Monday, February 22, 2010

Solo mums sacrosanct

Family First issued this statement today;

...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.”

The feminist blog, The Hand Mirror, has interpreted this as an attack on solo mums.

NZ is particularly prone to letting the left rule the roost on this sort of stuff. Middle (apolitical) NZ has let feminists shut down the debate on the whether family structure matters by being bullied into accepting that solo mums are victims. Feminists, who know how powerful a weapon guilt is, wield it unhesitatingly and very effectively. Mothers, particularly sole mums, are sacrosanct.

Perhaps it is time to start recognising that it is children who are victims. If children's need were elevated above those of their mothers, because their needs are often conflicting, perhaps some progress could be made.


Oswald Bastable said...

It is endemic and folks won't speak out as there is so often some family member on the DPB!

Peter said...

People like the Hand Mirror author remind me of those cigarette advocates who tried to blur the relationship between smoking and cancer.

Berry said...

In my view the most interesting aspect in all of this is that all (and I mean ALL) legislation puts the interest of the child as the paramount principle. Hence I agree that the feminist lobby has been successful in framing this debate, in precisely the way the left is always able to do so. Time to take back and look at things through a common sense and family values perspective instead of the collectivist claptrap that has been ruling the roost for far too long.

Redbaiter said...

What I don't get Mitch is your obstinate refusal to acknowledge that it is the Progressive ideas you subscribe to that are behind this social devastation.

Here are some very informative facts on single mothers- and here's some more facts on the advantages of marriage

You need to read Ann Coulter's book "Guilty" (if you haven't already).

I have it on Audio Book and if you want I will send you a copy on DVD.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Bez, Yes legislation pays lip service to dictates like UNROC etc but the feminists overlay the idea that always, the best interests of the child are served by being raised by either its biological mother or whanau.

Anonymous said...

What is often overlooked in the debate about solo mothers is that it is the woman who ends up single-handedly raising their children frequently with little or no assistance from the childrens' father. So today's solo mother is expected to have a job, she is responsible for raising her children, doing all household chores, managing maintenance on her home and car and the list goes on. What is essentially a two person role for many people becomes one person's responsibility for a solo mother.

Rosemary McLeod wondered why so many young woman are rejecting the ideals that feminist fought for and I can't help wondering if it's because they are all too aware that their priority is having a good marriage.


Anonymous said...

I am a Brit who has just returned from another trip to NZ. I have been married to a NZ for 10 years we have 2 boys.
On this trip I found out that despite providing for my family to the tune of between $1400 and $2500per month, not including gifts, clothing, etc, Winz gives her an additional $600 per WEEK!
She socialises around town, wears fine clothes ($180/dress).
I pay direct into our joint account how can this happen and go unchecked? I never fail to provide for all 3 of them, but your welfare system seems to want to give my wife a better lifestyle?

Lindsay Mitchell said...

"On this trip I found out that despite providing for my family to the tune of between $1400 and $2500per month, not including gifts, clothing, etc, Winz gives her an additional $600 per WEEK!

I pay direct into our joint account how can this happen and go unchecked?"

If she is on the DPB you should be paying your child support direct to the IRD. It will then be used to offset what WINZ is paying her. What she is doing is illegal. If it is discovered, she will have to repay what was paid in error. Of course that will be to the detriment of your children and so, she knows, you are unlikely to blow the whistle on her. Unless of course you wanted custody of your children.

Anonymous said...

Thank you for confirming what I thought.
No, as much as I would like custody and as sad as it is the children are settled. The fact that my wife's sister is a family court judge also puts me off.

Now that I have found your blog I will continue to follow, there are too many people living an easy life off the hard work of others - keep up your commenting.

Lindsay Mitchell said...

Anon, The fact remains that what she is doing is illegal and you are implicated. What is to stop her from claiming that it was also in your interests not to be assessed by the IRD for child support? If her fraudulent actions are discovered, where would that leave you?

Anonymous said...

Thanks for pointing that out.
As I mentioned previouslymy wife' s sister is a family court judge. prior to that a lawyer, with a lot of experience, no doubt she ahs already prepared her along those lines.

I will continue to provide to her and the welfare will continue to fund her lifestyle unchecked.

Thanks again

Anonymous said...

I will continue to provide to her and the welfare will continue to fund her lifestyle unchecked.

Then you are just as bad as Hellen Clark and the rest of the Labour / Green / Union scum that keep NZ down!

Lindsay - I'm sure identifying details are stored on your server. That makes you an accomplice to fraud too.

It's easy to do the right thing. Just send one email

Anonymous said...

Ok I have done it, I will not hold my breath