Tuesday, November 18, 2008

Running the Social Development show

I was going to take a wait-and-see approach to Paula Bennett. But then I read the following;

She [Paula Bennett] expects her associate minister, Maori Party co-leader Tariana Turia, to be instrumental.

"She and I share a belief that all children are our children. That means the good, the naughty, the broken and the cherished. We've talked about that many times, and I've got no doubt that's the understanding we will bring to the role. She will play a big role. She's got experience and some really firm views on what we need to do for Maori people."


How many times have you heard a collectivist say, it takes a village to raise a child?

I beg to differ.

It takes one committed individual. That commitment means wanting the child, being prepared to make sacrifices and lifestyle changes for that child, being able to support it financially, being able to provide stability and structure, and above all, being prepared to make it the centre of your world.

The very existence of the DPB diminishes the prospects all of these and I am deeply upset that we now have a Minister and Associate Minister of welfare who are going to defend it as a legitimate means to having and raising children, even if it is less than ideal.

National's work-testing policy for mothers whose youngest is 6 is a very weak policy, it's major pitfall being a failure to cap the number of children. But it wouldn't surprise me to see Turia oppose even that. She has a self-admitted conservative streak and would rather see mothers stay at home and she doesn't care who pays for it.

So I am very despondent about this development. Under this administration we are going to see greater entrenchment of the DPB. The numbers will go up. The number of teenagers taking it up will continue to increase. Having a Minister who was a teenager on the DPB but made good, romanticises and legitimises it.

Real life however repeatedly shows that the social problems running the gamut of inherited benefit dependence through to crime and tragedy are backgrounded by teenage birth (particularly adolescent) coupled with welfare upbringings. Maori are over-represented in the phenomenon.

And let's not forget what the new Associate Minister's attitude is to people who say the kinds of things I do.

"I am intolerant of the excessive focus on controlling our fertility."

What's wrong with individuals controlling their own fertility? Isn't that what personal responsibility is all about?

16 comments:

Berend de Boer said...

Lindsay: It takes one committed individual.

I beg to differ. It takes a mom and a dad in the meaning those words used to have.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Ideally, Berend. But plenty of children lose a parent or start with only one and do OK. Many who have spent a period on the DPB. Or who have been raised by a grandparent.

It is being raised around a going- nowhere, loser lifestyle predominantly propped up by welfare, that creates the biggest danger and the biggest obstacle for children.

Anonymous said...

ACT has a stake in this Government. Why doesn't Rodney suggest to Paula that you have a valuable contribution to make to NZ's social development, that your research is thorough, and that your motives are beyond reproach?
The Key approach of sharing the responsibility of Government amongst the willing, for the betterment of all, must surely extend that far.
This new administration needs all the sage advice it can muster.

Anonymous said...

It is true that some children are successfully nurtured by one person. However, such a person needs to have an uncommon range of personal skills, deep reserves of energy, and an unusually positive outlook on life. Such persons are rare.

Where there are two (or more) people intimately involved - no matter their age or sex - then effective parenting comes within the scope of we less extraordinary folk.

Dave Christian

PS My wife read that quote (all children are our children) to me as I choked over my breakfast. We decline to be parents of anyone else's children. Those who accept the responsibility are not competent - indeed if they were competent they too would refuse to take such a poisoned chalice.

Oswald Bastable said...

"all children are our children"

Not until I have sexual privileges with all the local women!

As likely as my powerball win!

And nowhere near as wanted!

Berend de Boer said...

Linday, we're not talking about exceptions here. The idea that it doesn't take a Mom and Dad has so thoroughly been debunked by research that I don't know why you're even discussing it. Children from an intact family score significantly better on every measure you want to apply.

If you believe a single mom is fine as well, or grantparents, you won't solve anything either. And mind you, 40 years ago we didn't have the DPB but also not the loose sexual moral. These things go together. You will have one with the other.

And to anon: not two people; Mom and Dad, male and female, exactly what it takes to make a kid in the first place.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

http://lindsaymitchell.blogspot.com/2007/07/research-confirms-two-parents-better.html

Berend, yes, studies show two parents are better than one but their findings are about likelihoods, not hard and fast outcomes. But policies should reflect likelihoods and not the exception. Hence we shouldn't actively subsidise single parent families.

But deal with the reality as well. Single parents, and grandparents, can and do raise well-adjusted children. If they are not asking you to pay to raise their children is it any business of yours anyway?

And changing sexual mores preceded the DPB.

Anonymous said...

Stop splitting hairs, Berend. You know full well what Lindsay means.

Nobody's arguing that having both parents raising their wanted child is best. That's a given, for heaven's sake.

But the world is not ideal. My uncle died as a result of medical malpractice (but that's another story) aged 38, leaving my aunty with three kids aged 12, 11 and 5, when I was 11. It wasn't easy on anybody - least of all my dad, his younger brother, who for two long years bravely worked two farms.

By your reckoning, you are lumping my aunt in your blanket "less desirable single parent" category.

And re your comment to Anon, there you go again. I'm sure wee Nia would have vastly preferred any decent adult/s to the mongrels she was landed with, don't you?

The issue is one of responsible parenting, as opposed to irresponsible child-production funded entirely by state welfare.

Damn blue collectivists. You're as bad as your red counterparts at times.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

"Damn blue collectivists. You're as bad as your red counterparts at times."

Amen to that.

Anonymous said...

Damn blue collectivists.?

To whom does this refer?

Berend de Boer said...

Lindsay: If they are not asking you to pay to raise their children is it any business of yours anyway??

No. But my point is that you will get one with the other.

Point me to a single Western country where you have just one of them.

Anonymous said...

Hi Anon 4.11pm

Collectivism is my pet subject! :)

Briefly: I have an abhorrence to the grouping (collectivism) of peoples - any peoples - as if they think & behave as one, allowing for no individual diversity.

Eg: "Maori this" and "women that", etc. Or in this case "single parents" as if all are exactly the same, when they're patently not.

Red & blue collectivists are pet names for left and right-wingers respectively.

Lefties love to impose economic restraints - tax it/regulate it! And righties love to impose personal restraints - civil unions bad/single parents not good!

I'm opposed to collectivism because it's a direct assault upon *individual* freedom. I might not like another's choices, I might not agree with them - but if they're not harming anybody, it's not my business.

Anonymous said...

"Point me to a single Western country where you have just one of them."

Berend: what *are* you talking about?

You are, once again, playing the collectivist card by presuming that others, eg grandparents, raising children are automatically doing so via the state.

I wish to stand by what I said yesterday, albeit slightly altered:

"The issue is one of responsible, (ie non-state-funded) child-rearing, as opposed to irresponsible child-production funded entirely by state welfare."

Anonymous said...

Thanks, Sus 1.07pm, for taking the time to explain the red and blue collectivist reference. I guess I was more confused as to whom it referred in this post's comments. Perhaps you know personally the politics of the earlier commenters whereas I couldn't work out who was which from their comments. But your explanation of the terms is helpful, thank-you.

Anonymous said...

Hi Sus

I wholeheartedly agree with your views regarding collectivism.

I trust then that you never use collectivist generalisations like "Islamofascist", and that you don't consider it appropriate for all Palestinians to be punished for the deeds of some Palestinians.

Dave Christian

Anonymous said...

I love the statement 'it takes a village to raise a child'.

Brings to mind the small village of Kuzac, where my friend Borat is from.

The town abortionist, the town rapist...

Yep - just the people required to raise a child.

And this village is the socialist prescription to raise a child?

The problem with 'village', 'collectivist' or 'group ownership' is that no one takes responsibility. The Kahui babies and Nia Glassie are sad examples.

Children need an adult to be responsible for them. Yes, ideally two adults, but new PM Mr. Key shows one responsible adult does just fine.

Neo-girl