is at least a reasonable place to *start* unravelling the problem, no? If we're happy the existing policy is AOK, then we can move on. But are we? The discussion seems to be focussed around conveniently broad generalities. Colonialism may indeed be a contributor to the situation, but both its direct connection to child abuse, and exactly what kind of policy we might invent to overcome it in this regard is far from clear.
The same kind of arguments might be made, for example, about violence in the media. Mikaere Curtis made some comments earlier that I am sympathetic to in this respect. We are animals after all, and animals are programmed to learn by imitation, so it is a reasonable assumption that this is in there somewhere too. However, this is an exponentially more difficult problem to solve than a (possibly) poorly designed policy. (and I would say that compensating for the effects of colonialism is an order of magnitude tougher than that). My point is: where is the actual policy discussion? Perhaps we can improve the existing one and get better effects more quickly than with all these vague op-ed mega-projects, which we can get to once we're sure the simpler solutions have all been milked.
-
merc,
Guilty: Plays Of The Week With Dobbo, TV3, totally glorifies the pole drive tackle and any biffo.
No-one has mentioned the Haka yet, my feeling is that it is mis-used in the AB context, not so in the funeral context. -
Daniel,
I am home from work now before rushing off....
Ask yourself: which is the easier place to start:
1) examining and potentially correcting a particular policy, which may through poor design be contributing to the problem it is supposed to solve, or
2) trying to redesign a culture or societyI think it is important to offer practical suggestions rather than vaguely-well-meaning-but-practically-useless suggestions, and I do think it is important to look at the design of particular policies. Absolutely.
I just wanted to see where you stood and if you had any concrete suggestions.
As far as incentives pointing the right way goes, I agree but from a different angle. It is the doubling that makes this artifical and simplistic. If a woman wants to re-enter the workforce after being on the DPB the system needs to be carefully designed so that it is practical and worthwhile financially for her to do so. There needs to be support for people to train and lift themselves out of poverty and be able to take care of their kids. Break the cycle. It's not just about solo parents and it sure and hell is not just about those on benefits. But if you are going to do thought experiements, I would try to bring them more in line with the real world. Just my opinion and it is hard to gauge in online conversation what people really mean.Stephen
I agree it could be argued lots of ways what the effect would be but it is the wider nuanced discussions and practical suggestions that hopefully will help because I think that's ultimately what everyone wants, some improvement in our society.
-
I grew up in a single-parent household, with my Mum on a benefit. (Dad passed away when I was small.) Money was tight, but we coped. More particularly, Mum coped. Because she had a support network.
I'm now 24, and I see that as something sorely lacking in today's society. New parents don't have communities to bond with the way they did in the past. A friend of mine, who is a new mum, felt horribly isolated in her first two years of motherhood. She joined what parenting groups she could find, but those in her area tended to be the cappucino-cruiser and Prada-purse group. (The few that could afford to stay home with their kids..) She was the first new mum in my circle of friends, and whilst we were all willing to help out - babysit, offer help around home, and so on - none of us were parents. Visits to professionals (the GP and so on) are costly, and organizations like Plunket can only stretch their resources so far.
Any 'fixes' that society tries to implement around child abuse problems needs to provide resources for new parents. Free ones, preferably, or so cheap that ANYONE can get hold of them. Family can't or won't help like they did 30 or 60 years ago, friends often aren't available, and society has fragmented. It used to take a village to bring up a child, and these days too few people have a 'village' to call on.
-
I remain unconvinced that watching violent TV programmes or rugby, or smacking for that matter, lead in any casual sense to the sort of adult violence against children that is under discusion.
-
merc,
Good point, but I know for a fact that seeing pole driving tackles on TV makes young players mimic that particularly nasty manouvre. The young one's I know can have seen it nowhere else. Tana was a master at it and as AB captain should have known better.
-
I remain unconvinced that watching violent TV programmes or rugby, or smacking for that matter, lead in any casual sense to the sort of adult violence against children that is under discusion.
Agreed. The impact of media violence isn't a fruitless discussion, but I feel is a bit of a red herring compared to other factors. US Surgeon General David Satcher in 1999 said "we clearly associate media violence to aggressive behavior. But the impact was very small compared to other things. Some may not be happy with that, but that’s where the science is" (Wikipedia video game controversy article). The article goes on to say "This was also the conclusion of a meta-analysis by psychologist Johnathan Freedman, who reviewed over 200 published studies and found that the majority did not find a causal link."
Again, I don't think that media violence should be ignored, or its impact downplayed, but the studies don't really back up the rhetoric in most cases.
-
Damn single parent families on welfare in bloody state houses.
Isn't one of those welfare children standing for PM next year?Daniel you've bravely waged in bashing up solo women on the DPB. Even when presented with the evidence that this has nothing to do with the tragedy.
I've missed it, could you reiterate you're valueble insight again?
-
ron,
What Laws et al really mean is that something must be done as long as it doesn't affect or inconvenience them in any way whatsoever.
How exactly is it inconvenient for Laws or any other man if a woman is asked if she has been criticised lately? There is a bigger issue and that is that such a question is going to achieve very little. Maybe that could have been behind Laws' complaint?
-
No-one has mentioned the Haka yet, my feeling is that it is mis-used in the AB context, not so in the funeral context.
Hmm, what exactly are you saying ? Haka in general or Ka Mate more specifically ?
I'm not a fan of Ka Mate - I consider Te Rauparaha to have exhibited seriously psychopathic behaviour, and do not think that his haka is necessarily the best choice for the All Blacks. Perhaps, one day, Kapa o Pango will be as universally known as Ka Mate is today and we'll have a general shift towards a purpose-written AB haka. Anyone who thinks otherwise, I suggest they do some research and see how approving they are of Te Rauparaha's activities.
I remain unconvinced that watching violent TV programmes or rugby, or smacking for that matter, lead in any casual sense to the sort of adult violence against children that is under discusion.
Neil, has it ever occurred to you that for violence to thrive, it has to have a benign environment ? Humans are social animals, and living in an environment that promotes or glorifies realistic violent endeavour surely contributes to a situation where an adult feels justified, even supported, in continuing a set of abusive behaviours towards others; and in many cases this would be children associated with that adult.
We don't live in a vacuum; and society is not a collection of omniscient rational economic actors. We live in a complex social environment where many of the factors are co-related. And it would do well if our analysis of child-abuse statistics reflected this.
-
The New Zealand child most at risk of homicide is less than one year of age, male, and Maori. The child is most likely to have died from battering, sustaining head and other fatal bodily injuries inflicted by one or other of his parents.
Add to that " and the child's mother and his father are either not married or nor living together".
-
merc,
Thank you Mikaere, yes that's pretty much what I was alluding very obliquely to. I think the kind of strength that you've shown with your words here is a million times more real for today than Te Rauparaha's out dated war chant.
Kia kaha! -
I'd didn't think that Ka Mate was a war chant. Can't it be summarised as:
"Cheers bro! I thought I was fucked then, eh!" -
Joe Wylie said:
Ever tried to intervene in a public situation where someone vulnerable is being beaten? The common reaction seems to be to be told to eff and mind your own effing business. Usually, IMHE of such things, it's the victim who's the most indignant, even if she (usually a she) has been screaming call the jacks only moments earlier.
Well, yes. And yes, adults will react that way. But the particular issue we are trying to deal with here is violence towards children, and the indignant person is likely to be the adult who is suddenly being held responsible for his or her behaviour.
Mikaere Curtis said:for violence to thrive, it has to have a benign environment
And every time we turn away and try not to see the violence, so that we don't have to deal with it, we contribute to that benign environment.
For a few years now, we have been seeing ads on TV, urging us to intervene when a drunken friend wants to get into a car and drive. People who intervene are glorified, in the ads, as heros and legends, and bloody good mates.
About time to extend that attitude to looking after children, don't you think?
I have made this point elsewhere but I think it's worth repeating: we will know that this nation is ready to do something about the appalling violence wreaked on children when an All Black donates his player of the match award to a campaign to stop child abuse.
-
3410,
Humans are social animals, and living in an environment that promotes or glorifies realistic violent endeavour surely contributes to a situation where an adult feels justified, even supported, in continuing a set of abusive behaviours towards others; and in many cases this would be children associated with that adult.
We don't live in a vacuum; and society is not a collection of omniscient rational economic actors. We live in a complex social environment where many of the factors are co-related. And it would do well if our analysis of child-abuse statistics reflected this.
Well said. I know that studies reportedly often don't support that conclusion; I just think that it's probably extremely hard to do an accurate statistical analysis of the situation. I think you're right.
-
Talking to Dr Ian Hassall on the issue earlier today was very illuminating.
A good place to start is to look at those countries that have low rates of child abuse and child homicide, then look at NZ and try and sort out what's different between societies.
I was astounded to hear that this sort of approach is only just being researched now.
Did anyone see the For The Sake of the Children stuff on the news tonight? Apparently tomorrow at 12:12 we're all going to go out in the street and stand up against child abuse for three minutes. The three minutes symbolising the three years of Nia's life.
If there isn't a better way to shirk responsibility for tackling the problem I don't know is.
There's a serious debate that's yet to happen and which can't come soon enough where people start talking seriously about parenting.
The most important role in the world is brining up a child. The simple truth is if a kid goes off the rails it's the parents fault (yes, as an individual the child bears responsibility as well).
People always shy away from this conclusion because its a difficult truth. You are responsible for a child, it's your responsibility and your job to create a full rounded member of society. There is no greater task for a human.
I really do think that once this idea gets aired in these terms and once serious and well funded comparative studies are initiated we'll be on our way.
Idealist twaddle? Prove me wrong.
-
I'd didn't think that Ka Mate was a war chant. Can't it be summarised as:
"Cheers bro! I thought I was fucked then, eh!"As a brevity it is reasonably accurate. Agreed, Haka Taparahi is not a war chant. It is a posture dance.
A bit like hip-hop without the gangsta overtones, phat jazz grooves or wahine=ho mysoginistic attitude.
i.e. a statement of social cohesion sans imported negative connotations.
-
Michael F
>Daniel you've bravely waged in bashing up solo women on the DPB. Even when presented with the evidence that this has nothing to do with the tragedy. I've missed it, could you reiterate you're valueble insight again?Hi Michael,
I'm not waging war against solo women on the DPB, and this particular case is not the only example.
I'd be happy to support radically increasing the DPB if some good arguments could be put forward that this would radically decrease such abuse.
What I'm noting is the moral posturing around the issue, mainly from the media, rounding up the perennial unfixables to indicate deep seriousness and sincerity, and the absence of much in the way of specific policy discussion. The late great Bruce Jesson lamented that if you spoke to the right about social issues their eyes glazed over, and the same thing happened when you talked to the left about economics and finance.
All I'm saying is why not start by examining the basic policy mechanics of programs like the DPB before leaping to big-picture solutions? Can anyone tell me where the system has been discussed in much detail by the media?
-
I'm also completely unconvinced that a culture of watching violent sports and movies leads to a violent culture. I'm not even convinced they are correlated, but even if they were, it wouldn't be immediately obvious which caused which. Perhaps when a culture is already violent it enjoys watching violence. We love rugby - nobody forces us to watch it. Or perhaps violence is just something a large subsection of humans will like to see, whether they are violent or not. It's built into us, like sex and hunger.
I'm not saying there's no solutions, but that particular one, censorship of violent depictions and voluntary violent sports, seems the most wrong one of all. Violence is a very complicated problem. There is no simple solution, except on an individual basis. There the solution is obvious. Don't be violent, or condone it in others. As for the group solution, I don't know.
-
Perhaps the individual solution IS the group solution. Lead by example. It's a lot harder to do than talk about it, and it sometimes it requires bravery.
Joe Wylie asked:
Ever tried to intervene in a public situation where someone vulnerable is being beaten? The common reaction seems to be to be told to eff and mind your own effing business.
and I can honestly say, yes, just last year I stopped a tussle escalating into a full scale brawl between strangers, and it was kind of enlightening to me.
Two guys were tussling in a doorway of a flat I was leaving over what seemed to be nothing at all other than one of them was small and drunk and the other was a big angry bogan. Their friends were standing by looking alarmed but no-one was doing anything. But when I put my hands gently on both of them and said in a low voice "come on guys, stop this" they did exactly that. And then all the friends jumped in and chimed to the same effect. I was able to walk away and leave them to it, separated, and no longer fighting.
The moral is that sometimes it doesn't take much to stop violence. I was a little afraid at the time, since violence can be unpredictable, but I felt it was worth it, rather than watch a scuffle turn to a brawl right in front of me. And I was not told to eff off. Quite the opposite, my sentiment was infectious.
Post your response…
This topic is closed.