For kids’ sake don’t blame the modern family

Tina says:

07:44am | 07/09/11

I wonder if our parents though are inexperienced with some challenges of modern society their children face? Facebook, cyber bullying, alcopops…

bec says:

09:07am | 07/09/11

I would say many parents are, especially if they weren’t raised with the technology. Many of my own colleagues (particularly, those in charge with higher level discipline and behaviour management of students at an executive level) don’t appreciate how Facebook and a lot of social media sites are used by kids now. They simply don’t spend the time online to get a grasp of its capabilities.

John A Neve says:

10:55am | 07/09/11

Tina & Bec,
Through out history parents have been twenty years behind the times.
Our society is continually evolving and not always for the better.

What I posted yesterday applys equally to today’s topic. Single parents, both parents having to work full time, increased divorce rates and financial pressures, do not bode well for bring up children.

What will we do about it? Nothing but talk, we are in too deep to do any thing else.

TheRealDave says:

01:41pm | 07/09/11

Tina how is that ie ‘Facebook, alcopops, cyberbullying’ any different from when we were kids 20-30 years ago (or more) with peer group pressure, bullying, underage drinking, smoking, drugs, sex etc??

Jeez…its not like ANY of this stuff is new…..EVERY generation goes through it at roughly the same age. The only difference is is that more and more parents are less able to do anything about it - even if they wanted to, and a damned lot of them don’t because they are too self absorbed.

You're doing it wrong says:

08:44pm | 07/09/11

One in four teenagers aged 16-24?? 20-24 year olds are not teenagers. Haha. Fail.

GlendaSings says:

11:08am | 08/09/11

@TheRealDave, cyber bullying is different to things that we had 20 years ago because there is no escape from it for today’s teenagers. With the advent of the internet and smart phones, there is nowhere for today’s teen to hide from bullying.

When we were kids, if you got picked on at school (and I did), at least you could go home and be safe. There was no mass interaction, if you talked to a friend it was one at a time on the phone, and kids didn’t tend to call each other to bully - because chances are a parent would answer the phone.

Now a lot of kids interactions are over the internet - Facebook, Bebo etc. If you don’t go on, you lose touch with your friends. However, you do go on and find messages and harassment from the same kids who hassled you at school that day. They invade your social interactions with your friends and it’s very difficult for kids to extricate themselves from those things, especially if it escalates to photographs or videos.

Martin says:

08:06am | 07/09/11

Erick,

you are not the only one who has gone through tough times. Most of us work out how best to deal with it, put things back together, and do the best we can for our kids. Grow up and stop peddling nonsense. There is no war on fathers - in fact the last major changes to the Family Law Act were to enforce a presumption of shared custody. Fathers get paternity leave, are encouraged to be involved at every stage.

Let it go man.

acotrel says:

09:08am | 07/09/11

@ Erick
For years Hollywood has promoted the cause of men.  When I had young kids there was a TV series titled ‘Father Knows Best’, and I used to use those very words to control them !  Despite all their objections, I was proven to be right many times!  Think of all the John Wayne, James Bond, Dirty Harry movies, they all promote the male role model.  Even Rowan Atkinson isn’t nasty to women ! Perthaps you should be more like him ?

Erick says:

09:25am | 07/09/11

@Martin - You could not be more wrong.

The Family Law reforms you mentioned were made in 2006, and represented a small move toward equality for fathers, and a great leap for the betterment of children. But these changes, which you use an example, are being reversed right now.

In fact, the Federal government is currently changing the law to effectively remove the presumption of joint custody, and make it even easier to take children away from their fathers. These changes will also encourage false allegations of abuse, and make other detrimental changes.

That’s just one example of the very real and pervasive war on fathers and children.

Loxy says:

09:38am | 07/09/11

Erick, while I agree with you that father’s get the raw deal when it comes to custody, peddling this view no matter what the topic of the article is and repeating the same thing over and over again is just so old. You sound like a bitter, old man full of hate and revenge which is truly sad. If you can’t move on then at least move your repetitive posts from The Punch and put your engergy into something more productive like lobbying the government.

Erick says:

09:54am | 07/09/11

@acotrel - You’re the Grandpa Simpson of the Punch. You start off with something just barely related to the topic, then ramble on endlessly, getting less relevant and less coherent with every comment.

It would be a lot less entertaining without you.

Adel says:

10:06am | 07/09/11

Wives and mothers had no legal right to property or to the children that they gave birth to until relatively recently historically. Domestic violence was considered a ‘personal matter’ until the 1970’s and unfortunately still is today in some quarters. Unmarried mothers had their children forcibly removed from them into the 1970’s. This is just in the west. In some countries women and girls are still oppressed in these ways, and worse. Can we please stop pretending that there was some haven of peace, love and happy families until feminism came along and ruined everything. We should thank goodness that women organised against this abhorrent gender oppression.

Erick says:

10:35am | 07/09/11

@Loxy - I am commenting on a threat to families, in a thread about families. If you don’t like my comments, don’t read them.

@Adel - Whatever discrimination against women may have existed in the past, it is no longer relevant today. Men are at present discriminated against more harshly, and that is why we need to fight for equality and justice.

Why do feminists insist on living in the past?

Tina says:

10:53am | 07/09/11

Why is this a competition on who has it worse? Why does it matter if it is a woman or a man that is subject to abuse or treated unfairly by our system? How about we agree that these things exist and we should make an effort to help, have a stronger community, care about our neighbours?

Can you agree with that, Erick?

Kika says:

11:14am | 07/09/11

Erick - my father as I’ve said millions of times was weak as pi&ss; and spent all his time at the pub rather than being a ‘father’. Like I’ve said a hundred times, it was like I didnt’ even have a Dad until I was at least 15. Our relationship is ok now. We’re not ‘close’ like some girls are with their fathers. I barely can look him in the eye.

Mum never left him though and kept the family together for us kids.

I guarantee you a million people out there would have deadbeat dads like mine. Not every male is a saint,  just as not every female out there is a saint.

Pigeon holing an entire gender because one of them stuffed you around is nonsensical and ridiculous and cannot be good for your mental health.

I don’t blame all men for what a crap Dad my father was (particularly when I was young) because not all men are the same. Just as not every female is out there to bring down the male gender.

You seriously need to build a bridge and get over it. The real victim in a divorce is the kid - NOT the mum or the Dad.

TomZ says:

11:43am | 07/09/11

Martin, “Let it go man.” Hang on Martin, the results are on the board. Read the article, “man”. Obviously Erick cares about teen suicide whereas you don’t seem to give a rats arse about that.

one of two parents apart but working together for says:

11:44am | 07/09/11

Erick the war on fathers has been by fathers themselves.  Immature parents hold onto bitterness and place the blame on everyone but themselves.  Mature adults get past the break up of a marriage or relationship and work together for the childrens best interests.  It’s the quality of the time you spend with chidlren that counts.

gobsmack says:

12:04pm | 07/09/11

@Erick
“Forcibly excluding half the adult population from the tasks of child-rearing was never a bright idea.”
You really like your hyperbole, don’t you.
No-one has excluded “half the adult population” from the task of child rearing.  Last time I looked, the majority of families include a father.  In a minority of families the parents divorce and in some of those cases the father’s access to the children is restricted.
You might have some credibility if you didn’t resort to these ridiculous exaggerations.

TomZ says:

12:18pm | 07/09/11

@Adel, playing the old feminist “foot binding” card is lazy and passe. The youth suicide is here and now. We are not talking about the 70s. Any culture that demonises or white ants it own authority structures without building sustainable replacements is asking for trouble.

Take some ownership of the issue and start debating with a bit of honesty. Otherwise I suggest you disappear back to the 70s with “der sistas” and burn your bras or something equally as vapid. You won’t be missed.

HappyCynic says:

12:46pm | 07/09/11

@Erick

the only “war” being raged is on terrible fathers, fathers who treat their wives and children badly.  The ones who treat their wives with respect and love, who do a good job of raising their children don’t usually get divorced.

Your argument only applies to terrible fathers.  And terrible fathers, like terrible mothers (I was unfortunate to have one of each) don’t deserve access to kids.

Erick says:

01:02pm | 07/09/11

@HappyCynic - “terrible fathers, like terrible mothers (I was unfortunate to have one of each)”

You have my sympathy. I acknowledge that your mommy issues and daddy issues have distorted your outlook on parents, and life in general.

However, the war on fathers is a real factor in society, quite distinct from your own personalproblems. That said, I hope you get better.

TomZ says:

01:04pm | 07/09/11

HappyCinic, “the only “war” being raged is on terrible fathers, fathers who treat their wives and children badly.” Pigs-ass.

TomZ says:

01:11pm | 07/09/11

Gobsmack, “Last time I looked, the majority of families include a father.”

Last time I looked the majority of families did not have children who suicided.

No-one apart from you is talking about the majority of families, Gobsmack. Err, ... get it? Or is that too hard for the simpletons?

gobsmack says:

01:43pm | 07/09/11

@TomZ
There is no need to get insulting.
My post was in response to the extraordinary suggestion by Erick that “half the adult population” (ie men) are excluded from the tasks of child rearing.
Yes, the article is about teenage suicides.  It is unfortunate that the discussion has been derailed by Erick (as have many other articles) in an attempt to push his particular agenda.  I don’t see anything in his original comment or his replies that displays any particular concern for teenage suicides.

TomZ says:

08:34pm | 07/09/11

Gobsmack, apologies for the insult. One of the battle cies of feminists in the workforce was that half the population (being female) were excluded from competing for jobs. It was a generic statement rather than a statement of volums or percentages. This had been in reference to the so-called “men’s club” positions and feminists argued (not without merit) that a company would not have the full pool of talent to draw from in picking the best employee.

Women had jobs in those days and comprised a large percentage of the workforce.

No-one in those days construed feminists as stating that 100% of women were excluded or hyping anything. There is no good reason to misconstrue Erick’s statement then attack your own construction based on its absurdity.

I often think that people go out of their way to do this sort of thing to Erick. Yes, Erick has biases but haven’t we all?

acotrel says:

05:20am | 08/09/11

@TomZ
’ Any culture that demonises or white ants it own authority structures without building sustainable replacements is asking for trouble’

You cannot impose democracy, you can only make conditions right for it to happen.

TomZ says:

11:50am | 08/09/11

@acetrol, so true, bro. I assume you refer to Afghanistan? Not sure how it links to this situation? Are the red pills working, bro?

Tone says:

01:26pm | 07/09/11

acotrel,
I have it directly from a good primary source that many Vietnam vet issues were/are as much a result of syphlitic encephalopathy as from war-trauma or PTSD; but that will never be addressed or admitted by any entity.

David says:

02:46pm | 07/09/11

@acotrel

Look, I hate the ACL more than anyone. They can take their religious bigotry and shove it right up their clacker. But I think you are wrong on them being complicit in recruiting Vietnam vets. The ACL has only been around since 1995.

acotrel says:

10:09pm | 07/09/11

@David Aren’t the ACL descendents of the National Civic Council ?

Proud daughter says:

11:29am | 08/09/11

acotrel, I think you’re a little behind with your generations here. Australia pulled out of Vietnam in 1972. There are very few children of Vietnam Vets still living with their parents. My dad was a VVet…I’m 40, he’s in his late 60s. My kids are teenagers! Most Vietnam Vets are now grandparents.

However, I agree that many of them have untreated PTSD, including my own father. Tone, your statement that most of the problems are from syphlitic encephalopathy is highly offensive. Many Vets, like my dad, were married men and faithful to their wives, yet still faced massive trauma at war coupled with hatred from the population on their return. My dad has nightmares even when the television shows advertisements for movies like Platoon…which is specific to the trauma of war and has nothing to do with venereal disease.

acotrel says:

07:41am | 07/09/11

@ Jim
Who is the sponsor for AGW and what is the agenda ?  Are you on about another conspiracy theory ?

andye says:

09:29am | 07/09/11

@Jim - Heres an exercise for you. Why dont you google around a bit and see what “think tank” supports Lord Monckton. You don’t need to use left wing blogs or anything, you can figure it out from more reputable sources including the think tanks own site.

Hint: Before attacking climate change they were defending tobacco companies.
Bonus hint: Exxon gave them a lot of money.

Servaas says:

09:51pm | 07/09/11

So, if someone writes an article you can comprehend and agree with it settles it? Bad families or not, what is killing this current generation is the notion that freedom of choice and personal opinion is a foundation for truth and law to be built upon.

acotrel says:

10:15pm | 07/09/11

Emma Kevin Andrews has an agenda, and it again involves coercion ! He’s simply doing God’s good work, and the end justifies the means !

acotrel says:

07:45am | 07/09/11

@Mahrat If you ever have to discipline anyone, you have failed as a leader.  Motivation and encouragement are always preferable to coercion.  The LNP should learn that ?

JD says:

08:50am | 07/09/11

@acotrel - have you never disciplined your children? the very young do not always do what they’re told, they push boundaries as they should but they need to know there are consequences. having to discipline children does not make you a failure as a ‘leader’

Direct says:

09:19am | 07/09/11

@JD, acotrel’s kids barely talk to him anymore. I wouldn’t be taking anything he says on leadership or fatherhood seriously.

iansand says:

09:36am | 07/09/11

What is discipline?  Is insisting on standards of behaviour, without coercion or violence, discipline?  Must discipline always involve punishment?

Mahhrat says:

10:26am | 07/09/11

@acotrel, what on earth are you talking about? 

The teacher/disciplinarian sets and, if necessary, regretully enforces boundaries around civilised behaviour.

A sensei is a disciplinarian; he teaches not only a martial art, but also restrain in its use and the responsibility that goes with the power it brings to an individual.

He would also, I daresay, put a stop to two of his protoge should they get into some kind of fight, using those same skills.

Acotrel, the right have a lot of problems I agree, but one tenet of their that is true is this: failure to punish the guilty is treason to the innocent.  It is up to us to enforce the expectations, because without them, there are no expectations.

acotrel says:

10:29am | 07/09/11

@JD
My kids all have good jobs doing really constructive work.  None of them have partners.  I’ve never hit my daughter, but my sons have always bounced off me, and neither of them ever takes a backwards step in a fight.  I have disciplined the boys on occasion, and it has always reflected on my abilities as a father.  It is essential to exercise control without resorting to violence. You can end up with scars !

Bron says:

12:07pm | 07/09/11

@Alcotrel-you must have been a great child but unfortunately I was a little shit & no motivation or encouragement had much of an effect. I was fortunate that my parents also believed in discipline ( & that included some deserved corporal punishment) for keeping me out of trouble until I became mature enough to realise I was a little shit & amend my behaviour accordingly.

Ben C says:

12:22pm | 07/09/11

@ acotrel

So, if we refer back to your statements, does this mean you acknowledge that you’ve failed as a leader/father?

“If you ever have to discipline anyone, you have failed as a leader.”

“I have disciplined the boys on occasion, and it has always reflected on my abilities as a father.”

JD says:

03:14pm | 07/09/11

@Acotrel - where in my statement did i mention doing violence? if you take discipline to mean violence then there’s something wrong there, I never suggested hitting or beating so where does the violence come in?

acotrel says:

05:29am | 08/09/11

@JD
When it comes to the end game,if staying in control by imposing your authority involves coercion, it ends in violence.  Better to motivate, and lead by example ? You need to consider that you don’t breed rats from mice, and one of your kids or employees, might up the ante to the limit !

marley says:

12:32pm | 08/09/11

@acotrel - you seem to be inventing your own definition of the word “discipline.”  Discipline doesn’t have to involve physical violence or coercion.  Or do you think that “self-discipline"requires flagellation?

acotrel says:

07:46am | 07/09/11

@Tina
Do you believe the war is over when the shooting stops ?

Tina says:

08:39am | 07/09/11

acotrel

I just put it out there, I have no advice or qualified comment on it. I dont know if these numbers are higher or lower in recent years and what the causes are.

marley says:

02:21pm | 07/09/11

Well, if young people (the critical age is 16 to 24) in Europe are showing high levels of depression, insomnia and ADD, it’s not because of the War - unless they’re all living with their grandfathers or great grandfathers.

Frank says:

03:16pm | 07/09/11

@AnnaC - “Being in denial about this is just laughable. As a society we should be doing things to strengthen the family unit not denying the bleeding obvious.”

Worse than simply denial.  There is an agenda being pushed and it has nothing to do with what is right for kids or families.

Frank says:

03:17pm | 07/09/11

@AnnaC - “Being in denial about this is just laughable. As a society we should be doing things to strengthen the family unit not denying the bleeding obvious.”

Worse than simply denial.  There is an agenda being pushed and it has nothing to do with what is right for kids or families.

mahhrat says:

07:49am | 07/09/11

Actually, a stable base is a small community of people with a variety of skillsets all working together to build what needs to be built.

It doesn’t matter if they’re male, female, tall, short, black, white or orange, it’s that they look out for each other and understand that it takes a lot of people to make life work.

acotrel says:

07:51am | 07/09/11

@Joan
You are always good for a laugh ! You are the epitomy of confusion.  If you got your head straight about your religion, you’d be much happier, and so would the rest of us !

Tina says:

07:54am | 07/09/11

Joan, I think that is a very narrow minded comment. So there is only room for one ideal kind of family? What if a parent dies? What if a parent quits? What if a loving couple cant have children but would give the world for a baby? Are you saying it should be fate if a couple cannot conceive and they shouldnt have a child? What is supposed to happen with children that lost their parents? Do we remove them out of sight as to not disturb your wonderful little world?

Thank God people are more flexible than you describe so they can make loving parents even if the circumstances are not always ideal.

shinydonkey says:

08:29am | 07/09/11

Same old pro-marriage conservative christian claptrap.  Can you present evidence that the nuclear family structure is a ‘natural’ decree, without reference to your 2000 year old tome of plagiarised, disconsolant, inchoate, schizophrenic rantings?  You are SUCH a bore.

Joan says:

09:39am | 07/09/11

Go learn your biology - a person is made up male/female gene pool- don’t pooh, pooh your basic origins. .. there is a natural instinct that draws you to your own. Time and again you read of the natural ache by adoptees, orphans, children removed from natural parents an ache to know their parents, but they have to make do what is given, ideally they would want their own mum and dad, the original gene pool if they could.- anything else is second, third best.

Joan says:

09:40am | 07/09/11

Go learn your biology - a person is made up male/female gene pool- don’t pooh, pooh your basic origins. .. there is a natural instinct that draws you to your own. Time and again you read of the natural ache by adoptees, orphans, children removed from natural parents an ache to know their parents, but they have to make do what is given, ideally they would want their own mum and dad, the original gene pool if they could.- anything else is second, third best.

Anna C says:

09:45am | 07/09/11

If any of you guys bothered to read Joan’s comments properly she is saying that a stable base is necessary for raising a happy family and that the ideal family would include a loving mum and dad raising their own child. She isn’t saying that this is the only acceptable family unit but that anything less than the ideal can cause the family unit to weaken.

It’s true that adoptive parents, gay parents, grandparents etc can raise well adjusted children but it is still preferable whenever possible for children to be raised by their natural mother and father. This is the natural scheme of things. 

It’s no secret that the break-up of the family unit over the last 40 years has caused significant problems in our society. I worked in the welfare sector for over 10 years and have seen these problems first hand. Being in denial about this is just laughable. As a society we should be doing things to strengthen the family unit not denying the bleeding obvious.

Tina says:

10:36am | 07/09/11

Joan

True. Orphans and adopted kids ache to know their parents. And so they should. But I have not heard of many that were not thankful for the loving childhood they have been given by their non-biological parents. After all in most cases it has been put up for adoption because the mother was not fit or not willing to raise the child herself.

Cat says:

10:50am | 07/09/11

except, Joan, what actually happened was that many times the recipe of dad + mum + kids didn’t include happiness, or love or stability. We, as a society, made changes to acknowledge reality and what we found is that the necessary bits in the recipe for success were equally to be found in mum + kids, or dad + dad + kids….because the structure of heterosexual monogamy isn’t what should be worshipped, but the love, the stability and the ability to create a happy family in whatever shape or form is the real secret ingredient,  - if I continue my recipe metaphor - you are miffed because you think the best cake is made in only one style of cake tin, but the rest of us hae figured out that cakes in all shapes and sizes are equally yummy - not less, not “flawed-but-functional” but truly, equally as good…..damn, now I’m hungry

Joan says:

10:54am | 07/09/11

Tina : The ideal is Mum, Dad and child- always will be. When a woman goes into hospital to have a baby, she expects to come home with the baby she gave birth to not someone elses . Nothing wrong with child wanting original mum and dad- making do with something else is bound to have some negative psychological effect, no matter how good other providers are.

Paul Murray says:

10:56am | 07/09/11

From what I read in the bible, it’s perfectly plain that the natural state of the family is polygamy. After all: any girl would rather be third wife to a winner than have a loser all to herself.

A man who is one of life’s winners has several wives, and he uses these to make sons. The girl-children are drowned in the river (not a word against infanticide in the bible).

The point of having lots of sons is that they are “arrows in your quiver”. The sons of your third, fourth, and “etc” wives can be sent to die in pointless tribal wars against the sons of the bloke living over in the next valley. They don’t need to farm or anything - that’s what the slaves are for.

It’s God’s way.

Cat says:

11:24am | 07/09/11

Tina - geez that was a hell of a generalisation, do you not think it is increadibly insulting to co-opt an entire group of individuals with many and varied experiences and generalise about their lives and views in such a way? You clearly have little knowledge of the depth of experience of adopted people - stolen generation mean anything to you? Want to rethink that generalisation about the biological parents yet?

Tina says:

11:56am | 07/09/11

Cat

I didnt mean to upset anyone. I meant to say that kids can be happy for having been adopted, if that meant that had the chance for a loving childhood which they might not have gotten with the biological parent. I understand of course that reasons for putting a child up for adoption are very diverse.

David says:

02:59pm | 07/09/11

You may remember that on Play School several years ago, they depicted a scene of a young girl playing with her two mums. All hell broke loose with conservative MPs calling for ABC people’s heads on plates.

I heard that young girl, now a teenager, talking on the radio the other day about her experiences of having two mums and all I can say is that if everyone was as well adjusted and had the broad minded common sense of this young girl the problems we complain about in today’s young kids would be a non issue.

You want examples of drug addict street kids that have come from the ‘ideal’ setting of a married family with their equally loser biological parents, I can give you plenty.

Fred says:

03:50pm | 07/09/11

Everyone should have complained David. Just because you have one example of a alledgedly balanced kid, does not mean that the left wing ABC should be allowed to encourage the degrading of families and childrens rights by actively trying to normalise lesbians or gays with kids.

HappyCynic says:

04:04pm | 07/09/11

@Joan

Having bounced around through various welfare homes and foster parents as a kid, I can tell you that almost all the kids I ever met in these places were from these so-called “stable families with a bio-mum and a bio-dad”.  That includes my parents who are still together and who both came from highly abusive families that are also still together.

If it wasn’t for my last foster parents raising me from 16 to 18 I’d have never ever had a chance at an ordinary life.  The construct of the family unit is unimportant, what’s important is love, care and support, something that can come from anybody regardless of their gender or relationship status or even their relationship to a child.

The kindness of strangers gave me a normal life, my bio-parents can rot in hell for all I care and so can any pre-conceived notions of what a ‘normal family’ can be.

Rats says:

04:27pm | 07/09/11

BWHAHAHA lady, you are delusional. i come from a traditional, “stable” Orthodox family. My parents quietly despised eachother but stayed together “for the sake of the children” (no, they didn’t fight etc, but you could feel their resentment and silent fury coming off them in waves) . They too, believed as you do. Idiots, the both of them. Even as children, my sister and I could see that they were doing us no favours by continuing in their dysfunctional relationship. Both of us kids would have much preferred for them to get a divorce so that they could be at least a little happy, and us, we would have been happier seeing them happy.
You have your head so far in the sand, it’s simply unbelievable.

David says:

09:06am | 08/09/11

@Fred

The fact of the matter is that gay and lesbian people can and do have kids. Gay men have sperm and lesbians have ovum just like any other person. The majority of same sex parented families are not the result of adoption or IVF but instead the result of one parent attempting a heterosexual relationship in the past. A relationship that was doomed to fail. You don’t like the media normalizing gays and lesbians as parents but there will always continue to be gay people who have become parents just the same way that straight people become parents. What I am hearing from you is that kids who have a parent that happens to be gay should be ostracised, hidden and swept under the rug by the rest of society and not deserving of the same status in our community as kids who have straight parents.

acotrel says:

07:56am | 07/09/11

@Shane Our control freaks are always obsessed with ‘one size fits all’ solutions!  This thing is all about control, placating the populace, and then exploiting them ! ‘Democracy and control’ is still the issue !
Have you seen the Pink Floyd video clip titled ‘another brick in the wall ’ ?

Erick says:

09:34am | 07/09/11

We should also note that the great majority of physical and emotional abuse of children is committed by their mothers.

In these cases, it is important to protect tthe child from the family member, have her charged and provide adeqaute counselling, support and early intervention for the child. We could also look at wider social factors that may drive women to abuse their children and relatives.

Jen says:

10:29am | 07/09/11

Absolutely. However I was referring to the specific example of child sexual abuse, because it was reported to be a particular issue for girls in the report. Since men are most likely to commit sexual violence on girls I referred to men, not women in my comment. I was simply using a couple of examples to show that it’s more complex than ‘traditional marriage will make it all OK’. Your example is another. Perhaps if we provided women with adequate family support, counselling and early intervention services to support them in the difficult and often overwhelming role of raising children - most often as the primary carer - it would reduce the physical and emotional abuse of children by women. My point is that simply focussing on the idea of ‘traditional marriage’ is not going to solve these problems.

Lola says:

11:22am | 07/09/11

Man Erick - you’re so screwy. Check the stats for domestic violence and then you can have say. Yes, a lot of DV against men goes unreported, but so does for women.  A LOT. My husband kicked me in the back this morning. Did I report him? No. DV is more common across the board - and if you correlate gender with those being arrested for violent crimes in general men far out number that of women.  So making an assumption that ALL men who are victims of DV don’t report the crimes and women are far more likely to abuse their kids and family based on your assumption doesn’t make any sense at all when looking at the overall stats of those most likely to be involved in ALL violent crimes.

Erick says:

12:40pm | 07/09/11

@Jen - Well then, perhaps if we provided men with adequate family support, counselling and early intervention services to support them in the difficult and often overwhelming role of raising children, it would reduce the sexual abuse of children by men.

Does that sound reasonable?

@Lola - Your comment makes little sense. For your information, domestic violence is committed by women at least as often as by men:

“This bibliography examines 282 scholarly investigations: 218 empirical studies and 64 reviews and/or analyses, which demonstrate 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 369,800.”

But what was your point in the first place?

Lola says:

01:54pm | 07/09/11

So you rely on one research paper and a bibliography list and this PROVES your point? So why doesn’t this match with police statistics?
My point - men are well represented in police statistics for violent crime generally, not just DV. If females were AS violent as men, why aren’t they more represented in the crime figures?

I don’t disagree with you in the fact that some women can be violent. However, most females show their ‘violence’ in their words and emotional abuse rather than physical.

Ben C says:

03:52pm | 07/09/11

@ Lola

All well and good, but why then is counselling for psychological abuse still geared more towards women? And is that how women beat the legal system when it comes to spousal abuse, the fact that there is no tangible evidence so they can’t be charged?

Rethink what you’ve said there, because to me it sounds like an “Up yours” directed at Erick and men in general. I’m sure you don’t mean it that way, but not everyone will interpret it the same way as I have.

jade (the other one) says:

04:51pm | 07/09/11

@Erick - except that physical and emotional abuse is often a reaction to stressors in the environment - such as a newborn baby who does not behave as expected, feelings of failure as a result of being unable to breastfeed, or because your baby or child does not settle, or has behavioural problems, post-natal depression, or feelings of resentment towards the child because the natural father left when the mother fell pregnant and wants nothing to do with the child, and the new boyfriend doesn’t want to raise another man’s child. Some of these are understandable, and can even generate sympathy and understanding. Some are not.

Sexual abuse tends to occur as a result of factors such as sexual attraction (paedophilia), desire for power, or a belief that they have a right to sex, and sometimes impotence or an inability to relate sexually to people of their own age. Men and women do not sexually abuse their children, nieces, nephews, grandchildren, stepchildren, cousins, brothers or sisters because raising children is overwhelming or difficult.

Supporting men in the difficult role of raising children, to help them become more involved, and better understand and support their partners is absolutely important, but will do absolutely nothing to address the reasons that familial sexual abuse occurs, or reduce the damage that it inflicts. Which is what Jen was referring to.

Shane says:

09:49am | 07/09/11

The religious overtones of that guy’s website don’t exactly scream “impartial research”.  I can’t help but get that slimey feeling when I read a lot of publications on the subject of family models and parenting.

It really feels like dogma being wrapped up in a nice fashionable wool coat to make it look cool and acceptable.  At the end of the day, it’s religious babble rather than empirical research in my opinion

the apologist says:

12:06pm | 07/09/11

I don’t really understand how you can make such dismissive comments. In much the same way as the author of the above article, most of his article is simply citing research which you have no real grounds for believing to be anything but reputable;  - including from sources which are hostile to his own opinons. Only, he cites a whole lot more sources than this article does. Not to mention the wealth of other articles on the site along similar lines.

Everyone comes from a particular perspective, and it colours the way that they view reality (undoubtedly your own reality-goggles contributed to your dismissal of Mr Muehlenberg’s article). Impartial research is a fallacy. Working in government, I see it all the time - science is all about fitting the agenda.

Tina says:

09:07am | 07/09/11

It is greedy of a couple that cannot have children to explore other options? What better could happen to a child to grow up with parents that wanted to badly to have a family and care for a child that they went for IVF or adoption?

Jane says:

11:30am | 07/09/11

Don’t mix a straight couple in you statement with one that by life style choice can not provide a balanced family model let alone lead to the birth of a child (assuming everything functions as advertised)

Tika says:

03:36pm | 07/09/11

I don’t think you understand what “child abuse” means.

Rats says:

04:49pm | 07/09/11

Riiight.. so properly functioning sex organs are the only pre-requisite to ensuring that the couple’s children will be well cared for and loved? I would beg to differ - I lived in the CBD of Sydney for a long time and would witness the daily parade of junkies and their endlessly expanding numbers of malnourished kids parade the streets day and night. With their high-as-a-kite biological mothers and fathers.Oddly enough, nobody proposed to regulate their right to reproduce and inflict misery and suffering on ever increasing numbers of children.
In comparison, a homosexual couple, or a heterosexual couple that desperately longs for children, and uses IVF are, IMO far more likely to provide a stable an loving home for a child.

Mayday says:

05:58pm | 07/09/11

Good point Marley and many children simply don’t have enough time to have a decent nights sleep.

Lucy Kippist says:

10:27am | 07/09/11

Sure, on paper MarkS a nuclear family looks neat, tidy and well-rounded, but very few people actually experience family life this way. As for your second point - guardians and/or parents should feel free to keep themselves happy and healthy and inpsired by their work, as well as raising a family. To suggest otherwise is to deny them a human right and their children well-adjusted parents who can also be role models.

MarkS says:

11:17am | 07/09/11

@Lucy
Just because few experience best practice is no reason to deny that best practice should be the aim or say that second rate is just as good.

I do not consider parents who place their welfare above their children’s welfare are well-adjusted parents & good role models.

Deny their human rights? What about their child’s human rights? Any human right is in fact an obligation for somebody to do or not do something. So do the parents of a child have an obligation to look after their child’s best interests, an obligation that overrides most obligations the parent may have to themselves? I say yes, do you?

TheRealDave says:

01:46pm | 07/09/11

A Mom??.....a Mom?!?!

This and other creeping Seppoisms annoy me….

JD says:

03:06pm | 07/09/11

Definition of insanity - doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results, if it’s not working, try something new.

at my Nephew’s school (he’s 8) there are 2 in the classroom that have mum and dad together. the rest are variations, not the ‘nuclear’ and they are all quite bright, happy, healthy boys and girls

JS says:

04:24pm | 07/09/11

@ marks “Just because few experience best practice is no reason to deny that best practice should be the aim or say that second rate is just as good.”

wtf? who are you Jack Donaghy? maybe we should be synergising our upward revenue stream dynamics and making sure we all give our kids
positive mentions, or “pos-mens”

Tina says:

09:41am | 07/09/11

So do you think your parents have made the right or wrong decision by sending you to boarding school?

RyaN says:

11:20am | 07/09/11

Common sense, you seem to have turned out alright!

Kika says:

02:52pm | 07/09/11

I agree. Makes sense. Ying and Ying. Everything needs a counter-balance.

JD says:

03:13pm | 07/09/11

@Peter - why does the male role have to be a ‘father’ figure? why can’t it be a soccer coach? a teacher? cousin? grandfather? there are so many men that can be role models to boys and girls.

I agree it is ideal and easy for a mum and dad, but sometimes that’s not the hand that’s dealt to us and we have to adapt, children are very adaptable

Doc says:

03:31pm | 07/09/11

JD, children may be adaptable BUT that does not mean we deliberately allow gays/lesbians and single women choose IVF or adoption to place a kid in a compromised arrangement. To me that is the thin end of the wedge of child abuse.

JD says:

03:58pm | 07/09/11

@Doc - *snort* try claiming that in a court of law, until the law agrees with you, deal with the reality of evolving families that are different but not ‘bad’, considering people claim we are the most prejudice country I am starting to agree with the stats from these blogs.

all you need is love, doesn’t matter who it’s coming from

Kika says:

11:28am | 07/09/11

Hell yeah! My parents fail every couple compatibility test and are told ‘better to be friends’...  By the time I was 13-14 I really hoped my parents would divorce so my sister and I could have some peace!

Your name:cynical says:

12:07pm | 07/09/11

parental verbal screaming matches and long protracted silences made for a very tense, frightened, unhappy and on edge childhood where my siblings and I hated being at home, hated our parents and our lives.  Did it leave a lasting impact on us? Oh yeah it sure did, not a good impact.

Tim says:

10:23am | 07/09/11

Yeah,
I’m so glad our progressiveness has allowed us to remove the ugliness of our past.
That kind of stuff never happens anymore.

Fiddler says:

10:29am | 07/09/11

What the hell makes you think there was more domestic violence back in the 1950’s? Given the ridiculous definition of “domestic violence” these days (any argument the police are called to counts as domestic violence regardless of if any assault or threats take place) you really can’t rely much on stats.
If anything I believe that back then society had stronger values about not being violent and respecting each other, this was both men and women

Tina says:

11:23am | 07/09/11

I love my rose-coloured happy glasses. If I didnt believe in extraordinary things happening then it would be very sad.

But its a valid thought to say you cant call it a disorder.

Daniel D says:

11:50am | 07/09/11

The black dog is not your friend. Depression can be a debilitating illness that doesn’t go away with a sunny disposition.

You comment best relates to pessimism and optimism. Pessimists believe they are realists, and optimists have an unreal view of reality. I would much prefer to keep my unreal view and see the best in things and be disapointed once in a while.

MikeS says:

12:19pm | 07/09/11

Paul, there are different types of Depression. There is environmental, situational and physical, and probably several I don’t know about. The point is different types have different causes and need different treatments. It is not that we are realistic, if that were the case then I would be a happy go lucky guy because my life is pretty awesome. I’m not. I struggle with the darkness everyday.

And anti-depressants do work in the right circumstances.

Rats says:

04:58pm | 07/09/11

Pretty much what Shane said. Kids aren’t as naive and stupid as their parents think they are. They do see a lot more that you see fit to “allow” them to see. No wonder they’re depressed.

Kika says:

12:12pm | 07/09/11

I completely agree with you. Forgiveness is also a tenet of Christianity and most marriage issues stem from beign bitter and angry instead of focusing on reality, forgiving each other and letting go of selfishness.

MikeS says:

12:21pm | 07/09/11

Do you have proper statistical evidence to back up your claims?

James1 says:

12:35pm | 07/09/11

I’d love to know where you got the 1 in 1500 from.  Sounds to me like you made it up.

Tina says:

12:42pm | 07/09/11

Families with a decent set of values certainly are more stable, such as the values promoted by Christianity. But you dont have to be a devoted Christian to have values, I hope. It doesnt have to be black or white, does it? Otherwise it would mean that couples born into other religions are bad parents?

TheRealDave says:

01:43pm | 07/09/11

“A Christian worldview generally prevents problems of lust, anger, greed, sloth and selfishness before they arise”

LOL - when?

1. Its a sin
2. You’ll go blind if you keep doing it

TheRealDave says:

01:43pm | 07/09/11

No Mike, he doesn’t need any actual evidence….just ‘faith’

David says:

04:22pm | 07/09/11

I think you will find Circle Strafer, that the States of the USA that make up the Bible Belt, where belief in God and church attendance are among the highest in the world, have the highest divorce rates in the western world.

They also have the highest rates of crime, the highest rates of suicide and the highest rates of teenage pregnancies but that is another matter.

Rats says:

05:07pm | 07/09/11

As much as I hate what the initial stages of eugenics did to people historically… I kinda can’t help but agree with you, especially seeing the low-lifes carting their manourished, drug-addicted kids, many under age 10 and already drinking, smoking/begging for cigarettes for their mum and dad, that live around my CBD-fringe suburb…. none of those mums & dads can afford to support their families, manyy have not had a job ever, and are on govt benefits. Can’t help but think that sterelisation/breeding permits may not be such a horriffic idea after all…

stephen says:

08:20pm | 07/09/11

Telling people not to breed is like telling them not to have sex.
So who’s gonna tie their tubes ?
Who wants to tell them ?

Sex, like beer and cigarettes, is of course one of life’s optional extras, but birth, fatherhood and motherhood is not subject to government coercion, and madam, certainly not yours.

Tina says:

01:04pm | 07/09/11

So for as long as we are so privileged to be a first world country, we are not allowed to have any debates?

So when a child grows up in a broken family in the first world, you would say to him/her “dont whinge, at least you have food and a roof over your head”?

marley says:

02:22pm | 07/09/11

Youth suicide is a problem in most societies, not just first world ones.

Tina says:

02:48pm | 07/09/11

Anne you are a real sweetie. Not only with this post. A lot of the comments today here have been quite aggressive and maybe your post puts it back into perspective.

Shane From Melbourne says:

03:30pm | 07/09/11

@Anne- You’ve only cut and pasted this post about three times. Yeah right, all a child needs is more brainwashing from their local church…..

Anne Stocks says:

09:43pm | 07/09/11

Married for life says… People don’t remember couples ‘toughing it out’ through difficult times, and coming out the other end…Thank you Married for Life and it’s very true what you say,  your wife is very blessed to have husband who is committed to her and no doubt she also is a blessing to you. Being there through the good and the bad,  shows strong commitment a sign of integrity and what a wonderful example for your Children which will never be forgotten, I commend you both.

I also feel as I’m sure you do, for those single Parents who have no support,  we do need to help them when possible,  even things like mowing their lawn if there a woman or making some cakes or bicky’s for the children’s lunch box or perhaps baby sitting so they can have some time off to do something special for themselves. Men like to relax too.  I use to do respite care and they all expressed how wonderful it was just to have time to do their own thing even if it was just to kick their shows off and relax with no interruptions, they have a quiet a load to carry for sure.

Thanks again for your Loyalty and Commitment it’s a wonderful example of what others should aim for regardless of the cost.

Kind regards Anne

Anne Stocks says:

01:55pm | 08/09/11

Please forgive me all you who are members of a R.S.L Clubs,  it was not my intention to claim you were not caring, but I was saying…  just because you go to a Church does not make you have real heart Love for God or others, I have found for me it only came when I experienced a close and personal relationship with the Lord and so I have a deep desire not to hurt Him or others,  not because I have to obey but because I don’t want to hurt anybody especially God, but as I’m not perfect yet and no doubt Lucy could affirm this Truth readily but because she is a kind person doesn’t, yes sadly not meaning to I have hurt people,  but with all my heart I seek not to. In regard to sharing God’s Truth I make no apology,  yes at times it does convict but it is for our good not for evil, I too have been convicted of error and believe me at the time I was not Happy Clappy but now I’m very thankful for the correction.

To confirm again ......I do not know anyone personally who posts on Punch so I don’t know their heart focus,  I only respond to their words, so please forgive me if you were offended.

Kind regards Anne.