Socially-aware kids threaten masculinist family paradigms

[TW: family violence, dehumanisation of children, Bob McCoskrie]

Bob McCoskrie’s boner has reared its ugly purple head again, for the right of parents to treat their children like mindless chattels is being threatened … by the little shits themselves.

You see, Bob and his boner commissioned what I’m sure was a totally neutral and bias-averse poll … from Curia … about our vile anti-twisting-the-law-to-excuse-beating-your-children-with-jug-cords laws.

And apparently:

An independent poll has found that almost a third of parents of younger children say that their children have threatened to report them if they were smacked.

I’m guessing the notion of “so don’t smack your kids” or even “so don’t smack your kids to the extent the Police feel compelled to investigate you” or even “don’t do anything worse than this dude who managed to get acquitted, for fuck’s sake” is so utterly alien to Bob that of course he decided it was somehow cause for panic that under-12s can be mouthy bastards who also sometimes watch the news.

“These are disturbing findings, and shows just how damaging the anti-smacking law has been to parents trying their hardest to raise great kids”

And by “parents trying their hardest to raise kids” Bob actually means “parents who are so fucking insecure they instinctively resort to violence against children when their authority is challenged”.

“By passing the anti-smacking law, [politicians] have completely undermined the authority of good parents and given children a weapon to use against their parents.”


And what’s this “weapon”, again?  Oh right, the ability to have the Police investigate whether a parent’s “discipline” has crossed a line which even this fucker managed not to cross in the eyes of a jury.

We were not surprised that the level of opposition to the law remains.

[Because “we” have spent a year broadcasting misinformation from “our” basement.]

This was a highly flawed law opposed by an overwhelming majority of NZ’ers, yet rammed through parliament by politicians who were more concerned with their respective party leader’s mandate and the interference of the UN.

Funny, I didn’t release that the 113 MPs who voted in favour of the third reading of Bradford’s bill were all from a single UN-sympathetic party.  I am so not up with modern politics the way Bob is.


  1. Sandra

    What’s the thing to fear? My son has threatened to report me if I don’t behave a certain way. I just adapt to it and we reason on through. For example, in case some readers think they need to find out where I live and report me, when my son takes ages to get in the car and I threaten to leave without him and he threatens to ring the police and I point out that he has every right to do that but I will also have to tell the police why I left him (which I haven’t actually done thus far) and is he sure that the police will be happy with his behaviour? I just don’t think it is the end of the world that we have to engage with our kids about choices and consequences instead of just bashing them into submission.

    But you knew that anyway. Sorry to waste your space. I agree with your reading of that McRoskie bloke.

  2. Gravey Dice

    I’ve never really understood the opposition to the s.59 amendment. When all the hype started about how terrible the changes were going to be, I felt I must have been one of the few people who actually bothered to read the Bill, and the extant s.59.

    What so many people abjectly failed to realise is that the amendment wasn’t actually going to make that much of a difference from a practical perspective. What it really did, in my view, was change the message we give society. And maybe that one thing wasn’t going to do that much, taken by itself. But it is part of the bigger picture.

    I got really annoyed when people said it was trivial because so damned often people looked at things in such small chunks.

    Then there were the “polls”. And they keep getting touted as evidence of opposition against Sue’s amendment. Trouble was, they never asked the right questions. I think the people asking them didn’t even understand what was going on.

    Even how it got labelled the “anti-smacking” law. No it fucking wasn’t. It was the “anti-culture-of-it-being-ok-to-hit-you-kids” law.

    The law talks about “good parental practice”, yet the McCroskies seem to borrow its own words and say that it is turning good parents into criminals. The removal of the defence of correction never even comes into play if the force is reasonable and part of good parenting practices.

    And then we have the argument of “how else can we deal with wayward children?” How about asking how they got wayward in the first place.

  3. toad

    QoT, I thought nice Christian men like Bob McCoskrie didn’t get boners.

    Apart from once every couple of years. And then only solely for the purpose of procreation – so they have some children to bash.

  4. Katherine

    Well I just want to add that I wish I’d thought I could threaten to call the cops when my parents used to spank me, because I’m still traumatised more than a decade later. And yeah, it was waaaaaaay less serious than the sorts of things that people are still apparently able to get away with in your links -_-

  5. Pingback: I RSS so you don’t have to: gay adoption edition « Ideologically Impure