|
Post by Kathryn on Jan 31, 2007 5:43:44 GMT -5
The youth of yesterday, today and tomorrow all need their role-models. Those figures in society that give them good examples and are just generally a good influence on our children.
But many of our youth's role-models aren't at all going to show the youth the "right path". Drug, Alcohol and just plain bad choices. These issues are normally related to those figues with the power to comand audiences- tv stars, models etc.
Should our children be banned from viewing such materialswhere these "role-models" may have detrimental effects of the childs actions?
Your thoughts?
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Jan 31, 2007 9:06:56 GMT -5
I think that such decisions should be at the discretion of parents/ guardians.
One of my teachers was watching the SuperBowl with his kids (ages 2 through 8). As soon as he saw what he described as lewd and lascivious dancing, he turned the television off.
Later on, during that same football game's halftime show, a celebrity lost her shirt, or part of her dress anyway.
The teacher had the presence of mind to realize that, although watching the Super Bowl may be a family tradition for many, the culture has changed such that it (and many other televised sports events, and maybe even TV in general) is no longer appropriate content for young children. After the game, I imagine many other parents with small children around America came to the same conclusion -- but unfortunately, many of them may have not made such judgments until after their kids were exposed to the half-time fiasco.
Some parents, and perhaps most parents, just don't care enough to keep track of their children. The solution to that problem is NOT more government baby-sitting. In my humble opinion, efforts to "educate" students on how to behave in society, notably D.A.R.E. (aka "donut abuse resistance education") do not discourage children from making bad choices -- such programs merely make students more informed consumers.
Until sitting through hours and hours of mandatory "drug abuse resistance education" programs in elementary school, I had never heard any drug mentionend by its, other than "pot."
After said education, I could not only list every common street name for each of 7 forms of illegal substance, but also quote price ranges (now out of date, I'm sure), lingo for purchasing/ negotiating on the sly, several "signs and symptoms of drug abuse" to disguise from parents and other adults, and the best "locations to avoid," types of places where drugs were commonly sold. Not only that, but I had a good idea of what each drug's effects were, and which types of drugs could be mixed to get what result. Thanks, officer.
Fortunately for me, I never felt any desire to experiment with illegal substance. Had I chosen to, however, I would have had no problems other than logistics and funds. Due to D.A.R.E. training, I knew where to go, who to look for, what to say, how much to get, and about what to pay for it.
Did I mention that D.A.R.E. (and the training officers' salaries) are taxpayer-funded?
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Jan 31, 2007 13:04:29 GMT -5
I agree with BBQ. Its the parents who should set the limits for their children. IN todays society it is becoming more and more acceptable to believe that parents are stupid, and you can do whatever makes you feel good or right or what have you.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Jan 31, 2007 14:23:37 GMT -5
At the same time, parents are beginning to buy into the notion that they have no right to decide for themselves how to raise their own children (you know, Senator Clinton's favorite proverb "it takes a socialist commune to raise a child" or something to that effect).
So parents may need encouragement and even assistance sometimes, but I don't see how that has anything to do with government. Grandparents/ other relatives, friends/ neighbors who have raised kids, family counseling, church groups, selected parenting novels, etc. are all potentially valid sources for getting help with parenting skills.
Daycare and government-funded baby-sitting (aka mandatory pre-school) are NOT valid alternatives.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 1, 2007 23:22:40 GMT -5
I can't really decide. Parents are an easy choice, as they have the most influence over their children while they are young. But as children grow and mature, they tend to fall away, at least in some cases, from their parents teaching.
After that age, it is probably teachers that have the most influence over children. Parents give the foundations, such as good and bad, right and wrong, for their children to grow with. But as they progress through school, teachers become even larger and larger role models for children.
However, throughout the childs life, a parent still maintains a certain degree of influence over the child. In my case, my parents where my role models for quite some time. They still give me some guidance, but they are not exactly who I aspire to be. I look up to my teachers, and people whom I see as successful or very well educated. I think it is good to give children more independence after a certain age. This way they get the chance to learn for themselves, while still in the care of their parents.
Who is the most important role models? I don't know. It depends on the individual...
|
|
|
Post by Kathryn on Feb 2, 2007 17:15:35 GMT -5
Oshkosh Couple Accused Of Child Abuse Gets Evicted
(AP) An Oshkosh couple must move from the home where they allegedly made a 13-year-old daughter stay confined to a bedroom up to 22 hours a day.
Clint and Lynn Engstrom were evicted by a Winnebago County court official Wednesday, a day after he ordered that they each should stand trial on a charge of mental abuse of a child.
Court Commissioner Daniel Bissett ruled in favor of their landlord who said they were not paying rent or utilities and owe more than $4,700.
The Engstroms, jailed in lieu of $25,000 bail each, face an eviction deadline of Monday to move out of the house. Bissett told them the deadline could not be extended.
The girl testified Wednesday that her father and stepmother ordered her to stay in her sparsely furnished upstairs bedroom for months, as punishment for her bad behavior that included hitting, kicking, lying and making "mean comments."
Defense lawyers said the Engstroms will plead not guilty at a hearing in Circuit Court Monday.
|
|
|
Post by Kathryn on Feb 2, 2007 17:16:37 GMT -5
There were countless other cases I came across, so is this proof the SOME parents are unworthy to be role-models for their children when some parents do this?
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Feb 2, 2007 18:37:37 GMT -5
Who are you addressing Kathryn?
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Feb 3, 2007 22:30:17 GMT -5
The news excerpts you posted above are reflective of situations which occur all to frequently. When I took sociology courses, several such incidents were listed in the textbooks.
What was not listed in those books, and what is not flashed on the news 24/7, is a family with two parents carefully raising some number of happy little children. I submit that, while the latter example may be slightly exaggerated on some points, the fact is that most 2-parent families more closely resemble the latter than the former.
So, if most families with two parents are basically decent healthy environments for children to grow up in, why don't we see positive examples of this in the news and why are there so few positive case studies listed in general study textbooks? Because happy = boring.
So yes, Kathryn, some parents are unfit to raise children. Some parents are lousy at parenting. Some parents would be better off in mental institutions. Some parents simply belong in jail. And these such parents are the ones we all hear about.
But we're not talking about the majority of parents -- nor even a large minority. We're talking about outliers, exceptions to the rule. Should rules be based on exceptions, or should the rules be based on what is generally/ usually true?
Here's a scenario: A mom locks her young daughter away in a closet with no light for 6 years. The dad occasionally yells at the daughter and beats her. After several years, police somehow find out and arrest the parents, hauling them off to jail. The child can not walk or speak, and is afraid of people. Upon questioning, neighbors say they had no idea that there was child living next door.
Based on this incident (vaguely similar to incidents which have occured in real life), should the government step in and take the child away from the parents?
I'm sure we can all agree that the answer is "yes."
Now, should the government, based on the above scenario, make the determination that parents are not well-equipped to raise children, and that it would be in every child's best interests for traditional parenting to be replaced with mandatory government daycare? How about raising every child in a communal nursery? --
My point: The reason that most children were raised by parents and family groups for hundreds of generations is quite simply that it works.
Not many families really raise their own kids completely anymore; with modern transportation, communication, and interconnectedness, it's nearly impossible to prevent outside influences on one's own children -- and in fact, for a child to grow into a fully-functioning member of society, it's often better that some exposure to life outside of family is experienced by the child before he/she moves on to start his/her own family.
But abuses just like those committed by the Winnebago county parents occur all the time in daycare, pre-school, and all levels of public gradeschooling -- in part, the government's modern substitutes for traditional parenting. So if abuses of children occur in community-oriented child-raising just as they occur in family-oriented child-raising, why should the counterintuitive form of child-raising automatically be selected as "better"?
Also, please note that instances of abuse of minors by teachers are more frequent than instances of abuse by priests.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 3, 2007 23:53:53 GMT -5
Who are you addressing Kathryn? I think she moreso than addressing someone in particular, is addressing the most popular answer of the pole. Whether she is in agreement of it or not, she is putting facts out there along with the question, either because she does support the idea or simply to keep this discussion going.
|
|
|
Post by Kathryn on Feb 5, 2007 6:54:58 GMT -5
Now, should the government, based on the above scenario, make the determination that parents are not well-equipped to raise children, and that it would be in every child's best interests for traditional parenting to be replaced with mandatory government daycare? How about raising every child in a communal nursery? I just want to put out a vauge point here, which link to a popular belief the parents are the best role models for children. In responce to your questions about the traditional parenting to be replaced by government daycare- Why dont we introduce a law which says that before a new mother can claim her child-wealthfare benifit (as here in Australia), both parents (if both are known) are to apply for a parenting licence to teach them the basics of childcare, including a full course on first aid. Surely this would help distinguish the good parents from the bad parents?
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Feb 5, 2007 8:43:22 GMT -5
Why dont we introduce a law which says that before a new mother can claim her child-wealthfare benifit (as here in Australia), both parents (if both are known) are to apply for a parenting licence to teach them the basics of childcare, including a full course on first aid. Surely this would help distinguish the good parents from the bad parents? Actually, that seems like a decent proposal on the surface. My only concern is that if people perceive the law to be too much of a hassle, they will be discouraged from birthing their children, possibly even retroactively (infanticide) -- that's an issue that can be avoided with careful legislation though, certainly. And the other potential issue with such a law: I don't particularly favor welfare -- even child welfare in many cases. Even when it's supposed to be for the good of a child, it has great potential for abuse. In America, we have whole classes of people who make their livings as "welfare queens." Basically, they crank out children as fast as they can, knowing full well that they cannot provide for themselves economically (perhaps they have no steady job), much less provide for their current and future children. The government sends them money, and the more children they have, the more money they get. I don't believe for a second that the money is enough to provide for the child's safe and healthy upbringning, nor do I believe that these women (who usually are single mothers with children from out-of-wedlock couplings, in some cases with numerous men whose names they may or may not even know) have the children's best interests in mind...If they did, they would stop having kids without being able to care for them, or try to change their situation. It certainly would be crossing a line if the government were to tell these women to stop having children, but perhaps it would be fair for the taxpayers to stop having to finance such lifestyles? If there was no money paid to a jobless single woman for each additional child, maybe she would 1) stop having children out of economic neccessity, or 2) put the children up for adoption.
|
|
|
Post by Kathryn on Feb 6, 2007 4:44:59 GMT -5
My only concern is that if people perceive the law to be too much of a hassle, they will be discouraged from birthing their children, possibly even retroactively (infanticide) -- that's an issue that can be avoided with careful legislation though, certainly. Maybe this will be a good thing? I mean there is no use deneing the population growth of the world is rising at an alarming rate that will result in shortages to food, water, land and other essential resources needed to survive. So maybe if new parents see that they will have to go through the hassle of applying for a licence, this will ease the current demand and supply? Lets look at who are most likely to find this law a hastle: Young mothers who, as you later mentioned, pop out babies just to claim childwelfare. So introducing this law may have very positive effects of the community.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Feb 8, 2007 0:29:37 GMT -5
My only concern is that if people perceive the law to be too much of a hassle, they will be discouraged from birthing their children, possibly even retroactively (infanticide) -- that's an issue that can be avoided with careful legislation though, certainly. Maybe this will be a good thing? I mean there is no use deneing the population growth of the world is rising at an alarming rate that will result in shortages to food, water, land and other essential resources needed to survive. So maybe if new parents see that they will have to go through the hassle of applying for a licence, this will ease the current demand and supply? Lets look at who are most likely to find this law a hastle: Young mothers who, as you later mentioned, pop out babies just to claim childwelfare. So introducing this law may have very positive effects of the community. I think 'Parent-Liscensing' is a good idea. I would go into depth more, but I think your arguements for this issue would go hand in hand, and perhaps excede, mine.
|
|
|
Post by Kathryn on Feb 8, 2007 6:03:19 GMT -5
Why Thankyou, ;D
Yeah, I agree because as the poll shows, we all basically agree that our youth should aspire to their parents or legal carers. But, if the childs parents dont have these qualities to care for a child, then prehaps they cant be a suitable role-model
|
|