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?
They already did it. He's just aggregating the information. They put the pictures out there publicly. It's their own damn fault if they get caught.
They're just not very good at being bad. Idiots are their own worst enemy.
But, is this a generational thing? By cracky, in my day if anyone had suggested invading someone's home while they were away on vacation to get drunk, high, and trash the place, we'd have thought the idea was crazy compared to quietly hanging out with a six pack under stands at the athletic field. Why in the world would we have wanted to assemble 200 or 300 strangers to commit a crime when we could just get together with our buddies for some evening enjoyment?
What has changed?
50 x the fun, Unseen.
I'm sure kids were throwing unsupervised parties and trashing places back in the days of your youth. They just weren't tweeting about it the next day.
Actually, no - not in the 50s/60/s Chicago anyway. "Unsupervised parties", of course. They left a mess and if the resident kids didn't thoroughly clean up, the party would be found out and the kids would be in deep shit. Sure, someone might get too drunk and inadvertently cause damage. But "trashing" - no. The most antisocial miscreants in the neighborhood would never have imagined that anyone would willfully wreck one of their peers' homes for no reason. Inconceivable.
200-300 kids trashing someone's house? You obviously aren't a boomer. Sure, one kid, two kids, six kids might have done some vandalism. In those days, a few hundred kids together meant they converged to watch a football, baseball, or basketball game, or to go to a music concert. But with malicious intent on someone's private property? No.
You can blame it on social media and the ability to broadcast an invitation, but that doesn't fly. Values are different and there seems to be a sense of detachment from the consequences of one's actions.
What may have changed (my grey hair also shows) is that social acceptability used to have definite consequences in the community. Today it does not.
When I was young, for example, we were told not to interfere with others' pets when visiting their home. If we got scratched by the cat, the last thing we would do would be to let our parents know as we'd be spanked for bothering the cat. My parents view was that the cat lived there and we did not so we were invading the cat's space and so needed to be respectful. That went for dogs, grandma, opening drawers, touching ornaments, all that stuff. One only touched after being given permission and one just did not ask. Wasn't done.
Another Darwinian aspect of this "do what ever the hell I want" behavior today was the recognition that not everyone with whom one might interfere has all their transistors properly wired. One might provoke a total stranger who is a violent nut case. Just luck of the draw so why provoke people and incur the risk. That is more basic than the "it's more socially beneficial to be correct" and something even the most self absorbed should be able to work out for themselves.
Parents are little more than children themselves. I see so many examples of parents in their thirties and they act more like children than their children.
A Testimonial from the book"
"When my daughter was four years old, I was depressed and almost suicidal at not being able to see her for two years. I heard Dr. Farrell share some of the findings that are now in Father and Child Reunion. I learned why giving up my daughter was not an option. Thank you, Warren, I now have custody of my daughter. This is the most important book a father could ever read."
Yeah sure - "When Pigs Fly"
"...the most surprising (finding) is that children raised by single dads do better in more than 20 areas of measurement in comparison to children raised by single moms. These measurements include academic progress, social competence, psychological health and physical health".
Got proof it's crap, or is that just an irrational gut reaction?
I go along with David Winicotts "Good Enough Mother" theory that -
A mother only needs to be a "good enough" parent in order to raise healthy well developed children.
and that a "good enough" mother is a way better for the childs development than the "best father"
I'm sure that helps you feel superior to men, but the stats don't seem to bear that out.