Monday, 22 February 2010

News bite: Solo mums raise police bashers

Yes, I've probably extrapolated slightly too far, with my headline, but it really isn't that far from what Family First appear to be saying in this media statement:
...Fatherlessness is a major contributor to increasing rates of juvenile violence,” says Bob McCoskrie, National Director of Family First NZ.

“Scientific research is unanimous on a number of conclusions regarding family structure – that strong marriages increases the likelihood that fathers have good relationships with their children and lowers the risk of alcohol and substance abuse, domestic violence and child abuse,”

“Conversely, parental divorce or non-marriage appears to increase children’s risk of delinquent and criminal behaviour, amongst other factors. One only needs to observe proceedings at the Youth Court to see the effect of fatherlessness.”

“According to The Heritage Foundation, an influential US research institute, an analysis of social science literature over 30 years shows that the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers. A state-by-state analysis indicated that a 10% increase in the percentage of children living in single-parent homes lead typically to a 17% increase in juvenile crime. The research found that criminal behaviour has its roots in habitual deprivation of parental love and affection going back to early infancy.”

“Research has shown time after time that the father’s authority and involvement in raising his children are great buffers against a life of crime,” says Mr McCoskrie.

“There are other factors such as violence in the media, the ‘rights’ culture being fed to young people, and the undermining of parental authority which are contributors, but family structure is a crucial place to start.”

“Violent crime will continue to increase as long as we downplay the importance and significance of having two parents, a mum and a dad, committed to each other and to their children.”
Click through for the whole thing.

11 comments:

Boganette said...

"According to The Heritage Foundation...."

That may as well say: "According to my neighbour Frank who knows heaps about stuff because he used to work at a newspaper printing plant..."

Don't you love how he put scare quotes around rights?

You can bet your ass he's terrified of his kids. Anyone who talks so incessently about children being controlled and dominated is utterly freaked by them.

Lindsay said...

What about when Principal Youth Court Judge Andrew Becroft says that the most common trait amongst the kids that end up in front of him is being without a father?

It isn't an attack on all female sole parents to report that children from intact families are less likely to become involved in crime and violence.

Psycho Milt said...

...the rise in violent crime parallels the rise in families abandoned by fathers.

And this is anti-women how, exactly? Seems like the asshole sperm donors are the ones copping the flak to me, and rightly so.

Paul said...

I would love to stay and chat, but suddenly I feel the urge to hold up a dairy.

Anonymous said...

I think we in the progressive blogosphere ought perhaps to start a "the Kiwi right gets all its ideas (and most of its quotes) from the U.S." watch. The number of times I've googled excerpts from their statements to find them linked back to some weirdness U.S. source like worldnet daily or, for anything related to abortion, life site news, is quite astounding. I won't list them here, it would take all day... And just to show myself completely hypocritical... well, sort of... there's a great exemplar in the U.S called Right Wing Watch. Does anyone know if any Kiwi bloggers are running a kind of Right Wing Watch here yet?

Hugh said...

@ Anonymous:

And what exactly is wrong about getting ideas from overseas? The kiwi left gets a lot of ideas from European countries. If you think a bad idea's been sourced from the USA, fine, but attack the idea, not the source.

scrubone said...

This post is actually very, very sad.

Here's a guy who's trying to tell men to stop walking out on women (by talking about the typical results) and all you can think of is attacking the guy.

So should we never criticise dads who walk out? That's the message that people are going to take from this post - and it is ultimately an anti-women one.

Boganette said...

Actually the Family First message IS an anti-women message. They're essentially saying that solo mothers and any parents who don't fit the creepy Christian mould Family First sets are unable to raise their children properly.

This rubbish is a none-too-subtle attack on solo mothers, gay parents and anyone who parents in a way that isn't some kind of white-picket fence nuclear family set up.

There are many factors as to why children commit crime. To say the MAIN reason is because the biological father isn't there is insulting to anyone who was raised by one parent and anyone who is raising a child without the biological father there.

I'm not saying fathers who run out on their kids aren't scum - of course they are. But mothers and family members and friends who step into those roles are often better than having a disinterested or worse abusive father in the picture simply because nutter Christians like McCroskie believe that's what you should do to keep up appearances.

Most of my male friends were raised without dads. NONE of them have ever committed crimes. I was raised pretty much by my dad alone so I don't know where I fit in with McCroskie's "God's Perfect Family" bullshit.

McCroskie wants to use kids who commit crime and the families they come from to spread his fucked up gospel. And he needs to decide exactly where he stands. Because when the Left says there are many factors that can lead kids into crime McCroskie says that's all PC nonsense. Yet here he is saying that there is a reason - simply because it suits his agenda.

Kids whose parents are Christians and married still commit crime. No matter what McCroskie wants you to believe that's a fucking fact.

Sorry for the long rant but this guy shits me to tears.

Anonymous said...

I always find it hilarious when people start criticising lack of authority as one of the causes for the worlds ills.

I am actively raising my son to question authority especially mine. At times this can be annoying but it does mean that he resists the pack mentality. When he is playing with his friends he stops and THINKS FOR HIMSELF about the choices that he is making and if they are a good idea. I've noticed that children raised under strict authority seem to have trouble doing this.

I'm also the child of a single mother. May try to track down that Paul person to see if he wants to join my posse.

Anonymous said...

It would seem to me that the Lindsay's and Milt's of this world tend to want women to be trapped in unhappy and sometimes abusive marriages 'for the sake of the kids'.

I find that unacceptable. People's family arrangements are no place for anyone to stick their nose in.

Millsy

AWicken said...

Two points:

Getting ideas from overseas which can then be adapted to the NZ context is one thing, but just doing a cut&paste from overseas sources with ... let's say inconsistent attribution practises and inconsistent analytical abilities ... is another. The "left" isn't perfect in this regard. I've been known to boldly step forward on matters about which I have severely limited knowledge, but FF get the gold medal.

Secondly, I wonder if Becroft has done a survey of say 5,000 youth court cases, examining a variety of social and economic factors? Not to mention controlling for prevalence of said factors in the local population? Or is he just reporting a general impression acquired over the years, which might say more about the social influences on the observer than anything it says about the actual situation?

I've known a number of security folk with uncharitable opinions of kids age 18-23, based solely on experiences the folk had with a very small, self-selecting sample of said population.