Spain bans parents from smacking children

61 comments on “Spain bans parents from smacking children ”

• Comments are now closed

1. gobsmacked 1

   21 December 2007 at 3:46 pm

   Time to recall one of the leading contenders for quote of the year:

   “I will tell members this: the day this bill passes — if it passes — I make a vow to go down to the police station and confess that I have smacked my children” – National MP Tau Henare (Hansard, March 28).

   He subsequently voted for the bill.

   I wonder if he kept his promise?
2. Sam Dixon 2

   21 December 2007 at 4:18 pm

   Tau’s never kept a promise in his life – didn’t he also sign an agreement with NZF to only stay in parliament as long as he stayed with the party and then break that promise, just like Kopu did with the Alliance?
3. Kimble 3

   21 December 2007 at 5:59 pm

   “All this makes is harder for those who preached against the law changes here.”

   Yup, there is nothing that screams THIS IS UNQUESTIONABLY GOOD like when “Spain’s Socialist government” institutes an unpopular policy.

   The fact is the law wasnt needed. The previous “loophole”, wasnt. It was dogwhistle politics at its worst.

   The law, as it stands, is wide open to abuse by those in power. See I think that is the problem with the left. They WANT authoritarian power. They LUUURVE it. They are only too happy to have everyone subjugate individual’s rights to the all-knowing State.

   That is why a foreign government passing legislation automatically makes the case stronger for the local government doing so. There is ZERO possibility that the socialist government in Spain is wrong. ZERO.

   That is why the number of POLITICAL PARTIES supporting a bill is more important than the number of people they represent doing the same (ie, the number of seats those parties have).
4. gobsmacked 4

   21 December 2007 at 6:10 pm

   Er, using your own argument, you might want to check the number of seats that voted in favour of Bradford’s bill.
5. Kimble 5

   21 December 2007 at 7:02 pm

   Was it an overwhelming number, gobsmacked?

   Any legislation that passes will only have done so if the majority of mp’s voted for it. So why bother counting the number of political parties that support it? Would that simply be retarded?
6. ZenTiger 6

   21 December 2007 at 9:17 pm

   I read a recent report that said reported cases to CYFS had increased 17.5%. That is significant. I’ll dig the report out later.

   And trying to claim that the chage has not had any major negative impact in such a short time is weak.

   Is that like Climate Change deniers saying “oh, our emissions increased 18% over the last 10 years, but the sea level didn’t rise by 18m, so it must be all OK. It may or may not be OK, and either way, I wouldn’t be using that sort of reasoning.
7. ZenTiger 7

   22 December 2007 at 12:02 am

   But enough about politics. Can I interest you in a diet of fish with traces of mercury? Would you like to put some asbestos paneling in your home as as a fire retardant? How about some dioxin in your milk carton? Some totally safe sweeteners in your diet coke then?

   I know people that have been smoking tobacco for years, and they are fit as a fiddle.

   Yes sirree, the world didn’t end five minutes ago. Wonder what NZ Labour can do now?
8. ZenTiger 8

   24 December 2007 at 10:37 pm

   A 13 year old started smoking today. Five hours later, they still don’t have cancer. This “health warning” malarky sure has fooled a lot of people then, hasn’t it?
9. Phil 9

   27 December 2007 at 4:21 pm

   Zen, quit being a twat – it’s not becoming on you.

   One question that I never heard asked during the debate;
   “How many parents/caregivers who, when judged by the prevailing moral standards ARE physically abusing their children, successfully managed to avoid prosecution using the ‘reasonable force’ argument/loophole?”

   I’m willing to bet you all the money in my pockets, against all the money in your pockets, that the answer to that question is: “None”
10. deemac 10

    3 January 2008 at 10:39 pm

    may be a bit late to reply to this but (paranoia aside – tho you can never really discount it with some of these right wing fuckwits) – the reason for the rise in CYF referrals is well known: it’s down to the anti-domestic violence campaign, which means that when police attend a DV report, even if no further action is taken, then if the household involves children they automatically report to CYF; for obvious reasons! This could well help to pick up some of the hidden child abuse cases that have horrified NZ recently.
11. Jum 11

    7 January 2008 at 11:59 am

    1. Section 59 was never used to prosecute abuse against children. It was only ever used to escape justice for abusing children.

    2. If we want to go back to the good old days where the man was head of the family and wives and children were dealt with how the old man damned well pleased behind closed doors, say so, but you cannot have archaic laws that enable adults to hurt children and then quote recent laws to protect themselves, eg men could legally hit women and rape them within marriage.

    If women want to hit children then maybe they should reverse the law that allows them protection. If men want to hit children – well let’s face it, it’s a man’s world. They like to control women and children. They would love to be able to beat and rape their women again with legal impunity.

    What saddens me most is that women are just as virulent as men in their anger at not being able to hit their children. They have short memories of their own vulnerability in this world.
12. Billy 12

    7 January 2008 at 1:51 pm

    “They would love to be able to beat and rape their women again with legal impunity.”

    Ummm. No.
13. Kimble 13

    7 January 2008 at 2:27 pm

    “1. Section 59 was never used to prosecute abuse against children. It was only ever used to escape justice for abusing children.”

    Wow, Jum, you are retarded.

    Section 59 provides a defence from prosecution only, so no one is ever charged under that section of the Act. If it was used so often to escape prosecution you should be able to provide a handful of examples of this happening.

    It will be interesting if you are able to find one.

    Also, it has never been legal to beat your wife in western cultures.
14. IrishBill 14

    8 January 2008 at 10:17 am

    Kimble, there are several cases in which section 59 was used not to escape prosecution but to escape conviction this was the case in the now infamous failed prosecution of the Timaru woman who beat her child with a riding crop and a cane. Or do you think that that’s acceptable treatment of children?

    And, even though this is a ridiclous aside, it has been explicitly legal to beat your wife in western cultures (England allowed it until the 1700’s). But wife-beating was tacitly approved of until very recently (police discretion, anyone?).
15. Kimble 15

    8 January 2008 at 10:53 am

    “who beat her child with a riding crop and a cane.”

    What about the case of the person who escaped prosecution even though he used a knife to cut into my father and removed whole chunks of meat from his body? He was a doctor and the parts were cancer.

    See, context matters. I think Zentiger might know more about that case than anyone else on the net, perhaps if he stops by he can educate you.
16. IrishBill 16

    9 January 2008 at 8:52 am

    Kimble, that’s just silly. There is no “context” that justifies beating a child like that, you’re dissembling because you were wrong and have been caught out. Act like an adult and accept it rather than asking Zen to fight your (losing) battles for you.
17. Jum 17

    9 January 2008 at 9:00 am

    Thank you – IrishBill – for correcting me factually and not insultingly as Kimble did.

    There is also the block of 4 x 2 used on a 12 year old boy.

    Kimble – Neat move to ignore the fact that rape in marriage was legal (right up to mid 80s). Surely beating to achieve the rape was legal by default. Rape is far worse than beating.

    The cancer thing, Kimble, I’ve had it. I’ve had the pieces taken out. I have another 19 years to wait for the all clear. So what. I gave my permission for this surgery like your father would have.

    Hitting children is quite different. That is the cancer in society that needs cutting out.
18. Michele Cabiling 18

    9 January 2008 at 10:55 am

    Jum wrote:

    “They [men] like to control women and children. They would love to be able to beat and rape their women again with legal impunity.”

    Which ‘men’ are you talking about, Jum? Your father? Your uncles? Your brothers? Your cousins? Your male workmates? The firemen who would carry you down a ladder out of a burning building?

    Your pernicious anti-male attitudes have their origin in US feminist law professor, Catherine McKinnon’s statement: “All men are rapists, and that it all that they are.”

    Since the vast majority of men are socialised to protect women and therefore value consensual, loving sexual activity with them, these paranoid notions are way off beam.

    The feminist-driven “domestic violence industry” is part of an ever-expanding, tax-funded “bureaucracy of compassion” with its attendant caregivers, social workers, regulators, intellectuals and social scientists. Its use of the term “domestic violence” rather than the more gender-neutral “relationship violence” is based on the Marxist analysis of gender relations penned by Marx’s collaborator Friedrich Engels which presupposes a male ‘oppressor’ (“Within the family, man is the bourgeoisie, woman and children the proletariat”) and a female ‘victim.’

    Feminists with a strong emotional investment in the presumption of an oppressive patriarchy base their assessment of men as “the violent sex” on “police, court, hospital and refuge data” while casually waving away numerous academic studies implicating both sexes equally in relationship violence. These seriously troubled sisters will cite police blotter statistics and other official data to falsely conclude that relationship violence is a male problem (“That’s just part of how ‘they’ treat ‘us’ as women”).

    There are a number of compelling reasons why a man might be reluctant to complain to authorities that his wife assaulted him. These include fear of ridicule or being disbelieved; threats that if police are called his wife will level a counter-accusation and he’ll be the one arrested by an establishment predisposed to take her part; a reluctance to walk out of the home that he probably paid for; the likelihood that access to his children will be denied by a gender-biased Family Court should he leave to escape the violence; and fears for the children’s physical safety if he’s no longer around to protect them from a violent mother.

    One of the saddest accounts of male victimisation by a violent female was that of an army drill sergeant in the United States, who placed his gun in his mouth at the dinner table and blew his brains out in front of his family, after the contrast between his macho parade ground persona and the reality of his miserable existence became too much to bear.

    New Zealand has a network of Women’s Refuges but not a single Man’s Refuge. And if a man did show up at a Women’s Refuge seeking relief from a violent female partner, do you think he’d be admitted? Like police blotter statistics, “refuge data” clearly have significant limitations in terms of providing an accurate picture of relationship violence in our community.

    US researcher, Dr Martin Fiebert examined 155 scholarly investigations, 126 empirical studies and 29 reviews and/or analyses in concluding that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners. The aggregate sample size in the reviewed studies exceeds 116,000 and can safely be regarded as statistically robust. Fiebert’s annotated bibliography, first published in Sexuality and Culture Volume 8, Number 3-4, Summer-Fall 2004, can be viewed online at http://www.csulb.edu/~mfiebert/assault.htm.

    Contrary to the demonstrably false feminist picture of relationship violence, men and women are implicated in relationship violence in approximately equal numbers at all levels of severity as assessed by a standardised “Conflict Tactics Scale.” Both sexes are more or less equally represented in every category from throwing a teaspoon all the way up to murder. In some categories (e.g. punched, kicked, hit or slapped one’s partner), female involvement slightly outstripped that of males.

    Approximately one third of violent incidents were found to be “he assaults her,” one third “she assaults him,” and one third “they assault each other.” It is also apparent that most of what is categorised as “relationship violence” is occasional, low level, and doesn’t result in serious injury, i.e. shoving, pulling, slapping, throwing small objects etc.

    The most violent individuals, whether male or female, represent a tiny minority of those studied. Severely violent men typically used their fists and feet on spouses or partners. Severely violent women characteristically used weapons to even up the size difference or attacked spouses or partners when they were asleep or otherwise off-guard.

    Erin Pizzey, who set up the first Women’s Refuge in England in the early 1970s, had a well-publicised falling out with the Sisterhood after she wrote a book claiming that many women presenting at her Chiswick Women’s Refuge were “at least as violent as the men they had left behind” and self-admittedly addicted to the adrenalin rush they got from provoking violent reactions in their male partners, though few enjoyed the violence itself. These women were repeatedly and often seriously verbally and physically violent both to their own children and to other women in the shelter.

    The foregoing analysis demonstrates conclusively that relationship violence is in fact a human problem, not a gender issue as the feminist movement would have us believe. It is long overdue for women as a group to acknowledge the female contribution to such violence rather than simply blaming males for something women are, on all the evidence, equally involved in
19. Kimble 19

    9 January 2008 at 11:10 am

    “There is no “context” that justifies beating a child like that, you’re dissembling because you were wrong and have been caught out.”

    Now that just shows a lack of imagination on your part. It also shows that you dont care what the specifics of the case were, you read the headline and thats all you need.

    Zen knows a lot more than I do of the specifics of the case, and probably much much more than you. But you obviously dont care about the facts.

    “There is also the block of 4 x 2 used on a 12 year old boy.”

    And how did that case END?

    “Neat move to ignore the FACT that rape in marriage was legal (right up to mid 80s).”

    Shouldnt be too difficult to find the law which states that raping your wife is legal. There must be something in the Crimes Act exempting this, surely. Go on then, find it.

    While you are at it, try and find the exemption for beating your wife.

    “Hitting children is quite different.”

    You are using that completely out of context.

    Smacking children is quite different to beating them as well, you simply refuse to acknowledge the difference. I reckon anyone that can’t is pretty fucking stupid.
20. Matthew Pilott 20

    9 January 2008 at 11:12 am

    How many men were killed by their female partners last year in New Zealand, and what is the corresponding inverse figure? That’s one thing that can’t be left unreported, and is probably quite telling.

    Interesting use of the term “industry”. So who benefits, I mean really benefits, out of domestic violence Michele? Seems a rather cynical view of an aspect of a country’s social services.

    The reasons you gave for men not reporting violence must indeed be Absolutely compelling, given your claim that women are more frequently abusive, yet reported rates are so contrary to such a claim. It would probably rate as the greatest supression of violence reporting in recorded history, on quite a grand scale!

    One question, I’m wondering if the following was an ambiguous statment on your behalf or was an accurate description of the study you mentioned.

    You said “US researcher, Dr Martin Fiebert examined 155 scholarly investigations, 126 empirical studies and 29 reviews and/or analyses in concluding that women are as physically aggressive, or more aggressive, than men in their relationships with their spouses or male partners.”

    Did you mean that all the reports studied concluded that aggression was equal, or such was his conclusion after a study of reports of mixed conclusions?

    P.s. I have a vague recollection of a law that a man could beat his wife with a pole so long as its diameter was less than that of his thumb or wrist. That ring bells with anyone else? (this is not in reference to your post Michele – I guess that whatever the study you refer to implies, the legal ‘playing field’ is skewed otherwise)
21. The PC Avenger 21

    9 January 2008 at 11:22 am

    Kimble, please explain to us the diseased thought processes that legitimize acts that would be against the law if committed against adults when those same acts are performed on children.
22. Phil 22

    9 January 2008 at 11:33 am

    Random thought for the day;

    How will this bill affect the BDSM parlours that operate in the dark and seedy underbelly of our society?
    I mean, it’s apparently illegal to smack your kids on the backside as punishment, but what about if you’re paying someone to PUNISH YOU in exactly the same way?
23. Kimble 23

    9 January 2008 at 11:33 am

    “I have a vague recollection of a law that a man could beat his wife with a pole so long as its diameter was less than that of his thumb or wrist.”

    Rule of thumb? The original reference used by feminists in the 20th century to a supposed Rule of Thumb was in a legal commentary from back in 18th century about the pre-17th century way of doing things. Specifically it talked about a man correcting his wife the same way he would a child or an apprentice. Nothing was said about a specific Rule of Thumb though.

    In fact the rule of thumb has only ever been referenced in common law, and it was only used an as example of what might have been okay in the past, but definitely isnt okay now.

    It is a myth. No such law ever existed.

    It was a fabrication by feminists with an obvious agenda and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.

    PC Avenger, how many adults have you ever given a Time Out to?

    I will concede that adults and children should be treated exactly the same, the very second you show that there is no difference between them.

    Children are not adults.

    You morons are having a problem seeing differences that ought to be plainly obvious.
24. Matthew Pilott 24

    9 January 2008 at 12:34 pm

    “It was a fabrication by feminists with an obvious agenda and you bought it hook, line, and sinker.”

    That would be why I said it rang a bell and had anyone heard of it. Spare the hissy bollocks will you?

    “Children are not adults.

    You morons are having a problem seeing differences that ought to be plainly obvious.
    ”

    Right, so while we’re at it, why do you have to have the right to smack children because they are different? Do you smack everyone who’s different?

    Phil – “I mean, it’s apparently illegal to smack your kids on the backside as punishment, but what about if you’re paying someone to PUNISH YOU in exactly the same way?”

    It’s illegal to run up and crash-tackle someone on the street but you can join a club that allows you to do it on grass for eighty minutes every Saturday, same story I would imagine!
25. The PC Avenger 25

    9 January 2008 at 12:37 pm

    Kimble, none, because there are better ways to cause a change in behaviour. I might ask a similar question of you though: How many adults have you given a quick smack to, in the hope that it will cause lasting behaviour change, without maladaptive consequences?

    No one is claiming that children are exactly the same as adults, and it is dishonest of you to suggest that this is the case.

    The very people that support the discontinuation of physical punishment are well aware of the unique psychological characteristics of children, and this is the reason why they support it.
26. Psycho Milt 26

    9 January 2008 at 12:59 pm

    Kimble, please explain to us the diseased thought processes that legitimize acts that would be against the law if committed against adults when those same acts are performed on children.

    Yes, it’s just awful, isn’t it? I’ve heard some of these child haters have a thing called “time out” or “go to your room,” in which they subject a child to arbitrary imprisonment for alleged misbehaviour – and yet that would be illegal if they did it to an adult. It’s just sick, I tell you!
27. Phil 27

    9 January 2008 at 1:42 pm

    Good point Psycho – If you tell a child they’re not allowed pudding until they finish their dinner, aren’t you just perpetuating a cycle of obesity and unhealthy dietary practices?!

    And then there is the common line of “go outside and play” – surely placing children at unnecessary risk of developing skin cancer or melanoma, to say nothing of the heighted risk of ‘stranger danger’?

    We really must be terrible people, clearly incapabale of the responsibility of raising little versions of ourselves
28. Michele Cabiling 28

    9 January 2008 at 1:56 pm

    Anyone prating on about about “childrens rights” is actually talking about rights they intend to take away from parents and arrogate to the State.

    A ‘right is classically defined as ‘the freedom to act without interference, according to one’s conscience.’ It means nothing unless the individual has the capacity to act upon their ‘right’ and children, by nature of their immaturity and inexperience, do not have that capacity. So they have people who act for them, in the form of the people who created them and who love them more than anyone else.

    Those people, the adult parents, have a freedom to act according to their conscience, and within the law, with their children. It is that freedom which the children’s rights activists seek to remove and bestow on the state.

    Marx claimed that society is evolving inexorably toward socialism through a process called dialectical materialism. An existing condition (thesis) comes into conflict with a new condition (antithesis) that is attempting to emerge. Out of the dialectical conflict between these two opposing forces a new, higher condition (synthesis) emerges. This is then put through the process again as the new thesis, until socialism is achieved.
    Lenin expanded Marx’s dialectical analysis from its early focus on economic relationships to take in social and political relationships, thus widening the role of the revolutionary as a change agent. The task of the revolutionary was now to identify and exploit pressure points for dialectical conflict, thus undermining the legitimacy of the existing social and political order, and hastening the eventual triumph of socialism.
    According to Marxist-Leninist ideology, the formative family is the institution within which children are inculcated into an acceptance of the hierarchical system of capitalist class relations. As Engels famously asserted in Origins of the Family, Private Property and the State: “Within the family, man is the bourgeoisie, women and children the proletariat.” For this reason, Marxists view subverting the family as a key political imperative.
    Subverting and eradicating the preferred status of the formative family in favour of alternative arrangements removes it as an obstacle to the implementation of totalitarian agendas. Removing men from the family by offering financial incentives for single parenthood (Nanny State as substitute husband), and encouraging homosexual “marriage” and adoptive parenting (despite the known impermanence of the majority of gay relationships) opens up an expanded role for the state in picking up the pieces for ever-increasing numbers of children.
    The underlying goal is for children to be socialised by the state, rather than by their parents. Every totalitarian system has sought to remove children from parental influence (e.g. Hitler Youth, Red Guards, Komsomol) so that they can be unceasingly indoctrinated with statist values.
    As Hilary Clinton famously said (with acclamation from socialists around the world): “It takes a village to raise a child.” This, of course ignores those who don’t want their children raised by a village.

    Chilldren’s ‘rights’ were long ago identified by radical leftards as a hot button issue that could be harnessed to undermine the traditional family and the Judeo-Christian foundation of Western culture, thus expanding the role of the state into personal relationships once thought to lie beyond its purview.

    Green MP Sue Bradford, sponsor of the contentious anti-smacking bill, claims that even the mild and occasional use of force against children is never permissable.

    Yet for almost her entire political life, this former Workers Communist League stirrer has defended and idolised regimes where the ultimate use of force is deployed against citizens at the whim of the State without even a whiff of due process.

    I’m talking about “People’s Republics” – places where you do what you’re told or get shot.

    Does Ms Bradford care more about the “rights” of children or about subverting the authority of parents and replacing it with that of the State?
29. Jum 29

    9 January 2008 at 2:04 pm

    Michele Cabiling

    If I am the ultimate man hater you are surely the ultimate woman hater.

    Perhaps if my previous blog had been posted, showing me telling BILLY that thanks to guys like him, I am reminded that all men are not interested in controlling women, that would have satisfied you. I have no idea what happened to my earlier blog.

    Get off your high horse. You are incorrect. There is at least one male refuge in New Zealand which is in line with the current gender need.

    When we become a society that recognises verbal skills rather than physical skills, then perhaps we’ll have women and men using those . At present it has to be about defending ourselves. There’s an old saying Michele – men protect us from other men but who will protect us from many of them.

    I’m sure you know as well as I do Michele that women had to go hard like men in order to survive let alone succeed in the business world. That is still the case. If men had accepted women and their unique talents of management and teamwork then as they are increasingly doing now, then the hard woman you talk about may have not occurred.

    Yes this world has become more violent because that is what is valued in our society. We have macho men putting down the nanny state when it seeks to make society a fairer one that considers everyone.
    I recently read a book that said any society that does not go to war risks being ravished (that is the word he used) by warmongering countries.

    I’ll probably be quite happy with one of the firewomen rescuing me, Michele. There is absolutely no way you will convince me that women are just as violent as men. There is also the fear factor of men raping women who dare to question them in relationships. It is a lot more difficult for a woman to rape a man, or are you going to suggest that it is just as easy, too. In my world Michele any male is capable of rape but 90% of them won’t because they are the Billys of this world. There is also an increasing statistic of rape of boys and men also. Are you going to blame women for 50% of that too. Be real, Michele. Husbands and sons and brothers and uncles do commit incest (and some women) and rape. Just not mine and hopefully not yours.

    Yes MATTHEW PILOTT, I do remember the thin pole to beat the wife routine. No idea where I read or heard it though, sorry.

    This garbage you are spouting Michele about the feminist brigade – plusseeeeeeeeeese. I am me. I don’t belong to anyone other than myself. But from what I gather, a feminist was a person who objected to being treated like a doormat and enduring anything else that was delivered behind closed doors. It was the splitting off by other groups that gave feminist belief a bad name.
30. Psycho Milt 30

    9 January 2008 at 2:08 pm

    It’s a stupid argument, but it seems like it just won’t die. Along similar lines, I’m not entitled to force an adult to wear nappies, or subject them to me removing the nappies and wiping their arse, but nobody would have been very keen on me if I hadn’t subjected my kids to it.

    The presenters of this argument always claim to recognise that children are not little adults, then proceed to argue as though they were. The process of turning the small animals we give birth to into functioning members of society is not simply a long, difficult one, it requires us to impose our own will on them and enforce behavioural rules. Whatever method you adopt to enforce behavioural rules on your child would be illegal for you to impose on another adult – that’s just a “well, duh-uh.” It’s irrelevant to any discussion we might have over whether one method of enforcement is superior to another.
31. Kimble 31

    9 January 2008 at 2:20 pm

    “There is absolutely no way you will convince me that women are just as violent as men.”

    I think that says it all.

    “any male is capable of rape but 90% of them won’t because they are the Billys of this world”

    Hey Milt, are you one of the 10% of men who are rapists?
32. Kimble 32

    9 January 2008 at 2:34 pm

    NZ:

    4.0 million people

    2.0 million men

    1.4 million men between the ages of 15 and 75

    ergo 140,000 rapists in New Zealand
33. Psycho Milt 33

    9 January 2008 at 2:54 pm

    Hey Milt, are you one of the 10% of men who are rapists?

    Not so far. It’s a question that takes an adult lifetime to answer, however I’m reasonably confident the answer will remain no.

    You do need to factor that in to your count, Kimble – many men alive today are not rapists right now, but will be by the time they die. So the count is actually of how many men reach death without ever having forced or intimidated someone else into sex with them. Personally, I suspect 90% isn’t over-generous for that figure.
34. dad4justice 34

    9 January 2008 at 2:57 pm

    “The process of turning the small animals we give birth to’

    Clearly you have the right name, as what kind of psycho would call beautiful children “small animals” ? Mr Milt I find your comment both offensive and disturbing ?You are one very, very sick unit !! What kind of creature are you ? I can’t fathom your maliciousness you nasty creep!!
35. dad4justice 35

    9 January 2008 at 3:01 pm

    Infact psycho milt – I will make sure your callous comment is spread around blogosphere you sadist creep !!What a despicable deviant and a total disgrace to humanity !!!
36. Michele Cabiling 36

    9 January 2008 at 3:22 pm

    Jum wrote:

    “If I am the ultimate man hater you are surely the ultimate woman hater.”

    Yeah, I’m familiar with that argument. Any woman who refuses to line up behind radical feminist misandry is a benighted individual imprisononed under a false consciousness implanted by her hetero-patriarchalist oppressors.

    Bollocks!

    “If men had accepted women and their unique talents of management and teamwork …”

    Are you saying that those talents are unique to woman? What a crock of sexist gob shite (but that’s OK cos you are female, right?)

    What about the “uniquely male” traits of logic and organisation? Do you have a problem with the foregoing description? I’m sure you will.

    “We have macho men putting down the nanny state when it seeks to make society a fairer one that considers everyone.”

    We also have completely feminine women such as myself putting down something that involves stealing the property and income of those who work and save to pork barrel those who dont work and don’t save. There’s nothing “fair” about theft, it remains theft, irrespective of whether it is individually of collectively perpetrated.

    “I’ll probably be quite happy with one of the firewomen rescuing me, Michele.”

    So would I, as long as I’m removed expeditiously from the burning building. However, the fact remains that despite the feminist insistence that gender [a bogus academic construct at the best of times] is merely a function of social conditioning, the number of women physically equipped to carry a 60kg woman ten stories down a fire ladder remains infinitismal compared to the men able to accomplish it.

    You can burn up waiting for a butch female fire fighter to play Sir Galahad [a Freudian revelation on your part] if you like, I’ll take my chances with the male one.

    “There is absolutely no way you will convince me that women are just as violent as men.”

    Amazing how people can internalise a particular world view and then hold such a strong emotional resistance to having it questioned that they are prepared to ignore a huge weight of countervailing evidence. Click on the link provided and check it out for yourself.

    Contrary to leftist dogma that all opinions are subjective and the product of social conditioning, if someone wishes to elevate their opinion above mine, they are obliged to produce a superior standard of argument and/or evidence. Waving away facts simply because changing your world view is intellectually challenging doesn’t cut it here.

    Research into child sexual abuse by women is not a priority of the radical feminists and their honorary women fellow travellers who do most of the academic research in this area. The few studies that have been carried out (one in Australia springs to mind) disclose an incidence of around 33% of such acts as being perpetrated by women. Female researcher, Alix Kirsta’s “Deadlier Than the Male” engages with this issue at some length and is well worth a read.

    Kimble wrote:

    “NZ:

    4.0 million people

    2.0 million men

    1.4 million men between the ages of 15 and 75

    ergo 140,000 rapists in New Zealand.”

    That means one in 10 men have raped someone. Do you think that’s accurate, Jum?

    I, for one don’t. Sure, all men possess a penis. Simply possessing a penis (the smoking gun) is not evidence of guilt. To rape also requires the inclination. As I have already pointed out, the vast majority of men prefer loving, consensual sexual relations with women.

    What makes sex good for most men I know is how much she gets off on him, and if she hates every minute of it, why would he want to run the risk of jail and social opprobrium, when to produce an orgasm for him all that’s required is “one off the wrist”?

    “[F]rom what I gather, a feminist was a person who objected to being treated like a doormat and enduring anything else that was delivered behind closed doors.”

    The first wave feminist movement included as many men as women. Susannah Hoff Sommers describes this as “equity feminism.” It was dedicated to securing for women the same legal rights and opportunities as men.

    Second wave feminism is described by Sommers as “gender feminism.” Based on revolutionary Marxism, it sees gender relations as a zero-sum game, in which more for one sex means less for another. It views men and women as being pitted against one another in an ongoing gender war in which women must smash their “class enemy” and “patriarchal oppressor.”

    Adherents are typically sour, ugly women with a pre-existing chip on their shoulder that comes from being losers in the genetic lottery, and unable to live up to the standards of beauty of their more genetically favoured sisters.

    They perceive that power, prestige, and control over one’s life are conferred by having a dick. Because they’ve tried without success to grow one, they’re determined that men won’t have one either.
37. Psycho Milt 37

    9 January 2008 at 4:07 pm

    Infact psycho milt – I will make sure your callous comment is spread around blogosphere you sadist creep !!

    No worries mate. Just as long as when you repeat it, you retain the context – ie, quote the whole sentence. If you do that, I’ve no problem with you spreading it as far as you like – but taking snips of quotes out of context is just another form of lying.
38. Kimble 38

    9 January 2008 at 4:16 pm

    D4J, ask yourself. What separates us from the animals?

    Do new born babies exhibit these traits?
39. Jum 39

    9 January 2008 at 6:03 pm

    Michele Cabiling

    Just when I was thinking you were genuinely putting your asexual view of men and women you make a statement saying women firefighters are butch. tsk tsk.

    You also say that most women aren’t strong enough to be firefighters and there is a point to that, but then you tell me that women are just as violent as men – make up your mind gal.
40. Kimble 40

    9 January 2008 at 6:15 pm

    Jum, ??? You dont have to be strong to be violent.

    Do you equate physical strength with violence? That would explain why you think only men can be violent.

    Michele doesnt need to make up her mind, you just need to engage yours.
41. Jum 41

    9 January 2008 at 6:46 pm

    Kimble

    Michele says women are just as violent as men. That is not possible. Their lower strength (in the average woman) would not be able to inflict the injuries that men can. You both also forget the fear factor where strength is used to grab control. Just the fear of violence gives the stronger person power. I also never said only men are violent. I said that Michele is wrong in saying women are more violent than men. Any studies that have been done use words like smacking or pushing. When a woman pushes often the man won’t even be moved. When a man pushes a woman he can usually push her over. Yet in the studies they are said to both push each other. Get your own mind engaged Kimble. The strength factor is never taken into account, only the number of pushes or smacks.

    Which again when you smack a child – a man more especially could injure a child because he does not know his own strength. Therefore it is always better to avoid hitting at all.

    Also, don’t imagine I am ignoring the fact that women do attack, incest, their children. The numbers however are much smaller especially when looked at in proportion to the amount of time women spend with children, another little fact that is never accounted for.

    No doubt men would be annoyed when women are said to be better drivers because they have fewer accidents and yet more men drive more. Same thing.
42. Kimble 42

    9 January 2008 at 6:53 pm

    Jum, you lost when you said,

    “There is absolutely no way you will convince me that women are just as violent as men.”

    You obviously dont know what a smack is.
43. Michele Cabiling 43

    10 January 2008 at 7:23 am

    Jum said:

    “Michele says women are just as violent as men. That is not possible. Their lower strength (in the average woman) would not be able to inflict the injuries that men can.”

    If you read the studies, you’ll find that the most violent women even up the size difference by using weapons and/or attacking their male partners while they slept.

    You also ignore the moral dimension of physical violence: if my husband hit me as hard as he could, he’d break my jaw. If I hit him as hard as I could, I’d hurt him considerably, but he’d probably not suffer a permanent physical injury. The fact remains, however, that both of us would have been trying to knock the others’ block off, so are just as morally culpable in our actions.

    I’ve heard the bullshit argument before from women that it’s OK for a woman to lose her temper, hit a big strong man, and expect him not to retaliate, because she “can’t do much damage anyway.”

    What do we call such a person? I’d call her a child. Adults are expected to control themselves in times of stress, not lash out at others. This ought to be true both for women and for men.

    Many women who hit their menfolk do so because they are well aware he’s been socialised not to hit them back, so they know they can do this with impunity. Neither my husband nor I solve our marital disputes violently, but he told me when we were first dating that he was not a punch bag for any women, and if I hit him first and it hurt, he reserved the right to hit back, but wih an open hand.

    Neither of us have ever hit the other, and I know what his bottom line is should I ever be tempted to do so.
44. Jum 44

    10 January 2008 at 10:03 am

    Michele Cabiling

    I’d definitely like the numbers on the using weapons while partners/husbands are asleep please. Does that not cry out to prove that women are too afraid to do that while their partners are awake? Numbers of the most violent women and the most violent men too please. Not statistics Michele – numbers.

    Meanwhile

    Statistics/SchMYSTICS

    Statistics were formulated by people to prove what they wanted to prove and to be used by people who wanted to believe them to use in persuading others. That’s where you came in Michele.

    The numbers are………and remember the children in all of these facts

    – half of all murders in NZ are domestic related
    – a NZ woman is killed by her (ex) partner/husband every 2.5 weeks
    – over Xmas 2005-6, mothers of 19 children were killed
    – 33% of NZers physically/sexually abused by spouse in lifetime
    – 6000 families helped by Preventing Violence in the Home in 2006
    – 55,000 children present during the 46,682 family violence incidents attended by police in NZ in 2002/3

    As you can see, whatever you say about women and men being equally violent the end results say otherwise.

    1 woman murdered by her (ex) partner/husband every 2.5 weeks

    Now give me the numbers of men killed by their partners/wives in that time.

    That means that those men believed those women were nothing and that they had the right to kill those women because they belonged to those men. Behind those men come many more men who would like to rape/murder women but risk too much to do so. Behind those men are the male chauvinists. Behind those men are the ‘Billys’ who like John Stuart Mill can see that in subjecting women to dependence upon men, it places men in chains also.

    You got me on the ‘uniqueness’ of women with management and team work skills. What I should have said is that women have just as many skills as men, be they logic or management skills, but up until the 70s that has not been recognised and women had been forced into homemaking roles. Now we have religion coming in to tell us to go back there again.

    Rapes – not all rapes are reported Michele – that is a given. Women still feel they are to blame. False rape reports make me very angry with those women who make it harder for other women to report.

    About beauty Michele and your sexist view of women who have views different to you – I haven’t been told I’m beautiful, but I have been told I’m elegant and kind. I open doors for old people, men with parcels, pregnant women. In other words, Michele, I like the person I am and you inferring with your

    “Adherents are typically sour, ugly women with a pre-existing chip on their shoulder that comes from being losers in the genetic lottery, and unable to live up to the standards of beauty of their more genetically favoured sisters.

    They perceive that power, prestige, and control over one’s life are conferred by having a dick. Because they’ve tried without success to grow one, they’re determined that men won’t have one either.” is very hurtful.

    The trouble with beauty Michele is that women begin to realise that that is what they are judged on and know that when it starts to fade, their allure will fade also, unless they have inside stuff that really counts. So they do the botox and they do the facelifts and they can’t stop until one day they realise the mole on their bum is now a beauty spot on their face and the perfect eyebrows they had tatooed on are now receding into their foreheads.

    I like men with dicks. One of them helped me have two beautiful children and he’s still here with this ‘sour ugly bitter old woman’. The reason he is still here is because I refused to be treated like a doormat and he respects that even tho’ he won’t admit it. I also intend to make sure my daughter and son (I put her first here because she was born first Michele, in case you’re wondering) know that both my husband and I are entitled to be treated equally, just as they are. My husband won’t stop trying to achieve control over me of course but that’s the fun of marriage. Men like control over women, Michele. Unfortunately some of them don’t know when to stop.

    Back to children – which is what we’re all here for I hope. I’ll tell you a little story, Michele, in part 2, after I’ve got my wonderful son up to get ready for his part time job.
45. Jum 45

    10 January 2008 at 10:09 am

    Kimble
    Now who is the retard

    A smack by the average man and a smack by the average woman are quite different.
46. Billy 46

    10 January 2008 at 10:33 am

    “Now who is the retard”

    Res ispa loquitur
47. Jum 47

    10 January 2008 at 10:34 am

    Michele Cabiling………Part 2

    I’m not a goody goody. I used to smack my daughter on the fingers when she had done something naughty. It would have produced a light stinging sensation. She’d have been about three. One day she was really naughty. With a wooden spoon I tapped her even more lightly on the back of her leg – not even a sting as I just wanted her to think about what she was doing by smacking her brother. She looked at me and said nothing. I went down the hall to collect something and when I came back she was tapping her brother on his trousered leg (she was copying me in both cases). I asked for the spoon, put it back in the drawer and told my children I would never use the spoon or my hand again. I never have.

    Once before that I tapped my son on the leg (tapping is lighter than a smack Kimble)when he wouldn’t keep still for me to change his nappy. The look in his eyes stays with me 15 years later. It registered back then but I was too busy to get the hint that I had actually hurt my child not just physically but in his attitude towards me. He was meant to feel safe with me Michele.

    If my husband had tapped either of the children the tap would have been harder because of his overall strength.

    That is why Section 59 had to be repealed.

    Deep down also if I knew it was against the law to use my hand or anything else on my children I would have thought twice about that too. If we don’t try to improve ourselves how can our society improve?

    No one can explain completely the intricate differences between tapping and smacking and hitting and knocking and pushing and bashing with hand or fist or whip or 4 x 2 wood, et cetera, and also the differences between the diverse women sizes and men sizes strengthwise.

    That is why Section 59 had to be repealed.

    While you’re gathering these numbers on violent women and violent men, Michele, please also supply the weights of these men and women and their muscle strength if you can. That would be great thanks.
48. Kimble 48

    10 January 2008 at 12:16 pm

    “A smack by the average man and a smack by the average woman are quite different.”

    No, the average man is stronger than the average woman, but that doesnt mean they are going to smack harder.

    Given that the the child being smacked is loved, it could easily be argued that the man would be more careful to keep control of his actions than a woman.
49. Jum 49

    10 January 2008 at 12:24 pm

    Kimble

    Given that a smack is often the hand thinking before the mind, no matter how loved the child is the smack is often given in anger.
50. Jum 50

    10 January 2008 at 12:39 pm

    Billy

    Exactly – Res ipsa loquitur (not ispa)

    ‘whether or not the defendant had exclusive control over the instrumentality that caused the accident.’

    i.e. the use of the hand ahead of the intellect.
51. Phil 51

    10 January 2008 at 12:44 pm

    Jum,

    I really hope that if I am ever on trial for a violent crime, the jury is made up of people like you… your softness and sentimentality would be money-for-jam to a half decent defence lawyer playing the “it’s not Phil’s fault, society made him this way” card…

    … Seriously though, your argument of relative strength (M vs F) is, at best, misguidedly irrelevant, and at worst, deliberately deceptive.
    I have no doubt that an abusive mother/caregiver is EQUALLY capable of doing serious damage to her children just as easily as her male counterpart – children are very easy to damage when treated incorrectly, as I’m sure you are well aware.
52. Jum 52

    10 January 2008 at 12:46 pm

    Kimble

    I do agree with you about men being conscious of their strength – my husband has only ever (now which word should I use) ‘smacked’ my daughter once. I saw it and it was not with his full strength.

    As far as I know that is the only time he has smacked one of his children. He does not need to. There is respect.
53. Jum 53

    10 January 2008 at 12:57 pm

    Phil,

    As an adult male on trial for a violent crime (especially if it involves rape or murder and even more especially against a woman) you better wish I am not on your jury.

    I agree that women are just as capable of hurting their children badly.

    That is why Section 59 had to be repealed, to stop any of us using it as a defence for our actions against children.

    Scroll back a bit and read Part 1 and 2 to Michele Cabiling 10.03 and 10.34
54. Matthew Pilott 54

    10 January 2008 at 1:19 pm

    “Given that the the child being smacked is loved, it could easily be argued that the man would be more careful to keep control of his actions than a woman.”

    This got me thinking (I’m not critiquing Kimbles statement here, just explaining my train of though with regards to teh following).

    I’d love to see a decent study on smacking (for the purposes here I’m happy to accept the delineation between smacking in a corrective context as opposed to physical correction consistent with child abuse). What I would like such a study to investigate is:

    1 – when the child was smacked, had you done so instinctively

    2 – when the child was smacked, had you (in your perception) lost your temper

    3 – when you smack, is it always as a result of a single action by the child that requires discipline

    4 – have you ever smacked as a result of a series of compounding actions by the child

    5 – after the action, do you ever regret the use of physical discipline

    6 – after the action, have you considered the use of non-physical discipline.

    Family First and co always speak of a ‘loving smack’, but I imagine this is not always the case. The child may indeed be loved, but is the action purely based upon love for the child? And not an adverse reaction by harried parents…
55. Kimble 55

    10 January 2008 at 1:34 pm

    “I imagine this is not always the case.”

    And it is not always the opposite. Children are violently abused, but they are also lovingly disciplined. They are more often lovingly disciplined than violently abused.

    Section 59 did not allow or excuse bashing of children, but its repeal does prohibit physical discipline.
56. Psycho Milt 56

    10 January 2008 at 2:03 pm

    The fact that Family First are a bunch of tossers is of no more relevance to the argument than is the fact that a lot of the pro-repeal types are annoying, sentimental hand-wringers.
57. Jum 57

    10 January 2008 at 2:06 pm

    Family First has cottoned on to the Section 59 bill to further its own agenda – ie the family made up of father as head of the family, no matter how violent, stupid, loving, caring, useless with money, a drunk, a batterer, (sigh yes Michele and Kimble that could apply to a woman as well) a good father, a wonderful husband; and of course the woman secondary to him as in all religions; and the children as not quite human. They want the right to control the children and the woman, just like the good old days.

    They cannot see that the best family of all is decision making by the appropriate partner whether it is money, or childcare or whatever and with all family members having a say in their own futures and children being respected by their parents as human beings. That is happening more I’m pleased to say, but we’ve got a long way to go.

    Family First’s christian base is against abortion, no matter what the reason is and is based on a set of rules from an American group, which you can find on the internet. The rules they don’t want you to see have been removed from their NZ website.

    Family First is just another group of people who with Brian Tamaki Ian Wishart Exclusive Brethren and other christian parties who started appearing on our radar when Helen Clark was voted in on her own merit against a male opposition leader around 2002. They do not believe a women should be allowed to lead our country.

    When you’ve all debated Matthew Pilott’s study, please give me some views on Family First. As if I could stop you!!!
58. Billy 58

    10 January 2008 at 2:18 pm

    Jum,

    This has been a really fascinating insight into the workings of your relationship and family. Please do keep us updated periodically.
59. Matthew Pilott 59

    10 January 2008 at 3:03 pm

    “And it is not always the opposite. Children are violently abused, but they are also lovingly disciplined. They are more often lovingly disciplined than violently abused.

    Section 59 did not allow or excuse bashing of children, but its repeal does prohibit physical discipline.”

    There are points on a spectrum between violent abuse and loving discipline, it is these I was interested in. To be blunt: how often is a child smacked after thoughtful consideration by a parent, in deciding that their child’s behaviour had passed a threshold of their choosing based upon their values, consistently applied, so as to give the child the right message.

    And how often is a child smacked because they’ve been naughty and pissed their parents off too much for that day?

    I don’t think there are that many ‘loving smacks’ going around.

    One effect of the repeal of S59 is that police are now more likely to report what they consider to be child abuse, so the correct authorities can take action. In the past, police were hesitant to report cases of what they considered child abuse, as they knew S59 would make a convenient escape for the parents. At least now, the correct authorities can decide.

    This was based upon several articles I read during the passing of the bill. Unless these stories were lies, it illustrates how S59 allowed child abuse by proxy.
60. Jum 60

    10 January 2008 at 5:13 pm

    Billy

    You’re gorgeous, I will forever hold you close to my heart as a man who reminded me that there are some men who think. Not too close tho. My husband might be watching…

Links to post

1. mistress valkyrie: posted on 13 May 2008 at 4:06 am

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS