That headline was the question being asked on TV3’s episode of The Vote last night where two teams are pitted against each other to discuss a moot. The moot of the evening was ‘Our kids: The problem’s not poverty, it’s parenting.’ As with any debate there was a team arguing in agreement with the moot and a team arguing against it. The argument was a sham and one of the most poorly framed debates I have ever watched. I wanted to throw something at the TV. Here’s why.
Image from The Vote website.
The problem was in the framing of the debate. This is what the TV3 website said:
New Zealand has long been talked about as ‘the best place in the world to raise children’, but in the past generation that claim’s been repeatedly challenged by stories and statistics of child abuse, health problems, drug and alcohol issues and educational failure. Too many of our kids aren’t getting the start in life they deserve.
On the website it also mentioned the food programme for low decile schools – thus bringing the feeding of children and nutrition into the discussion. On the show the whole thing was set up with the story of a child who was being abused.
The problem with the debate was clear from the outset – child abuse, health outcomes in lower socio economic families, nutritional levels in poorer households, and educational achievements were all being rolled into the one discussion and the resultant debate was a farce that simply entrenched poor stereotypes and left those not connected to the issues still able to point the finger at the failure of parents in low socio economic situations. My blood was boiling.
Rates of family breakdown can be linked to financial stress and stress can lead to abuse. A case CAN be made to link rates of abuse amongst lower socio economic households to the ongoing stresses of the context of poverty BUT everyone still makes choices and thus, the sort of abuse that takes place amongst New Zealand children that makes our headlines does come down to those making the choices, not poverty. I’ve met people living in crushing poverty in some of the world’s urban slums who care for and adore their children. There are also others who have been forced through poverty and because they know no better, to sell their children, thus leading those children to end up in bonded labour or worse, the sex industry. Alcohol abuse is also more rampant amongst poorer communities and alcohol abuse (for whatever reason it occurs ie escape, hopelessness etc) often ends up in people doing things they wouldn’t do when sober. Once again poverty is the context, but again it still comes down to choices within that context.
That discussion about context giving rise to abuse aside, it is an entirely different discussion from questions about health rates, nutrition and educational outcomes and these things should not be placed together in a discussion like that which took place on The Vote because it equates those issues with child abuse. They’re not the same thing. Child abuse is more about choices whereas the others can be more directly linked to economic context and the means available to a family and thus they can be more directly linked to poverty.
Housing in New Zealand is becoming a big issue and many of the health issues amongst New Zealand children can be directly linked to substandard housing that is both cold and damp. New Zealand has a problem with damp housing and mould. So many houses in New Zealand are not insulated (thankfully there is a programme in place to increase the level of insulation throughout the country) and are poorly built and maintained, leaving them vulnerable to moisture and cold drafts.
Heating and drawing moisture out of the air costs and the bottom line is, wrapping up in blankets as one of the panellists last night suggested, does not reduce the health risks in a damp, mouldy environment. In a time of rising electricity costs, many families cannot afford to adequately heat and dry out their homes (often rented). Many gas heaters simply add moisture and many homes are not equipped with good wood burners (not to mention the cost of wood if they do have them).
Poor health can also be linked to poor nutrition. Some people have pointed to previous generations who grew their own vegetables to feed their families as a counterpoint to demonstrate that poor nutrition amongst poorer families is simply a matter of bad parenting, but that doesn’t take into account the decreased access to land and the restricted ability to do this in urban environments (where poverty is often concentrated). It also doesn’t take into account the costs of gardening in an urban environment where water is a very real expense. There is the possibility of urban planning solutions through communal gardens, fruit trees on road sides rather than just decorative trees, and other creative approaches, but New Zealand is yet to embrace these.
Educational outcomes can then also be linked to poor nutrition and health but I see no need to develop that argument amongst the purposes of this post.
Can health, nutrition and education be linked to poor parenting? Yes, but they can also be linked directly to poverty and a lack of means. It’s easy to then offer couch potato critiques of how parents could do better but when faced with the very real context of poverty life becomes about surviving and choices are made accordingly that are both good and bad.
What should be very clear is that linking abuse with these other issues and setting up parenting and poverty as opposing forces in the discussion was extremely misguided and misleading. A more nuanced debate could have been had if the issues had been isolated. The whole thing is extremely complex and needs to be approached as such.
In discussing poverty and parenting let’s be careful not to entrench poor stereotypes that help nobody. These are critical issues that need to be addressed. When we offer debates as poor as the one that happened last night we simply entrench opinions that offer no ideas and do nothing to move any solutions forward.
If you saw it, what did you think of the debate last night?