Are the Police and Courts Just a Substitute for Dads and/or Discipline?
A reader sent me an article today about a mother who turned her son in to the police for opening a Christmas gift early. I was surprised that the story was such a big deal that the Associated Press picked it up. To me, it seems mundane. Afterall, I have worked in places where parents drop the kids off at juvenile detention if they come in late from a date. Why do parents call the police and/or contact the authorities instead of using discipline? Because no one else will do the job of teaching the kids consequences. For example, in the case of the mother with the Christmas gift-grabbing boy, she states:
"My grandmother went out of her way to lay away a toy and paid on this thing for months," said the boy's mother, Brandi Ervin. "It was only to teach my son a lesson. He's been going through life doing things ... and getting away with it."
My question isn't, "why would a mother call the cops on her own son for such a petty "crime" but rather, "why is her son going through life getting away with things such as the time he took a swing at a police officer at school?" Maybe the woman in the story is a single mother with no one to help her with her son, maybe there is a father but he is afraid to discipline for fear of being hauled himself to court for child abuse, or maybe the community does not see fit to dole out consequences to kids who push the limits--except to expel them from school to get rid of the problem. Whatever the reason, expect the police and courts to continue being the disciplinarians for our kids, given that consequences for one's behavior is out of fashion.
Update: Joanne Jacobs on Parenting by Police at the Volokh Conspiracy.
"My grandmother went out of her way to lay away a toy and paid on this thing for months," said the boy's mother, Brandi Ervin. "It was only to teach my son a lesson. He's been going through life doing things ... and getting away with it."
My question isn't, "why would a mother call the cops on her own son for such a petty "crime" but rather, "why is her son going through life getting away with things such as the time he took a swing at a police officer at school?" Maybe the woman in the story is a single mother with no one to help her with her son, maybe there is a father but he is afraid to discipline for fear of being hauled himself to court for child abuse, or maybe the community does not see fit to dole out consequences to kids who push the limits--except to expel them from school to get rid of the problem. Whatever the reason, expect the police and courts to continue being the disciplinarians for our kids, given that consequences for one's behavior is out of fashion.
Update: Joanne Jacobs on Parenting by Police at the Volokh Conspiracy.
posted by Helen at 12:27 PM
50 Comments:
It's a sign of the times. As morality has been pushed out of our culture in favor of "it's not my fault, my: 1.biology; 2. environment; 3. someone else’s fault” (take your pick) attitude. And, of course, fatherhood itself has been derided and degraded for years. Why should we surprised by the current state of affairs?
Dr. Smith,
At risk of seeming harsh, isn't it possible that the mother might be a little at fault here? When I heard about it on the news this morning, I remember wondering why the police didn't lock the mother up for wasting their time. I mean the kid tried to punch a police officer, and they're still getting him a Game Boy? Even afterwards, rather than just taking all of the kid's presents to the Salvation Army (assuming he'd opened them), they bring in someone else to be the bad guy.
Bill Dalasio,
Yes, the mother may be at fault. As I said, there are no consequences anymore for much of behavior and it falls to someone else to do the dirty work. However, in my experience, often it is not just parents who are to blame. Our society has made parents afraid to discipline and filled people's heads with "kids first" and other slogans as well as fear of disciplining children. Remember, society has made parents and discipline the bad guy also. There is a lot of fear of using discipline of any kind (except time out which does not seem to work for many kids) because of the news and horror stories about parents who are arrested for slapping a kid, etc. Mom may not know where else to turn--but you are correct, that giving this kid an expensive Game Boy hardly seems like the answer.
Fear of disciplining is pervasive and problematic. I am reminded of a Simpsons episode in which a pair of parents take their bratty boy to a counselor, saying, "We've tried nothing and we're out of ideas!"
Res ipsit loquitur.
Fair enough, Dr. Smith
In answer to your question, I think this is indeed a consequence of no dads in the house. Well, at least that is partly responsible. The other part is the notion that children are born good and grow up better if parents would just leave them alone. I disabuse several parents of this happy but incorrect notion every week.
Trey
It bothers me that parents feel society's institutions (like the police and the schools) exist to do their jobs for them rather than taking responsibility for their own kids. Parenting means more than taking credit for having cute, smart, or athletic kids. It is hard and sometimes thankless work.
I think our culture gives parents permission to avoid disciplining their children. It's certainly easier to indulge our kids rather than discipline them. That can be appealing to those of us with 2-career households and fast-paced lifestyles. But just because it's easier doesn't make it a good idea.
DRJ,
It is not just permission to avoid disciplining kids, it is actual disapproval and fear of jail time. I remember when my child was three and tried to stick a balloon in her mouth at a store. I told her not to do it again and she did, I snatched it out of her hand, told her in a loud voice that she had not listened and took her out of the store. The moms standing around thought I was pretty awful. I could go on with anecdotes but the truth is, our society sends the message to adults: never be mean to a child. It results from our overindulgent therapy-centered society that believes that killing kids with kindness and love is the answer, it isn't in many cases. I agree that some parents need to discipline their kids and take the time to teach skills in behavior etc. However, our society does not make it easy. Add to that the sense of entitlement that kids have today with messages from the media about how important they are and you have a recipe for irresponsibility and bad behavior.
they should take away his gameboy.
badly behaved kids should not be rewarded. take it and give it to charity for some really deserving kid that will teach him..
In defense of the mother, what should she do if she TRIED to discipline the boy and the boy just ignored her?
I used to live across the street from a juvenille delinquent with a PINS (Person In Need of Supervision) order against him, and that was basically the problem that his mother faced. She simply didn't have the necessary leverage to make him do what she wanted without invoking the police and courts. The fact that she was rather nasty herself and the entire household (including a string of live-in boyfriends) was pretty high conflict didn't help either.
The ultimate leverage would be for her to break off the relationship and simply have nothing to do with him. In other words, she could have thrown him out of the house. That's probably what would have happened 120 years ago. However, this puts past parental investment in the child at risk and, besides, I doubt that society would allow it now.
Bullshit - our "society" isn't afraid of "punishing" people.
Our "society" will turn into the SS at the drop of a hat if the right theatrics and frauds are involved.
anonymous 4:14:
The state is not afraid of punishing people, if the crime is of a certain nature such as drugs or threats against bureaucrats, or for a hate crime etc. but people in general will not punish a kid--how many schools do you know that have any real discipline? In many communities, if kids do something wrong, no one does much, for fear the parents or others will get upset and sue them. Just try disciplining someone else's kid in a public setting and see where that gets you.
In the snotty white trash school I went to some cowardly male teachers arranged for an older student to assault a student they dodn't like, for an opinion comment he made in a conversation that occurred off of school property about one of the teachers.
The cowardly, arrogant, immature teachers all kept their jobs. The worthless leeches are probably still nursing off the taxpayers' teet.
I think this is a hoax, or at the very least, a lame attempt by a mother and police office to teach the kid a lesson. (There was no crime and any police officer with two brain cells would have known that.)
I'd say it is encouraging that this ridiculousness is rare enough to:
a. Get reported
b. Be viewed by most people as ridiculous.
I would agree that single parent homes are problematical. Every child I've ever known that spent any significant portion of their formative years in a single parent home have had serious emotional issues.
But the vast majority of people still do a reasonable job of teaching their kids responsibility and how to conduct themselves acceptably in today's society.
Not perfectly and society itself sends many confusing, contradictory messages, but people are people and do the best they can. Every generation seems to think that the next one is doomed to failure and chaos. My parents generation thought that about me...and probably deservedly so. But I seem to have turned out all right.
I look at the kids these days, see the way they dress, their apparent lack of respect and disregard for authority, their rudeness and lack of discipline and I think...the same things that my parent's generation thought about me when I was a teenager.
I think it's a good thing that something like this is out of the ordinary enough to get some attention. We should worry when it happens, but no one notices.
Dr. Helen,
I agree that society discourages and sometimes even punishes parents who discipline their children but it still comes down to personal choice. As a parent, do raise my children to have self-discipline or do I let them go wild? I think many parents know the difference but choose to be permissive because it's easier, especially when the kids are younger.
If we accept your suggestion, we are left with a society where parents have been trained to believe that indulging children is always good and discipline is always bad. Undoubtedly there are people who believe that, but I suspect there are fewer now than there were in the 1960's or 1970's. Deep down, I think many parents know (or soon learn) that children need rules, structure, guidance, discipline, etc., but too many choose the easy way out.
The kid probably doesn't have a father around to lay down the law--not that his mom couldn't do it, but some kids need a more demonstrable physical presence.
I remember being at a public pool with my brood. I told my son not to run around the pool. He was warned. The second time, he was sent to our chairs and he sobbed while everyone else swam. Oh, you should have seen the death rays shot at me by other parents.
You know what? My kids don't run by the pool and they respect the rules, period.
But if you don't teach a kid consequences at two, 12 will be hell.
Watching the COPs show is just what you describe, Dr. Helen. The police are the father figure. It's crazy. Grown men and women act like children and the police act like tired parents.
Of course you can go too far with the authoritarian parenting style. I have seen kids raised like that become lying, thieving, deceptive, backstabbing weasels because they grew to sneak around their whole lives.
There's a lot we don't know about this story, although "attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" seems to be the lynch-'im-up-pin. Makes one wonder who came up with this diagnosis. I mean, this stuff is very easy to catch in middle-teacher-class schools these days, maybe even easier than catching the common cold.
Meanwhile, I'd like to gently analyze the mother (please wait...analyzing...) and I've come up with this; being mom to a boy is not her (Brandi's) calling, primarily because her son will live up to her exceedingly negative expectations. Come to think of it, he's already halfway there.
When not summoning the police, imagine the messages, the subtle and overt judgments accompanying the 12-year-olds' every misstep. Next, imagine trying to please frustrated and/or self-loathing perfectionists.
When a medication doesn't work, there's a pretty good chance the evaluation was wrong to begin with. And failing that, "Brandi" declares, "There's no need for him to act this way" - which takes us directly back to the first cause.
Leaving her son - right or wrong - without one reliable advocate. Just confused bystanders.
Al Most
I'm the father of a 12 year old boy and a 6 year old boy. I don't have too much of a problem gently disciplining other people's kids (verbally, of course), even in public (even in front of their parents), though my wife wants to reel me in a bit.
I've got a 16 year old nephew "on strike." His mom (my sister) found out he thinks pot isn't awful and occasionally smokes it. She suspended all privileges except breathing. He now refuses to do simple chores or any schoolwork, and simply sits in the office when at school. It’s a classic power struggle. My money is on him.
He's a 16 year old. His brain isn't fully developed. He's stubborn. He's got lots of energy and even more time. With a "what are you gonna do?" attitude, his passive aggressiveness isn't aggressive enough to get the authorities involved. Not that my sister would necessarily mind the authorities (principal, cops, military recruiter) getting involved-- I think she would welcome it. I think that both of these-- the losing battle with a 16 year old and the desire to involve other authority, are the wrong track.
The problem with involving authority is that they don’t have the same regard for or goals for your child as you do. A principal has a school to run, a cop has order to maintain, and instilling character comes second to those. Why? Because instilling character can be messy and take awhile.
Playing jailer to a 16 year old for the next year or two, only to release him very p.o.’d onto the rest of society, really isn’t accomplishing anything worthwhile. I (not a forensic psychologist, mind you) would guess that 16 is too late for this sort of punitive discipline. Which brings me, FINALLY, to my point.
While I’ve not done an etymological study, it appears that discipline and disciple have the same root, the same idea. I think that what kids need at a certain age is friendship and modeling, or at least what they will perceive as such. Being heavy handed isn’t going to work. An adult who is interested in and invested in them has a lot of (figurative) weight to throw around, and mere approval or disapproval will serve two really great purposes- to gently guide and to allow room for mistakes (which, believe it or not, are natural and to be expected).
My mother had me arrested when I was 14 for raising my voice to her. The police considered it assault. She left me in jail for three days until a hearing before a judge, at which point she dropped the charges. Further, my father sat back and watched it happen. This was just one of many similar incidents.
It amazes me that parents don't think their grown children will remember these kind of things. When they are old, broke, and Social Security is a memory, they can subsist on cat food for all I care.
What comes around goes around.
cornholio-
What kind of joke of a police force has the time and resources to arrest and process someone for a common family argument? And if they applied the "raising voice is assault" standard to the situation you could have cross-filed charges on her. Amazing. Some people just love pissing taxpayer money down the drain.
We must teach children responsibility and that there are consequences to their choices?
Well, hell yeah. But parents (and you) blaming society is modeling the exact opposite of that behavior.
If someone chooses to become a parent and then chooses to not discipline those children, then it's the parent's fault. You don't get to abdicate that responsibility just because some folks might give you dirty looks if you try to discipline your child. Surely your mama told you that, just because everybody else is jumping off bridges doesn't mean you should.
"Blaming society" for these things models the exact behavior that we complain about in today's youth.
Back to fathers for a minute. It's been my unscientific observation that one predominant difference between the care of a mother and the care of a father is that mothers are negotiable; fathers are not. Of course, that's not universal, in the rare case it's just the opposite. But the fundamental thing to remember is that both kinds of "love" are necessary in a child's life.
Those who dismiss their spouse thinking that "I can raise a child just fine" are fooling themselves and damaging their children in the choice.
Anonymous 7:56:
Of course parents should discipline their kids, I never said they shouldn't. Of course dirty looks don't matter, I ignore those. However, in my experience with parents and the courts, I have found that it doesn't always matter what parents/authority figures think. I had a father whose daughter had been staying out late and when she stayed out all night, he slapped her. Guess what, he was arrested. In other cases, I have seen kids who want to get back at mom or dad who told them no, they tell the school mom or dad is abusing them. Child Protective services is at the house threatening to take the kids. Our laws and "agencies" are undermining parental authority everyday, making it harder to parent kids. Try telling a public school how you want your kid parented. Good luck if you can do it. My point is not that parent's shouldn't discipline, they should, regardless. However, our society is not making it easier to do so, it is making parental authority a joke and the kids know it. I had a kid--three years old come in my office, pull out the phone and call 911 to tell them I was abusing him--why? I dared to ask him to take a few tests during our session. A three year old knows how to manipulate the system--do you think a crafty 15 year old does not?
"My mother had me arrested when I was 14 for raising my voice to her. The police considered it assault. She left me in jail for three days until a hearing before a judge, at which point she dropped the charges. Further, my father sat back and watched it happen. This was just one of many similar incidents."
Cornholio, that was simple gender bigotry. What kind of Neanderthals are running the justice system in your area, that would see a 14 year old boy as the aggressor against a grown woman? - especially in the case of an obviously abusive mother - look at the effect she had on your father's behavior in the situation.
The event I described earlier was in Clearfield, Utah (Davis County Sheriff responded to the call). As far as cross-filing charges, that didn't really occur to me as I was being handcuffed. At 14 years old, I don't have a firm grasp of the law.
Depending on the size of the 14 YO, he might need a stint in jail. If I had raised my voice to my mom, my dad would have kicked my ass for talking to his woman like that. But that was a different era. Now kids have power over their parents, so being rude to them is normal and bears little consequence.
Did it ever occur to you cornholio that you were a shithead when you were 14 and maybe that was their last straw with you? That your father sat back and watched it happen leads me to beleive he agreed with your mom that you deserved some extraordinary punishment. I'm sure their intent was that you *would* remember it, so you wouldn't do it again.
Sgt Ted,
Did it ever occur to you that the father sat back because he weas a pussy-whip and that the mother was out of control? Any father worth a shit would have beat the bitch down that tried to have his son dragged off to jail. (Metaphorically speaking only - dumped her out in the snow is actually what I mean; she was clearly not worth going to jail over on assault charges.)It's obvious where his loyalties were - not where they belonged. His son was his flesh and blood, something a wife can never ever be. He should have looked after his family first, and his wife next.
If the kid needed a heavier hand, that was for him to do, not a job to fob off on the police.
Jim,
I would hope that most husbands would consider their wives to be their family.
I was exaggerating. In China, yes; in Arab countires, not really. It varies by culture of course, and until recently under Common Law wives were not really family members as far as inheritance of real property was concerned, which was why it would revert to another male in the husband's family upon his death rather than to the widow - since it was always family rahter tha his private property. I ahppen always to have lived in comunity property states, so naturally I think that ssytem is superior - a marruiage is seen as a corporation owning and property is seen as belonging t the individuals pooled in the marriage.
My personal; experience was that my family and I treated my ex-wife like a family member, but she didn't see herself as one - but that was just a personal thing of hers. it made lots of probelms, but again, that was just an individual glitch.
We must teach children responsibility and that there are consequences to their choices?
Of course nowadays you have to teach adults responsibility for their actions and choices when those choices are criminal or tortious. Sometimes very old, very stupid and immature adults.
Back to fathers for a minute. It's been my unscientific observation that one predominant difference between the care of a mother and the care of a father is that mothers are negotiable; fathers are not. Of course, that's not universal, in the rare case it's just the opposite. But the fundamental thing to remember is that both kinds of "love" are necessary in a child's life.
It depends on the parenting style -whether its authoritarian or democratic. If the style is authoritarian one or both parents may be that way.
Although when I become a parent I've generally discounted the authoritarian style of parenting because I don't want to raise liars, weasels, thieves, swindlers, etc.
If I had raised my voice to my mom, my dad would have kicked my ass for talking to his woman like that.
And if I was an older brother in a family liked that I would tune up my father for using violence for a stupid, BS reason like that. If someone raises their voice to me or lies, etc. to me you can bet I'm going to raise my voice to them, regardless of who's daughter, "woman", etc. it is. These fake-chivalrous types kill me - from what I've seen, more than half the time they're abusing the women in their life.
Did it ever occur to you cornholio that you were a shithead when you were 14 and maybe that was their last straw with you? That your father sat back and watched it happen leads me to beleive he agreed with your mom that you deserved some extraordinary punishment. I'm sure their intent was that you *would* remember it, so you wouldn't do it again.
Did it ever occur to you that all people are shitheads, but if you punish them excessively, or for completely BS reasons, or commit crimes and torts in the process - that you're going to answer for it?
Hey SGT Ted,
I appreciate your point on instilling discipline. Please bear in mind that I mentioned this incident in my life as it pertained to the issue at hand. There was a GREAT deal more over the years (which I won't go into here). I know when I behaved badly, especially in hindsight and with the benefit of adult judgement, and this was not one of those cases.
My point is that parents need to remember that they are responsible for their actions. They may not be accountable to the state, but they will ultimately be held accountable by their children when they are grown. Grown children know the difference in retrospect between discipline and cruel, vindictive behavior.
In my personal situation, my parents are receiving their just deserts for YEARS of abuse. Namely my absence and indifference.
And that's all that I have to say about that.
Anonymous @ 9:16:
I don't agree that strict, authoritarian parents raise children who are liars, weasels, etc. A parent can be authoritarian and fair. In general, the key is to explain the rules and be consistent in enforcing the consequences. So I disagree that only democratic parents raise good kids. However, it may be that your definition of a democratic parent is similar to my definition of an authoritarian parent. If so, perhaps we agree on everything but the labels.
drj-
It's all relative. Some discipline is necessary. But I think we've all seen very strict parents who've raised kids that are liars, weasels, thieves, etc. because the parents were so strict that in order to have a life they became liars, weasels, etc. Of course they would never admit that that's what their kids are - or if they do they would never admit that they're parenting style had anything to do with it - the kid was "bad".
"Fair" is important, but someone can still claim to be "fair" and be maniacally overcontrolling. Or use discipline "fairly" for nonsensical, ludicrous reasons. Etc, etc, etc....
There's nothing wrong with being strict an authoritarian as long as it doesn't turn into abuse. And what consititues abuse really is a gray area, isn't it. The thing is that if that's all there is, then there's no bond of trust or no mentoring, just punishment.
With my kids, I've been strict and authoritarian, but i've also been there for them to help when help is needed, and I've made a point to try to see when the out-of-bounds behavior resulted from something else that they might've needed help with. I probably missed the mark more than a few times, and I can tell you that all three of them got a swat on the tailfeathers out of anger a few times, mayebe more than necessary. but all three are still close by.
Whenever I think of this topic, I think back to the farm families that I knew and I try to relate what's going now in Industrialized society. Of course, we don't live so much in those times now, so I can't say I know first-hand. But back in those days, boys age twelve or so and older were int he barn or the pastures and the fields with their fathers and uncles. They were occupied and supervised, and they were close to adult mentors. Similarly with daughters, working in the home with their moms and aunts and neighbors: supervised and mentored.
Now we send our kids off to "school" where they are tacitly supervised and not mentored so much as preached-to. I think what i'm saying is that the suoervision and mentoring has diminished so much that the children of today are just not getting that kind of attention.
And they need it.
Rusty
Rusty-
I disagree somewhat. I think that in some cases authoritarianism can stop short of abuse but still turn the kid into a liar, weasel, etc.. I don't know, maybe if it does that it should automatically be considered abuse.
As far as parental child rearing styles, you might want to check out the work of psychologist Diana Baumrind who looked at parental rearing styles to see what worked. She divided parental styles into authoritarian, permissive parents and authoritative and looked at social competence with peers and adults. For example, the children of permissive parents were found to lack a knowledge of appropriate behaviors for ordinary social situations and take too little responsibility for their own misbehavior--my guess is that many kids in today's society suffer from this type of parent as well as a permissive society that does not teach kids how to take responsibility. You can read more here about the other two types of parents:
http://www.nldontheweb.org/Moore-1.htm
Try telling a public school how you want your kid parented. Good luck if you can do it.
Why is it the public schools job to "parent" your Instakids? If parents did the parenting, schools could concentrate on ... teaching.
Enough with the psychobabble and all you folks making money off 3-year-old kids. "Testing" them at 3? give me a break, lady. You're scamming us way more than the kids.
The commenter above is right. When parents call the cops on their own kids, nothing good can come of it. Kids don't forget.
Speaking of discipline and schools, does this seem as ridiculous to anyone else as it does to me?
dr. helen-
The Baumrind work sounds somewhat flawed. Traditionally parenting styles were divided into authoritarian, democratic, and laissez faire. Authoritarian was the complete fanatical obedience to everything the parent said, did, or expected. Democratic was discipline and rules that involved, in some cases, the discussion and input of the child when rules and procedures were being set. Laissez faire was basically let the kids do what they wanted - similar to the "permissive" style mentioned in Baumrind's work.
In my opinion it doesn't take a brain trust to see which of these styles is going to work best. The authoritarians are going to turn their kids into weasels, thieves, liars, etc. because the fanatical obsession with obedience is a recipe for the development of deception. The laissez faire or permissive types are going to raise kids that think they don't have to respect the rights of others. The democratic households will have a reasonable amount of discipline and the enforcement of this will be less of a constant source of conflict because the children will have bought into and basically agreed to a lot of the rules. Plus they won't develop into liars and weasels because to some degree there is a forum, communication, and some degree of flexibility in the system.
Now Baumrind seems to have focused on the worst of both worlds - and probably put the more reasonable of what would have been called the "democratic" styles under the old classification in the "authoritarian" camp. So its no surprise that she got the results that she did. But that doesn't change the notion that, in my opinion, authoritarian and laissez faire parenting styles are recipes for disaster. On one hand you get liars, thieves, and weasels that put on a good appearance, on the other you get people that are likely not to respect others' rights. That's why a sensibly executed democratic style gets my vote. And that's what I'm going to do when I get married and have children.
O -
The part where they claim a 4-year-old could form an intent to commit sexual harassment or engage in sexual contact. If he acted out sexually, his home needs to be evaluated and he/they may need counseling. More likely, though, he was hugging his teacher and she overreacted. In that case, she needs counseling.
Of course you don't want to instill fanatical respect and obedience for authority figures and parents, because some of them are criminals and abusers.
Agree w/cat--I valued my parents' esteem. My mother had that look of disappointment, like I was staining the family honor. I can barely remember ever being spanked. That LOOK did all the work.
Still, children in a democratic system having input? Riiiight. As if they were capable of abstract thought.
Farm families aren't a guarantee of well disciplined kids. I have a nightmare nephew in a farm family. He has always been horribly defiant of his parents. He cannot be depended on to do chores. He leaves gates open intentionally and the cows get out. He works hard on other people's farms and complains how his parents are abusing him. He has threatened to call CPS. I told my sister to encourage him to do so and describe what foster homes are like--some people are only in it for the check, treated like a slave, potential for sexual abuse, etc. I talked to the boy about being an emancipated minor and having to support himself...which all of a sudden didn't seem so attractive.
I've had very blunt conversations with my sister about them not being obligated to provide this hellboy a thing after he turns 18. Until then--clothing, food, shelter. 18--out. Then they can have their lives back.
So, this hellboy is a senior in high school now. What does he want to do? Run the family farm. I had a blunt discussion with him that he has been so nasty to his entire extended family for so many years, they really don't want him around. He'll have to start being nice to them and getting along with them if he ever wants their consent to work on the family farm. Until then, he better find a trade to be self supporting while he grows up and calms down a little. And save your money in case you have to buy your own farm, if they don't ever consent. That's his plan.
The other two kids are great. They have suffered having hellboy around and are counting down the days to their liberation.
One reason parents don't discipline and actually overindulge their children: they love them too much and they're too precious. With declining fertility, families are smaller and children are more precious. Larger families--if you end up with a bad kid, it's not such a tragedy because there's other kids to come through as decent people. The logistics of larger families force a more cooperative system and it's not only the parents who can whoop your behind. It's the older sibs too. Eveyone had important roles to do and enforced each other's getting it done.
At least that's what I have observed! Not referencing a scientific finding here.
I'm disturbed by parents who can't design a system that works at home falling back on the justice system for discipline. I'm also disturbed by what I'm hearing on email lists for parents of children with Asperger's Syndrome, which is that the public schools are increasingly relying on police to take care of their "special" students. About once a week someone shares a story about how their child, who has trouble communicating appropriately, makes a remark that the teacher takes offense to, so the teacher backs them into a corner (figuratively or literally) and then gets surprised when the kid tries to leave the situation. The teacher won't let the student do even what's in his own IEP to calm him down, then when he pushes the teacher out of the way to leave the situation, they have him arrested for assault. Even the teachers aren't mature adults anymore-- why on Earth should a teacher of "normal" kids learn to handle a child with an autism spectrum disorder? Talk about abdication of responsibility!
Dr. Helen-
Maybe the woman in the story is a single mother with no one to help her with her son, maybe there is a father but he is afraid to discipline for fear of being hauled himself to court for child abuse, or maybe the community does not see fit to dole out consequences to kids who push the limits...
I'll vote for the 'father thing'.
I'm 42 yrs. old- yet, I still remember-
Etiquette was enforced...
(emphasis on 'force'!)
At the risk of sounding redundant, we live in a society that screams dont you dare discipline your kids ( I had a woman threaten to report me b/c I chided my child publicly for running out into a parking lot without looking when she was 3). I dared her to and even offered up my address! ( with the promise of paying her a visit myself!)
It is...Leave them kids alone, let the cops beat the crap outta them when they get
arrested .
This is what happenes in a nanny-state society!
cornholio magnus said: "When they are old, broke, and Social Security is a memory, they can subsist on cat food for all I care."
I had a high school teacher say a similar thing about old, poor people eating cat food. Surely it is exaggeration, isn't tuna fish a similar price?
"The event I described earlier was in Clearfield, Utah (Davis County Sheriff responded to the call)."
We probably live close to each other.
Post a Comment
<< Home