The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Everpain wrote:
> 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.
>
This is not the whole picture and is more of an ongoing debate, even between 'professionals' over the nurture/nature influence on children.
> Kids can be considered a 'clean slate'. Clean, that is, until
> you start to imprint on it what it will become.
Kids do have their own personality, it's true, but there are methods for parents which are successful in teaching their kids the basics of right from wrong and general moral attitudes.
>
> 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.
I disagree to some extent. This is a far too broad statement that doesn't take into account family support and the difference between a good single parent family and one with an abusive parent.
>
> 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.
I think the issue is more that parents before used to pass on their knowledge to their children when they too became parents. This type of society is getting far more rare and so many parents start from scratch. Our culture is also changing and some parents seem less tolerant of their children and less likely to spend time understanding them.
>
> 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?
Another very broad statement and for every parent that does things 'wrong' there is a parent that does things 'right'. Certain actions (such as abuse) are certainly wrong, but even psychologists are still arguing over others.
> 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.
>
This is not the whole picture and is more of an ongoing debate, even between 'professionals' over the nurture/nature influence on children.
> Kids can be considered a 'clean slate'. Clean, that is, until
> you start to imprint on it what it will become.
Kids do have their own personality, it's true, but there are methods for parents which are successful in teaching their kids the basics of right from wrong and general moral attitudes.
>
> 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.
I disagree to some extent. This is a far too broad statement that doesn't take into account family support and the difference between a good single parent family and one with an abusive parent.
>
> 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.
I think the issue is more that parents before used to pass on their knowledge to their children when they too became parents. This type of society is getting far more rare and so many parents start from scratch. Our culture is also changing and some parents seem less tolerant of their children and less likely to spend time understanding them.
>
> 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?
Another very broad statement and for every parent that does things 'wrong' there is a parent that does things 'right'. Certain actions (such as abuse) are certainly wrong, but even psychologists are still arguing over others.
No I don't know much on genetics to be honest.
Surely you know that that is not because of some genetically/spiritually inhereted preference though, right?
I can assure you, I am like that. None of my parents morals, beliefs and views have rubbed off on 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 hope your children aren't like me.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Page: