BS: Abdication of parental responsibility

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Terry K
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 04:45 AM

Chief Chaos -

"empty statistic in my eyes, totally meaningless unless you can make an argument....."

It's not a statistic, nor is anyone trying to make an argument

"I believe that makes me a deviation from your hypothesis"

There is no hypothesis either, as, if you had read the post, you may have noticed;

"it was a bland statement intended to promote my voice against the fact that most parents still smack their children, as both McGrath and Bagpuss spotted"

The rest of your post is more of the same tedious stuff trotted out by those who want to perpetuate something which is at best useless and at worst, wholly wrong.

Think about it - are children allowed to hit children? No.

Are adults allowed to hit adults? No.

Are children allowed to hit adults? No.

Are adults allowed to hit children? "Well it never did me any harm".

Sorry, it just doesn't work.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 03:00 AM

The world changes, but not everything changes, and not in the same way or the same pace everywhere.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: dianavan
Date: 02 Apr 04 - 01:07 AM

I hope that if your child is at "significant risk" of being bullied, you are doing more that driving him everywhere. I hope you are telling him/her how to recognize bullying behaviour and to walk away. If the bully persists, teach him to find an adult and report the behaviour.

You won't be able to protect your child forever. Sooner or later, he/she must learn how to solve the problem when parents aren't around. Yes, playdates are far more common today. Yes, children often attend school far from home. Many children do not know any of the kids in their neighborhood. Many are socially disconnected.

From personal observation, the happiest, most well-adjusted students are those that can walk to school with a group of friends and an adult escort (this duty can be rotated) and have good friends in their own neighborhood. I know that this isn't always possible when parents are working but it is a very good step to insuring a healthy and secure social world for your child.

I'm not saying this to make anyone feel guilty. I know the world is changing rapidly. I say this because I care about the kids I see everyday. Kids who are so tightly scheduled that have little opportunity to develop their own social network. Without a social network of friends, you become very vulnerable to bullies.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 06:20 PM

Yes McGrath, they very likely are. Limpit's 5 best friends live 2 streets away, in Exeter, in Norwich and in Dorset. The majority of her friends at school live in the area, but not within safe walking distance (where I can still see her to the door) The road is so busy that I won't allow her to cross it alone, there are no pedestrian crossings for 800 yards or more in either direction.

Also, the majority of her friends' parents, like me, work, so they are at different childminders. If the childminders make an agreement they can see each other after school, but otherwise, they meet only at school. Where the parents are divorced or separated, weekends are limited.

When I'm at work, I see Limpit for maybe an hour in the morning and between 6 - 8 in the evening, if I'm not working late and she goes to bed early.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Peace
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 06:06 PM

McG of H:

As a youth I went for a smoke in a lane two blocks from where I lived. The news got home before I did. That was 46 years ago. In many ways, society has become somewhat less caring--we have asked for laws to replace common sense. A few years ago I saw a youngster ride his bike into the road from a lane. He paid no attention to traffic--I hit the binders. It was in a small town. I didn't hit him, but I did get out of the car to see if he was 'shaken up'. He was. He knew me as a teacher at the school he attended. We talked for a few minutes and I told him I'd have to speak with his folks about it. He was dead set against the idea, because I think he figured he'd be in for a spanking. Instead, we made a 'solemn' pact that he would

1) stop and look before he entered streets from lanes
2) show me three times how he would do that

I saw him a few weeks later stopping at a lane where it met the street. I honked him and he waved and gave me a smile. Often, other methods work better than a spanking. At least in this case it did.

I am not in favour of spanking as a means of discipline. I received the starp a number of times in school. Didn't teach me a damn thing. I needed a hug, not a beating.

Bruce M

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 05:48 PM

Are friends really "less likely to be in the immediate neigbourhood" than in the past?

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: M.Ted
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 01:45 PM

To get back to Bagpuss:

You said--" in recent years the blaze of national publicity given the child abduction and murder cases has seen an increase in children constantly being chaperoned by their parents, being kept indoors to play and being driven everywhere"--

As a parent, I can assure you that fear of abduction and murder is not a big reason that the kids are being constantly driven around--it is a lifestyle issue--kids have to make "playdates" because often, friends are not in the immediate neighborhood, schedules have to be compared and coordinated , and an acceptable meeting place or activity has to be selected, time is at a premium--You drive because "the healthy choice" isn't really an option--

As far as the stranger/abduction/murder issue--though that is a relatively rare, though fairly constant, occurance, there are other child related violence issues--

At the most extreme, the both the murder rate, and the actual number of murders is much greater than in 1950--in 1992, the rate was nearly double that of 1950, and the actual numbers were triple--depending on the year, minors are the victim in between 2000 and 4000 homicides--

Even so, homicides are a relatively small problem--according to the National Center for Educational Statistics, "unsafe conditions at school are not uncommon. About half of 6th- through 12th-grade students personally witnessed bullying, robbery, or physical assault at school, and about 1 out of 8 students reported being directly victimized at school."

While it is true that some violent crimes involving minors are declining--bullying and gang related violence(which includes assault and murder) is increasing--

Parents who percieve that their children have a significant risk of becoming victims to violence are not merely responding to media hype--

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 10:34 AM

Of course there are worse things to do to children than smack them. Not that it isn't a pretty futile thing to do, and a very ineffective way of disciplining. Generally it's just a way of getting a message across to a child, and there are normally plenty of other ways to do that.

If it's hard enough to hurt so badly that a child is frightened into behaving in a different way, that's not "smacking", and it's not something that is tolerable. Anyone who seriously tries to shape a child's behaviour by means of pain is probably wasting their time, unless the pain is severe enough to do the job, which with a brave child could mean pretty severe. Severe enough to knock the courage out. Is that the idea?

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Chief Chaos
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 09:58 AM

Most of the kids that go wrong have been smacked -

Empty statistic in my eyes, totally meaningless unless you can make an argument for the corrolary that most of the people who go right (whatever that means) have never been touched.

We had a neighbor with a child that she refused to discipline with anything more than a time out. He'd abuse the other children (hitting, biting, etc.) sit out his five or ten minutes and then go right on back to his anti-social behaviors.

I'm not saying that people should beat their children but a good smack on the ass isn't a problem with me.

And as far as that goes I was spanked as a child and I'm a good productive member of society, not on welfare, not sitting in a jail cell or worse. I believe that makes me a deviation from your hypothesis. and what about the leftover bad people who weren't smacked?

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 06:07 AM

OK, to go completely off the subject of parental responsibility and back onto those little signs - I'd love to do a count of cars parked in 'family parking' spots - those designated by the little pictogram of a pushchair or a baby - and see just how many of those 'baby on board' signs are false. Many's the time I've had to struggle with a baby, pushchair, baby accoutrements and a pink furry toy, in 8 inches of space available in ordinary parking spaces, when the 'family parking' is full of single occupant, unable to walk more than 10 yards unaided drivers and their 4X4 vehicles that are too big to get into normal spaces.

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 03:54 AM

In the biblical spirit of an eye for an eye to which some subscribe. Should a child who strikes another child be struck likewise? Will this then inevitably lead them to become violent towards their own offspring later? Might it make them realise that what they have done causes hurt and offence? Might they grow up to be in favour of capital punishment? Could it even be that they will realise what they did was wrong, and never do it again?
All of the above can be proved or disproved by statistical research, and the answers to your research depend on what questions you ask, and how you ask them. In other words most poll results are subjective not objective, and are usually conducted and/or promoted by people with a particular axe to grind.
John

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: dianavan
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 02:09 AM

Terry K - You are right. The smacked become the smackers.

These same children are often discipline "problems" in the classroom too because the only kind of discipline they respond to is a smack (and they know the teacher won't). No matter how well they respond to guidance at school, they return every night to the smackers.

...and we start all over again the next day.

Its an INEFFECTIVE method of discipline. Which takes it right out of the morality zone. It just doesn't work.

Are the bumper stickers effective? They probably were for the first year. Now they are so common, other drivers probably pay no attention to them anyway.

d

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Terry K
Date: 01 Apr 04 - 12:49 AM

Wrong Giok, it was a bland statement intended to promote my voice against the fact that most parents still smack their children, as both McGrath and Bagpuss spotted.

This may be thread drift (but so what) but the smacking is a problem because of the emotional damage it causes - from the child's point of view it is a terrible rejection when the supposed protector becomes the aggressor. Adults in receipt of mental cruelty are protected by the law, children not so.

And children are very good learners - here's another bland atatement - "most of those who were smacked become smackers".

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Bagpuss
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:55 PM

I may be wrong but I dont think Terry K was saying that smacking causes kids to go off the rails, its just you often hear people lamenting the behaviour of kids these days, and say that its because they aren't physically disciplined. But if many of the kids who go off the rails have been physically disciplined, it throws that argument out of the water.

Having done some research in the area of kids with behavioural problems, I would say that it is the case that many of the kids who go badly off the rails have not just been smacked, but have been physically and emotionally abused by their carers.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:50 PM

Depending where and when the children involved were growing up, it'd be quite likely that a majority of them would have been smacked in the process, both those who "go wrong" and those who don't.

The trouble is "smacking" is a very elastic term that can cover a very wide range of behaviour, and is often used as a camouflage term. And the other trouble is that, even without physical violence of any sort, it is possible to treat children very badly indeed.

The best way to learn to be a good parent is to have good parents. Which begs the question, what is a good parent.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:46 PM

Sorry Terry K, but I just don't believe that statistic. What MAY be true is that more blue collar workers inflict corporal punishment on their kids, and more of their kids get in trouble with the law. Statistics like that need to be broken down by class and/or income before they can be said to represent the true facts. Never forget the old adage, 'There are lies, damned lies, and statistics'.
John

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Terry K
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:32 PM

Well said Bagpuss.

I'd just like to be sure that parents understand that children are real people - perhaps smaller and younger - but who need constant and ongoing help, guidance, love and affection. Many parents seem to treat their children as one of the necessary accessories to family life, rather like the mortgage, the dog and the 4 x 4.

And incidentally, "a recent survey" showed that most of the teenagers who "go wrong" were smacked by their parents when they were growing up.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 02:28 PM

Rather like the suggestion that parents, who are too careful about keeping everything clean and make sure that their children are never exposed to dirt and so forth, are probably damaging the child's immune system, with potentially disatrous results when it needs to kick in, in a crisis.

Then you get parents who are careful to make sure their child has a reliable mobile phone ("cellphone"), so they can keep in touch. And then come the warnings that having a good mobile makes a child much more liable to be mugged for it.

You can't really win being a parent.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Bagpuss
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 01:50 PM

M Ted, I wasnt criticising those parents. I recognise that they do what they do for the best of motives - to protect their children. I just think it should be recognised that the effect of this can have negative consequences. And I think a lot of the blame lies with the media. If you asked any parent if they thought that their children were more or less in danger of abduction/murder by a stranger than they were as kids, I'm sure the vast majority would say they were in more danger. In fact the rate of child murders by a stranger has stayed pretty constant over the last 50 years. It just seems more, because every case is plastered all over the news, in a way that was much rarer in the past. This has created a paranoia among parents that i think ultimately can have negative consequences. the type of parenting that in the past would have been seen as hugely over-protective is now being seen more and more as the norm. And agreed, the danger on the roads is increasing, but I think you have to deal with that by teaching road safety and making sure your child doesnt go across certain roads known to be dangerous, rather than trying to remove the threat altogether. You can never be sure you child is 100% safe, and that is scary, but if you try to make them 100% safe, you are just exposing them to different dangers. And I think if you ask any child development expert, they would agree that this is a real problem. If you never let your children be exposed to any risks, they are never going to learn how to handle risk and keep themselves safe when they DO have to make decisions for themselves. And again, we all know the problems of obesity in children is escalating, partly because of this over protective phenomenon.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Mrs.Duck
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 12:18 PM

Oi, Liz how did you find out about our triplet?? I never have used the 'baby on board' style stickers but that is because I could think of better things to do with my money! I have no objection to them at all as if nothing else it lets me know that the car in front may take manoeuvres a bit more slowly and carefully. As to whether it makes a difference if its one two or however many kids then the answer is yes! Well behaved children are still children with all the demands (I need a wee, I've dropped my toy etc.) of any child and no matter how good a driver you may be this can be a distraction. Extra children mean extra possible distractions!

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 11:30 AM

"Ethical Real Estate" - is that on Mars, Venus, or further?

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 11:05 AM

Well Bagpuss, you really take the cake here--criticizing parents for trying to protect their children from abuse, abduction, and violence and heavy traffic...because you believe it stunts their growth in learning independent skills---

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Bagpuss
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 09:58 AM

I think there has been a complete schism in parental behaviour recently, and both extremes, I believe can cause a lot of harm to the child. On the one hand there are parents who do seem to abandon responsibility for them and let the go whereever they want whenever they want and have no control over them. On the other hand in recent years the blaze of national publicity given the child abduction and murder cases has seen an increase in children constantly being chaperoned by their parents, being kept indoors to play and being driven everywhere. Besides contributing to lack of exercise and obesity in children, i also believe this stunts their growth in learning independent skills and confidence in the world around them.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 09:45 AM

Somnetimes those kind of things happen (toddlers dumped in libraries) because of selfishness and iresponsibility; but I'd guess that, more often than not, it's because the parent involved is trying to do more than is humanly possible, doing two jobs at once, for various reasons, by no means all of their own making.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Rapparee
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 09:33 AM

It's a serious problem, John. If the kid gets sick, we have no one to call but the paramedics. If the kid disappears, we'd have no idea if s/he was abducted or simply taken home by Mom or Dad. If they're still there when we close (9 p.m., Mon - Thu, 6 p.m. on Fri and Sat), we'll wait 15 minutes with them and then call the cops. It's unfair to both the library AND the children, and an abdication by the parents. (I'm talking of young children -- I've seen two-year-olds left; fortunately we were able to get THAT taken care of right away!).

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: freda underhill
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 05:14 AM

i have some friends who were completely lousy parents, notoriously bad in every way. Irresponsible, swinging between spoiling their kid and dumping her around onto other people because they couldnt stand her. She was an outspoken, obnoxious, brat.

She's grown up into a very nice young woman, has studied a course in ethical real estate, and is now making a packet.

despite our best efforts to foul kids up, they can turn out to be pretty good.

and some parents try so hard, are so committed, and have the heartbreak of losing a kid to drugs.

its so easy to be critical of parents. every parent knows its the hardest job in the world.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 31 Mar 04 - 03:17 AM

Well Rap, you'll just have to give them a Dewey Decimal classification, then you can put them on the correct shelf.¦¬]
John

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Rapparee
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 08:45 PM

The speed limit here is 75 mph on the highway, 65 in "built-up" areas -- thats on the Interstates. It varies on state roads, usually 65 is the top.

Mind you, nobody actually does 75 or whatever.... But there IS an awful lot of an awful lot out here.

My only objection to the "Baby on board" type of sign is that it points out a vehicle for someone who might be less than nice, shall we say? And they are getting old -- I've see "Beer on board" recently.

But abdication of parental responsibility -- well, every public library I know has been forced to put in place policies and procedures for dealing with children left there while the parents went off somewhere else. And while libraries like kids, they cannot be responsible for their safety or welfare, especially when the parent leaves NO information about anything. And I'm not talking about dashing next door for noodles -- I'm talking about leaving the kids there for hours, and often after the library closes for the day.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:37 PM

Plus, in Amos' factoid, no mention is made of people going the actual speed limit. It only addresses people going above or below the speed limit.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:34 PM

More often I'd think it was. "We didn't get on at all with some of our the neighbours, so we thought we'd move somewhere better for the sake of the kids."

..................

Even if it were true that there are more accidents at slower speed, the other factor is that the damage caused is a lot less.

The Road Safety people are always quoting statistics showing how, if a car at 20 miles an hour hits a pedestrian, they will almost certainly survive, but if it's 40 miles an hour the chances are strongly against them living.

Hit a tree at 40mph and you'll be standing there swearing and phoning your insurance. Hit it at 80 mph and you almost certainly won't be. Two cars travelling 40 miles an hour in a head-on crash is 80 mph, which is bad enough - but if they're doing 60 mph, that makes it 120 mph combined. Nasty.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 02:08 PM

Not withstanding McGrath's assertions--it occurs to me that the reason that humankind have spread out so much is that someone got fed up with someone else's control and took a hike--"Why are you wandering the tundra here in Lappland, I thought your tribe was from the Mediteranean?" "My parents are completely nuts, and this is as far away from them as we could get."

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:54 PM

I once read -- and I have no idea where -- that the majority of moving accidents occurred among people going slower than the speed limit, not those who were exceeding it. I am not sure that speed limits are the best approach to reckless driving. I don't have anything better to siuggest, unfortunately, other than penalizing actual damage done.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:52 PM

It seems to me that (in the US and Canada at any rate) most people these days think the term "speed limit" means "minimum allowed speed", and that everyone is bound by the rules of the highway to go at least ten miles an hour above the limit.

I wish traffic cops would issue a lot more speeding tickets than they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: GUEST,Shlio
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:39 PM

Maybe some of the troubles of controlling kids today (or, indeed, at any time) stems partly from the fact that previous generations see the need for such "control".

Few people like to be be controlled.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Kim C
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:35 PM

Say! Why don't we all just make it a point to drive safely? Would that be too much to ask?

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:27 PM

Nomadism is a pretty old way of ife, true enough, M.Ted - though it's not the one that's been common in most parts of the world, including Europe, for a good few thousand years.

But generally nomads operate in pretty close social groups and families, even when these are broken down temporarily during moves. The pattern you describe, I'd say, is a pretty recent development, no more than a handful of generations.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:06 PM

I don't know what it is like over there Kevin, but around here, nothing is built-in or immutable--in certain ways, a much older way of life has emerged--we are U-haul bedouins who move from one city to another, looking for the greener pasture. When the kids get old enough, they hit the road too. If we're lucky, we manage to cross paths at the holidays--

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: CarolC
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 01:01 PM

This is how my son and I solved the problem of crazy aggressive drivers on the road:

We stopped using roads

( ...there he is doing a quick fly-by tour of the Vatican)

;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:22 PM

A civilization built of teams of one makes for unstable groupings and a lot of travel.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 12:19 PM

"growing up is the process of taking over control of your own life, and that means breaking away from all the people whose responsibility has been to manage you"

In some ways that's true, but I think we sometimes think that the pattern we have in the last couple of generations is built in and immutable. In fact I'd suspect that it's very much a reflection of the fact that, unlike in most societies, children and young people are not involved with their parents in the process of collectively making a living, or actively running the household.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 11:04 AM

Giok,

You say,"What I am trying to discuss is the increasing number of parents who can't manage their kids" and what we are saying is, we don't think that there is any evidence that that is true.

Parents have always had a certain amount of trouble managing their kids, simply because growing up is the process of taking over control of your own life, and that means breaking away from all the people whose responsibility has been to manage you--

What is true is that our society has become a lot less tolerant of the process of growing up--

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 11:02 AM

Crass generalization about crass generalization: I suspect that it is always the case that the current generations always think that the generations before them had a simpler, perhaps more pastoral time of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 10:37 AM

"the increasing number of parents who can't manage their kids"

Is it increasing? Perhaps it is, but then perhaps it isn't. Perhaps it is some places and perhaps it isn't some others. It has, for example. been suggested that younger parents may be more into disciplining their children than their parents were. Who knows?

Before arguing about why something is the case, it is good practice to determine that it is in fact the case.

.................

So are we to take it you've backed off on the stickers, Giok, and agree that they have nothing to do with the issue you were wanting to raise? Sort of like banging a drum to gather a crowd before starting a juggling act.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: *daylia*
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 10:17 AM

Ok, maybe this would be less annoying if you saw it on your neighbour's car ...

*Homo Sapiens of Various Ages and Sizes Who Would Never In A Million Years Abdicate Either Personal or Parental Responsibilities Aboard*

All better now? I hope so! But I just hafta ask - why waste energy being so disagreeable and irritable over something so (relatively) trivial and benign? Been eating rusty old spikes for breakfast lately, or something of that nature?

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 09:21 AM

Agreed Norton, but surely they wouldn't be proud of the 'evil twin' after all, there is always one 'evil twin'.... : )

(I know 3 sets of twins but have yet to find the 'good twin'.... I suspect they were triplets and the 'good' one is walled up in the East wing).

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Steve in Idaho
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 09:12 AM

Suppose, for just a moment, that the sticker is simply a "proud" parent - pleased to have the twins as a miracle of birth? Letting the world know how happy they are?


Just my .01 worth -

Steve

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: Liz the Squeak
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 08:44 AM

We have difficulty in controlling kids because they see, on TV, so many situations where a child is not supervised. I'm stunned at how many children's programmes and U cert movies my daughter watches that contain scenes of children doing blatantly dangerous things without any supervision, parental or not (all three of the Spy Kids movies for instance... not only do they have no adult supervision, they team up with a man whose activities would profile him as a paedophile!).

I know that sounds far-fetched and it probably is, but there are so many programmes showing children acting alone. My daughter thinks it's OK to play on the street in these light evenings and gets very upset when I refuse to let her without supervision. Firstly, it's a pretty dangerous junction we live on and secondly, a boy was abducted from a nearby street last year. The two Soham children were taken by people they knew and presumbably trusted. Do you really think that a 'children playing' sign on the street or sticker on my house window is going to prevent someone from injuring or abducting her?


The whole idea of those signs was to alert other drivers to the fact that there is possibly a child in the car and the parent would be very grateful if you backed off about 30 feet or didn't come up quite so fast behind. It also alerted the emergency services to the fact that there might be a child on board if there were to be an accident. Personally, my experience tells me that no amount of signs or warnings on any vehicle with contents ranging from children to liquid oxygen to corrosive acids to farmyard produce, animal, vegetable or mineral will put off that proportion of drivers who think they are the only people on the road.   

In fact, despite the 'baby on board' sticker we had, I was pulled over one evening for DRIVING TOO CAREFULLY - I was doing 30mph in a 40mph area, at 11.15pm, when I knew there would be idiots on the road coming home from the pub.

Go figure!

LTS

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 08:04 AM

Bumper sticker was someone elses nomenclature, not my choice Kevin, and to judge a post just by the opening lines is like saying Moby Dick is all about 'Call me Ahab', or the bible is all about Genesis. What I am trying to discuss is the increasing number of parents who can't manage their kids, and wondering why. Is it something to do with the fact that more people know their rights in this world, than know their responsibilities. What did we do before social work became a growth industry, etc etc?
John

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 07:01 AM

Well, you did open up with the bumper stickers. ("Bumper stickers" - do you stick them on your bumpers in America? They are on rear windows here.) And it really has nothing whatsoever to do with the question of "abdication of parental responsibility."

To call it " further evidence of some parents inability to bring up thier kids without outside help" is really total nonsense. It may be a futile thing to do, but asking other drivers to try not to kill your children is not asking for "outside help".
....................

The main "abdication of parental responsibility" I am aware of is where both parents go out to work all God's hours, from an early stage in a child's infancy.   And rather than "abdication" all too often this is imposed on them by a culture and governments that think that the only useful work is waged work, and that looking after children should either be something cobbled together in odd bits of spare time ("quality time"), or needs to be professionalised and rigidly structured.

Subject: RE: BS: Abdication of parental responsibility
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 30 Mar 04 - 03:09 AM

Please read the last sentence of my original post, which states that I know this does not apply to all kids, before accusing me of making blanket condemnations. I repeat, it is not the norm, but is becoming more so.
As for the guest who seems to think the whole discussion is about bumper stickers!!
John