ST 23/8 Teacher cuts pupil's hair, mum files police report
-
fightingmom:
Alamak :slapshead: Imami, Dr ksi cannot go lah cos that customer hor .. Cut son's son already call mata, if operate on her, she will call P (errrr... P for President). 这种一夜成名的举动，我们Woffi Clinic 不要！Imami:
[quote=\"ksi\"]This is a case of 越描越黑.....or nebbermind's version 叶描叶黑。。。。 Maybe we should send nebbermind to talk to her.... Ask her to acknowledge the error, apologise and move on...it might work! It would be best for her whole family...even extended family.... Every reason she cited may be true but still she has made the mistake of blowing up the matter out of proportion which she should apologise for... waste many people's time, including readers like us...
Doc, why nebbermind ar?
Not w2g-know law de?
Not vk-poke until u comply?
Not Chen- psychologist? Mother of peace?
Or u go lar! If she still 不开窍， you operate on her! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
vk2010, wu toh li boh ?[/quote] :rotflmao: :rotflmao: 安啦安啦 . I just wondering why.... Nebbermind is a good choice. I am sure she will be very agreeable with nebberminds leaf moving up and down. -
ksi:
Good question Imami! You don't know there is soooo much she can learn from him.....Imami:
[quote=\"ksi\"]This is a case of 越描越黑.....or nebbermind's version 叶描叶黑。。。。 Maybe we should send nebbermind to talk to her.... Ask her to acknowledge the error, apologise and move on...it might work! It would be best for her whole family...even extended family.... Every reason she cited may be true but still she has made the mistake of blowing up the matter out of proportion which she should apologise for... waste many people's time, including readers like us...
Doc, why nebbermind ar?
Not w2g-know law de?
Not vk-poke until u comply?
Not Chen- psychologist? Mother of peace?
Or u go lar! If she still 不开窍， you operate on her! :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Nebbermind will show her what is nebbermind....not everything must mind....some things are nebbermind... Look at him going around with only a leaf also nebbermind, at least he keeps his dignity. He is famous but what about her? He has people stalking him fondly every day but she has people talking about her poorly everyday. Of course last but not the least, she will be enchanted(break down barriers) by Nebbermind's disposition and likely will be in agreement with everything he says instead of argue until cows come home. So Nebbermind, the best option with the least \"barriers\"! Right? What a Minister cannot achieve, Nebbermind likely can achieve more...
So we cannot ignore the \"X-factor\" that Nebbermind has.....that we all do not have, we not \"X\" enough.... :rotflmao:[/quote]哇！ doctor, doctor...你这么一说，我真的对Nebbermind 另眼相看！ -
Nebbermind ar nebbermind, see? U have a fan base in ksp…
-
Imami:
Nebbermind ar nebbermind, see? U have a fan base in ksp...
The \"fan\" cannot be too big else the leaf will be blown away... :evil: :evil:
-
fightingmom:
Imami:
Nebbermind ar nebbermind, see? U have a fan base in ksp...
The \"fan\" cannot be too big else the leaf will be blown away... :evil: :evil:
:rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao: good one! -
fightingmom:
:rotflmao:Imami:
Nebbermind ar nebbermind, see? U have a fan base in ksp...
The \"fan\" cannot be too big else the leaf will be blown away... :evil: :evil: -
Fr an article in thenWashington Post.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/on-parenting/post/are-we-raising-a-nation-of-spoiled-brats/2012/06/25/gJQAnPwM2V_blog.html
Viewers around the world were treated to an appalling display of bullying of a bus monitor in Upstate New York last week that was caught on video and televised repeatedly. The abuse was especially shocking because the kids taunted the stoic Karen Klein by laughing, “You don’t have a family because they all killed themselves because they didn’t want to be near you.”
Klein’s son had commit suicide years earlier.
What may have been equally shocking in the aftermath of that incident was the reaction of the children’s parents. Or, the non-reaction.
The families have effectively gone underground. Some of the children and their parents reportedly wrote apology notes, but even the monitor said they didn’t seem terribly heartfelt.
Karen Klein, the bullied bus monitor. (Jamie Germano - AP)
The parents might argue that their children have been so vilified — even mild-mannered “Today” show host Matt Lauer called them “narrow-minded monsters” — that to come out in public would endanger them. But the parents might also recognize their unique ability to transform this terrible event into a learning experience for their children and for the country.
In truth, though, few of us would probably do any such thing.
Let’s face it. Those kids and their parents are probably not so different from the rest of us.
It just so happens that the New Yorker’s latest issue has an eye-opening piece by Elizabeth Kolbert called “Spoiled Rotten: Why do kids rule the roost?”
In the article, Kolbert examines several new books that look at different sides of an increasingly obvious trend — that we are spoiling our kids like never before.
From a study by anthropologists that revealed a lack of discipline in the modern American home to new examinations of how college graduates are returning home in droves, Kolbert’s piece becomes an indictment of our parenting culture.
She and the authors of the books she cites suggest that we are coddling our kids for several reasons.
One is that we fear for their future success and have placed their academic achievement as our highest priority, much higher than their character development. We are so worried about their grades that we often do their work for them.
And, when they are faulted by teacher, we are quick to fight back. A failing grade, or one that simply isn’t stellar, could ruin their record, we seem to believe.
I remember that when I was growing up my parents backed the teacher when I felt I was being treated unfairly in school. Their message, if they had one, was that sometimes life is unfair and that I should have worked doubly hard if my English teacher had it in for me.
The cultural pendulum was probably too far on the authority side back then, as all authority needs checks. But it seems to have swung wildly to the other side. Kolbert cites a book that describes a case in Washington State where a family hired a lawyer to protest a grade.
Another obstacle to discipline is the parental time crunch. We find our over-burdened selves too busy to expend the energy on walking our kids through chores. Frankly, it is easier and faster to do it ourselves.
This is one area where Kolbert admits falling victim to, and so do I. If I only have 10 minutes to make it to school on time, then I’ll just clear the girls’ breakfast dishes myself after I walk them to school.
But, Kolbert suggests, each time I clear those dishes, or pick up the books or clip the car seat they are perfectly capable of clipping, I am teaching them the unintentional lesson of dependence.
At the same time, every time I absentmindedly respond to one of their demands or am too tired to fight when they disobey, I am teaching them entitlement. I am teaching them that they do not have to think too much about others.
I am teaching them that they can act like rude little tyrants without consequence.
What we saw on that school bus, and what we saw afterward, may have as much to do with all of us as it did with a few “narrow-minded monsters.”
What do you think?
How much responsibility does our current culture of parenting have to do with episodes like the one on the New York school bus?
Related Content:
Vassar un-accepts students and parents overreact
With excess praise losing favor, vindication for Tiger Mom?
Over-parenting: Is it something only other parents do? -
Another article fr The NewYorker
URL : http://www.newyorker.com/arts/critics/books/2012/07/02/120702crbo_books_kolbert?currentPage=all
BOOKSSPOILED ROTTENWhy do kids rule the roost?
BY ELIZABETH KOLBERT
JULY 2012
In 2004, Carolina Izquierdo, an anthropologist at the University of California, Los Angeles, spent several months with the Matsigenka, a tribe of about twelve thousand people who live in the Peruvian Amazon. The Matsigenka hunt for monkeys and parrots, grow yucca and bananas, and build houses that they roof with the leaves of a particular kind of palm tree, known as a kapashi. At one point, Izquierdo decided to accompany a local family on a leaf-gathering expedition down the Urubamba River.
A member of another family, Yanira, asked if she could come along. Izquierdo and the others spent five days on the river. Although Yanira had no clear role in the group, she quickly found ways to make herself useful. Twice a day, she swept the sand off the sleeping mats, and she helped stack the kapashi leaves for transport back to the village. In the evening, she fished for crustaceans, which she cleaned, boiled, and served to the others. Calm and self-possessed, Yanira “asked for nothing,” Izquierdo later recalled. The girl’s behavior made a strong impression on the anthropologist because at the time of the trip Yanira was just six years old.
While Izquierdo was doing field work among the Matsigenka, she was also involved in an anthropological study closer to home. A colleague of hers, Elinor Ochs, had recruited thirty-two middle-class families for a study of life in twenty-first-century Los Angeles. Ochs had arranged to have the families filmed as they ate, fought, made up, and did the dishes.
Izquierdo and Ochs shared an interest in many ethnographic issues, including child rearing. How did parents in different cultures train young people to assume adult responsibilities? In the case of the Angelenos, they mostly didn’t. In the L.A. families observed, no child routinely performed household chores without being instructed to. Often, the kids had to be begged to attempt the simplest tasks; often, they still refused. In one fairly typical encounter, a father asked his eight-year-old son five times to please go take a bath or a shower. After the fifth plea went unheeded, the father picked the boy up and carried him into the bathroom. A few minutes later, the kid, still unwashed, wandered into another room to play a video game.
In another representative encounter, an eight-year-old girl sat down at the dining table. Finding that no silverware had been laid out for her, she demanded, “How am I supposed to eat?” Although the girl clearly knew where the silverware was kept, her father got up to get it for her.
In a third episode captured on tape, a boy named Ben was supposed to leave the house with his parents. But he couldn’t get his feet into his sneakers, because the laces were tied. He handed one of the shoes to his father: “Untie it!” His father suggested that he ask nicely.
“Can you untie it?” Ben replied. After more back-and-forth, his father untied Ben’s sneakers. Ben put them on, then asked his father to retie them. “You tie your shoes and let’s go,’’ his father finally exploded. Ben was unfazed. “I’m just asking,’’ he said.
FROM THE ISSUECARTOON BANKE-MAIL THIS
A few years ago, Izquierdo and Ochs wrote an article for Ethos, the journal of the Society of Psychological Anthropology, in which they described Yanira’s conduct during the trip down the river and Ben’s exchange with his dad. “Juxtaposition of these developmental stories begs for an account of responsibility in childhood,” they wrote. Why do Matsigenka children “help their families at home more than L.A. children?” And “Why do L.A. adult family members help their children at home more than do Matsigenka?” Though not phrased in exactly such terms, questions like these are being asked—silently, imploringly, despairingly—every single day by parents from Anchorage to Miami. Why, why, why?
With the exception of the imperial offspring of the Ming dynasty and the dauphins of pre-Revolutionary France, contemporary American kids may represent the most indulged young people in the history of the world. It’s not just that they’ve been given unprecedented amounts of stuff—clothes, toys, cameras, skis, computers, televisions, cell phones, PlayStations, iPods. (The market for Burberry Baby and other forms of kiddie “couture” has reportedly been growing by ten per cent a year.) They’ve also been granted unprecedented authority. “Parents want their kids’ approval, a reversal of the past ideal of children striving for their parents’ approval,” Jean Twenge and W. Keith Campbell, both professors of psychology, have written. In many middle-class families, children have one, two, sometimes three adults at their beck and call. This is a social experiment on a grand scale, and a growing number of adults fear that it isn’t working out so well: according to one poll, commissioned by Time and CNN, two-thirds of American parents think that their children are spoiled.
The notion that we may be raising a generation of kids who can’t, or at least won’t, tie their own shoes has given rise to a new genre of parenting books. Their titles tend to be either dolorous (“The Price of Privilege”) or downright hostile (“The Narcissism Epidemic,” “Mean Moms Rule,” “A Nation of Wimps”). The books are less how-to guides than how-not-to’s: how not to give in to your toddler, how not to intervene whenever your teen-ager looks bored, how not to spend two hundred thousand dollars on tuition only to find your twenty-something graduate back at home, drinking all your beer.
Not long ago, Sally Koslow, a former editor-in-chief of McCall’s, discovered herself in this last situation. After four years in college and two on the West Coast, her son Jed moved back to Manhattan and settled into his old room in the family’s apartment, together with thirty-four boxes of vinyl LPs. Unemployed, Jed liked to stay out late, sleep until noon, and wander around in his boxers. Koslow set out to try to understand why he and so many of his peers seemed stuck in what she regarded as permanent “adultescence.” She concluded that one of the reasons is the lousy economy. Another is parents like her.
“Our offspring have simply leveraged our braggadocio, good intentions, and overinvestment,” Koslow writes in her new book, “Slouching Toward Adulthood: Observations from the Not-So-Empty Nest” (Viking). They inhabit “a broad savannah of entitlement that we’ve watered, landscaped, and hired gardeners to maintain.” She recommends letting the grasslands revert to forest: “The best way for a lot of us to show our love would be to learn to un-mother and un-father.” One practical tip that she offers is to do nothing when your adult child finally decides to move out. In the process of schlepping Jed’s stuff to an apartment in Carroll Gardens, Koslow’s husband tore a tendon and ended up in emergency surgery.
Madeline Levine, a psychologist who lives outside San Francisco, specializes in treating young adults. In “Teach Your Children Well: Parenting for Authentic Success” (HarperCollins), she argues that we do too much for our kids because we overestimate our influence. “Never before have parents been so (mistakenly) convinced that their every move has a ripple effect into their child’s future success,” she writes. Paradoxically, Levine maintains, by working so hard to help our kids we end up holding them back.
“Most parents today were brought up in a culture that put a strong emphasis on being special,” she observes. “Being special takes hard work and can’t be trusted to children. Hence the exhausting cycle of constantly monitoring their work and performance, which in turn makes children feel less competent and confident, so that they need even more oversight.”
Pamela Druckerman, a former reporter for the Wall Street Journal, moved to Paris after losing her job. She married a British expatriate and not long after that gave birth to a daughter. Less out of conviction than inexperience, Druckerman began raising her daughter, nicknamed Bean, à l’Américaine. The result, as she recounts in “Bringing Up Bébé” (Penguin Press), was that Bean was invariably the most ill-behaved child in every Paris restaurant and park she visited. French children could sit calmly through a three-course meal; Bean was throwing food by the time the apéritifs arrived.
Druckerman talked to a lot of French mothers, all of them svelte and most apparently well rested. She learned that the French believe ignoring children is good for them. “French parents don’t worry that they’re going to damage their kids by frustrating them,” she writes. “To the contrary, they think their kids will be damaged if they can’t cope with frustration.” One mother, Martine, tells Druckerman that she always waited five minutes before picking up her infant daughter when she cried. While Druckerman and Martine are talking, in Martine’s suburban home, the daughter, now three, is baking cupcakes by herself. Bean is roughly the same age, “but it wouldn’t have occurred to me to let her do a complicated task like this all on her own,” Druckerman observes. “I’d be supervising, and she’d be resisting my supervision.”
Also key, Druckerman discovered, is just saying non. In contrast to American parents, French parents, when they say it, actually mean it. They “view learning to cope with ‘no’ as a crucial step in a child’s evolution,” Druckerman writes. “It forces them to understand that there are other people in the world, with needs as powerful as their own.”
Not long ago, in the hope that our sons might become a little more Matsigenka, my husband and I gave them a new job: unloading the grocery bags from the car. One evening when I came home from the store, it was raining. Carrying two or three bags, the youngest, Aaron, who is thirteen, tried to jump over a puddle. There was a loud crash. After I’d retrieved what food could be salvaged from a Molotov cocktail of broken glass and mango juice, I decided that Aaron needed another, more vigorous lesson in responsibility. Now, in addition to unloading groceries, he would also have the task of taking out the garbage. On one of his first forays, he neglected to close the lid on the pail tightly enough, and it attracted a bear. The next morning, as I was gathering up the used tissues, ant-filled raisin boxes, and slimy Saran Wrap scattered across the yard, I decided that I didn’t have time to let my kids help out around the house. (My husband informed me that I’d just been “kiddie-whipped.”)
Ochs and Izquierdo noted, in their paper on the differences between the family lives of the Matsigenka and the Angelenos, how early the Matsigenka begin encouraging their children to be useful. Toddlers routinely heat their own food over an open fire, they observed, while “three-year-olds frequently practice cutting wood and grass with machetes and knives.” Boys, when they are six or seven, start to accompany their fathers on fishing and hunting trips, and girls learn to help their mothers with the cooking. As a consequence, by the time they reach puberty Matsigenka kids have mastered most of the skills necessary for survival. Their competence encourages autonomy, which fosters further competence—a virtuous cycle that continues to adulthood.
The cycle in American households seems mostly to run in the opposite direction. So little is expected of kids that even adolescents may not know how to operate the many labor-saving devices their homes are filled with. Their incompetence begets exasperation, which results in still less being asked of them (which leaves them more time for video games). Referring to the Los Angeles families, Ochs and Izquierdo wrote, “Many parents remarked that it takes more effort to get children to collaborate than to do the tasks themselves.”
One way to interpret these contrary cycles is to infer that Americans have a lower opinion of their kids’ capacities. And, in a certain sense, this is probably true: how many parents in Park Slope or Brentwood would trust their three-year-olds to cut the grass with a machete? But in another sense, of course, it’s ridiculous. Contemporary American parents—particularly the upscale sort that “unparenting” books are aimed at—tend to take a highly expansive view of their kids’ abilities. Little Ben may not be able to tie his shoes, but that shouldn’t preclude his going to Brown.
In “A Nation of Wimps: The High Cost of Invasive Parenting” (Broadway), Hara Estroff Marano argues that college rankings are ultimately to blame for what ails the American family. Her argument runs more or less as follows: High-powered parents worry that the economic opportunities for their children are shrinking. They see a degree from a top-tier school as one of the few ways to give their kids a jump on the competition. In order to secure this advantage, they will do pretty much anything, which means not just taking care of all the cooking and cleaning but also helping their children with math homework, hiring them S.A.T. tutors, and, if necessary, suing their high school. Marano, an editor-at-large at Psychology Today, tells about a high school in Washington State that required students to write an eight-page paper and present a ten-minute oral report before graduating. When one senior got a failing grade on his project, his parents hired a lawyer.
Today’s parents are not just “helicopter parents,” a former school principal complains to Marano. “They are a jet-powered turbo attack model.” Other educators gripe about “snowplow parents,” who try to clear every obstacle from their children’s paths. The products of all this hovering, meanwhile, worry that they may not be able to manage college in the absence of household help. According to research conducted by sociologists at Boston College, today’s incoming freshmen are less likely to be concerned about the rigors of higher education than “about how they will handle the logistics of everyday life.”
One of the offshoots of the L.A. family study is a new book, “Life at Home in the Twenty-First Century” (Cotsen Institute of Archaeology), which its authors—the anthropologists Jeanne Arnold, of U.C.L.A., Anthony Graesch, of Connecticut College, and Elinor Ochs—describe as a “visual ethnography of middle-class American households.” Lavishly illustrated with photographs (by Enzo Ragazzini) of the families’ houses and yards, the book offers an intimate glimpse into the crap-strewn core of American culture.
“After a few short years,” the text notes, many families amass more objects “than their houses can hold.” The result is garages given over to old furniture and unused sports equipment, home offices given over to boxes of stuff that haven’t yet been stuck in the garage, and, in one particularly jam-packed house, a shower stall given over to storing dirty laundry.
Children, according to “Life at Home,” are disproportionate generators of clutter: “Each new child in a household leads to a 30 percent increase in a family’s inventory of possessions during the preschool years alone.” Many of the kids’ rooms pictured are so crowded with clothes and toys, so many of which have been tossed on the floor, that there is no path to the bed. (One little girl’s room contains, by the authors’ count, two hundred and forty-eight dolls, including a hundred and sixty-five Beanie Babies.) The kids’ possessions, not to mention their dioramas and their T-ball trophies, spill out into other rooms, giving the houses what the authors call “a very child-centered look.”
When anthropologists study cultures like the Matsigenkas’, they tend to see patterns. The Matsigenka prize hard work and self-sufficiency. Their daily rituals, their child-rearing practices, and even their folktales reinforce these values, which have an obvious utility for subsistence farmers. Matsigenka stories often feature characters undone by laziness; kids who still don’t get the message are rubbed with an itch-inducing plant.
In contemporary American culture, the patterns are more elusive. What values do we convey by turning our homes into warehouses for dolls? By assigning our kids chores and then rewarding them when they screw up? By untying and then retying their shoes for them? It almost seems as if we’re actively trying to raise a nation of “adultescents.” And, perhaps without realizing it, we are.
As Melvin Konner, a psychiatrist and anthropologist at Emory University, points out in “The Evolution of Childhood” (Belknap), one of the defining characteristics of Homo sapiens is its “prolonged juvenile period.” Compared with other apes, humans are “altricial,” which is to say immature at birth. Chimpanzees, for instance, are born with brains half their adult size; the brains of human babies are only a third of their adult size. Chimps reach puberty shortly after they’re weaned; humans take another decade or so. No one knows when exactly in the process of hominid evolution juvenile development began to slow down, but even Homo ergaster, who evolved some 1.8 million years ago, seems to have enjoyed—if that’s the right word—a protracted childhood. It’s often argued by anthropologists that the drawn-out timetable is what made humans human in the first place. It’s the fact that we grow up slowly that makes acquiring language and building complicated social structures possible.
The same trend that appears in human prehistory shows up in history as well. The farther back you look, the faster kids grew up. In medieval Europe, children from seven on were initiated into adult work. Compulsory schooling, introduced in the nineteenth century, pushed back the age of maturity to sixteen or so. By the middle of the twentieth century, college graduation seemed, at least in this country, to be the new dividing line. Now, if Judd Apatow is to be trusted, it’s possible to close in on forty without coming of age.
Evolutionarily speaking, this added delay makes a certain amount of sense. In an increasingly complex and unstable world, it may be adaptive to put off maturity as long as possible. According to this way of thinking, staying forever young means always being ready for the next big thing (whatever that might be).
Or adultesence might be just the opposite: not evidence of progress but another sign of a generalized regression. Letting things slide is always the easiest thing to do, in parenting no less than in banking, public education, and environmental protection. A lack of discipline is apparent these days in just about every aspect of American society. Why this should be is a much larger question, one to ponder as we take out the garbage and tie our kids’ shoes.
-
Very long articles, but interesting to read of the similarities to our experiences.
-
Laura02 thanks for posting this, it’s a good read.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login