Sue Bradford resigned
Printed From: OHbaby!
Category: General Chat
Forum Name: General Chat
Forum Description: For mums, dads, parents-to-be, grandparents, friends -- you name it! And you name the topic you want to chat about!
URL: https://www.ohbaby.co.nz/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=28984
Printed Date: 09 June 2024 at 9:08pm
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.05 - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Sue Bradford resigned
Posted By: lemongirl
Subject: Sue Bradford resigned
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 3:38pm
|
Just saw http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/2901929/Green-MP-Sue-Bradford-resigns-from-Parliament" - Sue Bradford resigned.
I'm kind of sad, parliament needs more of her type not less. She managed to get three personal bills through the house: section 59, abolishing youth rates and a bill allowing mothers to keep their children with them in prison to breastfeed, That's huge, most MPs never pass a personal bill. But then all those death threats must have taken a toll over the years. |
Replies:
Posted By: freckle
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 3:51pm
I agree lemongirl it is sad, she's done well IMO - I'm in the minority and I'm all for the anti-smacking bill  ------------- mum to 3 lovely girls :D |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 4:31pm
|
I didn't like her but I totally agree she's done really well. I also supported the repeal of section 59 so I'll join you in the minority freckle. -------------  
 
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 4:58pm
|
I'm glad she's gone, can't stand her. She only resigned cause she didn't get the co-leadership, threw her toys IMO.
The anti-smacking is the most useless piece of legislation ever passed. Its done nothing to stop or reduce child abuse, all its done is turn parents into criminals. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow">   [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Paws
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 5:47pm
|
I know she's not everyone's cup of tea but I'm sad too. I ended up being a total supporter of the anti-smacking bill also so I'll also join the minority. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: clare00
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 9:14pm
| I think she's great, and it's such a shame that she's resigning. I wish that we had more leaders like her. |
Posted By: Mamma2N
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 9:16pm
I'm with you there! Biggest paddy I've seen in quite sometime! |
mrsg1 wrote:Posted By: Genie
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 9:21pm
I'm in this camp too, can't stand the woman. As for the anti-smacking, IMO people who are into beating their children aren't likely to give a crap about the law anyway. ------------- 
|
Posted By: scribe
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 9:48pm
|
I think it was brave of her to state the real reason she was leaving rather than the usual 'spend more time with family' or whatever we usually get from politicians.
Some commentary on it from the Herald's political editor: http://blogs.nzherald.co.nz/blog/audrey-young/2009/9/25/fearless-sue-bradford-will-leave-big-gap/?c_id=1501219 - here I don't want to turn this into an anti-smacking vs. smacking debate, but I can't help myself:
Well no, but at least they might get some jail time - instead of using section 59 to get away with child abuse. |
Posted By: Paws
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 10:14pm
And at the risk of adding to the debate....if as a society we are going to say no to any sort of violence to our children way not start in our own homes? To be honest I don't think she threw a paddy at all, it sounded to me like she had missed out on a position, sure, but she had taken, what was it...4 months to evaluate and realise she wasn't happy. Goodness knows I've done that in a job after missing out on a management role, doesn't seem much difference to me. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: kiwigal
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 10:14pm
|
I am with you on this one |
Posted By: caitlynsmygirl
Date Posted: 25 September 2009 at 11:52pm
*walks into thread, sees this is about to become a debate on smacking and runs RUNS away ! *  ------------- 
|
Posted By: kebakat
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 6:48am
runs off to join kelly |
Posted By: Hopes
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 7:03am
|
LOL Kelly I love your way of defusing potential conflict Let's not go there with the smacking debate or we'll end uip at four pages!
As for Sue Bradford, I couldn't stand her as a person, every time I saw her on TV her views seemed so ill-thought-out and based on personal opinion rather than fact. However, I do agree with some of the things she implemented. Also, like anakk said, I think it was quite brave of her to be up-front about why she was leaving. -------------   
|
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 8:10am
|
I think it is a shame she has gone, not that I liked her but she had guts & stood up for what she believed.
I think she got a raw deal & maybe it was more of a push than want to leave....who knows with politics. But we do need more strong women in & people who are not afraid to stand up. |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 8:14am
You are not alone there. When you take away all the hype it only comes down to 1 thing, & no one can justify it. But then I don't think anyone should hit kids, so thats pretty sad if I to am in the minority. |
Posted By: jazzy
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 8:15am
hmmm...does not have to be |
Posted By: freckle
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 10:24am
|
Paws - I absolutely agree, I can't see anything wrong with leaving a job because you missed out on a higher position - surely people do that all the time??
Jazzy- I don't either IMO smacking kids at any level is a completely unnecessary and irrelevant punishment that is demeaning and unproductive ... I'm somewhat passionate bout this one  can ya tell ------------- mum to 3 lovely girls :D |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 10:27am
|
LMAO Kelly - that's exactly what I was thinking reading through this. -------------
|
Posted By: becky
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 11:11am
|
Im sad she has gone too she has done some great things esp the breastfeeding Mums in prison bill.
Also have to agree with the anti-smacking there are other ways that are more productive to discipline. Imo I also think it is about role modelling too how can we teach our children not to hit and then turn around and do it to them. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 12:25pm
|
My issue with the anti smacking bill, wasn't that I should be allowed to smack my kids, its more to do with the govt telling me how I should raise my children. What right do they have to tell me how to parent.
They took what was a matter for a Judge to decide, and made it the govts decision. It was about removing 'reasonable force' as a defence in the Crimes Act. The media to some extent made 'smacking' the same as 'reasonable force' when it seemed obvious to me, that the people that got off due to 'reasonable force' were doing a lot more than smacking their kids. The anti-smacking legislation has made NZ a country of people who would rather ring the authorities than help a parent who's trying to control his kids - which was the situation with the guy who grabbed his sons ear, while trying to prevent the other going in the Avon river, why didn't the person who dobbed him in help instead. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Paws
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 12:50pm
Just a shame that wasn't the full story or extent of what he did to that kid. Media hypes a lot of this stuff up and makes people look at the these stories and say "oh look see he was unfairly accused". Certainly makes better news than if it comes out the father had actually smacked the kid across the head. During the anti-smacking debate which is going to get the people talking? ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 1:14pm
Do these babies actually live in the prison? ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year  http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 1:15pm
Oh and Im glad she has gone, she was an annoying person before she went into Parliament and now she is just as annoying just slightly better groomed.  ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: becky
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 1:38pm
Yep they live with their mothers it used to be six months but has been extended to two years. There has to be a special parenting agreement signed with conditions and the mum has to want the baby. It some cases it has made the Mums decide to change their lives for the better ------------- http://lilypie.com">
http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 2:17pm
Two years? 
*sits on hands* ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: pikelets
Date Posted: 26 September 2009 at 8:25pm
Love her or hate her - she did acheive more than most MP's which is an achievement. Shame more MP's don't seem to make much impact. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
 3 Angels - Dec10 / Mar11 / Dec11
|
Posted By: Essjay
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 3:58pm
|
It is NOT an "anti smacking" bill. I think that is the biggest discredit to Bradford, as portrayed by a lazy, talk-back style of journalism that this country seems to have adopted. It was the removal of a clause within the legislation that allows a parent to use "reasonable force" as a defence in child abuse case. As has been proven, no parent is being told how to raise their children, nor have any being unfairly accused.
How embarrassing, that as the rest of the world seems to move forward, once again New Zealand seems to want to clamber backwards.....only made more internationally shameful when such protest is taken in context with our disgraceful non accidental injury and child murder incidents. |
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 6:06pm
*sigh* But it's completely ok to put a child into jail for two of the three MOST critical learning years of their life with these aforementioned child abusers and murderers, because their Mother was an idiot and ended up in jail? Just because she "wants them", I for one think you should have thought about wanting your children before ending up in jail in the first place. Thats a brilliant way to brake the cycle! Lets just "normalise" jail as a way of life for the children of our nation and take them away from all their family EXCEPT their Mother just because she can make milk? IMO that is shameful! ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: kellie
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 6:29pm
|
Are they in a separate section of the prison with other mothers and babies?
2 years is quite a long time. Gosh it would be hard to part with the child after the 2 years was up! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Peanut
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 7:08pm
|
Well said, Lilfatty!
I am obviously so out of the know as did not realise that this went on in NZ  -------------  
|
Posted By: pepsi
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 7:32pm
|
Agreed lilfatty! And wasn't there some case(s) of women in prison getting pregnant whilst in there as well?? Thanks to the prison guards or something? (Not sure, could have been something I saw on a tv show haha)..
|
Posted By: Paws
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 7:34pm
Extremely well said!! ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: MissCandice
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 7:36pm
I agree!! 2 years! Living with criminals, what on earth! |
Posted By: clare00
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 7:56pm
|
I understand, though, that having their babies in jail with them gives many of these women reason to turn their lives around.
Also, Essjay, what you said was spot on. It is not an "anti smacking" bill. We can't change the culture of violence against children (in some circles) in this country but still allow caregivers the defence of reasonable force in child abuse cases. I would never let my son hit someone, and so I would never hit him. |
Posted By: Rachael21
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 8:03pm
|
Actually they live in wee house type things not jail like you think and they can come and go to spend time with other family. Its more that they can spend time with their mother more than the standard visiting hours, the baby's aren't in 'jail' like the mothers but can stay there.
Also a fan of the anti-smacking bill, I don't think it has anything to do with the rights of parents. I believe it just gives children the same rights as any other member of our society to be protected from harm. |
Posted By: Treen
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 8:05pm
|
Can't say I agree about the babies in jail, but I think I'll have to do a little more research on that before I comment. I always like to look at both sides of the coin when it comes to politics. From what I gather, the anti-smacking bill came about because a lot of child abusers were avoiding prosecution by claiming that they were merely smacking their child. Bradford saw a lot of this and wanted that loophole closed. The Greens claim the bill is working, yet the New Zealand media aren't particularly forthcoming with those stats.
What I disliked about Bradford, was the way she went about it. She personally insulted everyday kiwi parents. In interviews she would refer to smacking as "hitting" or "abuse" and would imply that those who smacked were backwards and barbaric. Now, if you really want to change someone's opinion, I strongly suggest you don't insult them. I was smacked as a child. I wasn't hit, I wasn't abused, I was smacked. I know the difference and I'm speaking from experience. But what constitutes a smack or abuse in my eyes, can easily be seen as something different to someone else. My husband, for example, was regularly belted with a leather strap. He was left with bruising, swelling, and red marks. That's abuse to me yet to his father, that was a smack. I'm planning on raising my children without smacking. Not because I suffered from any sort of psychological damage as some anti-smackers will tell you. Being smacked as a child hurt nothing but my pride. And I do believe I had a lot more respect for my parents because of it. A lot more respect than many children of today have. But I'm going to try it because smacking is now seen as socially unacceptable. And that's my one and only reason. However, I also know that all kids are different. I don't judge parents who choose to smack. Parents with uncontrollable children are often looked down on. As if it's their fault. Yet children's personalities never seem to come into it. Some children are well-behaved and some are not. I don't believe it's particularly useful to claim that if you can't control your children without resorting to a smack, you're a bad parent. I also try and put myself in my mother's shoes. She raised 4 children and held down 3 jobs. Imagine getting a warning from your boss about being late (because of your kids). You're trying to get everyone into the car to go to Grandma's so you can go to said job. Yet they're playing up and won't do as they're told. You quite simply don't have 10 minutes to sit them on the naughty step. So what do you do? ------------- http://lilypie.com"> 
|
Posted By: becky
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 8:40pm
|
Totally agree with you Essjay re section 59.
The breastfeeding mums in Jail is not about the fact that they produce milk, its about attachment having that opportunity to bond with their child. Its also about breaking the 'Cycle' as most of these mothers in jail probably had a parent in jail may also have been bounced from foster home to foster home. I have seen parents do horrific things to their children and make selfish decisions but these children always want to be with their real parents. The punishment for their crime is being removed from the community and put in a place where they have no personal decisions if a baby goes to live with their mother while she is incarcerated and the mother becomes a better person and wants to fight for her child then I think its a good thing. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: caitlynsmygirl
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 8:44pm
|
My gosh Treen , that was one of the best responses I've ever read .
Well written ! -------------
|
Posted By: flakesitchyfeet
Date Posted: 27 September 2009 at 9:00pm
|
Okay so I've been looking at the anti smacking bill as an anti smacking bill, not as a removal of the clause allowing reasonable force. Whoops! There is my ah ha moment for the evening :)
As for babies in a jail environment of any type, I'm sorry but I'm not keen on that :( I wish I could be more open minded but I reckon that there must be a much safer environment with a better 'vibe' to it, where children can be more nutured. I would hope a mother would want to fight to get out of jail for a child anyway? Laptop battery is going flat, must be time to bail :) -------------  http://lilypie.com"> |
Posted By: MummyFreckle
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 1:25pm
|
I am not going to get into the debate about whether this is right or wrong, but I do have to disagree with you on some of the points that you have made. I dont believe that exposing children to the prison system helps to break the cycle, in fact in does the opposite - it normalises it - especially during those incredibly important first few years when they are learning so much. Like it or not - women who are in jail are there for a reason, and prob have a multitude of personal issues (including anger) and I wouldnt have thought that exposing young children to that is a good thing, and children will be exposed to other women as well as their mother. I also dont beleive that children always want to be with their parents. No matter how strong the bond between a parent and a child, if the child is being abused (emotionally or physically) and IF the child has another family member that cares for them where this doesnt occur - the child will often want to stay with them. I think its a gross generalisation to presume that children arent smart enough to want to be somewhere safe. These women made a choice - and for that they are paying the penatly - the child DID NOT make a choice, they should not be penalised. I strongly believe that we should be helping women in jail to become better people and make better decisions, but help them decide and equip them to be better parents when they get out of prison. Sorry if I sound opinionated on this subject, but I strongly believe that children should not be punished for their parents actions. Children are shaped by the world and the people around them - we have a duty to try to make sure that the world that they are exposed to is free of violence and anger.
------------- http://lilypie.com">  http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: pepsi
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 3:14pm
|
*LIKE* Simsam
|
Posted By: MyLilSquishy
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 3:16pm
|
i didnt know about the other 2 bills she has passed, have only heard about the anti-smacking bill. i think its good that she managed to get the discipline "excuse" for chilod abuse off the table.
although i don't feel the way its been worded or how normal parents are treated is right. if your kid runs out on the road in front of cars, pulling them aside and saying "no johnny we dont do that" will (more often than not) fall on deaf ears. give em a quick swat, they associate running out on the road with mummy/daddy giving em a tap. there is a BIG difference between beating your child within 3 inches of their life, and giving em a smack when they climb on the oven. i dont think that smacking should be an only form of discipline, should only be used in extreme cases, where they put their lives directly in danger, but it should not be completely excluded. if some parents want to take a fully no-hands approach. good on em! im not saying anything against how people raise their children, but i was spanked as a kid, all me and my 2 brothers were. and we all turned out fine. my brother had his own business at 18 and is looking at real estate... (only 19 next month) and i thnk is disgusting how people are criminalising parents for a quick bum tap (normally over a nappy) that 99% of the time, doesnt actually hurt, they cry/respond to the shock... like i said, im glad to see that child abusers dont have an "out" but when your kid is destroying half a supermarket and isnt listening to "stop it" so you give em a tap (btw im not talking about a hardcore whack or anything, i literally mean a hard tap) i dont think its right that parents can get arrested for it because someone else in the supermarket saw it out of the corner of their eye. |
Posted By: sweetpea
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 3:30pm
|
I'm please shes gone never liked her shes off to live on her pension now.
------------- http://daisypath.com"> 
|
Posted By: becky
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 3:59pm
|
[/QUOTE] SimSam
I also dont beleive that children always want to be with their parents. No matter how strong the bond between a parent and a child, if the child is being abused (emotionally or physically) and IF the child has another family member that cares for them where this doesnt occur - the child will often want to stay with them. I think its a gross generalisation to presume that children arent smart enough to want to be somewhere safe. [/QUOTE] Sorry should have said that the children I have come across have wanted to be with their parents and have a strong attachment with them despite some of the abuse or neglect they may have seen. Also in regards to the NORMALISATION of the behaviours that they see in Jail ie Anger its more than likely that these behaviours are normalised for them already, in Jail they have access to support systems and education that in the community they may not be able to access. Also with the idea of it being a punishment for the child do you not think that in some cases children see growing up away from their mothers a punishment? Im also wondering how you make someone a Better person? And mothers that have violence or sexual convictions against children are automatcially ruled out. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 4:42pm
|
No way, no how, should a child live in prison. It's completely ridiculous IMO. If you cared for your kids at all, you wouldn't land yourself in jail. I don't care what other people think, it's ridiculous to assume a child under 2 is better off in jail with a convicted criminal looking after them, and being surrounded by god knows who, than with other family. Just nuts. And as for the breastfeeding thing - you get that right taken away from you when you go to jail - tough sh*t, you do the crime, you do the time. You shouldnt' get special treatment for having a kid, and your child shouldn't be punished for having an idiot for a mother.
Sue Bradford - thank god she's gone. way to make every good parent paranoid Those that abuse kids will do it anyway and either get away with or not, regardless of that bill being in.
And I'm happy to say that I smack my son - it's not the only form of discipline and very rarely used, but when he tries to run out onto the road or stick his fingers need the fire door when I'm putting wood in (and yes we have safety gates) a smack is more appropriate than time out. Thanks to the nanny state we live in though, I'm too scared to do that in public so if my kid ends up squashed I might pay dear old Sue a visit. Oh and I have a cousin that has been inside for all sorts of things (thank god we have different last names so I can pretend I don't know her ), her kids wanted to be with her when she got out each time but she couldn't even stay straight enough for CYFS to let them back. I think people deserve second chances, but it's not a rite of passage, it's something that needs to be earnt.
|
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 4:49pm
I agree with everything you just said 100% Emz
|
Posted By: MummyFreckle
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 5:15pm
|
[/QUOTE] [/QUOTE]
If a mother has made a decision (stupidly or not) that has landed her in prison, then NO its not a punshiment for her child to grow up away from her. Its a punishment for the mother, and although it may seem like a punishment at the time for the child, I believe that in the long run it will be better off. if you are going to conduct yourself in a criminal manner then your kids prob arent your main focus anyway. A better person? Better than someone who makes a choice to leave their child, Better than someone who makes the choice that lands them in jail, Better than someone whose priorities werent their children, Better than someone who chooses to associate / hang around with violent, criminal people.... I am sorry - I am sure that you are a really nice person, but it doesnt matter how you "spin" this - I dont think its right, and I dont think its fair on the children. Being a parent is a privilege, not a right. And women in jail give up that right (for the duration of their time in prison) to be an active parent IMO. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: becky
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 7:39pm
|
The mothers and babies are in self-contained units, rather than in the main prison.
I think its also about context people have made comments that they are stupid people that made a choice to leave their children and yes in some circumstances people do choose a life of crime and in some cases its the circumstances they were brought up in. What about women such as Gay Oakes whom was abused and mentally tortured so badly by her defacto partner that she drugged him with pills to put him to sleep and accidentally killed him. Do they choose to hang around with criminal types? ------------- http://lilypie.com">
http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 7:55pm
I expect she is the exception when it comes to women in prison. While this is one example that's been highlighted. Women end up in prison cause they did something criminal and that's where they should be. I don't know much about the babies in prisons, and yes BF is best, but surely there is a better solution than sending the babies to prison with them. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:07pm
|
*sigh*
Gay Oakes chose to stay .. Im sick of these women in abusive relationships saying "I couldnt leave" of course you could bloody leave, they CHOSE not too! How many children were killed by the male in their lives because their mothers "couldnt" leave. Its the biggest cop out I have ever heard. No way would I stay where my children were in danger! (oh and Gay Oakes decided to drug someone, seems like a premeditated action to me) ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: Mamma2N
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:21pm
It is VERY easy to comment when you are not in the situation yourself It is all good and well saying 'you have the choice to leave' but things aren't always that black & white. There are many reasons why women in abusive relationships stay.. and I wouldn't be so quick to say that any of those reasons are 'cop-outs'. Abuse isn't just physical, it can also be mental & emotional.
|
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:32pm
|
Let's just say you don't know me or what situations I have been in .. suffice to say I know I wouldnt stay with anyone who abused me (and it seems like a no brainer decision if you have children to protect).
IMHO you forsake your right to your children if you chose to stay in an abusive relationship no matter what your reason is for "having no choice". ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: MummyFreckle
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:37pm
|
When you have a child you have a responsibilty to protect that child, I too get really upset at women who choose to stay, because thats what it is a CHOICE. Same as smoking P, getting pissed and beating your child - its all a CHOICE. We have free will as human beings, and we are lucky enough to live in a society where women have lots of choices and sources of help. I agree its very easy to comment on this as an "outsider" - and I am sure that there are lots of people who have experienced abuse in some form that would agree, their lives improved when they made the choice to leave or change their circumstances. ' I dont think the Gay Oakes scenario applies here - to my knowledge she wasnt caring for a young baby / toddler in prison? ETA - like LilFatty pointed out - you dont know what experiences people have had in their lives, please dont presume that they are coming to a subject without an informed opinion. ------------- http://lilypie.com"> http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: Peanut
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:46pm
Correct - she wasn't so probably not the best example to be used. -------------
|
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 8:54pm
|
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
I was in agreement of the anti-smacking bill in that it removed a clause that some parents (and not all parents by any means) had used to get away with abuse. i.e the mum who beat her son with a horse whip and then got off using the clause, those sorts of parents. I also think that the whole of nz got it's knickers in a knot about something that wasn't even real, for a start it wasn't an anti-smacking bill and no one was ever gonna go to prison for smacking a childs hand away from a hot stove or grabbing a child as they ran towards a road. I personally though am shocked and appalled that in this day and age so many people want to smack their children and think they have the right to do so. It is illegal to smack another adult, no matter how minor the smack, no matter whether it leaves a mark or not and no matter the circumstances, I'm also pretty sure it is illegal to smack your dog or cat as well so why on earth should it be ok to smack a child? And really what does it teach your child, smacking is ok. When it comes to parenting we have to remember that monkey see monkey do. As for this whole babies in prison debacle, OMG, what on earth is that about. I can understand maybe having a newborn with the mum for a while but 2 years WTF?!?!?!?! Yes I think that some mums in prison may turn their lives around once they have a child to think about but surely having good visitation would be a better solution than having a child in jail for 2 years regardless of whether they are in a self contained unit or whatever. And that is another point, doesn't sound like much of a sentence for the woman if she is in a cushy self contained unit, 3 meals a day, no bills, no job and her kid there. Shesh, perhaps I should go commit some crimes and get some of that sweet deal. ------------- 
 
|
Posted By: Mamma2N
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:00pm
|
I certainly wouldn't stay with someone who abused me or my child either. However, I have been fortunate enough to be brought up in a violence-free environment. Many people I know haven't been so lucky and they have continued the cycle of abuse they were subjected to as children. In many of these families violence is normalised, it is a way of life.
And to bring this back to the original topic - I am in no way sad that Sue Bradford has resigned. The reasons being other posters have already covered. And Lilfatty, I apologise if my post offended you in any way, it wasn't my intention. |
Posted By: weegee
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:10pm
|
I really don't want to get into the debate about smacking vs not smacking but just wanted to clear up a bit of a misconception as to what is and isn't allowed under the current law.
eg
(sorry emz don't mean to pick on you but that was the most accessible example!) The above is perfectly legal. The law says:
So that means, if your kid is in imminent danger, or causing danger to another kid, or even if they're simply throwing the king of all tantys at the supermarket, you're allowed to use force. (The last one is eg you're allowed to forcibly pin them down to change their nappy.) What is illegal under the law is force for the purposes of correction only - eg once the danger has passed, saying "now little Johnny, don't run out in front of cars or you'll get a smack" *smack*. ------------- 
Mum to JJ, 4 July 2008 & Addie, 28 July 2010 |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:37pm
|
Thanks for finding that Weegee (I couldn't be bothered digging it up myself) - that's why I don't have an issue with the law change.
I wish the money spent on the referendum had been better spent on an education campaign to combat the slack and sensationalist journalistic coverage that the repeal got. ETA: I still don't like SB though - but that's because as Treen said she's always been a bit too condescending etc. for my tastes. -------------
|
Posted By: Mamma2N
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:39pm
There are so many better things I wish that money was spent on - your suggestion certainly springs to mind! |
Posted By: Treen
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:41pm
|
Just out of interest, is there anyone out there who was smacked as a child (not hit or abused, but smacked) who is now against parents smacking their children as a form of discipline? I'd be keen to hear why you you think it's wrong and how you choose to discipline your children when it comes to tricky situations especially:
1. If your child repeatedly runs out onto the road despite you telling them not to 2. Your child throws a screaming tantrum on a plane and will not stop 3. They won't do as they're told and you don't have time for a time out i.e. you have to be somewhere really important – your sister's wedding, your job etc. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:46pm
|
I was never smacked as a child .. so I might not count, however I dont have a problem with swatting Isabelle's hand as she reaches out for the hot oven or heater, something like that is just instinct.
I will not however (after a small disagreement with SD) smack our children just for the sake of discipline to "teach" them. Adults dont learn by people smacking them, so why should we expect our children too? ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: Treen
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:47pm
Thanks for that, weegee.  ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: caitlynsmygirl
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:49pm
|
heh heh , knew this would become a 4 pager -------------
|
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:51pm
|
Aww Kelly aren't you going to sing? -------------
|
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:54pm
|
1. buy reins, put child in stroller when out. Spencer knows, hold my hand or go in stroller, not hard.
2. stand and wait for child to stop, tantrums never last that long and normally they are so fixated that I doubt they would even notice a "gentle" smack. Failing that pick child up and strap into aeroplane seat or just hold them on your lap tightly until they calm down (wrapping your arms around a tantrummy toddler can actually bring some children out of it quicker than ignoring them, depends on the child). 3. A wedding and a job are not that important, certainly not as important as my child. Also once a child is older they are able to understand that timeout will happen once at home or next destination and failing that I find confiscating a favourite toy, or just saying I am going to confiscate the toy normally does the trick. I believe I received the odd smack, would have to double check with mum as I don't remember any but I expect 30 years ago it would have been the norm. My DH remembers being smacked, not abused or beaten, but properly smacked in that his dad would come home from work give him a smack if he had done anything really naughty, or he would get the smack right away if his dad was already home. He has mixed feelings about it, on one hand he thinks he was better behaved because of it and he certainly doesn't resent his dad or feel like it was OTT but on the other he thinks he might have had a better relationship with his dad, in that his dad seemed less approachable because of it. They have a great relationship now, so I don't think he would change his childhood more than he doesn't choose to parent that way himself. -------------
|
Posted By: weegee
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 9:57pm
|
Treen, those situations are all covered by the law as it stands - if they're running out onto the road it's dangerous, a screaming tantrum on a plane is disruptive behaviour, if you have to be somewhere important then forcibly making them come with you is incidental to parenting.
I really wasn't going to get into the debate! But anyway, since it seems like a genuine question... yeah I was smacked as a kid. I couldn't add like so many do "and it never did me any harm" as I don't have anything to compare it to so can't say one way or the other. I just feel like there are better ways to discipline kids. Too often my father just lost his temper with us, and to be perfectly honest I grew up thinking that it was ok to lash out when I lost my temper. It took a lot of effort on my part to change that behaviour. I don't want my kids to grow up thinking it's ok to lash out, or to have to retrain themselves the same way I did. (Plus I have to say after a while smacking didn't work anyway!) BUT I also have to add that JJ's still too little to be getting himself into trouble in the ways you describe! So I don't have the answers on alternative forms of discpline. And I suspect that there is no one-size-fits-all - what works for one child may not work for another. Ask me again in 10 years -------------
Mum to JJ, 4 July 2008 & Addie, 28 July 2010 |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 10:01pm
|
cuppatea, Dh's mum used reins on him in LA airport when he was 18 months old, that was back in 76, she got dirty looks way back then.
They work but yeah a lot people are very much against them. I was smacked regularly as a kid, I was also given the ruler/strap at primary school as corporal punishment was acceptable back then. I don't intend to smack my children, but I if I feel a smack on the bum or the hand will prevent them hurting themselves or getting run over, I don't want to second guess myself in case some one sees and calls the cops. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 10:04pm
|
True weegee, ignoring Isabelle's tantrums doesnt really work (both kids got their Dads stamina and Mums temper) .. so far at her age bribery seems to work.
I figure I can work on the teaching part when she is a little older and understands her emotions a little better. ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: caitlynsmygirl
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 10:07pm
haha , don't think I need to yet ....yet ...
I've smacked C once, she was 2 and ran onto the road , her smack was more a panicked reflex from a mother who had just seen her daughter come inches from being mowed down by a car . I explained to her why I had done it though, and shes never run onto the road since (well until recently , when she decided to be a madam and ride her bike in the MIDDLE of the road, without a helmet, she got grounded for a week for that little stunt ) I prefer to discipline with talking, and time outs etc, but im lucky in that most of the time , C is a pretty well behaved kid, and knows that DH and I , are "boss ". But I don't have anything against people who smack (yes, I see it differently from people who punch and kick their children ) , I know that not everyone is blessed with easy kids like C (and hopefully Ty) and some people try everything as far as time out etc goes . My friend's daughter, she is the most badly behaved kid I know, she yells at anyone, gives people the evils, hits pushes, put her in time out , she screams the whole time , yells, tells you she doesnt like you ......the explanation for it is easy , her mother has never been authorative with her , she has no respect for anyone, because noone has taught her otherwise . But sometimes, even tho I know this , I see that kid screaming and giving people that are adults the evils and I would love to smack her whingy little ass . Yeah yeah , Im terrible -------------
|
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 10:09pm
|
Yeah I had a comment when I had Spencer on reins, but a hey a live toddler on reins is better than one under car tyres so they can go jump. Would like to see them chase a toddler with a new born in a sling strapped to them and then see what they have to say.
If I saw someone grab a child about to run out in the road or smack their hand away from something hot/sharp etc I wouldn't call the police and I doubt many people would, the police also would not prosecute under those circumstances anyway because in those circumstances you aren't breaking the law anyway. I think when they are in danger you wouldn't be thinking "oh I shouldn't cos someone might report it" you would just do it like a reflex. -------------
|
Posted By: caitlynsmygirl
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 10:19pm
|
I used reins with C, and if anyone had criticised me , i would have happily told them to go jump (jump under the car that wont be hitting my toddler in fact ) -------------
|
Posted By: Treen
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 10:45pm
|
Weegee – I know that they are covered, but some of above posts imply that there is no excuse for a smack, so I'm curious as to what they would do in those situations (I intend to try the no smacking way of parenting).
Cuppatea – it's funny about different people's perceptions. For some reason, I actually find smacking more acceptable than putting reins on a child. The reason I asked what people would do in those particular situations is because I've seen or heard of them happening and I wonder what else apart from a smack would work. I have a friend whose toddler worked out how to get the keys out of the drawer, unlock the front door and take off down the main road. I have been on a plane where a child screamed and kicked my seat for 1 hour and 45 minutes. The mother ignored him but he did not stop. And for the last scenario, Cuppatea, I was not implying that those situations were more important than children, but rather they are more important than a child's tantrum. A job puts food on the table, so it is extremely important. And I can't say I could justify a misbehaving child as the reason for being late to my own sister's wedding. And those are just examples of tricky situations. I'd like to know of alternative ways of discipline that won't have my kids walking all over me and being disrespectful in general. I see that happen far too much these days. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 10:47pm
|
a lot of women who escape from abusive relationships end up being killed by the partner they escaped from, because they escaped.
breastfeeding isnt a mothers privilege its a babies right. i dont call it the anti smacking bill, it was the repeal of section 59 and the sooner everyone realises and starts callling it the correct name the better. i have no opinion about sue bradford whatsoever.  ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker"> 
|
Posted By: cuppatea
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 11:09pm
|
Well after the toddler has done that once you ensure they can't do it again by moving the lock higher or putting the keys well out of reach, smacking isn't gonna stop them trying it again, they are toddlers they do things over and over and over and over and over again.
There are millions of ways to discipline your child without smacking, timeout, confiscation, taking pocket money away (when they are old enough to have it), being grounded, earlier bedtime etc etc. There are also all the positive things you can do as well, sticker charts, rewards for good behaviour, praise for good behaviour even. As for the reins, he never once complained about wearing them, they didn't upset him in anyway whatsoever, no crying, no screaming, they don't cause pain or upset and they kept him safe. I'm not sure the same could be said of a smack and even if I did smack him for running out into the road, it could be too late couldn't it? and I'm not sure that at 19 months which is how old is was when I used them that he would have even remembered a smack for it to be a deterrent next time he saw something interesting that he wanted to run after. And really if your child misbehaves every time you try to go somewhere then you would start to leave earlier so you could spend time dealing with it. I would be late to my sisters wedding rather than smack my kid, and i think my sis would prefer me to be 5 mins late than to smack one of her nephews. Obviously on the plane the parent should have done something as it's sounds like that kid was being a little snot not having a tantrum, but again I dont' think a smack would have been the answer. Probably having something for the kid to do so he wasn't bored out of his brain would have been the best idea. -------------
|
Posted By: kellie
Date Posted: 28 September 2009 at 11:19pm
I agree with all of those points  -------------
|
Posted By: flakesitchyfeet
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 7:21am
I don't.... All but one, the breastfeeding one. Yeah we all know breast is best etc. etc. and maybe my opinion comes from 9 months of grinning and bearing and hating it, BUT Surely it is also a babies right to be in a safe, secure, well loved environment? I don't know about anyone elses child but Hollie is certainly sensitive to the mood at home. It happens very rarely but if it goes sour or stale she picks up on it. Mothers can express without seeing the child. Probably not easily, I imagine the letdown wouldn't be super great, but really guys, if forumla feeding was that bad it wouldn't be on the market yeah? Heck I was formula fed....mothing wrong with me! ------------- http://lilypie.com"> |
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 7:43am
|
Treen - Issy was accidentally kicking the back of a seat for an entire flight, however its because she was on SDs knee and she is tall, her feet have to go somewhere)
And surely your friend would have been intelligent enough to put the keys out of reach! How could a toddler get out repeatedly without some kind of "neglect" on the part of the parent? ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: MissCandice
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 7:53am
I was smacked as a child, but i actually now think it was abuse. I will not smack my child. Not for any reason. I do not have a reason for it, other than i do not want to. |
Posted By: freckle
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 7:55am
I was smacked as a child and there is no way I would smack either of my children. I absolutely agree with cuppateas points earlier (i.e. we teach children not to smack others, we can't smack other adults or animals so why smack our children). There are so many much more effective and relevant ways to discipline children. I remember as a child wondering why on earth my parents would want to smack me?! To answer you questions... 1. I can't say Ive had a problem with this as I generally have had them in buggy or backpack etc... if we are near the road and my youngest is walking I always hold her hand. If I had another child I would consider reins. When my oldest was younger I had to grab her once as she went to walk out onto the road. 2. Any tantrums my children have had have been ignored. My oldest had 3 tantrums when she was young. She has probably had more as a teenager than she did as a child. My youngest throws them regularly but they are getting shorter and shorter as she realises they have no effect. If it happened on a plane or such situation I would initially attempt to distract her, or like cuppates said I would hold her until she calmed down. I think smacking would esculate the situation rather than calming it! 3. If an emergency I would carry her kicking and screaming to the car and strap her in. However, I again agree with cuppatea work and weddings aren't really that important in the scheme of things.... I basically ignore tantrum behaviour, and reinforce good behaviour as much as possible. Of course some inappropriate behaviours obviously require discipline and there are plenty of ways to do this without smacking IMO. ------------- mum to 3 lovely girls :D |
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 8:10am
Flake to clarify, this comment by me
was made in response to this one:
i dont really know how i feel about mothers being allowed access to babies while in prison and i suspect there is a lot more to it than just handing over newborns to violent women in cells to do with as they please. i do know that in our society breasstfeeding a child until the age of 2 is not the norm so i dont think the law was designed just for that reason alone. ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker">
|
Posted By: freckle
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 8:25am
|
bizzy I have to agree - I also suspect there is much more too it and I guess that every case is looked at individually. I'm not sure about how I feel about it either as there are some situations I believe it would be an acceptable option, but I would want to know more about the environment the children live in before forming an opinion. ------------- mum to 3 lovely girls :D |
Posted By: flakesitchyfeet
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 8:47am
|
Fair points, it just leaves me with a bit of a funny feeling.I could see it would have it's merits, I guess jail, inmates, & guards just aren't words that would spring to mind when I think of an infants security and safety. I guess though these mothers would be watched a whole lot more closely in jail then anywhere else.
edited the first time for spelling, the second to tell you why i edited the first :)  ------------- http://lilypie.com"> |
Posted By: Bizzy
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 8:56am
LOL no me either! ------------- http://www.myfitnesspal.com/weight-loss-ticker">
|
Posted By: emz
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 9:19am
|
Weegee - I know that you CAN physical stop your child if they are in danger, but honestly so many people comment or look down on you for doing so that I have, at least twice since dealing with 2 kids on my own, left it until it was actually REALLY dangerous before physically restraining and smacking Jack because I was so worried about what people would say (I have had a comment from one know-it-all before about giving Jack a tap on the hand when he tried to run away from the car). The main point I was getting at is that this repeal seems to have given people some sense of moral highground about how every parent should raise their child.
I don't abuse my child by hitting him, and I have probably only hit him (ie light tap when nothing else has worked) a handful of times and I'm not going to apologise for it. I was smacked as a child and I have no problems with my father as someone else alluded to in a previous post. In fact I have great relationships with both of my parents, and both smacked me. DH was smacked as a child but I do feel that from his father it sounds like it was OTT so we've discussed how we don't think that's right. As for breastfeeding in jail, I still think its ridiculous. Do you not all think that if a mother has the option to breastfeed and see her child, and live in a more comfortable environment, vs FF and live in jail, that she would take the BF option? I'd love to be a fly on the wall and actually know how many crims do it for the benefit of the child vs their own benefit.Clearly they weren't thinking of their child when they committed whatever crime that landed them in jail in the first place. Seriously, criminals are criminals, they should have no rights. If we were harder on offenders in this country, we wouldn't have so many people offending and re-offending. |
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 9:24am
------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: lemongirl
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 9:27am
Yup another one who was smacked as a child. I don't have a biological kid, but DP's daughter lives with us about 40% of the time. In answer to your questions: 1. When's she done that I get right down to her level, eyeball her and tell her no in the deepest meanest voice I've got. 2. Move to the galley or hold her. 3. Sometimes we have picked her up and just moved her on. Othertimes we've just been late. Here's a question would you be happy for an actual or hypothetical step-parent to be the one smacking your kids? How about a a teacher? It's very easy to think in terms of your 'rights as a parent' but would you give those rights to someone else not of your choosing? Just something to mull over. As for babies in prison, I think it's very easy to forget that criminals are people too. Some of these women might be in prison for a short amount of time for relatively minor offences like shop-lifting. Taking a child in that context sounds cruel esp if in a few years the mother will like have primary care again. The programmes themselves have been shown to reduce not only the risk of recidivism (reoffending) but also help keep the next generation out of foster homes and falling into the same trap as the mother. That's a win-win. |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 9:37am
|
Here's a question would you be happy for an actual or hypothetical step-parent to be the one smacking your kids? How about a a teacher? It's very easy to think in terms of your 'rights as a parent' but would you give those rights to someone else not of your choosing? Just something to mull over.
Interesting how attitudes to parenting has changed, as allowing teachers to discipline us as they saw fit, was exactly what my parents did, and every other parent in the 70's and 80's as corporal punishment was considered acceptable. Teachers these days don't have any of this support from parents, and they're always going on about how they can't control their classroom. I'm sure there were a couple of extreme cases where things went too far, but for the most part it worked. Most of the time the threat of getting caned was enough to keep us inline. Mostly cause I did get the strap and after the 1st time I realised it didn't hurt that much and continued to talk during class and take my punishment. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Treen
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 9:49am
|
I'm still not convinced, but willing to give it a try. Just to clarify, I don't think smacking works when a child is too young to understand. We were smacked from about the age we could talk fluently so we did know that if we did something bad, that was the consequence.
All Mum had to say to the 4 of us was "I'll get the wooden spoon out" and bang – we would be quiet on a plane, jump in the car and stay there and do as she says. It was instantly effective and we knew our place in the world. I don't think I'll try the reins thing. As a few of the posters have said previously, "you wouldn't smack an adult." Well you also wouldn't put an adult in reins. Just my own personal choice. I wouldn't mind if a friend was in favour of them. I'm not sure about the rewards thing, Mum tried that with us and it didn't work. We easily grew bored of stars and the promise of a present. At the onset of a tantrum, I've also seen some parents promising children treats if they behave. I suspect that some children might play up knowing that they'll get something at the end of it. Someone also mentioned dogs for some reason. I don't smack my dogs anymore but I do threaten them with a smack. And I honestly don't know how I would discipline then without that threat there. I have never heard of smacking dogs being illegal and I suspect a lot of others haven't heard this either. After all, you can still buy those electric shock collars which I think are worse than a smack. Anyway, moving on. I suppose this means loads of reading for me. It'll be interesting to see what my mother thinks. And DH, who is also in favour of using smacking as a form of discipline. And also how I feel after 4 kids of my own. Thanks for all your posts, girls. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: Treen
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 10:00am
|
Lemongirl – thank you. Best answers yet!
Re your question, no I would not allow a teacher or step parent to smack my child but I do see how hard their job must be. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 10:13am
Surely that part was in jest? If an adult does not have the cognitive ability to understand that running out on a road in front of cars in dangerous, then I would doubt that they are out in public without a carer who would ensure they are not placing themselves in danger. I do find your outlook interesting though, If I had a penny for every time I have heard someone without children say what " I won't do we they have a child", then turn around and do it when the child is here and they are facing the "real world" .. id be a millionaire. ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 10:18am
Some adults like being smacked and put in reins 
------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Bobbie
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 10:33am
|
Bwahaha! True! -------------
|
Posted By: Treen
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 10:57am
|
Yes in jest – a dig at that argument I hear over and over again (you wouldn't do it to an adult so you shouldn't do it to a kid). I don't think it's a particularly strong argument as to my knowledge, children are quite different to adults. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: flakesitchyfeet
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 10:58am
|
LMAO! ------------- http://lilypie.com"> |
Posted By: becky
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 11:00am
|
There is alot more to it than just the breastfeeding and also more to it than just handing over newborns to violent women in cells to do with as they please. There are assessments done and social workers are involved. They still have to do their time and still have to complete their sentence plan.
I also wanted to add that I was using Gay Oakes to highlight the abuse some of these so called 'Crims' go through as I know she did not have children from that age group. And in regards to women choosing to stay sometimes it is not as simple as that. ------------- http://lilypie.com">
http://lilypie.com">
|
Posted By: GuestGuest
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 11:00am
|
I was (lightly) smacked with the wooden spoon as a child by both parents. This was only on rare occasions and not something I would consider abuse. As others have said, the majority of the time it was more the threat of it that would stop my behaviour than anything. I have a wonderful relationship with both of my parents and we often laugh about the whole wooden spoon thing and how ridiculous it is that it is illegal nowadays.
I don't have children and I'm sure Lilfatty would say that my opinion is therefore irrelevant and will change when I am in "the real world" but I would smack my children if necessary. I don't see anything wrong with it at all. Plus I never liked Sue Bradford. She has bad hair. |
Posted By: caliandjack
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 11:10am
Lol, you'd think with her salary she could afford a decent hair dresser. ------------- http://lilypie.com" rel="nofollow"> [/url] Angel June 2012 |
Posted By: Babe
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 11:11am
|
:hand up: I spank Jake. I was spanked by both my parents as a kid (had a few wooden/plastic spoons broken across my butt too I hold the family record!!!) and I have always had the utmost respect for my parents and a fabulous relationship with both of them.
If you have an issue with your parents it'll definitely not be just due to the way they disciplined you IMO coz the attitude with which you discipline your child is the attitude with which you treat them everyday. My parents certainly didn't enjoy spanking us and it was simply one of the consequences for particular behaviours (we had to eat soap if we used foul language for example). Otherwise we were respected, were allowed to share our opinions and were a vital part of the home. Anyway we also use the Diane Levy approach - Ask, Tell, Go which also works fantastically but isn't always appropriate. Spanking will be phased out in our house as I think its mostly appropriate at a younger age where kids can't reason things out but ATM Jake has no way of understanding what I'm talking about if I try and explain to him and TBH a swift couple of spanks on his bum with a firm 'we do NOT use that behaviour' is a helluva lot more effective than anything else. Thats JMO anyway. In response to the question about a wedding or work - why on earth would you allow your child to dictate whether or not you're there on time or not simply because they want to be difficult??!! Yeah if they hurt themselves or something then they would be my priority absolutely but what is it teaching my child if I let them ruin something special (a wedding) or sad (a funeral) or required (a job) simply because they decide to scream and yell?! Children need to learn that the world doesn't revolve around them and they need to be taught to think about other people. Missing my sisters wedding for example because I didn't want to give my child a spank when he was misbehaving and making us late would absolutely not seem like a small thing to her. It would devastate her and its ridiculous!! Putting babies in prison coz their mothers have been stupid is wrong. Whoever said we need to be harder on criminals is absolutely right!! If you break the law then you should lose all rights except the right for food, water and a roof. Thats where NZ is going backwards - we're worrying so much about human rights that we're LOSING our rights! Its stupid!! Anyway as for Sue Bradford I gotta say I'm more glad shes gone than anything else but it doesn't mean too much to me really. Sorry bout the mini-novel
ETA Becky there is no excuse for what Gay Oakes did. She chose not to leave then she chose to drug her partner. Yes he chose to abuse her but as a uhm (whats another word for victim coz thats not me???) as a person who has dealt with domestic abuse on all levels and left (with a baby btw!) I can safely say you always have options! ETA again coz realised I had some shocking spelling -------------   
|
Posted By: lilfatty
Date Posted: 29 September 2009 at 11:11am
I never said her opinion was irrelevant, far from it, just pointed out that someone's opinion can change when "push comes to shove" and that they should never say never.
I dont agree with most of your opinions on this matter, however I have not at any time stated that your opinions are irrelevant, regardless of your situation, the only one I do agree with is the bad hair comment. ------------- Mummy to Issy (3) and Elias (18 months) I did it .. 41 kgs gone! From flab to fab in under a year http://www.femininefitness.co.nz/category/blog - LFs weight blog
|