Do you like kids?

[kazbates]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

<SNIP>
The teacher stood by her words and admitted that, in essence, that's what she told the kids, and it was unfortunate that some of the children may have misunderstood what she meant, and shouldn't have taken what she said literally. (I know, as a child, I took EVERYTHING literally.)

I knew right then we were in for a loooong road ahead, butting heads with teachers that weren't careful with their words. Nothing like having your parental authority undermined by a teacher who thinks she's talking to kids much more sophisticated than their years would indicate.

Granted, no one wants to see kids abused and they should be protected from abuse. But the pendulum has swung too far and given too much unsubstantiated power to children and other busy-body do-gooders over parents' efforts to raise their children.

Unfortunately, that happens far too frequently, especially with the younger, more inexperienced teachers. I really believe that my experiences as a parent helped to make me a better teacher. I knew the things I should/could say and I understood how easily what I said could be misunderstood in the mind of a child. Classes in child psychology and another in everyday common sense should be prerequisites for a teaching degree. Not to mention that many young teachers have never spent a great deal of time around children (other than during their own formative years) and think they can talk to them like they're one of their peers.

[Sparrow]

It seems to me that a lot of the problems result from failing families - families produce troublesome kids, and families also present the greatest threat to children's wellbeing (as Larkin pointed out - includes swearing).

I'll never live to see it - but I reckon we need a better way to bring up future generations rather than relying on family units to do it.
If the state raised children, we'd have a more equal society with better life-chances for the next generation.

(Although I recognise this is a minority view at the moment. )

[Alphapheemail]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

It seems to me that a lot of the problems result from failing families - families produce troublesome kids, and families also present the greatest threat to children's wellbeing (as Larkin pointed out - includes swearing).

I'll never live to see it - but I reckon we need a better way to bring up future generations rather than relying on family units to do it.
If the state raised children, we'd have a more equable society with better life-chances for the next generation.

(Although I recognize this is a minority view at the moment. )

when has the state ever produced any program that can back this up?
Army? Foster care? Orphanages?
The good of the individual is not the good for the people! The family unit takes care of the individuals.
The state already is running amok with their health programs, and educational programs; forcing kids to get vaccinated in order to get an education. God knows what kinds of stuff they are injecting the kids with. ( I am not going too too into this, but mercury is found in many of them, and studies are popping up that these vaccines maybe the cause for the spike in autisim over the last two decades!).
We do not need to give the state MORE control!
We actually will never have control over how people decide to raise THEIR children (yes kids are the responsibility of solely the parent until the become of age, or prove them selves worthy of independence, which ever comes first).

[Alphapheemail]

And regarding the stress factor,
When kids act up and become brats then they become the source of the parents stress. Plus my parent aren't perfect nor will any parent ever be. It is a fact that every human has had to live with. Why are we to think now that we can create the perfect "program", "book", or "disciplinary methods" for children since we were raised imperfectly to begin with.
Yes, there are parents who are worse than others, yes there are circumstances where the government might have to take a hand in the situation, but those are extreme cases of child abuse. Spanking is not one of them.

[Ceili]

My parents never hit, beat or vocally abused us. Yes, we were corrected, and yes, we were punished if we did something wrong. But, unlike the majority of my childhood friends, I was not beaten. I finished school (without the pre-resiquite baby), got a job and grew up. We had a healthy fear of what our folks (mostly dad) might do if we got caught at stuff, but none of us ever felt a hand or a belt. I ran away at 13, came home at 17 (after breaking my knee),attended school and worked part time the entire time I was out of the house. There were tense times, but again, never was I made to feel less than I was.

I guess I can't explain how what he Might have done was enough to keep us at mischevious without going full out brat, nor were we timid.... why their method worked while my friends it seems had to be beaten, verbally abused, had things thrown at them, etc.... I guess I'll never know. My folks tried to arrange their schedules so that one of them was always around after school hours and at bedtimes. Even so, one or the other was always working a 2nd job to keep us in food and clothing.

What I do know is, if you have to raise your hand to raise your child, maybe you should be doing something else. I work in an area where we see the results of people who hit when they're angry, stressed out about work, f'd in the head, whatever. These are children, babies really, that you won't see on the news, nor would you want your dinner ruined by seeing such a horrible thing. But they come in almost every day, and it's absolutely horrifying to think that human beings are put through that kind of thing regularly.

I'm sorry, but no, you don't have to hit kids to make them understand. You Do have to be there, for and with them. It's supposed to be a pact... you want kids, they come first. My mom said, it wasn't always easy, but they never limited themselves in going where they wanted, she just packed us up and away they went...and we got to see amazing things with our folks.

That's one of the main reasons I never wanted any....I knew I was too selfish with My time, My interests to give kids the kind of attention I got when I was growing up. If you can't do that, why have them? For someone else to raise them for ya? I see a lot of that as well... kids raised by people paid to be with them tend to show it at an early age.... and they grow up differently than those raised by parents who care.

My nephew is one of the sweetest kids I've met. People I work with who have met him, tell me his manners are amazing, something not usually seen these days. All of this because he calls them Ms. or Mr. Name (not John or Mary), says thank you and please, and doesn't interrupt (much ). What kind of kids are they seeing in their own daily lives if one polite 6 year old can make such an impression? Sure, I'm probably a bit predjudiced, but you know... my mom lives with us, and he's around her every day....and he reminds me of all of us when we were younger.

PS- Foster families.... they can be amazing, wonderful places that care for kids like they were their own. They can also be horrible, filthy, disgusting houses where only the money coming in matters. You've got to hope that you weed out the 2nd and encourage the first.
Coming from NY, I can tell you there's nothing the state could do to raise kids well... hell, our politicians can't even grow up...

[GeoffC]

do kids ever become more sensible with age these days ?
whilst waiting at traffic lights we were 'blessed' with the spectacle
of looking at two 15-16 year olds, one boy one girl, sitting outside of
a tattoo shop and the boy was continually spitting on the floor
in front of him .....

[Lady Blue]

[desertgrandma]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

I'll never live to see it - but I reckon we need a better way to bring up future generations rather than relying on family units to do it.
If the state raised children, we'd have a more equal society with better life-chances for the next generation.

(Although I recognise this is a minority view at the moment. )

Now THAT is a GREAT idea!!!

That way, kids wouldn't have these silly familial loyalites.

They could all be raised to be loyal to the state, and only to the state.

They could be raised to work for the good of all, with the well being of the state more important than any individual wants/needs.

What a concept. Why hasn't anyone thought of it before?

(insert dripping sarcasm here)

[pshrynk]

Hey! Who dripped sarcasm all over my desk here?

[desertgrandma]

Guilty. But it was totally intentional.

Here, let me get that for you.

[Ceili]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Attachment 31071

well yah.... I didn't want to be the one to bring that up too!


hmm.. well, I didn't want to show that as an attachment so I don't know what I did to it ;p And... I tried to delete the post, clicking edit/delete, but delete is not an option that is available once you click the edit/delete button!

[Sparrow]

Originally Posted by desertgrandma

Now THAT is a GREAT idea!!!
That way, kids wouldn't have these silly familial loyalites.
They could all be raised to be loyal to the state, and only to the state.
They could be raised to work for the good of all, with the well being of the state more important than any individual wants/needs.
What a concept. Why hasn't anyone thought of it before?
(insert dripping sarcasm here)

I knew it would be a minority view - .

Having the 'state' raise children, would give them all the same opportunities - thereby reducing much of the talent that currently goes to waste in disadvantaged families, when it could be benefitting us all.
Also, it wouldn't have to be about locking the children away in institutions - they'd belong to the community, rather than a couple of parents. The nuclear family we now have in developed countries is a fairly new phenomenon after all; in the past children had extended communities to help raise them. These days, parents have too much control over their kids (tho' that won't be a popular view either, I imagine ).

I think people have thought of it before; e.g. Huxley's 'Brave New World' - often misdescribed as a dystopia.

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Lady Blue

Attachment 31071

Brilliant!

[krisk]

Originally Posted by Ceili

PS- Foster families.... they can be amazing, wonderful places that care for kids like they were their own. They can also be horrible, filthy, disgusting houses where only the money coming in matters. You've got to hope that you weed out the 2nd and encourage the first.
Coming from NY, I can tell you there's nothing the state could do to raise kids well... hell, our politicians can't even grow up...

I sstart my training tonight

[ShortNCuddlyAm]

Originally Posted by Sparrow

Having the 'state' raise children, would give them all the same opportunities - thereby reducing much of the talent that currently goes to waste in disadvantaged families, when it could be benefitting us all.

I think we need to get things like the NHS postcode lottery sorted out before we can even think that state-raised children would all get the same opportunites...

Also, it wouldn't have to be about locking the children away in institutions - they'd belong to the community, rather than a couple of parents. The nuclear family we now have in developed countries is a fairly new phenomenon after all; in the past children had extended communities to help raise them. These days, parents have too much control over their kids (tho' that won't be a popular view either, I imagine ).

I think people have thought of it before; e.g. Huxley's 'Brave New World' - often misdescribed as a dystopia.

Isn't that what happens already in kibbutzs and other communes?