Poll: Bad parents are to blame: why?

[Ygfi]

You seem to be implying that parents today are somewhat worse than the parents of the past.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that bad parenting is a timeless tradition.

I'd have to agree with this. It's not like we as a society suddenly forgot how to be a parent, and it's not like annoying bitchy children who have never experienced discipline didn't exist 50 years ago. We were just a little harsher with how we fixed the problem back then.

it's a proportional increase. there's getting more and more bad parents then there used to be. in the old days, there'd only be a few around, but now days i think there's at least twice as many.

How many more people are there now than in the old days?

proportionally. as in, if there used to be 4 good parents for every good one, there's now only 2 (example numbers, don't use them for anyhing).


there's been a large rise in many small crimes on a proportional basis and it's almost always to do with young people.

I think this can be a very case by case thing. I lived in two different places when I was a kid, a trailer park and then the suburbs. In the trailer park there were at least 4 horrible parents that I knew of, even though I was only 5. Now that I live in the suburbs I couldn't point out any bad parents. Most of the young kids here are behaved. The worst I've seen is just one kid who thinks he is entitled to fucking EVERYTHING. I don't think it has increased, but rather that they are starting to migrate to similar areas. So if you live near them, it seems like there are thousands of them.

from what i've seen, different areas have different problems, but they're all getting worse.
the school i used to go to, most kids were eejits, but they were doing more and more stupid/dangerous/etc things.
now i'm at a much better school but i'm seeing the levels of stupidity pass on too quickly. mind you, schools really don't account for much, there too much varyation, i could call on my cousin's school for "emo bashing" but... i just did.

You're getting older right? Isn't it possible that there is a wider degree of stupidity for you know than there was back then. Also, "emo bashing" often times doesn't relate back to the parents of large number of kids, but rather just a small few who work wonders with peer pressure. I can't think of any parents who are telling their kids, "Emo's deserve your hatred." Of course, emo bashing also occurs more often at the high school level, which is when kids start to decide for themselves who they are, no matter if their parents like it or not.

I still stand by the belief that there are no more bad kids now than there were 18 years ago.

Oh, and you may find this interesting: Truer words my friend... [http://xkcd.com/603/]

perhaps it's not the amount of kids, but things are getting worse.
i'm still at high school, though i'm not your average kid.
what i noticed was the sucsesive years getting worse and worse, not just because they were younger. i'm talking about seeing higher propertions of kids with anger management issues, kids with no respect and kids that have no responsability. when i was a year 8, we always used to cop our punishment 'cause we knew it would get worse if we didn't. now days i'm seeing year 8s literally run out of a class and punch shit up when they're gonna get in trouble; we never used to do that, ever. i'm not even talking about 1 off instances either.

 

[Lynx]

You seem to be implying that parents today are somewhat worse than the parents of the past.

I'm pretty sure we can all agree that bad parenting is a timeless tradition.

Precisely. The only tiny difference now is that people are noticing.

 

[Daveman]

Our states of minds are down to genetics and our past experiences. Our parents have no control over the first but they nevertheless cause it. They are also most in control of our past experiences as children, the time of greatest mental development. So I'd conclude that we are who we are because of our parents.

 

[Ygfi]

Our states of minds are down to genetics and our past experiences. Our parents have no control over the first but they nevertheless cause it. They are also most in control of our past experiences as children, the time of greatest mental development. So I'd conclude that we are who we are because of our parents.

that's not what is supposed to be under discussion, though it is true.

how about we move on topic?

 

[Daveman]

Our states of minds are down to genetics and our past experiences. Our parents have no control over the first but they nevertheless cause it. They are also most in control of our past experiences as children, the time of greatest mental development. So I'd conclude that we are who we are because of our parents.

that's not what is supposed to be under discussion, though it is true.

how about we move on topic?

sorry, so are you just saying do we think societal change is responsible for parenting becoming worse? What if we think parenting isn't getting worse but the problems because of it are more highlighted in todays society? the topic isn't particularly clear to me.

 

[Ygfi]

Our states of minds are down to genetics and our past experiences. Our parents have no control over the first but they nevertheless cause it. They are also most in control of our past experiences as children, the time of greatest mental development. So I'd conclude that we are who we are because of our parents.

that's not what is supposed to be under discussion, though it is true.

how about we move on topic?

sorry, so are you just saying do we think societal change is responsible for parenting becoming worse? What if we think parenting isn't getting worse but the problems because of it are more highlighted in todays society? the topic isn't particularly clear to me.

the topic was the cause of parenting's demise. if you think otherwise, state what you think the cause of whatever is; if that makes sence.

 

[velcthulhu]

Our society promotes stupid parenting, which makes this a little hard to answer. I'm gonna go with society being worse, since most people behave completely differently when their parents are around.

 

[Ygfi]

Our society promotes stupid parenting, which makes this a little hard to answer. I'm gonna go with society being worse, since most people behave completely differently when their parents are around.

explain how society promotes bad parenting. this is what the actual question was about.

 

[lwm3398]

People are bad parents, because they don't want to PARENT. You know, enforce guidelines and punish their children when they do something that goes against those guidelines. People are too worried about upsetting their children, because they want to be the "Best Friend." This is the closest video that I could find on the matter, even though it might not be spot on.
(Let me just go on the record by stating: I do not like Dr. Phil. If anything, just watch the introduction to this. Specifically the part where she states "I don't know how to stop her from actually doing it." Simple solution: No car, no phone, nobody dies. Easy.)

"I'm not gonna crash 'cause I'm a good enough texter"

Why the hell would that matter?! Goddamn!

 

[Ygfi]

People are bad parents, because they don't want to PARENT. You know, enforce guidelines and punish their children when they do something that goes against those guidelines. People are too worried about upsetting their children, because they want to be the "Best Friend." This is the closest video that I could find on the matter, even though it might not be spot on.
(Let me just go on the record by stating: I do not like Dr. Phil. If anything, just watch the introduction to this. Specifically the part where she states "I don't know how to stop her from actually doing it." Simple solution: No car, no phone, nobody dies. Easy.)

"I'm not gonna crash 'cause I'm a good enough texter"

Why the hell would that matter?! Goddamn!

yes, it comes down to driving skill, not texting skill. and most people are skilled enough at driving to go "i'm going to pull over before i start doing that"

though it's off-topic.

 

[Therumancer]

Well, I am of course going to inspire rage like I usually do by raising a sensitive subject but I feel a lot of it is the fallout from Women's lib. To be honest the "modern career woman" is a relatively recent phenomena, it took a while to develop once the first equality was won.

Previously, going back to the 1950s and 1960s when a lot of Baby Boomers were born (going back to like my Grandmother's generation) women mostly stayed at home as homemakers, there were exceptions but that was how things worked. The man went out to make the money, and women stayed at home to raise the kids, cook the meals, and keep the home in order.

Today with having both members of a couple going out and having careers there are numerous issues. Homes are increasingly falling apart (ie more mess, clutter, and fairly unsanitary conditions compared to previous generations as everyone comes home exhaused from work/school and doesn't have the raw energy to keep it in shape)and children are raised badly with less parental supervision/input than ever before.

The term "Latchkey kid" pretty much refers to a young child who comes home and locks themself into the house alone because there are no parents around to take care of them, both parents being out to work.

Many are going to scream and yell about how sexist this is, and "why don't fathers make the home and raise the children" (while they can do it, their not as well wired for it), and all kinds of stuff that is irrelevent. Truthfully having either parent at home would change things substantially.

Another factor of course is left wing domination of the media and such. Face it, liberalism has won on most fronts for the last few decades. This has lead to an unusually permissive society, and behaviors for which society had zero tolerance leaking out into the streets. While things were never as idealized as a "Nick at Night" sitcom, society used to be a lot closer to that than it is now. Today kids can't roam the streets and do the things they used to do because frankly you've got freaks and sickos running around everywhere unchecked. The police can outright identify a hooker or drug pusher, but the current rules of evidence and such have tied their hands and made it increasingly difficult to do anything about. Some people have talked about the great victories for civil liberties and freedom, but by the same token the result of a lot of those rulings have lead to less freedom as people are increasingly afraid to walk the streets, never mind let their children roam the the neighborhood. Whether it's an estranged parent/relative, or some sicko, most of those pictures you see hanging up at Wal*Mart, the post officer, or other locations detailing missing and endangered children started with someone letting their kids out to play. If you think that doesn't have an effect your kidding yourself.

Then of course there is the entire "Generation X" factor. With the "Lost Generation" out there, we see very little in the way of optimism. One of the reasons why "emo" and "angst" dominate is because to be blunt for all the promises made by society and the educational system, the Baby Boomers simply lived long enough where those oppertunities never opened up for the young generation. Granted the current youth has more of a chance (as they will be coming up as the Boomers retire and those oppertunities exist again) but they are being raised by Generation X and see the social wasyeland in which we existed. That combined with many being raised by strangers or in relative isolation, leads to a lot of problems.

Truthfully I think society has a lot to do with it, with some of these things we had been warned about it for generations, and people (like people always do) ignored the upcoming problem until there was nothing they can do about it. The Baby Boomers themselves were a paticularly irresponsible generation and truthfully we are going to spend at least a century cleaning up their mess if we can somehow manage to fix the central problems anyway.

It's sort of like the social security crisis. It's lulz-worthy because the idea is basically a multi-generational promise to support the system for the retiring generation (it can also be viewed as a variation on a Ponzi scheme by the truely cynical). With the way the Baby Boomers decimated the social order Generation X just isn't going to have the resources to maintain the system the way the Boomers did for their parents. People saw this coming, but did anyone really care? Not really. Any viable solution would have upset too many people.

I for one am one of those jerks who was actually supporting the idea of a mandatory retirement age for the Boomers which would have at least bought time for the problem to be fixed for later generations (this is more complicated than it sounds, and would derail this rant).

At any rate I blame both parents and society, but society more as I feel society is responsible for the problem more than the parents. Basically the fact that there are no parents is due to the fact that we jumped into the idea of women's lib with both feet without bothering to consider the long-term repercussions (as much as people are going to hate that). I don't think the problems involved are unsolvable, but right now we are trying to fix the problem while it's currently in full force, and that is always more difficult than preparing for it ahead of time.

 

[Therumancer]

People are bad parents, because they don't want to PARENT. You know, enforce guidelines and punish their children when they do something that goes against those guidelines. People are too worried about upsetting their children, because they want to be the "Best Friend." This is the closest video that I could find on the matter, even though it might not be spot on.
(Let me just go on the record by stating: I do not like Dr. Phil. If anything, just watch the introduction to this. Specifically the part where she states "I don't know how to stop her from actually doing it." Simple solution: No car, no phone, nobody dies. Easy.)

"I'm not gonna crash 'cause I'm a good enough texter"

Why the hell would that matter?! Goddamn!

yes, it comes down to driving skill, not texting skill. and most people are skilled enough at driving to go "i'm going to pull over before i start doing that"

though it's off-topic.

Well, in general people should not be doing anything while driving, except driving. I've oftentimes wondered if simply allowing radios/CD players has been going too far to begin
with as that can be fairly distracting as well (though few will criticize that).

But yes, unless the police stop her, really there isn't going to be anything done, and chances are if she has an accident while texting then she's probably not going to admit it.

I feel this is very similar to the whole thing about drivers and cell phones in general.

BUT, also consider that we have such a liberal slant in schools right now (even lower grades) that they pretty much promote a "you have the right to do whatever you want to do" agenda which contridicts most of the negative (do not do drugs, do not drink and drive, etc..) messages. Especially if the teachers themselves are baby boomers who might talk to students off the record about their own drug experiences, or stupid things they did as a kid while driving drunk or whatever.

"Sticking it to the man and the legal/regligious establishment" might to a stupid kid seem like a good reason to do things like text while driving since they figure they are immortal and indestructable until something happens. At which point people parade them around schools as an example (which they might even cooperate with) and like usual nobody is going to listen anymore than they did.

Any solutions to the problem I could present (this specific situation, or the problem in genera) would work, but wouldn't go over too well.

 

[Ygfi]

Well, I am of course going to inspire rage like I usually do by raising a sensitive subject but I feel a lot of it is the fallout from Women's lib. To be honest the "modern career woman" is a relatively recent phenomena, it took a while to develop once the first equality was won.

Previously, going back to the 1950s and 1960s when a lot of Baby Boomers were born (going back to like my Grandmother's generation) women mostly stayed at home as homemakers, there were exceptions but that was how things worked. The man went out to make the money, and women stayed at home to raise the kids, cook the meals, and keep the home in order.

Today with having both members of a couple going out and having careers there are numerous issues. Homes are increasingly falling apart (ie more mess, clutter, and fairly unsanitary conditions compared to previous generations as everyone comes home exhaused from work/school and doesn't have the raw energy to keep it in shape)and children are raised badly with less parental supervision/input than ever before.

The term "Latchkey kid" pretty much refers to a young child who comes home and locks themself into the house alone because there are no parents around to take care of them, both parents being out to work.

Many are going to scream and yell about how sexist this is, and "why don't fathers make the home and raise the children" (while they can do it, their not as well wired for it), and all kinds of stuff that is irrelevent. Truthfully having either parent at home would change things substantially.

Another factor of course is left wing domination of the media and such. Face it, liberalism has won on most fronts for the last few decades. This has lead to an unusually permissive society, and behaviors for which society had zero tolerance leaking out into the streets. While things were never as idealized as a "Nick at Night" sitcom, society used to be a lot closer to that than it is now. Today kids can't roam the streets and do the things they used to do because frankly you've got freaks and sickos running around everywhere unchecked. The police can outright identify a hooker or drug pusher, but the current rules of evidence and such have tied their hands and made it increasingly difficult to do anything about. Some people have talked about the great victories for civil liberties and freedom, but by the same token the result of a lot of those rulings have lead to less freedom as people are increasingly afraid to walk the streets, never mind let their children roam the the neighborhood. Whether it's an estranged parent/relative, or some sicko, most of those pictures you see hanging up at Wal*Mart, the post officer, or other locations detailing missing and endangered children started with someone letting their kids out to play. If you think that doesn't have an effect your kidding yourself.

Then of course there is the entire "Generation X" factor. With the "Lost Generation" out there, we see very little in the way of optimism. One of the reasons why "emo" and "angst" dominate is because to be blunt for all the promises made by society and the educational system, the Baby Boomers simply lived long enough where those oppertunities never opened up for the young generation. Granted the current youth has more of a chance (as they will be coming up as the Boomers retire and those oppertunities exist again) but they are being raised by Generation X and see the social wasyeland in which we existed. That combined with many being raised by strangers or in relative isolation, leads to a lot of problems.

Truthfully I think society has a lot to do with it, with some of these things we had been warned about it for generations, and people (like people always do) ignored the upcoming problem until there was nothing they can do about it. The Baby Boomers themselves were a paticularly irresponsible generation and truthfully we are going to spend at least a century cleaning up their mess if we can somehow manage to fix the central problems anyway.

It's sort of like the social security crisis. It's lulz-worthy because the idea is basically a multi-generational promise to support the system for the retiring generation (it can also be viewed as a variation on a Ponzi scheme by the truely cynical). With the way the Baby Boomers decimated the social order Generation X just isn't going to have the resources to maintain the system the way the Boomers did for their parents. People saw this coming, but did anyone really care? Not really. Any viable solution would have upset too many people.

I for one am one of those jerks who was actually supporting the idea of a mandatory retirement age for the Boomers which would have at least bought time for the problem to be fixed for later generations (this is more complicated than it sounds, and would derail this rant).

At any rate I blame both parents and society, but society more as I feel society is responsible for the problem more than the parents. Basically the fact that there are no parents is due to the fact that we jumped into the idea of women's lib with both feet without bothering to consider the long-term repercussions (as much as people are going to hate that). I don't think the problems involved are unsolvable, but right now we are trying to fix the problem while it's currently in full force, and that is always more difficult than preparing for it ahead of time.

just to correct you on something, liberalism is not tied to the left or right. there are infact two political scales, the totalitariancapitalist.

moving on, i do have to agree with what you;re saying, it makes sence. i take it you're in england (time zone and situation you're talking about). these issues do seem like the sorts of things most governments don't have the balls to do anything about...

 

[Chimpzy_v1legacy]

People are bad parents, because they don't want to PARENT. You know, enforce guidelines and punish their children when they do something that goes against those guidelines. People are too worried about upsetting their children, because they all want to be the "Best Friend."

This and the fact that many modern parents want too much. They want to spend time on a full career for both. And free time for 500 hobbies. And some more free time to spend with each other. And yet more time to spend with friends and family. They want all this and still find the time to properly raise children. Ok, when?

 

[Therumancer]

just to correct you on something, liberalism is not tied to the left or right. there are infact two political scales, the totalitariancapitalist.

moving on, i do have to agree with what you;re saying, it makes sence. i take it you're in england (time zone and situation you're talking about). these issues do seem like the sorts of things most governments don't have the balls to do anything about...[/quote]


I'm from the US, East Coast though. Most of what I'm talking about is simple sociology and applies everywhere where those issues exist. The Baby Boom hit England just like the US, and women's sufferage causes universal issues when it's suddenly implemented that are again pretty much universal when suddenly implemented without foresight.

The US, England, and Australia are all very similar coming from the same parent culture (British Empire). It's just people like to focus on the differances as opposed to the similarities. To true outside observers we seem like more or less the same group for some good reasons.


In America our politics are rather messed up, and the left wing (Democrats) are a group of odd ducks who at the bottom of their party are "do whatever I want to do" liberals, and at the top of the party a group of "uber-powerful goverment that controls everything" totalitarians.

In a nutshell, American Democrats are people who run around wanting to buck the system and feel the best way to do this is to build a powerful federal goverment that will overrule the state and local goverments to let them do whatever they want to do in the short term. A sort of messed up logic of ensuring freedom by giving away freedom to a large central goverment.

The "street" Democrat stereotype (which is admittedly not 100% accurate) is an anarchist/hippy type guy who wants to do drugs and whatever the heck he wants without interferance. Peace, love and tolerance. Pretty much your true liberal/anarchist, hence the liberal association. At the top of the party you've got guys who pretty much want totalitarianism (or are totally naive) who do things like say "well if you give up your right to free speech, we the goverment can ensure that nobody will be able to freely express hatred of minorities".

The way I refer to "liberals" makes sense in context given that I'm a Republican and it is fairly accurate on a lot of levels.

It should be noted however that while relatively hard core Republican/Right Wing I'm also extremely critical of my own side. It's simply no middle ground that I truely agree with exists. Most "compromise" partys in between seem more insane than either "side".

 

[Phoenix Arrow]

People are bad parents, because they don't want to PARENT. You know, enforce guidelines and punish their children when they do something that goes against those guidelines. People are too worried about upsetting their children, because they want to be the "Best Friend." This is the closest video that I could find on the matter, even though it might not be spot on.
(Let me just go on the record by stating: I do not like Dr. Phil. If anything, just watch the introduction to this. Specifically the part where she states "I don't know how to stop her from actually doing it." Simple solution: No car, no phone, nobody dies. Easy.)

She should get an iPhone. Free MSN and Facebook. You'd save a bundle.

 

[Ygfi]

just to correct you on something, liberalism is not tied to the left or right. there are infact two political scales, the totalitariancapitalist.

moving on, i do have to agree with what you;re saying, it makes sence. i take it you're in england (time zone and situation you're talking about). these issues do seem like the sorts of things most governments don't have the balls to do anything about...


I'm from the US, East Coast though. Most of what I'm talking about is simple sociology and applies everywhere where those issues exist. The Baby Boom hit England just like the US, and women's sufferage causes universal issues when it's suddenly implemented that are again pretty much universal when suddenly implemented without foresight.

The US, England, and Australia are all very similar coming from the same parent culture (British Empire). It's just people like to focus on the differances as opposed to the similarities. To true outside observers we seem like more or less the same group for some good reasons.


In America our politics are rather messed up, and the left wing (Democrats) are a group of odd ducks who at the bottom of their party are "do whatever I want to do" liberals, and at the top of the party a group of "uber-powerful goverment that controls everything" totalitarians.

In a nutshell, American Democrats are people who run around wanting to buck the system and feel the best way to do this is to build a powerful federal goverment that will overrule the state and local goverments to let them do whatever they want to do in the short term. A sort of messed up logic of ensuring freedom by giving away freedom to a large central goverment.

The "street" Democrat stereotype (which is admittedly not 100% accurate) is an anarchist/hippy type guy who wants to do drugs and whatever the heck he wants without interferance. Peace, love and tolerance. Pretty much your true liberal/anarchist, hence the liberal association. At the top of the party you've got guys who pretty much want totalitarianism (or are totally naive) who do things like say "well if you give up your right to free speech, we the goverment can ensure that nobody will be able to freely express hatred of minorities".

The way I refer to "liberals" makes sense in context given that I'm a Republican and it is fairly accurate on a lot of levels.

It should be noted however that while relatively hard core Republican/Right Wing I'm also extremely critical of my own side. It's simply no middle ground that I truely agree with exists. Most "compromise" partys in between seem more insane than either "side".

i'm going to have to correct you on another thing; as you seem to he the impression that anarchy = chaos; this is quite the opposite. chaos is more or less a branch of capitalism in it's extreme (everyone can do what they want) and anarchy is in short, communism without a government as such. political parties are almost never what the name would suggest. our liberal/labour are pritty messed up, but at least our democrats held up to their name when they were around; and the greens are actually looking pritty green.
but lets get away from the politics, i don't want another 33 page thread.

apologies for thinking you were brittish, you can see my reasoning (and the brits have a really broken welfair system).

 

[Sigel]

(Let me just go on the record by stating: I do not like Dr. Phil. If anything, just watch the introduction to this. Specifically the part where she states "I don't know how to stop her from actually doing it." Simple solution: No car, no phone, nobody dies. Easy.)

"Short of taking it away from her, I don't know how to stop her from actually doing it."


FUCKING TAKE IT AWAY!

Jesus that is a lazy mother. Hopefully the daughter will die and the mom can learn her lesson and raise the next kid better.

This is a topic I tend to get heated and mean on. I am sick and tired of lazy-assed parents catering to their kids. Don't these people realize that their job, nay, their DUTY is to raise and be responsible for these kids and turn them into people they themselves would want to associate with? Our society (sorry, WESTERN society)is constantly telling parents that children shouldn't have negative discipline. That hitting a child is wrong. That positive bribery is fine. That it's ok to leave the kid alone for hours watching tv, because hey, it's rated G and that's just fine with them.

NO! Stop spoiling your children. Stop teaching them they're entitled little twats that should have everything catered to them, and if they happen to fail at something....THEN THEY ARE A FAILURE! The stupid self-esteem movement that has been circulating in America for the past few decades is one of the major reasons why things have become shit socially. Telling someone that they are the "Last Winner" instead of the loser they were doesn't build a solid individual. It's what has been lowering the standards the last few decades, trying to make everyone feel special when they aren't.

Kids are nothing more than miniature versons of the people YOU see walking the streets. Do you think any of THEM are special? Kids are just like everyone else, a few smart and successful, and a whole lot of losers. And parents don't seem to be preparing their kids for that eventuality.

And why should they? THEY grew up thinking they were special and entitled too. Which is why the mortgage industry took such a huge hit. "You mean I was supposed to PAY! But, the money went to my new home that I can't even afford to furnish without using my Visa but I know I deserve to have this wonderful 3 bedroom house in the suburbs with just me and my spouse and our wonderful golden retriever and our pikanese." FUCK YOU you selfish, entitled, law-suit happy, overly arrogant, standard lowering yuppie wannabe pieces of crap.

Raise your kids to be the people you want to be proud of, the kind of people you would hang with and be their friend. But DON'T be your kid's friend! If they do something wrong, punish them. Tell them WHY they are being punished.

Have them buy their own shit. No, not when they're two, but once they hit the age where they can do things like babysit and mow the neighbor's lawn, make them spend their money on that videogame they want. Force them to have a job when they hit 16 and want to drive. Make them pay for that cell phone they use. Teach them to be PERSONALLY RESPONSIBLE FOR THEIR ACTIONS, a phrase most kids don't recognize unless it pops up in the SAT.

Wow!! I think you nailed it man, all very right and very true.

I personally blame the "time out" concept as well. I would just like to state, I do not like or believe in child abuse. Having said that, I do believe you should discipline your kids, just not excessively. "Time outs" do not work, especially in a public setting like a restaurant or store. I think if kids smacked or spanked every once in a while, I could enjoy eating in a restaurant or going to the movies again instead of listening to some lil sh*t scream its head off because it doesn't like something.

 

[Ygfi]

People are bad parents, because they don't want to PARENT. You know, enforce guidelines and punish their children when they do something that goes against those guidelines. People are too worried about upsetting their children, because they all want to be the "Best Friend."

This and the fact that many modern parents want too much. They want to spend time on a full career for both. And free time for 500 hobbies. And some more free time to spend with each other. And yet more time to spend with friends and family. They want all this and still find the time to properly raise children. Ok, when?

i suppose that fits in with the standard greed+stupid=shit equation...
while technology promises the ability to do more, more is far from everything; i suppose parents should learn this.

 

[Ygfi]

i'll pin down one cause to parents being scared of persacution if they smack thier kids, and another to them being scared that their kids will hate them if they smack them.
i've absolutely no issue with kids getting smacked, unless it's to the head or to the point of abuse; however the "crying kid" that resluts is something i think that parents now days are too scared to face.
theres some sort of saying to do with kids but i don't think it would actually apply to this particular sercumstance; but i'll say it anyway. "if you want to stop a child's crying, brush the child's hair for 10/15 minutes, if that does not work, apply the brush to the other end of the child"