There are some statistical mistakes or misunderstandings I could comment on but the point I want to highlight is this.
For ten years I have been actively, purposefully and methodically attacking the DPB. When I began the detractors were outnumbering the supporters easily.
I would diligently, obsessively, deal with any arguments using fact. But in the early days I also invested emotion and took counter-attacks very personally. That is a no-no now.
The comments in the NZ Herald responding to my column ran roughly 50/50 pro and agin. Progress. Great.
The first three comments to Donna Wynd are negative. I read these because they came out on the printed version. Haven't perused the others as yet.
My personal battle with the DPB protagonists isn't important. We could spar endlessly and never persuade each other.
The vital aspect of the debate is to allow people who agree (with either viewpoint) to say so, or even if they don't voice their thoughts aloud, to know they are not alone.
The process of advancing ideas is slow but requires persistence. It doesn't feel as though this particular cause is lost.
My brief response to Wynd by way of a letter to the editor;
Donna Wynd, in Make villains of sole mothers at children's peril (NZ Herald, Jan 7) rebutted my suggestion that children are abused because they are meal tickets, by unnecessarily defending the entire sole parent population. Clearly all sole parents do not abuse or neglect their children. Nor do all beneficiaries.
However NZ research shows that a notification to CYF is almost 4 times more likely to occur in a benefit dependent household. She can access this study, The Benefit Status of Caregivers of Children and Young People Who Come to the Notice of CYPFS, on-line.
Yet Wynd writes, "Abuse and neglect of children cuts across income, class and ethnicity." Yes, instances can be found to support this assertion but the fact remains that the predominance of both occurs in lower socio economic, Maori, welfare-dependent settings. It is this blinkered denial of reality that actually perpetuates abuse.
The Ministry of Health, for instance, does not target Pakeha, middle-class females for smoking reduction despite the fact that some smoke. They focus their efforts and resources where the problem is greatest; among Maori, particularly women and girls. This is more likely to effect an overall reduction in smoking.
9 comments:
Thank you Lindsay for continuing your work in this area. There are far too many Donna Wynds in social agencies who fail (refuse?) to see reality.
Given a chance, plenty of people I know would say "Lindsay Mitchell for Min. Soc. Welfare"!
It may not be obvious to people like Donna Wynd that this problem is chiefly a Maori one, but it is obvious to anyone who works in Emergency Departments. In the 15 years I have worked in this country, I, or one of my colleagues working with me, have notified suspected child abuse to CYFS around 30-40 times. I can recall only one pakeha middle class family. The rest were all Maori or pacific Islanders, predominantly Maori. More than two thirds were beneficiaries. Alcoholism was involved in every single case.
"Given a chance, plenty of people I know would say "Lindsay Mitchell for Min. Soc. Welfare"!"
Damn right!!!
Spot on, Oswald. I second the motion!
Dear Donna needs to be reminded that there is no real poverty in NZ.
Just delinquency.
I will believe otherwise when I see vegetable gardens appearing in Housing NZ properties
Yes Lindsay I agree with your original piece and with your comments to Ms Wynd but a basic point is that we must be allowed to debate/discuss the issues. In my own family the subject is forbidden and I am labelled a racist. Our household has 4 double degrees, one Phd and a very recent first in science. So failure to debate is not the province of the less well educated. I would be interested in any views as why this matter is so off limits.
"I would be interested in any views as why this matter is so off limits."
Because some people can't handle being proved wrong and having their faith destroyed...
"I would be interested in any views as why this matter is so off limits."
Liberalism, is now the default position among the educated elites that run this country. You know, the kind of people who live in leafy suburbs with high decile schools, and never have to interact with the people of the burgeoning NZ underclass. In my most cynical moments I almost think there is an element of 'divide and rule' in this approach of the NZ elite class.
I include politicians, academia and the media especially.
The reflexive taking of the moral high ground is the perceived safe path to deflect that basic of human emotions: jealousy.
This posturing is mostly a status signal to one's own class. These people could care less about the state of the nation as long as their own emotional sense of feeling good is unscathed.
Anyone can be a socialist, it is easy to be generous with other people's money and resources.
It takes real brains and incisive thinking to challenge the status quo, and to present unpopular alternatives for the long term good of the nation. Not to mention courage.
The quality work you see on this blog, is a rarity in this country, I certainly appreciate it greatly.
James, Is the subject forbidden because members have come to blows (figuratively) previously and someone who holds sway prefers to keep the peace? That is a less insidious reason to suppress debate.
Post a Comment