Children Lost their Freedom?
Chocolate
The Team Mascot Join Date: 2006-10-31 Member: 58123Members
The Team Mascot Join Date: 2006-10-31 Member: 58123Members
in Discussions
<a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=462091" target="_blank">News Article</a>
Alright, thanks to the power of Digg, I found this article on children losing their freedom to roam around and I just had to post this here. Its about how parents in today's society limit their children in the amount of freedom they have, and since I'm 14, I just had to post this <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />.
I personally find it to be very very true because I have friends that are limited to 6 pm curfew's and can't go on things like online forums. The few people who are less limited (like me) are at this age much more responsible, knowledgeable and mature compared to their other peer, which just angers me. We as children are more responsible than most people take us for, we don't need to be limited so much as some parents think we should.
I'm open to discussion here, so leave any comments you guys and girls have.
(arg, not used to posting here, so my format is funny <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
Alright, thanks to the power of Digg, I found this article on children losing their freedom to roam around and I just had to post this here. Its about how parents in today's society limit their children in the amount of freedom they have, and since I'm 14, I just had to post this <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />.
I personally find it to be very very true because I have friends that are limited to 6 pm curfew's and can't go on things like online forums. The few people who are less limited (like me) are at this age much more responsible, knowledgeable and mature compared to their other peer, which just angers me. We as children are more responsible than most people take us for, we don't need to be limited so much as some parents think we should.
I'm open to discussion here, so leave any comments you guys and girls have.
(arg, not used to posting here, so my format is funny <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/tounge.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=":p" border="0" alt="tounge.gif" />)
Comments
Frightening people of the evil mexican and cuban immigrants, and creating a society built on fear and fences, does that to families.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I'm sure there's exactly one cause for everything in this universe. /sarcasm
This subjects a real touchy one, though. No where in sciences is the reality that we know absolutely nothing more pronounced than in child upbringing. The only problem is, if we test the hypothesis that rocks fly by throwing a rock at a window, all we end up with is a broken window. If we test the hypothesis that children need infinite room to grow, and it turns out that boundless freedom is very bad, we end up with a generation of people we didn't intend to have. The same is true for over-sheltering.
There's this whole debate about nature and nurture, which is right morally, which has the desired affects. I tend to think that no single strategy will work across the board. Pushing parents into set patterns of behavior seems doomed to failure to me. So, my upbringing was different than yours; that may give me a set of skills you don't have, or give you a set that I don't, who knows?
That's it. End of discussion.
I wonder if this was controlled against different socio-economic backgrounds.
About parental upbringing, according to my social psychology textbook friends effect children much more than parents do in a large amount of areas. Of course how you parent is important, but a lot of the influences on the child comes from peers at school and other outside sources.
And I would agree with children have to be allowed to do gradually more independent and unsupervised activities. As a parent you should restrict based on what kind of experiences your child has/doesn't have, not based on fears of statistically unlikely dangers. When we have to have "small children might choke and suffocate" on every small toy there is we seriously overestimate how dangerous these are for toddlers. Movies and television news creates unrealistic fears of child abduction that happens only rarely. Being nervous about everything outside of your home will just make your child insecure.
Not being a parent myself, I can't imagine how I specifically would handle matters of responsibility and restrictions. But it must be about balancing protecting against real dangers and allowing your child to mature and assume responsibility.
Not being a parent myself, I can't imagine how I specifically would handle matters of responsibility and restrictions. But it must be about balancing protecting against real dangers and allowing your child to mature and assume responsibility.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, that's exactly what the article in my opinion is focused on, the balance between safety and independence is shifting towards the safety to a point where it is a concern. It says in the article that this safety switch has slowly been developing over time, which would lead me to believe that if this trend will continue (which it most likely will) it will only develop to a point where no one trusts each other.
<b>Think of it like this: </b>
What will happen in 50 years when my generation bears children and these children grow up to be extremely paranoid? What happens if we begin to put GPS on our children or call our 15 year old child every five minutes if they arrive a little late from school? What if our children cannot be left alone in their own house for half an hour because of safety concerns? What if our children grow up and all carry hand guns around in concern of safety?
<!--coloro:#FFFFFF--><span style="color:#FFFFFF"><!--/coloro--><!--sizeo:1--><span style="font-size:8pt;line-height:100%"><!--/sizeo-->Note: I'm using "our" and "we" in my questions to express my generation (the current children).<!--sizec--></span><!--/sizec--><!--colorc--></span><!--/colorc-->
one thing i remember which made it more free for kids to roam around unattended was cellphones becoming more and more common. i didnt have one when i was in third grade, but today they all carry one around :o
What will happen in 50 years when my generation bears children and these children grow up to be extremely paranoid? What happens if we begin to put GPS on our children or call our 15 year old child every five minutes if they arrive a little late from school? What if our children cannot be left alone in their own house for half an hour because of safety concerns? What if our children grow up and all carry hand guns around in concern of safety?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That's a concern. Sometimes I wonder if all the new 'people tracking' technology that comes along will be used on kids first for "safety", then gradually seep into all the different areas of daily life for everyone else.
Think they'd do that today? NOT!
The rents know what they're doing - they've been around a bit longer than you... get over it.
It's not about a child's responsibility or maturity, it's about society and how sick it has become.
We tend to view the past through rose-tinted glasses. The human brain has a knack for remembering the good things, mainly.
Also:
<!--quoteo(post=1633817:date=Jun 16 2007, 09:00 PM:name=Rob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rob @ Jun 16 2007, 09:00 PM) [snapback]1633817[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
There's this whole debate about nature and nurture, which is right morally, which has the desired affects. I tend to think that no single strategy will work across the board. Pushing parents into set patterns of behavior seems doomed to failure to me. So, my upbringing was different than yours; that may give me a set of skills you don't have, or give you a set that I don't, who knows?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Isn't the nature / nurture debate a psychological / sociological debate on whether it's upbringing or genetics that mostly affect how a person develops? Like whether it's the "angry" gene that makes people grow up to be thugs, or whether it's how their parents raise them (gross oversimplification, I know). It doesn't seem to have much relevance, though, since as I recall the debate isn't about which one should be given more importance (i.e. strictly control the child or let them run free), it's about which one ends up having most impact in the normal course of things.
I've never seen a point in rebelling against traditions for rebellion's sake. Some of them actually have a point. but then again, a tradition should always be up for a view. "Because it's a tradition" is not justification enough for anything.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ya, because psychological science showing massive downsides to beating children isn't enough of a reason to shy away from that particular tradition. How about the obvious one. Why create unnecessary physical pain for something totally unrelated? Do you want your child to behave because they are afraid of you, or do you want them to behave because it's the right thing to do?
I don't like the nature vs nurture dispute. It's not a dispute in my opinion, it's just dumb. Your nature and the nurturing both give you tools to exploit as a person. Your behavior will ultimately be the result of your own decisions and intentions.
In extreme cases of ineptitude in both nature and nurture it has been shown that the result can lead to psychological/physical disorder, which will lead to dysfunction of the person. But amongst healthy people ultimately nothing in their nature or nurture is going to prevent them from sooner or later being able to recoup their losses and striving towards the being person they want to be. Society is full of examples of thugs and criminals who turn into upstanding and leading citizens, and it's full of examples of goodies goodies throwing their hand into the dark side in a moment where the right move results in personal gain. Those kinds of decisions can't be made by your parents or your genes.
If a kid has "I'm gonna get my ass whipped if I do this" hanging over their head they're going to be much less inclined to act out. If they're less inclined to act out more than likely they'll be allowed more freedom.
Face it, the family unit has deteriorated to a pathetic point. Children and other groups have far more freedom than they deserve. Return to old school ways and society as a whole will improve. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
Ya, because psychological science showing massive downsides to beating children isn't enough of a reason to shy away from that particular tradition. How about the obvious one. Why create unnecessary physical pain for something totally unrelated? Do you want your child to behave because they are afraid of you, or do you want them to behave because it's the right thing to do?[...]<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Where do you get all that from? I never advocated spankings. I'm far too politically correct to do that even if they served a purpose.
Ya, because psychological science showing massive downsides to beating children isn't enough of a reason to shy away from that particular tradition. How about the obvious one. Why create unnecessary physical pain for something totally unrelated? Do you want your child to behave because they are afraid of you, or do you want them to behave because it's the right thing to do?
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Actually, corporal punishment really works. If somebody commits an infraction, you punish it on the spot, no hesitation and no remorse with physical pain. That person will then learn that some sort of undesirable behavior will beget physical pain and humiliation (if in front of peers). This is classical conditioning, the same way you would train a dog, and it is <b>highly effective</b>.
It's just politically incorrect.
I don't advocate ignoring the advice of experts, but a lot of times, these experts use a phrase that I've come to loathe: "I know." More often than not, you don't "know" anything, you may strongly believe. I thought "certainty" was a big word in science. I'd just like to see a little humility in the picture, is all.
The system we've used for thousands of years of child upbringing as worked so far. That doesn't mean it's the best system, but it also doesn't mean it's the worst, either. I really don't want to see more sensationalist movements that radically change the way we bring up our children; it's like sending a customer un-compiled, un-tested, and hastily written code and expecting it to work perfectly.
<i>Especially</i> dealing with the future of your own race, you must approach the matter with respect for its careful balance.
Actually, corporal punishment really works. If somebody commits an infraction, you punish it on the spot, no hesitation and no remorse with physical pain. That person will then learn that some sort of undesirable behavior will beget physical pain and humiliation (if in front of peers). This is classical conditioning, the same way you would train a dog, and it is <b>highly effective</b>.
It's just politically incorrect.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with you. So does the equivalent British institution
"The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), however, in an official policy statement [5] (reaffirmed in 2004) states that "Corporal punishment is of limited effectiveness and has potentially deleterious side effects. The American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that parents be encouraged and assisted in the development of methods other than spanking for managing undesired behavior." In particular, the AAP believes that any corporal punishment methods other than open-hand spanking on the buttocks or extremities "are unacceptable" and "should never be used". The policy statement points out, summarizing several studies, that "The more children are spanked, the more anger they report as adults, the more likely they are to spank their own children, the more likely they are to approve of hitting a spouse, and the more marital conflict they experience as adults."
The Canadian Pediatrics Society policy on corporal punishment states "The Psychosocial Paediatrics Committee of the Canadian Paediatric Society has carefully reviewed the available research in the controversial area of disciplinary spanking (7-15)... The research that is available supports the position that spanking and other forms of physical punishment are associated with negative child outcomes. The Canadian Paediatric Society, therefore, recommends that physicians strongly discourage disciplinary spanking and all other forms of physical punishment" [27]
All of this information is from the wikipedia page on corporal punishment, but there are easily accessible primary sources of research on the matter.
I was never even spanked as a child. I've never used any physical violence against another person ( excepting school yard fights at the age of 10-12 ) and I intend to do my best to pass on this tradition to my kids.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Rapier7"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Rapier7")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
This is classical conditioning, the same way you would train a dog, and it is highly effective.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Well, if you treat your children as dogs, don't be surprised if they grow up to behave like animals.
<!--QuoteBegin-"Rob"+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE("Rob")</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteEBegin-->
The system we've used for thousands of years of child upbringing as worked so far. That doesn't mean it's the best system, but it also doesn't mean it's the worst, either. I really don't want to see more sensationalist movements that radically change the way we bring up our children; it's like sending a customer un-compiled, un-tested, and hastily written code and expecting it to work perfectly.
Especially dealing with the future of your own race, you must approach the matter with respect for its careful balance.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This argument is the fundamental basis for conservatism for many people - why change what isn't broken - better the devil you know. It is a fallacious argument and really shouldn't be tabled in any discussion. If the old system is better then it should be demonstratively so. Nobody is saying it is the worst system, people are just identifying specific point for improvement ( i.e. "don't spank your children" ). It is nothing like sending a customer un-compiled, un-tested, and hastily written code and expecting it to work perfectly. This isn't an either/or situation. There are countries years ahead of the US in this area, with very positive results. The concept of non-violent child rearing is a very old one, and isn't something devised in a lab from theory.
I don't care what The American Academy of Pediatrics said, it's that mentality (and the resulting lack of discipline) that is responsible for the problems we have with youth nowadays.
I personally think that parents should be allowed to spank their kids, I just think they will be counter-productive in the long run. You need to invest the time to educate your children both morally and ethically. Reaching for the belt teaches them that violence resolves disputes, and that parents have a special-pass to break the rules of civil behaviour. It might be harder to teach them good behaviour through non-violent means, but the evidence supports the case that the results are much better and much further reaching in life. The belt is the easy out.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
I don't care what The American Academy of Pediatrics said, it's that mentality (and the resulting lack of discipline) that is responsible for the problems we have with youth nowadays.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Would you care to reason why? You are surely just correlating the two conditions without demonstrating any form of causation.
This argument is the fundamental basis for conservatism for many people - why change what isn't broken - better the devil you know. It is a fallacious argument and really shouldn't be tabled in any discussion. If the old system is better then it should be demonstratively so. Nobody is saying it is the worst system, people are just identifying specific point for improvement ( i.e. "don't spank your children" ). It is nothing like sending a customer un-compiled, un-tested, and hastily written code and expecting it to work perfectly. This isn't an either/or situation. There are countries years ahead of the US in this area, with very positive results. The concept of non-violent child rearing is a very old one, and isn't something devised in a lab from theory.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
When did I say that? Don't put words in my mouth. Removing something as instrumental as spanking from the equation is a BIG change. And not one I would have advocated doing on a global scale. What if you're wrong? What if you destroy an entire generation of children? These are heavy consequences to consider. I advocate humility before science. Don't try and twist it any other way, please.
What I've seen is that in my school system, where both my parents work, morale is low, stress is high, the average age of teachers is less than 10 years from retirement, and the children are hellions.
What's the cause for this? I don't know, but I'd rather not fly off the handle and put radically different policies in place. That's all I'm sayin!
Gr. :/
I don't advocate removing of corporal punishment in a vacuum either. It needs to be replaced with some other regime that achieves the goals previously sought by corporal punishment but with reduced negative consequences.
So, by that logic, all of the gun wielding, spliff smoking pregnant teenagers who drop out of school weren't spanked by their parents.
I personally think that parents should be allowed to spank their kids, I just think they will be counter-productive in the long run. You need to invest the time to educate your children both morally and ethically. Reaching for the belt teaches them that violence resolves disputes, and that parents have a special-pass to break the rules of civil behaviour. It might be harder to teach them good behaviour through non-violent means, but the evidence supports the case that the results are much better and much further reaching in life. The belt is the easy out.
Would you care to reason why? You are surely just correlating the two conditions without demonstrating any form of causation.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
More accurately, were not DISCIPLINED. And if what you say is true puzl, I would be a violent person, which I am not. Constantly spanking a child is abuse, but once or twice SHOULD be all that's needed to instill upon the child whatever the rents desire. to teach them.
Corporal punishment is not the sole answer, only part of the solution. <img src="style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/wink-fix.gif" style="vertical-align:middle" emoid=";)" border="0" alt="wink-fix.gif" />
And if what you say is true puzl, I would be a violent person, which I am not.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not at all. Because some people who are physically disciplined go on to be abusive does not imply that all people who are physically disciplined do so. You don't even have to be exceptional to break this rule.
Spanking might teach the child what the parents desire, and might even gain the short term benefit of obedience, but I think other systems of punishment are a much better motivator than fear. I think ( and the evidence supports me ) that spanking produces long term negative consequences. Having said that, I think a parent should be allowed to spank their child, as long as it is spanking and not abuse.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Corporal punishment is not the sole answer, only part of the solution.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
And also part of the problem.
<!--quoteo(post=1634205:date=Jun 18 2007, 06:26 PM:name=Rapier7)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Rapier7 @ Jun 18 2007, 06:26 PM) [snapback]1634205[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->
Actually, corporal punishment really works. If somebody commits an infraction, you punish it on the spot, no hesitation and no remorse with physical pain. That person will then learn that some sort of undesirable behavior will beget physical pain and humiliation (if in front of peers). This is classical conditioning, the same way you would train a dog, and it is <b>highly effective</b>.
It's just politically incorrect.
<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Corporal punishment is politically incorrect. And incredible enough, it is also not the best way to make kids accept their parents view as their own. Threatening your child with spanking for not cleaning his room will teach him to comply with his parents to avoid pain, but not that cleaning a room is good in itself. They'll get insufficient justification to internalize it, as the threat of punishment is justification enough. So the child who is reared with physical punishment will comply as long as the authoritative figure oversees his or hers actions. The child who learns to clean his room without consistent rewarding and punishment is more likely to continue this behavior even though nobody requires it of him or her.
Corporal punishment is bad for his moral character (as long as you consider violent behavior a bad trait), for his childhood experience and future family life. But if what is important for you is unquestioning loyalty in your personal dicatorship, yeah, it seems like the way to go.
And if we were to use anecdotal evidence anyway, you shouldn't be surprised of the preferred method of bringing up children in the early twentieth century Germany.
Edit: I didn't see the last post before posting.
Correlation is nothing without causation. We all know the example Pastafarians like to cite: How pirates suppress global warming. Since the 17th century, the number of pirates worldwide has decreased (software pirates don't count), and global warming has increased. This, they argue, means that we should all dress as pirates to counteract global warming.
The above is an example where correlation is taken to infer causation. That two statistics happen to fit each other does not necessarily mean that they are connected. In order to establish causation, the connection must be demonstrated as well, and preferrably also rigorously tested and verified.
Poor statistics: I have statistic evidence that traffic accidents, while resulting in totaled cars 50% of the time, are completely harmless to humans.
But my statistic is worthless. Why? The sample size is too small: One accident. My father and someone else were involved in a traffic accident at low speed. Nobody was hurt, but my parents' car was totalled. A sample size of one is worthless. By using too small sample sizes, we can conclude anything and everything: That the entire surface of the earth is covered by land or water. That all planets in the universe have life on them, or none of them. That all humans who ever lived are now dead. That the second World War was fought entirely in Poland. That parachutes are unnecessary, since you will just land in a bush and fracture a few bones if yours fails to open. Etc. etc. etc.
Both items mentioned above are logical fallacies, and have occurred in this thread. They are not conducive to a sensible discussion. Before making a post, please check for the presence of those and, if necessary, modify your post to eliminate them.
Accordingly, such alternative punishments can be expected to fail if the parent does not already possess sufficient levels of <i>authority</i> in the eyes of the punished. So how does one establish said <i>authority</i>? There are numerous sources, but the fastest way to esablish it is early application of Corporal Punishment on young children. As the children grow, Corporal Punishment should be gradually phased out in favor of other forms of punishment in order to avoid the potential negative side-effects of long-term use of corporal punishment.
----------
To all those claiming knowledge of scientific studies proving Corporal Punishment damages children's psyches, do you happen to know of the duration of Corporal Punishment considered in the studies? Do any of them make distinctions between parents who used corporal punishment long-term vs parents who used it only early on, then changed methods as children grew? In short, do any of these studies address my suggestion?