Take a look at this article about kids trashing a man's home.
A man goes on vacation and discovers that his house has been trashed by hundreds of teen partiers, vandalizing his home, drinking, and using drugs. He found out about it the way so much crime is discovered nowadays, through Twitter and other social media.
What he did was to use the same social media against them, by reposting their own photos and asking for them to be identified. The arrests are well under way.
What he finds most disturbing, though, is that the parents of many of the children seem more outraged by his identifying them publicly than by the home invasion, vandalism, and underage drug and alcohol abuse of their children.
He offered to let the offenders back in to help fix things up, but so far he has few takers.
Is this a case of what's the matter with kids today or what's the matter with parents today?
It didn't seem that they disrespected their parents but rather that their parents also refused to accept responsibility. I'm not understanding what you mean by, "a difference between discipline, and long-lasting, real-world consequences." Could you clarify, please?
One fundamental, IME, is that a one size fits all approach to any human issue is fraught with problems. One child, for example, will change a behavior if it receives negative comment while another child will continue dispite strong negative consequences. In Canada, our schools are unable to treat children other than identically according to a paper formula which opens a whole can of worms because it results in ineffective approach to one child and extreme over reaction to another.
Example, my younger son experienced violence (along with his class mates) from a boy in his class over a period of years. Pinching, punching, poking, finally escalating to my son being stabbed by a pencil. Over and over, ad nauseum, the perpetrator would be given "time out", suspended for a day, two days, three days but the behaviors continued. The paper formula continued to fail. Other children who may have over reacted one time, or even "committed" an offense against the paper rules where also suspended, etc. and very traumatized because there was no intent and no harm.
Following the stabbing incident (which I had predicted in kind) I informed my son and his school that I had ordered my son that he was to react to any violence or threat of violence from the other by punching him in the nose until he bled and fell down. The school was horrified as was my son but I insisted and advised the school that they were, IMO, negligent in securing our son's safety and that we would proceed to civil court were anything to result.
Somehow the word got around, and there were no more incidents of violence from the other boy from that point on. Not one, zero, zip, not a sausage.
I do not advocate violence as the only reaction, or even the appropriate action in any particular case but simply attempting to illustrate that those who are charged with managing human interactions require guidelines which are appropriate, wisdom and latitude in action.
During the year in which our son attended a pre-school in a Third World country, one of his best friends was spanked at school for striking another child. So far as we are aware, that was the only case of a spanking during that year, but knowing the other boy and the teachers, likely the very best approach at that time for that boy. He never struck another child during that school year and continued to be a happy, very strong willed, little boy at school. Our son would have been crushed had he been spanked but then he would not have struck another child except in defense. Time outs and the like simply frustrated and inflamed the other, very active, boy.
What is "severe punishment"? Would the definition not depend on the person, their state, time, timing, conditions, etc.?
I spent 13 years as a Scout leader with various troops and was only once forced to confront overt violence between boys, in that case I pulled the perpetrator away and sent him home with instructions not to return until we had consulted with his parents.
This had been the culmination of an increasing pattern and the other Scouts did not want him back. Not everyone belongs in every social circumstance. He did not fit the culture of the group and was not willing to comply with the requirement for respect and consideration.
The young people who would enter and vandalize someone's home do not fit a rational social mold and so everyone would benefit were they to change their mind set, IMO. What would be a better alternative than that they adopt behavior which allows them to interact positively with society?
How are they to discover society's values when these are not communicated and there are no consequences?
Not "does" necessarily. "Should" perhaps, but maybe in the context of a marriage. Women tend to want love and approval more than men, which may make men naturally better single parents, because men don't take no guff.
The best atmosphere in which to raise a child is in a healthy 2-parent home. If not heterosexual, then heterosexual-like, with one parent playing the mother role and one parent the father role. I'm sure other patterns are successful to varying degrees, just not ideal. And of course I realize that not all heterosexual families are functional. It's just that single-parenting is dysfunctional from the get go. Something's missing whichever parent is absent.
What happened to all that cultural relativism you were espousing in the threat about Dawkins? I'm sure the female-male, two parent family unit works quite well in some cultures and is foreign, even dysfunctional in others.
@Angela: fathers are CRUCIAL, necessary, and very important.
Thats only if they're doing it right and supporting the mother. Mostly they dont so the family is better of without them.
What the child needs is a healthy environment with both parents modelling appropriate behaviour toward each other. (only in a perfect world huh?)
In a lot of older cultures, the women raise children in a group and they're supported by other female members. They even breast feed each others babies. Theres not a lot of Post Natal Depression in communities where women support each other.
The men rarely get involved in child rearing but children arent cut off from their fathers either. Now - mothers have very little support at all, If they have a partner he's at work or she is unpartnered and doing it alone.
the roles have been blurred too much.
All i want to make clear is that - children dont 'need' their fathers. Thats a western concept. No offence intended. The mother needs a helper though so its good if the father will take that role.
I mean someones got to take the bins out and all that...
Lovely to know that in your alleged mind, men are good for taking out the trash and other chores around the house.
I fail to see the relevance, or how ANY answer I could conceivably give would justify your absolutely asinine evaluation of men as essentially useless for parenting (other than trash removal), since there's simply no connection between the number of kids I happen to have, and whether or not men add anything to parenting.
No I am not going to answer, until you justify your bigoted attitude with some evidence that actually speaks to the point, rather than just repeated assertions. You've ignored Unseen's requests for such and you are trying to change the subject here, instead of taking on the effort of being coherent. But I've noticed you have a chronic problem with being coherent.
Ball is in your court.
"No I am not going to answer"
I have to assume you dont have children Steve because if you did you'd know that parenting is extremely demanding and a very physical job. Helping out with chores is essential.
"But I've noticed you have a chronic problem with being coherent."
Thats the same as saying you've noriced that blind people cant see. It goes with the territory.
"You've ignored Unseen's requests"
Pardon - what requests?
Steve - when a baby is found abandoned - you never hear anyone say 'Where's the father' its the mother they look for because bonding with THE MOTHER is whats crucial for the baby to thrive. The father may never be found nor does he need to be found .
but thats not the same as my saying that men cant parent or dont add to a childs experiences either. They can and they do. They'll just never be as good as a good mother.
Again - Im not a bigot - you get overly defensive for nothing.
I referrenced Winnicott earlier.
"Winnicott's idea of a facilitating environment created for a child by a "good enough mother" who is supported by the adults around her, rests easily alongside Bowlby's theory of attachment. Bowlby wrote,
"intimate attachments to other human beings are the hub around which a person's life revolves, not only when he is an infant or a toddler or a schoolchild but through his adolescence and his years of maturity and on into old age." (Bowlby, 1980, p.442)
For Winnicott this hub is provided by unconscious processes within "an ordinary mother who is fond of her baby" (Winnicott,1952) : a "good enough mother", who learns best how to look after her baby not from health professionals and self-help books but from having been a baby herself ."She acts naturally, naturally " (Winnicott, 1988). Winnicott suggests that during pregnancy a mother develops "a state of heightened sensivity" which continues to be maintained for some weeks after the baby's birth. When this heightened state passes, the mother has what Winnicott calls a "flight into sanity" and she begins to be aware of the world which exists outside of her state of "primary maternal preoccupation" with her infant (Winnicott,1975). Nonetheless the good enough mother continues to provide an environment which facilitates healthy maturational processes in her baby. She achieves this by being the person who wards off the unpredictable and who actively provides care in the holding, handling and in the general management of the child. The good enough mother provides physical care and meets her baby's need for emotional warmth and love. She also protects her baby against those parts of her from which murderous feelings are brought forth when, for example, her baby screams, yells and cries continuously. By containing her own hateful feelings about her baby, and using them to intuit the baby’s terror and hate, the good enough mother facilitates her baby's feelings and expressions of omnipotence by adapting to his needs until such time as he gradually begins to feel safe enough to relinquish these feelings. At this stage the process of integration can start and the baby begins to develop a sense of "me" and "not me" (Winnicott, 1975). To achieve this shift from the baby's total dependence to relative dependence the good enough mother has, by a gradual process, to fail to adapt to her baby's needs in order that the baby can begin to learn to tolerate the frustrations of the world outside of himself and his mother (Winnicott,1965).
Winnicott always argued that mothers knew better about the needs of her baby than experts. He suggested that there were,
"very subtle things that the mother knows intuitively and without any intellectual appreciation of what is happening, and which she can only arrive at by being left alone and given full responsibility..." (Winnicott1988,p64)."