Just a few points...
Given the intensity of the responses by kis, I'm reminded of my old necessity of clearing up a few salient oversights and points I made.
Quoting directly:
Way too much of the wrong emphasis is being placed on children nowadays. Too many excuses for not striving for excellence makes these kids unready for the real world.
I would agree with you on what George Carlin has described as the "child fetish" in modern culture about the over-value and protection of children. And while I believe that you may be right about kids being ill-prepared for the real world, I feel that not striving for excellence is a SYMPTOM, not a CAUSE.
In my experience, most children are not ready for the real world because they have very little experience with it; any experience at all is usually cold, hard, and done with little preparation or mentoring, as in the cases of people in the lower economic ranges of the nation. I remember for years basing my perceptions of the real world through television with its exaggerated fantasy, selective focus in journalism, and santized content; every other avenue, including transportation, employment and socializing was heavily regulated by authority figures. Getting out into the real world was quite an awkward and humiliating experience that i felt could have been less so had the system been more comprehensive and hands on versus repetition, drilling, and regurgitation of material. But, given the lack of adequate research on the education system, I can only give this as an idea and personal opinion rather than fact.
The apathy people vaguely relate to is probably tied to excessive economic prosperity.
They lack age-appropriate maturity and coping skills for age-appropriate issues.
When I made my ageism comments, I was referring to the automatic assumption that age = maturity. Part of this reason is because age DOES impact cerebral functions, so younger children do lack certain decision making abilities. But even adults make dumb-ass decisions (and I've made many of them) in spite of their age, indicating that perhaps there are more tools required for good decisions than just being grown up. Maybe we forgo using these tools and expect our age to simply "activate" them when we're old enough.
I say this having known a 10 year-old boy with a 40 year-old outlook on life, and a 31 year-old man who behaved like a 14 year-old girl. Just to name a few.
What's wrong with raising your children to respect (not necessarily agree with) authority? What's wrong with teaching your kids to respect themselves and dress and behave like self-respecting people do?
Because the traditional mode of respect is based on fear or intimidation, although it is not ALWAYS so. Parents often face rebellion in their adolescent children in the form of whistle-blowing: exposing your hipocrysies that they've mentally documented over the years for the time when they need them for an argument. Parents are notoriously reticent to admit fault over major issues, because doing so indicates a weak front that softens control. They quite often realize much later that they made a mistake after the punishment is doled out; by this time, however, the trust is damaged. Ask anybody released from prison years after a wrongful conviction...how much do THEY trust the authorities?
Plus, most parents don't teach their kids to respect themselves; they rather teach them to actively seek out their appeasement. Children are WOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEFULLY underconfident, mostly because, I feel, that confidence is seen as dangerous and easily useful in the ways of mischief, which is true on many counts. If a child were to see itself as an actual person with unique and possibly unlimited potential, they might be unwilling to accept the boundaries placed on them creatively and academically, especially the ones that lack sufficient credit to implement. Even well-intentioned parents have plans for their kids that often don't include the child's plans dreams and goals for themselves.
Besides, if the saying "Respect is given to those who give respect" is true, then there are a HELL of a lot of people, especially parents, who don't deserve it.
I've done it with my children and they're not saints, but they are very respectful, properly dressed for public, well-spoken intelligent children.
The only question is what are the side-effects of the conditioning used to make them that way? The most well-bred, well-educated and well-respected members of society the world over are often the ones with the most abberrant and unusual sexual and emotional proclivities. Members of the BDSM fetish world would probably agree that many powerful, intelligent and confident men in the business world who visit them get off on being humiliated, subjugated and even being beaten, which, if based on personal preference is probably harmless, but if a result of childhood experiences, is harmful. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOUR CHILDREN ARE LIKE THIS! But whereas you may have lucked out, others may have not, and God only knows how much damage they do to themselves and others.
If that means I'm part of a Protestant-driven pack mentality, I'd wear it on my forehead if necessary.
The pack mentality I'm talking about is behavior genetically ingrained in all social animals, which both humans and wolves are (to name a few), which is why I used the analogy. The Protestant comment was based on the Protestant Work Ethic, which I feel exploits the social hierarchy for questionable purposes through questionable actions for a desired effect at the EXPENSE of individuality, which I feel is actually BENEFICIAL to society rather than detrimental. In general. So nature gives us the pack mentality, Protestantism only perverts it.
You're not their friend, you are the parent.
Which is why they trust their friends over their parents. There's something (and not necessarily permissiveness) that makes them warm up to them and not the folks. I think it's because a (true) friend cares WHO you are, a parent mostly cares about WHAT you are, especially to them.
Keep in mind that a friend can and often does hit you with the most painful lessons of your life. Why do we listen? Maybe because most of the time friend's judgment isn't usually discredited by a lifetime of over-reaction and automatic authority. When a friend calls you on something, its because they care enough about you to do whatever is necessary to help you; when a parent does the same, it's usually to provoke a behavioral response that will please them.
No one has to subject themself to kissing someone's ring. If that's what people think that's what I mean by respecting authority, they are mistaken.
Even if it isn't yours, it is to many others, which is why we have to be careful.
How many of those 400 kids just gave up and became deadbeats? How many of them are in the streets right now? In jail? Became teen parents? How many of them are even still alive? My son could have easily become one of them. Why didn't he? I didn't accept excuses even from him. I expected his very best--that, my dear, is what I define as excellence!
A noble effort on your part; but I wonder how many people actually consider what driving someone towards excellence does to their psyche. People are not all the same and where one child may thrive and enjoy being pushed, another can be emotionally crippled. As I've said in past posts, you have to gauge what kind of personality a child has befor you approach them with a regimen. Everyone has a breaking point, and if an ehausted person is pushed without reason, they can (and often do) snap.
There is absolutely nothing wrong like dressing like a human being. You will be received and respected more for your opininions if you don't present yourself like you just fell out of a garbage dumpster.
On this point you're quite right. About the only thing I can aruge about has nothing to do with you, but in general. Dressing like a human being differs from economic status to culture. What may be a clean, professional and modest dress for say, your daughter (assuming you had one) might get her slanderized or publicly flogged in another part of the world. Not to mentio the fact that if you were to dress the same person in different clothes, they would be treated differently by others. So perhaps the dependency on attire is more heavily accentuated than it should be. But again, this is a general musing and has veeeeeeeery little to do with your statement.
Given the intensity of the responses by kis, I'm reminded of my old necessity of clearing up a few salient oversights and points I made.
Quoting directly:
Way too much of the wrong emphasis is being placed on children nowadays. Too many excuses for not striving for excellence makes these kids unready for the real world.
I would agree with you on what George Carlin has described as the "child fetish" in modern culture about the over-value and protection of children. And while I believe that you may be right about kids being ill-prepared for the real world, I feel that not striving for excellence is a SYMPTOM, not a CAUSE.
In my experience, most children are not ready for the real world because they have very little experience with it; any experience at all is usually cold, hard, and done with little preparation or mentoring, as in the cases of people in the lower economic ranges of the nation. I remember for years basing my perceptions of the real world through television with its exaggerated fantasy, selective focus in journalism, and santized content; every other avenue, including transportation, employment and socializing was heavily regulated by authority figures. Getting out into the real world was quite an awkward and humiliating experience that i felt could have been less so had the system been more comprehensive and hands on versus repetition, drilling, and regurgitation of material. But, given the lack of adequate research on the education system, I can only give this as an idea and personal opinion rather than fact.
The apathy people vaguely relate to is probably tied to excessive economic prosperity.
They lack age-appropriate maturity and coping skills for age-appropriate issues.
When I made my ageism comments, I was referring to the automatic assumption that age = maturity. Part of this reason is because age DOES impact cerebral functions, so younger children do lack certain decision making abilities. But even adults make dumb-ass decisions (and I've made many of them) in spite of their age, indicating that perhaps there are more tools required for good decisions than just being grown up. Maybe we forgo using these tools and expect our age to simply "activate" them when we're old enough.
I say this having known a 10 year-old boy with a 40 year-old outlook on life, and a 31 year-old man who behaved like a 14 year-old girl. Just to name a few.
What's wrong with raising your children to respect (not necessarily agree with) authority? What's wrong with teaching your kids to respect themselves and dress and behave like self-respecting people do?
Because the traditional mode of respect is based on fear or intimidation, although it is not ALWAYS so. Parents often face rebellion in their adolescent children in the form of whistle-blowing: exposing your hipocrysies that they've mentally documented over the years for the time when they need them for an argument. Parents are notoriously reticent to admit fault over major issues, because doing so indicates a weak front that softens control. They quite often realize much later that they made a mistake after the punishment is doled out; by this time, however, the trust is damaged. Ask anybody released from prison years after a wrongful conviction...how much do THEY trust the authorities?
Plus, most parents don't teach their kids to respect themselves; they rather teach them to actively seek out their appeasement. Children are WOOOOOOOEEEEEEEEFULLY underconfident, mostly because, I feel, that confidence is seen as dangerous and easily useful in the ways of mischief, which is true on many counts. If a child were to see itself as an actual person with unique and possibly unlimited potential, they might be unwilling to accept the boundaries placed on them creatively and academically, especially the ones that lack sufficient credit to implement. Even well-intentioned parents have plans for their kids that often don't include the child's plans dreams and goals for themselves.
Besides, if the saying "Respect is given to those who give respect" is true, then there are a HELL of a lot of people, especially parents, who don't deserve it.
I've done it with my children and they're not saints, but they are very respectful, properly dressed for public, well-spoken intelligent children.
The only question is what are the side-effects of the conditioning used to make them that way? The most well-bred, well-educated and well-respected members of society the world over are often the ones with the most abberrant and unusual sexual and emotional proclivities. Members of the BDSM fetish world would probably agree that many powerful, intelligent and confident men in the business world who visit them get off on being humiliated, subjugated and even being beaten, which, if based on personal preference is probably harmless, but if a result of childhood experiences, is harmful. I AM NOT SAYING THAT YOUR CHILDREN ARE LIKE THIS! But whereas you may have lucked out, others may have not, and God only knows how much damage they do to themselves and others.
If that means I'm part of a Protestant-driven pack mentality, I'd wear it on my forehead if necessary.
The pack mentality I'm talking about is behavior genetically ingrained in all social animals, which both humans and wolves are (to name a few), which is why I used the analogy. The Protestant comment was based on the Protestant Work Ethic, which I feel exploits the social hierarchy for questionable purposes through questionable actions for a desired effect at the EXPENSE of individuality, which I feel is actually BENEFICIAL to society rather than detrimental. In general. So nature gives us the pack mentality, Protestantism only perverts it.
You're not their friend, you are the parent.
Which is why they trust their friends over their parents. There's something (and not necessarily permissiveness) that makes them warm up to them and not the folks. I think it's because a (true) friend cares WHO you are, a parent mostly cares about WHAT you are, especially to them.
Keep in mind that a friend can and often does hit you with the most painful lessons of your life. Why do we listen? Maybe because most of the time friend's judgment isn't usually discredited by a lifetime of over-reaction and automatic authority. When a friend calls you on something, its because they care enough about you to do whatever is necessary to help you; when a parent does the same, it's usually to provoke a behavioral response that will please them.
No one has to subject themself to kissing someone's ring. If that's what people think that's what I mean by respecting authority, they are mistaken.
Even if it isn't yours, it is to many others, which is why we have to be careful.
How many of those 400 kids just gave up and became deadbeats? How many of them are in the streets right now? In jail? Became teen parents? How many of them are even still alive? My son could have easily become one of them. Why didn't he? I didn't accept excuses even from him. I expected his very best--that, my dear, is what I define as excellence!
A noble effort on your part; but I wonder how many people actually consider what driving someone towards excellence does to their psyche. People are not all the same and where one child may thrive and enjoy being pushed, another can be emotionally crippled. As I've said in past posts, you have to gauge what kind of personality a child has befor you approach them with a regimen. Everyone has a breaking point, and if an ehausted person is pushed without reason, they can (and often do) snap.
There is absolutely nothing wrong like dressing like a human being. You will be received and respected more for your opininions if you don't present yourself like you just fell out of a garbage dumpster.
On this point you're quite right. About the only thing I can aruge about has nothing to do with you, but in general. Dressing like a human being differs from economic status to culture. What may be a clean, professional and modest dress for say, your daughter (assuming you had one) might get her slanderized or publicly flogged in another part of the world. Not to mentio the fact that if you were to dress the same person in different clothes, they would be treated differently by others. So perhaps the dependency on attire is more heavily accentuated than it should be. But again, this is a general musing and has veeeeeeeery little to do with your statement.
