We're letting our children get off too easy

[Frozen Feet]

Every old generation has probably looked at younger ones and though something along the lines of "at least we never...", in response of their juniors doing something seemingly stupid. It's easy to contest such opinions as nostalgia clouding their judgement, and often that's just the case.

 

However, observing the kids I lead in scouts now to the ones I used to, I'm feeling that maybe there's some basis to it after all; that younger people really are getting more awful than they were even just twelve years ago when I started scouting.

 

Who am I talking about? I'm mainly talking about kids ranging from 9 to 15 years in age, but I feel many of these observations carry on to adults as well.

 

What's the source of my experiences? I've been given leadership duties from the time I was 13 and am 22 now; during my "career", I've gone from leading prepubescents as an adolescent, to leading other adolescents as an adolescent, to leading adults as an aduls (during my military conscription), to leading prepubescents and adolescents as an adult, so I feel I have some idea on how people of different ages act towards authority.

 

How are they worse? This is best summarized as them not having discipline. They have no respect for authority; they don't just disagree with orders, they don't consider them logically at all, as if being contrary for the heck of it; they simultaneously want to do what they want without taking responsibility or facing consequences. For a single person trying to organize entertainment for a group of such people, such an attitude poses a serious obstacle.

 

So what made me think of this? A program change in our troop that took effect last fall. In our prior organization, 7 to 9 year olds were Wolf Cubs, lead by an adult leader; 10 to 12 year olds were scouts, lead by 13 to 15 year old leaders who'd stay with their groups throughout; 16 to 18 year olds were Rovers and were lead by their peers, and could be given responsibility for other troop duties, such as arranging camps. Anyone above that was just "an adult", and could be tasked with leading cubs or organizing high-level troop functions as opposed to the weekly activities that were mostly responsibility of the younger divisions.

 

In the new program, 7 to 9 years olds are still Wolf Cubs and are still lead by adults. But from there on, things get very different. 10 to 12 year old are Adventurers, but are still lead by adults; 13 to 15 year old are Rangers, lead by Wanderers between ages 16 and 18. Rangers occasionally take responsibility for Adventurers, but only under supervision and agreement of older leaders; Wanderers are arranged in groups and their members take turns leading Rangers; 18 to 22 year olds are Rovers, peer-lead, and can be given responsibility for other troop duties. Only people above 22 really count as adults in the program, despite bar of legal maturity being set at 18 here in Finland.

 

As you can see, age of people leading activities and taking serious responsibility got upped by a good few years. The given reasoning was that the duties and responsibilities posed on adolescents by the old program were too great.

 

It sounded like a decent justification. Looking at our then-current Adventurers (who I lead) and our then-current Wanderers (who my friend leads), it was easy to agree that the old program wouldn't have worked; as noted, they are and were awful in taking responsibility of themselves, it really wouldn't have suited to give them responsibility of each other...

 

... but wait a second. Why did the old program work with us (me and my friends) back then?

 

Why is it harder for me, as an adult an all-around more experienced person, to command and control a bunch of 10 year olds, than it was when I was 13 and doing the same thing?

 

This got me thinking about the causes and effects of the program change. Responsibility is one of the big themes of scouting here, so why was granting it delayed? What has changed in half a generation?

 

Some thoughts I have on the issue:

 

It seems to me that in industrialized countries, the boundaries of childhood have been pushed further and further. As I've read on the subject, it has dawned to me that the idea of distinct childhood is pretty modern. Once upon a time at 12, you were expected to move away from home to your working place; by 16, you were "a man" by standards of society if a boy, and married while pregnant with your first child if a girl. People were expected to take responsibility much earlier, and children were seen more as "little adults" than something starkly different.

 

Contrast with modern Finland: you don't have full criminal responsibility before the law until you're 15. You aren't legally considered an adult until 18, and you only get last adult rights at 22. Education is compulsory up to 17 years of age, meaning people rarely enter job life before that. This has lead some to take the stance that all minors (people below 18) are effectively still children, with little regard for how developed they are physically and mentally. At the age of 22, I regularly meet people, not just those older but those younger as well, who refer to me as a "boy" or a "brat", with nothing as basis but prejudice, even when they know how old I really am.

 

At the same time, I've heard of studies that imply environmental conditions (better and greater amounts of nutrition, chemicals affecting hormones, etc.) are causing children to reach and pass through adolescence faster.

 

So, kids are frowing up faster, but they are treated as kids longer. Ergo, there should be an increasing number of physically mature specimens in the newest generations who are not treated as adults even though they should be able to handle.

 

Could this be stunting their emotional growth? I've heard a lot of talk about egoistic (even narcistic) behaviour and apathy towards taking care of public endeavors among people of my age and younger. This seems to point towards the answer being "yes".

 

It's easy to rebuke me by saying "but think of the children!" It's easy to look at our past and think that our children being able to be free from care longer is a good thing. But for the above reason, I actually think we're letting them be too free for too long. Modern life rewards, or at least allows, childish behaviours well past the point where our youth really should start learning to fend for themselves. This leads to problems later down the line, where there's no-one to take responsibility for them anymore. The trend needs to be reversed to an extent.

 

It'd also be easy to look at rebellious adolescents and say "well, they're teenagers, that's to be expected". But yet another study I've seen allusions to claimed that the "hormonal teenage monster" is a fabrication, specific to highly industrialized countries. There is no distinct period of teenage rebellion among oriental societies.

 

What's the difference, then? It might sound stereotypical, but oriental societies put a much stronger emphasis on tradition, respect of authority, and discipline. Their children don't rebel, because they've been taught that the society has expectations from them, which they better not betray. (Of course, going too far to that direction has its own problems as well, as seen in Japan; hikikomoris, people who fall into isolation from society because they can't fit the mold.)

 

Of course, due to influence of major occidental cultures, younger generations are starting to adopt their values and opinions, leading to the same problems arising. Interesting case is, I think, in China: I recall them having a whole new word for pampered people born as the result of one child policy. Having gotten undivided attention of their parents, they tend to have higher sense of self-worth, justified or not.

 

From Japan, I've heard horror stories of young parents murdering their children, and even their own parents, on the basis that they were "not given tools for coping with the situation". Supposedly, due to hardships of the past, when Japan underwent rapid economic growth people were keen on sparing their children from the toils of the past; it seems some went too far, leading to pampered people who are so out of touch with taking responsibility for someone else that they panic when they're faced with the prospect.

 

What to do to fix the situation? Well, there's one more trend that needs to be reversed for that to be possible. Teachers in schools and other places are given less and less means and resources to discipline children, while at the same time facing increased supervision and critique from the part of their parents. While intentions of the parents are often good, they're just trying to protect their special snowflakes, in practice they are interfering with teaching. As grim as it sounds, teachers need more leeway to be harsh towards their students.

 

And, since they are their main teachers in a lot of things, parents need to be harder towards their kids too. In what way?

 

I believe the answer(s) can be found from the realm of martial arts, and the military.

 

First of all, a bit of irony about the militay (Finnish Defence Forces, to be specific). Throughout middle-school and vocational institute, my teachers tended to remind us (me and my class) that we were not in a kindergarden, and really should own up to our own actions. This is to say, they had neither tools, time or patience to teach us basic courtesy, they were expecting us to already have a grasp of something so simple.

 

Years later, in the army? Much of our early training consisted on things like learning to greet properly, making our own beds, keeping our own [censored] safe and clean, and going to sleep early.

 

From day one, it became clear that to some conscripts, these things were something new.

 

In hindsight, it would've been much, much better for the army and for my whole education up to that point if those things had been taught in the 1st grade of elementary school.

 

Coincidentally, in Japan for example, teaching those things is part of the tradition.

 

Okay, I guess that's enough ranting. Your thoughts?

[Sudanna]

Quote:

If our society seems more nihilistic than that of previous eras, perhaps this is simply a sign of our maturity as a sentient species. As our collective consciousness expands beyond a crucial point, we are at last ready to accept life's fundamental truth: that life's only purpose is life itself.

Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
"Looking God in the Eye"

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Space Between

Quote:

If our society seems more nihilistic than that of previous eras, perhaps this is simply a sign of our maturity as a sentient species. As our collective consciousness expands beyond a crucial point, we are at last ready to accept life's fundamental truth: that life's only purpose is life itself.

Chairman Sheng-ji Yang
"Looking God in the Eye"

When Hive children misbehave, they get thrown in the Recycling Tanks.

[Sudanna]

Yeah, not exactly the best faction to turn to for arguing against discipline.

[Frozen Feet]

I'm not familiar with that quote, but I'm not sure I grasp how it relates to the subject.

 

Even when life's purpose is life itself, most living creatures will be concerned about quality of that life.

 

Society is, more than anything, dependent on the mutual goodwill of its members. This requires an extent of courtesy, discipline and willingness to take responsibility; otherwise, society will collapse, and fail to fill its purpose: To make life better for its members.

[Sudanna]

It does answer, at least a bit, why

 

Quote:

How are they worse? This is best summarized as them not having discipline. They have no respect for authority; they don't just disagree with orders, they don't consider them logically at all, as if being contrary for the heck of it; they simultaneously want to do what they want without taking responsibility or facing consequences.

 

is the case.

 

However, it is also a quote from a video game made in '99, and was not intended to be a serious argument.

[Rowen]

Bring back the paddles with holes in them and stiff leather belts that leave huge welts. That was the best teacher I ever had and our kids deserve the best.

[Randomizer]

Education has taken over some of the functions that were usually taught in the home. Trying to make it possible to teach ethics that won't offend any group waters it down.

 

Them young whippersnappers need a good whooping.

[Lilith]

~kids these days~

[Sudanna]

Quote:

Them young whippersnappers need a good whooping.

I'm honestly of that opinion, and I'm 17. I think more physical pain/abuse as a child (and now) would have been/would be good for me as a person. I dunno.

[Sarachim]

I would be a Senator by now if my parents had only poked me with a sharpened stick.

[Dantius]

Now that I think about it, you're right. Sometimes, when I'm feeling particularly nostaligic, I look back upon my childhood and think "Wow, I might have been successful if only my parents had beat more manners and blind obedience to elders into me instead of encouraging critical analysis of others based on their personality, intelligence, and traits, instead merely doling out respect based on age, social status, and wealth!"

 

[Triumph]

Originally Posted By: Space Between

Quote:

Them young whippersnappers need a good whooping.

I'm honestly of that opinion, and I'm 17. I think more physical pain/abuse as a child (and now) would have been/would be good for me as a person. I dunno.

I don't really think "abuse" is a helpful term to invoke. Physical discipline is NOT about some magical beneficial impact that inflicting pain has. You don't whack a kid every so often and *POOF* he grows up into a senator (or whatever - not sure senator is really all that worthwhile of a goal...).

Discipline is all about TEACHING kids something (such as self-control). But because kids are not rational mature adults (duh!) simply telling them "Don't do that, little Johnny," is ineffective. That's where physical discipline comes in, especially for younger children. It's a way parents can communicate to, can teach, children when those children would not understand or refuse to acknowledge other modes of teaching. You cannot fully explain to a toddler abstract concepts like self-control or the danger of running out in streets and getting hit by cars, but you can convey something very serious with a deliberate, controlled dose of pain (combined with the best verbal instruction the child can understand). Ideally, as those children grow older, parents are able to communicate and teach through deeper means than a smack on the behind.

Unfortunately, from what I see, a great many parents today are derelict of their responsibilities.

[Sudanna]

Yes, well, with any luck I won't be a parent.

 

EDIT: Though I will agree with those that seem to be opposed to the idea of respect or obedience by default. Discipline for discipline's sake is just restriction.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Triumph

You cannot fully explain to a toddler abstract concepts like self-control or the danger of running out in streets and getting hit by cars, but you can convey something very serious with a deliberate, controlled dose of pain.

The lesson is "don't do that, or someone stronger than you will hurt you." It may produce quick short-term results but is a bad way to introduce children to morality.

I know plenty of well-behaved children whose parents never use pain to control them, and I used to be one myself. You're arguing that I must have gotten hit by a car and died 20 years ago.

[Dintiradan]

Hey Frozen Feet, welcome back!

 

I don't think there's any real difference between myself as a teenager and teenagers nowadays. O tempura o mores and all that. I do agree with you that teenagers nowadays are different from teenagers a century or more back. Like you say, schools are treating teenagers like big children when they should be treating them like young adults. Yes, teenagers (and people in general) grow faster when given more responsibility. On the other hand, back then you had "children should be seen and not heard" and overzealous applications of "spare the rod and spoil the child". We've got to find the happy mean between the two.

 

As for the teenagers in your troop giving you a hard time: That might just be due to you being that much older than them. They're more likely to push their boundaries with an obvious authority figure than someone closer to their own age. If the difference is only a couple of years, you're more of a respected peer than a boss. Again, you have to balance between adult guidance that is occasionally required and self-leadership. When I was involved in my congregation's youth bible study, I was a big proponent of being self-lead, with an elected executive, rather than being supervised by someone on council. Still, it was good to have an adult perspective when we wanted it. The balance we ended up going with was having our meetings at the homes of the congregation's older couples, and encouraging the hosts to join in on the discussion.

 

Discipline in the military: Heh. I have a friend who was in the Reserves, and we would constantly debate about whether the military life taught you to be able to react quickly, or just trained to follow orders mindlessly without thinking. We eventually agreed to disagree.

 

For the record, I still don't understand how polishing your boots help you notice machine gun nests simply because you're now more attentive to details, but whatever.

 

Nalyd and Sarachim: I have a sudden urge to Transcend again. You guys suck. Do you know how little free time I have these days?

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Nalyd and Sarachim: I have a sudden urge to Transcend again. You guys suck. Do you know how little free time I have these days?

I've never played against another person. Wanna try it sometime?

[Dintiradan]

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Nalyd and Sarachim: I have a sudden urge to Transcend again. You guys suck. Do you know how little free time I have these days?

I've never played against another person. Wanna try it sometime?

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Do you know how little free time I have these days?

Seriously though, it would be a blast to play SMAC again (it's been ages, and I've never played multiplayer before). But scheduling would be insane (a single player SMAC game takes long enough as is). Also, with me in more meetings and starting to TA, I'm starting to bring more of my work home with me.

I remember talking about SMAC on Shadow Vale, and the topic of multiplayer came up there too. A seven player multiplayer match would be fantastic, if ludicrously hard to schedule. Some time in the Christmas holidays?

[keira]

I love that game, and I have neither done multiplayer before either. This sounds positively glorious. Please consider counting me in on such a venture.

[Dintiradan]

Quote:

i don't even know if i'm any good, though...what's the benchmark of an average player?

Morganites on Transcend; small map, aggression flag turned on. :-p

[Sarachim]

Quote:

i don't even know if i'm any good, though...what's the benchmark of an average player?

I've won on Transcend with every faction. Is that good?

[Callie]

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

Quote:

i don't even know if i'm any good, though...what's the benchmark of an average player?

I've won on Transcend with every faction. Is that good?

Yeah

I've tried Transcend before, but I get frustrated with all the drones, and someone always beats me to the Human Genome Project.

So I take the difficulty down a notch.

[Brocktree]

Frozen Feet, you mentioned that children are given far less responsibility than they were in previous generations, and I whole-heartedly agree. You explain this observation as the children not being able to handle that additional responsibility. I disagree. There is nothing wrong with the children today. They are simply victims of an inherently sick society. When you provide children with challenges, additional responsibility, and express your confidence in their abilities, then they will achieve. Unfortunately, society babies kids to such a degree that they never get an opportunity to test their will and strength of character.

[Trenton.]

You put way too much time into us preteens/teens lives. Like seriously, Yes we may curse once in a while, or get into a fight once in a while, but thats no reason to treat us like were prisoners that need to be executed! Sure a good spanking, or grounding when we do somthing bad is good, but you go over teh edge with punishments, like, putting on groundings by weeks!

[Jerakeen]

Trenton, whoever you're talking to, it's not anyone who has posted in this thread.

[Trenton.]

Its your mom...

 

Ok maybe Im a bit immature, but still.

 

And turtle dude, its about the whole post in general, not about the particular person. You gotta see the big thing, the core of the apple is not importent, the whole apple is.

[Frozen Feet]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Now that I think about it, you're right. Sometimes, when I'm feeling particularly nostaligic, I look back upon my childhood and think "Wow, I might have been successful if only my parents had beat more manners and blind obedience to elders into me instead of encouraging critical analysis of others based on their personality, intelligence, and traits, instead merely doling out respect based on age, social status, and wealth!"

Discipline, courtesy and responsibility are not opposed to critical thinking. If anything, once properly taught, they reinforce and encourage each other.

It would be one thing if kids I lead actually analysed what I said and rejected it based on some rational reason. But that's something they don't do. Rather, they're being contrary just because.

Thinking critically of a teaching situation, it's impossible for the teacher to teach anything if you constantly make him stop. To properly assess whether it's worth it to listen to him, you need to give him a chance to make his case and demonstrate that he really is more skilled than you are.

And you also have to be able to analyze yourself and your own behaviours, and how they seem to others; realize that you're not infallible or above criticism yourself.

There's a school of parenting pretty much based around "let kids do it, since kids are kids". As agreeable as that may sound, kids who are never challenged, crtiticized or made to deal with consequences of their own actions, don't learn to do that. Which leads to problems when a situation requires them to.

Originally Posted By: Brocktree

Frozen Feet, you mentioned that children are given far less responsibility than they were in previous generations, and I whole-heartedly agree. You explain this observation as the children not being able to handle that additional responsibility. I disagree.

Not quite. That's how the issue superficially seemed to me, but as I tried to point out, it's only one side of the coin.

Children are less apt in taking responsibility since we don't teach it to them, and when as a result they become worse at taking responsibility, we give them even less. It's sort of a vicious cycle.

Originally Posted By: Brocktree

There is nothing wrong with the children today. They are simply victims of an inherently sick society. When you provide children with challenges, additional responsibility, and express your confidence in their abilities, then they will achieve. Unfortunately, society babies kids to such a degree that they never get an opportunity to test their will and strength of character.

Society is its people. If a society is sick, it's because the people are sick. Any fault you can assign to society, is ultimately fault of (some of) its people.

Indeed, I think the way of externalizing responsibility of issues to "the Man" is one of the signs that people are becoming less apt in taking responsibility for themselves.

Yes, there are situations where the environment around you makes it impossible for you to fix things; real cases where things really aren't your fault, and you can do little to change them yourself. But when that attitude becomes the default towards any obstacle, when people start thinking that it's always someone or something else instead of them that has to change, there's a problem.

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Hey Frozen Feet, welcome back!

I was never away, I just didn't have anything to say.

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

I don't think there's any real difference between myself as a teenager and teenagers nowadays. O tempura o mores and all that. I do agree with you that teenagers nowadays are different from teenagers a century or more back. Like you say, schools are treating teenagers like big children when they should be treating them like young adults. Yes, teenagers (and people in general) grow faster when given more responsibility. On the other hand, back then you had "children should be seen and not heard" and overzealous applications of "spare the rod and spoil the child". We've got to find the happy mean between the two.

I agree, we need to find a golden middle way. We might be letting our kids off to easy now, but we must be wary of making things too hard for them too.

I touched on Japan lightly earlier, and they're a good example of things going too far. The school system is really draconic, requiring one to study real hard from early age, and failing to meet its expectations makes it really hard to get a job as well as putting a big social stigma on a person; it's always you who didn't work hard enough.

Hikikomoris, people who fall into isolation and pretty much live in their rooms outside of society, are treated as freaks; but are they really failures, or is the enermous burden placed on them by the society just too much? From what I've read, Japanese society is really reluctant to consider the latter on a high level.

But on the other hand, we can't be too wary. We have to get past a kneejerk reaction of "let kids be kids!" and so on. When it's too cold, the reply to anyone proposing to turn up the heat can't always be "don't, you might set something on fire!"

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

As for the teenagers in your troop giving you a hard time: That might just be due to you being that much older than them. They're more likely to push their boundaries with an obvious authority figure than someone closer to their own age. If the difference is only a couple of years, you're more of a respected peer than a boss. Again, you have to balance between adult guidance that is occasionally required and self-leadership.

This is how I though first as well; I'm older, so I'm not "one of them" anymore. But while it's a part of it, it's not enough to explain it all. As noted, I've not been observing only the kids I lead, but the kids lead by my friend as well.

My friend is a wanderer (17 years old), leading Rangers (between 13 and 15); the same people who, under the old program, would've taken responsibility of my Adventurers (between 10 and 12).

So she's only a few years older than them and very much "one of them" too - but her subjects are as bad towards her as mine are towards me. On a glance, it's very easy to agree that giving them the responsibilites imposed by the older program would've been a bad idea.

Pretty much all adult leaders in our troop agree that 9 to 15 year olds are acting more childish than they did 10 to 20 years ago. As noted, it'd be easy to chalk it up to nostalgia, but I feel the phenomenom is too strong for adult bias to explain it.

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Discipline in the military: Heh. I have a friend who was in the Reserves, and we would constantly debate about whether the military life taught you to be able to react quickly, or just trained to follow orders mindlessly without thinking. We eventually agreed to disagree.

Sounds like a false dichtomy to me. Military life teaches both. More to the point, it teaches to react quickly and without thinking to given orders, which is a really valuable trait in life and death situations. (When you hear "Take cover!", it really doesn't pay to first see if a grenade is really coming; when someone is punching you, the block needs to come instinctively from muscle memory or it will be late.)

It also teaches them to different extents in different fields. The big joke however is that the leader is supposed to give legal and correct orders. Abusing your authority and obedience of your men was highly frowned upon and adviced against. It was made clear to new conscripts that they can and should actively refuse illegal orders.

My disgust towards the army during the latest stages of my conscription was sparked by the observation that the conscripts themselves often ignored key parts of that thinking, subverting what could've been a working system and turning it to a horrific mockery of itself. The peer leaders (one of which I was) did not explain to new conscripts the finer details of military law and then exploited their ignorance to take vengeance on them for how their own peer leaders had exploted theirs, out of some really perverted sense of "fairness"!

Again, I have to stress that this disgust was caused by other conscripts, the grass-and-ground level portion of the organization. I can't, with good conscience, put the blame on FDF and its professional members. They really tried to make us not do it. Our captain personally held a lecture to us about not repeating mistakes of our own leaders to severe the vicious cycle.

So the problem wasn't with military values or practices; it was the selective ignorance of them by the ordinary members of the organization, fueled by a really petty concept of justice.

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

For the record, I still don't understand how polishing your boots help you notice machine gun nests simply because you're now more attentive to details, but whatever.

I don't either. :-D I do understand how it'd teach you to look after your own stuff, though.

---

As a sidenote, I find it funny how so many people started talking of physical discipline, when I barely hinted at it. By discipline, I refer to all sorts of it.

For example, in the army, the extent of physical discipline allowed was extra marching and running laps; anything beyond that required authorization from professional leaders. The most common form of punishment was removal of freedoms and making the garrison a bleak place: if someone fooled around, it meant no more TV, shorter evening breaks, getting back home later during weekends (extended workdays, in other words), having to eat outside, extra cleaning duty, or some such.

Kindergarden level stuff, basically.

It occurs to me writing this that some parents, even if they tried to discipline their kids in these ways, couldn't make them work since they aren't home enough to supervise and enforce them. Hmmm.

On another note, I'm not a proponent of spanking, punching or otherwise beating or directly causing pain to children, ourside proper martial arts training where it's necessary. Of all sorts of physical discipline, I'd like to encourage grabbing children and holding them in place, or picking them up and carrying them away. (In a way that does not cause them agony unless they forcefully resist.) It works for dogs and tiger, it ought to work for us. >=D

[In Half Now]

I don't know if kids or youngsters of today are really that much worse than what people my age were when we were younger. I'm not exactly in active contact with a lot of people, so I can only base my opinions on some brief times. Like when I had a catering type job around half a year ago and we had a bunch of late-teen teenagers working there occasionally. They were all in school and doing a part-time job, so technically, they were pulling their weight in society. Their social skills on the other hand.. for some were badly lacking. They displayed this unfortunately completely ordinary train of thought that: 'I have a right to act however I want towards people and if they think I'm a [censored], too bad!' But it doesn't really make sense, because what they fail to understand is that other people are worth exactly the same amount as they are, and therefore deserve the same amount of respect they demand for their words.

 

Thinking about to back when I was a teenager I have no doubt others acted in the same kind of manner back then too. I couldn't really pinpoint any exact people, mostly because I preferred to keep myself to more mild-mannered company. I would have kept away from the annoying teenagers at work also, if there was a chance. Sometimes there certainly wasn't.

 

Considering children then, I have an eleven-year old little sister and she has some friends in school my mother and I both agree she should never hang around again. Although it's probably a bit steep of an opinion. The few times those friends have come to our place, we've generally been a little shocked at their behaviour and what they've expressed to my little sister afterwards. That.. why should they care about our home, if they want to do something they'll do it and that's that. And my mom and I are just sort of unbelieving: 'Have their parents taught them nothing??' My sister does have friends who apparently have been taught about manners and what you can do and can't do whilst in another person's home. Really wish she'd stop being friends with those tiny bitches-in-the-making. :\

 

And then there are all the youngsters at my congregation and sometimes when I look at them it seems like they actually act better than what I or others my age did. Not that I know all of them very well, but from what I have seen I'm just sort of proud of them. Considering it now, I feel like the Witness parents are probably the only ones in today's society who actively try to teach their children a sense of respect of other people. Believe it or not, it is hugely important. Not every parent or family is exactly alike, but there are some I know better. I guess I could say generally they let their kids be their age, but that the kids also have a duty to learn as well. Just simply stuff, like keep their room clean, or that after playing toys don't get left strewn all over the place - they're more likely to have boundaries.

[Randomizer]

Punishing a kid by sending him or her to their room is different now than 30 years ago. A kid's room has more consumer electronics that the average whole household had back them. You have to spend time disconnecting Internet access and removing cell phones to make it punishment rather than giving them privacy.

[Frozen Feet]

A very good point, Randomizer.

 

Besides, to a reclusive kid like I was, being send to a room wasn't a punishment, it was heaven-sent. Indeed, I often locked into my room myself when I got upset. (Lack of my own room and ability to do that has been driving me crazy ever since.)

 

Which is why I guess my mother has always favored nagging - total loss of peace and privacy through incessant whining. Oh well.

[Dintiradan]

Like Frozen Feet, being sent to my room wasn't a punishment at all, and I didn't a personal computer or cell phone or anything like it growing up. My parents found out that to punish me, they had to confiscate my books. They had to do the same if they wanted me to get any chores done too. I've heard reading too much isn't a common problem, though.

 

EDIT: I'm half-expecting Smoo and TGM to pop up in this thread too.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Dintiradan

Like Frozen Feet, being sent to my room wasn't a punishment at all, and I didn't a personal computer or cell phone or anything like it growing up. My parents found out that to punish me, they had to confiscate my books. They had to do the same if they wanted me to get any chores done too. I've heard reading too much isn't a common problem, though.

Not only was this very much the story of my childhood, but when I wasn't being an intolerable child my mother confessed that she had a very similar relationship to her parents.

—Alorael, who comes from a long and honorable line of nerds. And each generation in that line has lamented how much worse kids are now going back into early antiquity.

[Student of Trinity]

Yeah, I don't know, Frozen Feet. Kids in North America have certainly gotten fatter, but I'm not sure they're less responsible or the rest of it. And I can't say that young Germans seem particularly slack or self-centered. It's possible that you're seeing a local Finnish phenomenon. And it might not be that today's young Finns are so bad, compared to the rest of the world; it might be that they were unusually responsible and mature for their ages, a decade ago. I'm not sure 13-year-olds would have had much joy leading 10-year-olds even back when I was either age, in Canada.

 

Could the collapse of the Soviet bloc have had something to do with it? That was 20 years ago now, of course. But I think it often takes things like that a generation to sink in. It did all happen on your doorstep.

 

 

 

 

[Frozen Feet]

It's certainly possible. There was also a severe economic recession between 1990 and 1993, which would've coincided with the early childhood of people my age. The people I lead now would've been living a period of economic growth during theirs.

 

But such causes and effects are not insular to Finland, which is why I'm interested of how widespread such phenomena are in other industrialized countries. As noted, in China and Japan at least some similar things are happening. I'm not sure USA is untouched by it either.

[Brocktree]

Originally Posted By: Frozen Feet

Children are less apt in taking responsibility since we don't teach it to them, and when as a result they become worse at taking responsibility, we give them even less. It's sort of a vicious cycle.

Perhaps. I actually feel that it went the other way. Children have been denied the opportunities to 'grow up', and therefore remain stunted emotionally and socially stunted. Children have done nothing to deserve having their opportunities withdrawn, it is merely a reflection of a weak and fearful society that has on obsession with covering their precious children in bubble wrap.

Quote:

Society is its people. If a society is sick, it's because the people are sick. Any fault you can assign to society, is ultimately fault of (some of) its people.

Precisely. Children have relatively little agency over their own actions, and are a product of their own upbringing. Every behaviour and attitude they display is adopted from *adults* (first hand, or second hand). Ergo. Children are the most honest reflection of society. If children are rude, lazy, and have poor discipline, then it stands to reason that this is because adults are rude, lazy, and have poor discipline.

As a person who works in a customer service job, I will say this. All of the traits adults whine about being present in kids (a disrespect for authority, lack of discipline, impatience, rudeness, think they are the centre of the universe) are also present in the adult population. This includes the middle-aged and elderly stratas of society, who grew up with corporal punishment. Some of these people are just pure pricks. I would have thought that all the beatings they received at the hands of the nuns would have made them nice and placid. "Yes Mother superior!".

I also have juniors at work who shoulder more responsibility than I had at their age, and whom demonstrate themselves to be both reliable and respectful of authority. Again, provide children with opportunities and express your confidence in them, and they will achieve.

I'm convinced that there is no problem with children. There *is* a problem with adults, however.

Quote:

Yes, there are situations where the environment around you makes it impossible for you to fix things; real cases where things really aren't your fault, and you can do little to change them yourself. But when that attitude becomes the default towards any obstacle, when people start thinking that it's always someone or something else instead of them that has to change, there's a problem.

I agree with you regarding adults. However, children lack the same agency over their own actions. *Adults* need to change and improve their own behaviour, before they can demand likewise of their children. Otherwise it is the old 'Do as I say, not as I do'.

[Randomizer]

Originally Posted By: Brocktree

This includes the middle-aged and elderly stratas of society, who grew up with corporal punishment. Some of these people are just pure pricks. I would have thought that all the beatings they received at the hands of the nuns would have made them nice and placid. "Yes Mother superior!".

Just look at all the Republican leaders of the last few decades that espoused family values and decried the immorality of the Democrats.

Newt Gingrich was a serial adulterer that got sued by his first wife for repeatedly failing to pay alimony while he was Speaker of the House.

President George W. Bush's brother during his divorce hearing admitted to accepting prostitutes on his business trips to Japan. The Bush family demonized the poor ex-wife who got cheated on by her Bush husband.

Republican California governator Arnold Swartzenager cheating on his wife.

All the Republican congressmen that spent our country even deeper into debt to get re-elected.

[Frozen Feet]

I agree with you regarding adults. However, children lack the same agency over their own actions. *Adults* need to change and improve their own behaviour, before they can demand likewise of their children. Otherwise it is the old 'Do as I say, not as I do'.[/i]

 

True, but there's a point after which it's easier to change the kids than it is to change adults. Some things need to be learned early, or at least are learned easier then. The change pretty much has to take place simultaneously.

[Brocktree]

But you can't create and sustain any meaningful changes in a child, if you don't first change adults. Given that adults have agency over their behaviour, I only think that it is reasonable that *they* change, before expecting children to do likewise.

[Lilith]

in general adults don't so much "change" as "die of old age"

[ĐªгŦĦ Єяŋϊε]

am i the only one that started to read this, saw the length of the posts and just left?

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Darth Ernie

am i the only one that started to read this, saw the length of the posts and just left?

I got halfway into each of FF's. By the time I quit, I needed to shave.

[Karoka]

Originally Posted By: Darth Ernie

am i the only one that started to read this, saw the length of the posts and just left?

I didn't read it at all...

[Enraged Slith]

Honestly, if you aren't interested in reading what he has to say, then you don't have to participate in the discussion.

[Sarachim]

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

Honestly, if you aren't interested in reading what he has to say, then you don't have to participate in the discussion.

I might be interested in what he has to say, but believe it could have been said more succinctly. Respecting the time of the people who read what you write is both good sense and good manners.

[keira]

Originally Posted By: Sarachim

Originally Posted By: Enraged Slith

Honestly, if you aren't interested in reading what he has to say, then you don't have to participate in the discussion.

I might be interested in what he has to say, but believe it could have been said more succinctly. Respecting the time of the people who read what you write is both good sense and good manners.

Reading all of what people have to say is good sense and good manners.

[Lilith]

Originally Posted By: Sylae

Reading all of what people have to say is good sense and good manners.

*double-posts the Aeneid, complains that people only read through it once*

[Goldengirl]

Originally Posted By: Sylae

Reading all of what people have to say is good sense and good manners.

tl;dr.

The part I did read is that we should "read all of what people have," and personally, I think that breaking into people's libraries and reading all of that is criminally unfeasible. You would definitely get caught before you could finish everything.

[Alorael at Large]

You don't have to read everything everyone has said, but in a topic like this you do need to read through at least the posts of the people who are engaged in argument on a specific point. You can think of it as the subthread within the thread.

 

—Alorael, who believes adults can change. They just usually don't, because it's easier to think that kids are worse than you were than it is to believe that you are worse than the kids are now.

[Dantius]

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Sylae

Reading all of what people have to say is good sense and good manners.

*double-posts the Aeneid, complains that people only read through it once*

Classic.

[Alorael at Large]

Originally Posted By: Dantius

Originally Posted By: Lilith

Originally Posted By: Sylae

Reading all of what people have to say is good sense and good manners.

*double-posts the Aeneid, complains that people only read through it once*

Classic.

Classical.

—Alorael, who feels better about not being able to post single word posts in posts like this. Not a lot better, though; meta-commentary isn't actually helpful.