Zach LarkinsPROBLEM CHILDREN
Just when you thought it was safe to go back into the classroom, the Vanier Institute for the Family recently released a report stating that if today's youth seem incorrigible, it's because there are more problem children now than 50 years ago. This seems to be common knowledge to anyone who grew up in the 50's and 60's, or even prior to that time, and why the Vanier Institute would spend money on such a study is anyone's guess. But it's nice to feel vindicated.
Anne-Marie Ambert, a professor of sociology, recently retired from York University in Toronto, authored the study in which she points the finger of blame points at everyone: parents, schools, neighbourhoods and the media. "In the past, parents used to receive the support of their neighbours," she said. But now people are often afraid to intervene if they see children or teens misbehaving in the neighbourhood or at the mall. Juvenile delinquency rates increased from the 1960's and have peaked in the mid-1990's, and although they have subsequently declined, these rates, as well as those for most problematic behaviours, have remained high among boys and have continued to rise among girls, the study says. The paper is a review of hundreds of studies, mostly from Canada and the United States, that looked at various causes for the rise in children's behavioural problems and found these behaviours to range from lying and running away, to fighting and bullying, theft and vandalism. The study looked at poverty, peers, parenting, schooling, media, personality, genetics and communities. In short, they covered all the bases.
"The conclusion you reach (after looking at all the research) is that we have a global environment which favours all of this," said Ambert, adding that children and teens are being raised in an "enabling environment." And that environment was created through our own liberal view of what was not to be tolerated. Such things as teaching children manners, to respect their elders, to hold children and teenagers to a curfew, to insist on responsibility for actions taken, spanking or any sort of corporal punishment to name but a few.
Forensic psychologist Marta Weber says parents are spending less and less time with their kids because both parents are working for economic reasons and because the hold parents have on kids is less and less, it's a struggle to be the people who determine the identity of your child. What she seems to be saying here is that because of their parents economic situation, kids are allowed to run free and do what they want. Nonsense. I remember going to school with kids who had both parents working. They lived under the same rules as me. If you got in trouble at school, prepare for more trouble at home. If the neighbours saw you doing something you shouldn't be doing, the neighbour straightened you out, and you'd better be prepared for more trouble at home, because they'd phone your Mom to let her know what you were caught doing. And heaven help you if the police ever called or brought you home.
"That's what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she said it takes a village. Because it is a village - for good or ill - that makes a kid, right?" she said, referring to a book the New York senator wrote in 1996. No. A village is the environment a kid grows up in. How he/she behaves in that environment is up to the parents. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat who is all to eager to shift the blame. Just look at her voting record. As long as she doesn't have to take responsibility, she's happy. And she's just as happy to foist her hypocritical views on you and anyone else who will listen to her. The Vanier Institute study blames parents for being less available to their kids, schools and neighbourhoods offering weak community and social controls, less emphasis on religion, a rise in single-parent families and more access to visual media.
Let's take the schools and neighbourhoods out of the equation. Why is it their job to instill moral values in your kid? Because parents are wimping out and looking to blame anyone but themselves if their kid grows up to be a thug or a gangster. The parents are directly responsible for instilling in their children at least a basis of religion, so you can't blame the church, synagogue or mosque for that. As for more access to visual media, is it not up to the parent to control just how much time little Johnny spends playing on his Game Boy? More and more parents use the visual media as a babysitter so they don't have to deal with their kids head on.
Ambert says that most children are resilient and turn out to be good citizens. "Obviously a lot of parents are still doing a good job and a lot of children are very well grounded. There are still lots of good schools out there and still lots of good neighbourhoods. There's still a lot of positives that society offers so that the majority of children don't fall into this (problem) category." Unfortunately a greater and greater proportion are being affected. The study even takes aim at something many women feel is a positive for children: feminism.
But she says the only surprise she found when looking at the literature was that more girls are engaging in physically aggressive behaviour than in the past. "In feminism we have emphasized changing girls much more than we emphasized changing guys. So nurturing sort of has gone out of the way as a role model for females. So that means if you are less nurturing you are more likely to be more aggressive, as males are, but on the other hand, we just cannot say it is feminism strictly because this would not have occurred in a context that did not have a violent media and the consumerism media that we have."
And contrary to what the study would have you believe, or how they try to sugarcoat it, it all starts with the parents. Yes, we have more unruly children today than 50 years ago. But if you take an honest look at it, you'll see exactly where the blames lies.
Sources: Lorrayne Anthony More Problem Children Canadian Press
Anne-Marie Ambert, a professor of sociology, recently retired from York University in Toronto, authored the study in which she points the finger of blame points at everyone: parents, schools, neighbourhoods and the media. "In the past, parents used to receive the support of their neighbours," she said. But now people are often afraid to intervene if they see children or teens misbehaving in the neighbourhood or at the mall. Juvenile delinquency rates increased from the 1960's and have peaked in the mid-1990's, and although they have subsequently declined, these rates, as well as those for most problematic behaviours, have remained high among boys and have continued to rise among girls, the study says. The paper is a review of hundreds of studies, mostly from Canada and the United States, that looked at various causes for the rise in children's behavioural problems and found these behaviours to range from lying and running away, to fighting and bullying, theft and vandalism. The study looked at poverty, peers, parenting, schooling, media, personality, genetics and communities. In short, they covered all the bases.
"The conclusion you reach (after looking at all the research) is that we have a global environment which favours all of this," said Ambert, adding that children and teens are being raised in an "enabling environment." And that environment was created through our own liberal view of what was not to be tolerated. Such things as teaching children manners, to respect their elders, to hold children and teenagers to a curfew, to insist on responsibility for actions taken, spanking or any sort of corporal punishment to name but a few.
Forensic psychologist Marta Weber says parents are spending less and less time with their kids because both parents are working for economic reasons and because the hold parents have on kids is less and less, it's a struggle to be the people who determine the identity of your child. What she seems to be saying here is that because of their parents economic situation, kids are allowed to run free and do what they want. Nonsense. I remember going to school with kids who had both parents working. They lived under the same rules as me. If you got in trouble at school, prepare for more trouble at home. If the neighbours saw you doing something you shouldn't be doing, the neighbour straightened you out, and you'd better be prepared for more trouble at home, because they'd phone your Mom to let her know what you were caught doing. And heaven help you if the police ever called or brought you home.
"That's what Hillary Clinton was talking about when she said it takes a village. Because it is a village - for good or ill - that makes a kid, right?" she said, referring to a book the New York senator wrote in 1996. No. A village is the environment a kid grows up in. How he/she behaves in that environment is up to the parents. Hillary Clinton is a Democrat who is all to eager to shift the blame. Just look at her voting record. As long as she doesn't have to take responsibility, she's happy. And she's just as happy to foist her hypocritical views on you and anyone else who will listen to her. The Vanier Institute study blames parents for being less available to their kids, schools and neighbourhoods offering weak community and social controls, less emphasis on religion, a rise in single-parent families and more access to visual media.
Let's take the schools and neighbourhoods out of the equation. Why is it their job to instill moral values in your kid? Because parents are wimping out and looking to blame anyone but themselves if their kid grows up to be a thug or a gangster. The parents are directly responsible for instilling in their children at least a basis of religion, so you can't blame the church, synagogue or mosque for that. As for more access to visual media, is it not up to the parent to control just how much time little Johnny spends playing on his Game Boy? More and more parents use the visual media as a babysitter so they don't have to deal with their kids head on.
Ambert says that most children are resilient and turn out to be good citizens. "Obviously a lot of parents are still doing a good job and a lot of children are very well grounded. There are still lots of good schools out there and still lots of good neighbourhoods. There's still a lot of positives that society offers so that the majority of children don't fall into this (problem) category." Unfortunately a greater and greater proportion are being affected. The study even takes aim at something many women feel is a positive for children: feminism.
But she says the only surprise she found when looking at the literature was that more girls are engaging in physically aggressive behaviour than in the past. "In feminism we have emphasized changing girls much more than we emphasized changing guys. So nurturing sort of has gone out of the way as a role model for females. So that means if you are less nurturing you are more likely to be more aggressive, as males are, but on the other hand, we just cannot say it is feminism strictly because this would not have occurred in a context that did not have a violent media and the consumerism media that we have."
And contrary to what the study would have you believe, or how they try to sugarcoat it, it all starts with the parents. Yes, we have more unruly children today than 50 years ago. But if you take an honest look at it, you'll see exactly where the blames lies.
Sources: Lorrayne Anthony More Problem Children Canadian Press
Ultimately, the children in many cases are and should be held accountable for their choices, but how we hold them accountable has been subject for hot debate. To spank or not to spank? To ground or not to ground? I hardly think a "time out" is going to work for Timmy the teen-aged terror!
Parents can't and shouldn't have their children under the scope at all times, although many are now trying with such techy gadgets as cell phone tracking systems. As parents, we can do our best to instill good values and morals, to provide a stable environment, but when a youngster has his mind made up to find trouble, he/she is going to find it.
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
But in a world where everybody is allowed to sue everybody for the smallest of gripes, then it seems we have more of a political issue than parental. I do think some (not all) parents feel backed into a corner in regard to how, when, and why to discipline their kids in a way that's socially and politically acceptible.
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern
Stating the problem is easy. Finding solutions is the challenge.
W
youranter
Opinions
opinionatedranter
Tales From The Green Lantern