The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Children need to look up to someone to learn how they should live their lives. This is often difficult in single parent families where one side has been abusive or even just not caring enough.
A lot of women have relationships with several men who, mostly by bad luck but sometimes through bad choices, aren't suitable fathers or husbands, and a few fathers bring up their kids without a mother or female role model around.
Other thing cause a lack of role model to be an influential factor in a kid's life, such as working mothers who have to split their time between their kids and earning enough money (thanks to stupid government schemes that don't allow mothers to choose to stay at home and rising living costs) and parents who are not bothered about their child's upbringing.
But how much does it affect a child's future development if one or both of their parents are not there as role models and are there any replacements that would do the same thing? Does TV really have any positive impact on this?
I personally believe that you can't get better than (good) parents as role models. That's not to say divorced couples have worse kids. If the single parent is a good enough role model and there is a grandparent or role model of the other sex available, then I think there is every chance the child will benefit from a loving family. And adopted parents can turn around an unruly child who has had previously bad experiences with abusive parents or carers. And I also believe that kids can suffer seriously from a lack of role model in their early lives and this goes towards deliquent behaviour (though not exclusively the cause) later in life.
It does seem like the government aren't interested in this though, they'd rather carry on making it difficult for single parents to stay at home, then come down on them like a ton of bricks when their kids go truent from school or behave badly. It seems as if they aren't interested in studying the effect of home life on children and that, to me, is very dangerous for the future of our children.
A lot of women have relationships with several men who, mostly by bad luck but sometimes through bad choices, aren't suitable fathers or husbands, and a few fathers bring up their kids without a mother or female role model around.
Other thing cause a lack of role model to be an influential factor in a kid's life, such as working mothers who have to split their time between their kids and earning enough money (thanks to stupid government schemes that don't allow mothers to choose to stay at home and rising living costs) and parents who are not bothered about their child's upbringing.
But how much does it affect a child's future development if one or both of their parents are not there as role models and are there any replacements that would do the same thing? Does TV really have any positive impact on this?
I personally believe that you can't get better than (good) parents as role models. That's not to say divorced couples have worse kids. If the single parent is a good enough role model and there is a grandparent or role model of the other sex available, then I think there is every chance the child will benefit from a loving family. And adopted parents can turn around an unruly child who has had previously bad experiences with abusive parents or carers. And I also believe that kids can suffer seriously from a lack of role model in their early lives and this goes towards deliquent behaviour (though not exclusively the cause) later in life.
It does seem like the government aren't interested in this though, they'd rather carry on making it difficult for single parents to stay at home, then come down on them like a ton of bricks when their kids go truent from school or behave badly. It seems as if they aren't interested in studying the effect of home life on children and that, to me, is very dangerous for the future of our children.
Page:
Children need to look up to someone to learn how they should live their lives. This is often difficult in single parent families where one side has been abusive or even just not caring enough.
A lot of women have relationships with several men who, mostly by bad luck but sometimes through bad choices, aren't suitable fathers or husbands, and a few fathers bring up their kids without a mother or female role model around.
Other thing cause a lack of role model to be an influential factor in a kid's life, such as working mothers who have to split their time between their kids and earning enough money (thanks to stupid government schemes that don't allow mothers to choose to stay at home and rising living costs) and parents who are not bothered about their child's upbringing.
But how much does it affect a child's future development if one or both of their parents are not there as role models and are there any replacements that would do the same thing? Does TV really have any positive impact on this?
I personally believe that you can't get better than (good) parents as role models. That's not to say divorced couples have worse kids. If the single parent is a good enough role model and there is a grandparent or role model of the other sex available, then I think there is every chance the child will benefit from a loving family. And adopted parents can turn around an unruly child who has had previously bad experiences with abusive parents or carers. And I also believe that kids can suffer seriously from a lack of role model in their early lives and this goes towards deliquent behaviour (though not exclusively the cause) later in life.
It does seem like the government aren't interested in this though, they'd rather carry on making it difficult for single parents to stay at home, then come down on them like a ton of bricks when their kids go truent from school or behave badly. It seems as if they aren't interested in studying the effect of home life on children and that, to me, is very dangerous for the future of our children.
A lot of women have relationships with several men who, mostly by bad luck but sometimes through bad choices, aren't suitable fathers or husbands, and a few fathers bring up their kids without a mother or female role model around.
Other thing cause a lack of role model to be an influential factor in a kid's life, such as working mothers who have to split their time between their kids and earning enough money (thanks to stupid government schemes that don't allow mothers to choose to stay at home and rising living costs) and parents who are not bothered about their child's upbringing.
But how much does it affect a child's future development if one or both of their parents are not there as role models and are there any replacements that would do the same thing? Does TV really have any positive impact on this?
I personally believe that you can't get better than (good) parents as role models. That's not to say divorced couples have worse kids. If the single parent is a good enough role model and there is a grandparent or role model of the other sex available, then I think there is every chance the child will benefit from a loving family. And adopted parents can turn around an unruly child who has had previously bad experiences with abusive parents or carers. And I also believe that kids can suffer seriously from a lack of role model in their early lives and this goes towards deliquent behaviour (though not exclusively the cause) later in life.
It does seem like the government aren't interested in this though, they'd rather carry on making it difficult for single parents to stay at home, then come down on them like a ton of bricks when their kids go truent from school or behave badly. It seems as if they aren't interested in studying the effect of home life on children and that, to me, is very dangerous for the future of our children.
Great Topic here pb :)
It is difficult. I can do so much for my boys been their mother, but i do think that they need there farther figure in their life. Im not saying this father figure has to be there dad. He see's them when he has a spare 5 minutes longer if there lucky. Then there is his Grandad my boys adore him and get alot of attention from him and their grandad does so much with them. There are bad habits they pick up from him though but more often then not they really do look up to him and the things he does.
I would love to go out and work and support my boys, however i feel that i need to be with them. Especially since i am the number 1 person in their life right now. Im only coming up to 25 and feel i still have plenty of time to work after ive been there for the kids. Yeah at times i struggle and think i need to go out and work. But id rather struggle on and be thir for them, then be another person in there life that isnt around much.
I do what i can for them and while there not getting the care and whatever else from there dad their grandad and uncle and other family members are their for them alot more then he is. When there dad does take them out for a few hours when he brings them back they sometimes kick up a right fuss and scream and cry. I dont like seeing it but what can you do? If he saw more of them and did more with them maybe things would be different but he leaves a long gap in between each visit.
>And I also believe that kids can suffer
> seriously from a lack of role model in their early lives and
> this goes towards deliquent behaviour (though not exclusively
> the cause) later in life.
Defenetly, my lil Tommy was an amazing little boy and now he is becoming a right tearaway. I do believe at times im to soft on him but i dont give in to his every wim. He started swearing and stuff to which i really cannot stand. But you put him near an adult male and he wouldnt say it as much and seems alot more calmer and behaved.
It is difficult. I can do so much for my boys been their mother, but i do think that they need there farther figure in their life. Im not saying this father figure has to be there dad. He see's them when he has a spare 5 minutes longer if there lucky. Then there is his Grandad my boys adore him and get alot of attention from him and their grandad does so much with them. There are bad habits they pick up from him though but more often then not they really do look up to him and the things he does.
I would love to go out and work and support my boys, however i feel that i need to be with them. Especially since i am the number 1 person in their life right now. Im only coming up to 25 and feel i still have plenty of time to work after ive been there for the kids. Yeah at times i struggle and think i need to go out and work. But id rather struggle on and be thir for them, then be another person in there life that isnt around much.
I do what i can for them and while there not getting the care and whatever else from there dad their grandad and uncle and other family members are their for them alot more then he is. When there dad does take them out for a few hours when he brings them back they sometimes kick up a right fuss and scream and cry. I dont like seeing it but what can you do? If he saw more of them and did more with them maybe things would be different but he leaves a long gap in between each visit.
>And I also believe that kids can suffer
> seriously from a lack of role model in their early lives and
> this goes towards deliquent behaviour (though not exclusively
> the cause) later in life.
Defenetly, my lil Tommy was an amazing little boy and now he is becoming a right tearaway. I do believe at times im to soft on him but i dont give in to his every wim. He started swearing and stuff to which i really cannot stand. But you put him near an adult male and he wouldnt say it as much and seems alot more calmer and behaved.
When your parents aren't around as my parents frequently aren't/weren't you look for role models where ever you can. Words to the wise, keep your lil ones away from rap music and programs like jackass.
Seraphim wrote:
> I would love to go out and work and support my boys, however i
> feel that i need to be with them. Especially since i am the
> number 1 person in their life right now. Im only coming up to 25
> and feel i still have plenty of time to work after ive been there
> for the kids. Yeah at times i struggle and think i need to go out
> and work. But id rather struggle on and be thir for them, then be
> another person in there life that isnt around much.
I salute you for that, it can't be easy. You seem to be doing a great job under the circumstances. As I said, the Government seem to stand in the way of parents looking after their kids.
> I would love to go out and work and support my boys, however i
> feel that i need to be with them. Especially since i am the
> number 1 person in their life right now. Im only coming up to 25
> and feel i still have plenty of time to work after ive been there
> for the kids. Yeah at times i struggle and think i need to go out
> and work. But id rather struggle on and be thir for them, then be
> another person in there life that isnt around much.
I salute you for that, it can't be easy. You seem to be doing a great job under the circumstances. As I said, the Government seem to stand in the way of parents looking after their kids.
The first thing you need to understand about children, and the effects of bringing them up, is that free choice is an illusion. Every choice you make is determined by a combination of ingrained behaviour, genetics and influences beyond your control.
Kids can be considered a 'clean slate'. Clean, that is, until you start to imprint on it what it will become. Obviously, genetics has a role. Try to think of it as every child born being a lump of clay, ready for moulding. There are different types of clay, some easier to work with than others, some which always crumble, but ultimately, the end sculpture is whatever you make of it, and the more effort you put into making it a work of art, the better it's going to turn out.
One parent can only put in half the effort that two parents could (could not necessarily following to actual effort), hence the difficulty - but not impossibility - of bringing up a socially acceptable human being alone.
Of course, to my mind, the greater issue is that parents, such as they are, are not properly trained to rear a child as society has the right to expect it be done. Think about it. You want to make pottery, you go to pottery class. You want to be an accountant, you spend years taking exams, and proving your competence. You want to be a parent? Here, have a kid oh, and have some money as well. See you later.
It's not good enough. Any half-trained child psychologist will tell you that there are a hundred thing that any parent does wrong on a daily basis that leads to adverse behaviour from a child. What does smacking your child do? Teach them not to do things you don't want them to do? Perhaps. It also teaches them that when people start doing things they don't want them to do, you start hitting them. The child's brain is so incredibly intuitive compared to the saturated, tired minds of adults, it's absolutely horrifying how quickly they are able to learn, and how able they are to learn things you did not intend to teach.
But parents don't know this. So they use methods like smacking, deprivation and yelling to control their offspring. Anything but the most powerful tool available - reason.
So yeah, single parents are making life harder for themselves, because they've got to put in considerably more effort to get the same results as the standard nuclear family model. But until all parents are compulsorily trained in the art of bringing up children, there will always be a significant problem with delinquency.
Kids can be considered a 'clean slate'. Clean, that is, until you start to imprint on it what it will become. Obviously, genetics has a role. Try to think of it as every child born being a lump of clay, ready for moulding. There are different types of clay, some easier to work with than others, some which always crumble, but ultimately, the end sculpture is whatever you make of it, and the more effort you put into making it a work of art, the better it's going to turn out.
One parent can only put in half the effort that two parents could (could not necessarily following to actual effort), hence the difficulty - but not impossibility - of bringing up a socially acceptable human being alone.
Of course, to my mind, the greater issue is that parents, such as they are, are not properly trained to rear a child as society has the right to expect it be done. Think about it. You want to make pottery, you go to pottery class. You want to be an accountant, you spend years taking exams, and proving your competence. You want to be a parent? Here, have a kid oh, and have some money as well. See you later.
It's not good enough. Any half-trained child psychologist will tell you that there are a hundred thing that any parent does wrong on a daily basis that leads to adverse behaviour from a child. What does smacking your child do? Teach them not to do things you don't want them to do? Perhaps. It also teaches them that when people start doing things they don't want them to do, you start hitting them. The child's brain is so incredibly intuitive compared to the saturated, tired minds of adults, it's absolutely horrifying how quickly they are able to learn, and how able they are to learn things you did not intend to teach.
But parents don't know this. So they use methods like smacking, deprivation and yelling to control their offspring. Anything but the most powerful tool available - reason.
So yeah, single parents are making life harder for themselves, because they've got to put in considerably more effort to get the same results as the standard nuclear family model. But until all parents are compulsorily trained in the art of bringing up children, there will always be a significant problem with delinquency.
Wouldnt say i was making it harder for myself. I didnt choose to be single, and in many cases it cant be helped that you end up single. All you can do is your best for your kids, you can sit and guide them but its up to them as an individual to actually take note!
Also just because a child has both mother and father bringing them up under one roof at times doesnt make any difference. They can still go through things a single parent family go through. I know kids that have both mother and farther and kids are out of control and unruley. So what went wrong there? Its not that thir parents arent about.
Also just because a child has both mother and father bringing them up under one roof at times doesnt make any difference. They can still go through things a single parent family go through. I know kids that have both mother and farther and kids are out of control and unruley. So what went wrong there? Its not that thir parents arent about.
I hope your children aren't like me.
"you can sit and guide them but its up to them as an individual to actually take note"
Without wanting to get into an argument, I thoroughly disagree with this statement. It is the parent(s) that make the individual. The child is not born with a predetermined attitude to ignore the advice of its parent(s).
Without wanting to get into an argument, I thoroughly disagree with this statement. It is the parent(s) that make the individual. The child is not born with a predetermined attitude to ignore the advice of its parent(s).
I can assure you, I am like that. None of my parents morals, beliefs and views have rubbed off on me.
Surely you know that that is not because of some genetically/spiritually inhereted preference though, right?
Page: