Study blames parents, media, and feminism for badly behaved kids

I'm 21. I see kids as young as 5 and 6 trying to act 15. I see 15 year old trying to act 30. I do agree with the idea that

1) Parents allow children to dress and act older than they are

2) media has made it easier and almost a demand that children as young as 5 and 6 act 15.

3) Feminist movement-Hmm.. that one, Im kind of dicey about. The actual movement that made women equal to men DID NOT create these little wanna be adults. Although, the movement created a wave effect that soon followed behind and made the sexier, classier clothing to be made for younger girls.

Along with trend and fashion, the once brown, plaid and pink jumpsuits are no longer "girly" they are now wearing short skirts that show too much underneath.. even two piece bathing suits for toddlers! It goes from cute to risque, but where do you draw the line?

Girls want attention of boys. They will do whatever it takes to get attention, whether good or bad.

I blame it more on society's fashion trends. Dont blame parents just because they want their child to look in fashion.. (although as I said above, parents are partial to the problem)

Soon the high waisted pants and cute shirts will be back in -Hopefully

Reply

According to author Anne-Marie Ambert, "In feminism we have emphasized changing girls much more than we emphasized changing guys. So nurturing sort of has gone out of the way as a role model for females. So that means if you are less nurturing you are more likely to be more aggressive, as males are . . . But on the other hand, we just cannot say it is feminism strictly because this would not have occurred in a context that did not have a violent media and the consumerism media that we have."

What rubbish! The point in the feminist movement is not to change women. It is to change VIEWS about women. Women should not have to change to be treated equally. We should not have to DO anything - we are human beings and deserving of respect based on that qualification alone.

Dawn said: "The actual movement that made women equal to men DID NOT create these little wanna be adults. Although, the movement created a wave effect that soon followed behind and made the sexier, classier clothing to be made for younger girls."

Again, this is untrue. Feminism actually fights against the sexualisation of younger girls, or any girls for that matter, because of the belief that women's worth should not be based on their sexuality. Feminism is working for a world where women don't have to be 'sexy' to be respected and little girls don't have to wear the word "SEXY" on the seat of their trousers just to feel grown-up.

Reply

Anji- There is no mention of feminism in the report. It was just the authors point of view.

Personally, I think feminism has hurt our society. It is not the fight for equality that has done it. It is the idea that equality means literal equality. The I can do anything you can do mentality has taught women to be more like men, shich I think is the authors point. I would rather be equal but different. I would like our society to celebrate the differences between the sexes rather than destroy them. Why can't I, as a woman, be just as valuable to society as a nuturing, loving wife and mother as a man is climbing the corporate ladder? Why do I have to climb that ladder to be valued?

Reply

I believe the problem with today's kids is parenting. But it's not just parents' fault - it's partly because, since the mid-20th century, popular child psychology writers have pushed for a more "child-centric" child-rearing style which basically teaches kids to think "it's all about me." More and more, people are afraid to say "no" to their kids, afraid to do anything that the kids might not have chosen on their own. Like the post the other day that suggested parents considered buying identical toys for their multiple kids out of fear that the kids might fight over different toys. Like the now infamous Airtran parents who could only meekly respond "we're trying" when required to make their three-year-old sit in her seat. Like parents who hold perfectly normal kids back in school so they can always feel like they're the king of the mountain rather than a mighty but challenged rock climber. Like the parents who are afraid to introduce training pants until the kids can practically tie their shoes. Like parents who think they have no right to tell their children what they are allowed to wear, whether they are allowed to have sex, what they are going to eat for dinner, etc., etc. As a result of this type of parenting, kids have fewer early opportunities to learn to deal with disappointment, to cooperate, and to develop solutions to conflict. So they respond inappropriately to disappoinments and conflicts that they encounter in the outside world.

In the good old days, parents used to tell their kids what they could / couldn't / would / wouldn't do. Sure, they tried to keep the demands in line with what the kids were capable of at a given age, but it wasn't about whether the kids agreed on what was best for them. "Parenting" means the parent leads, the kid follows. Kids raised under this philosophy still had plenty of room to develop creativity, problem-solving, and responsibility, but within age-appropriate limits enforced by discipline.

I don't agree that having both parents work hurts kids. In my experience, observations, and research, I have consistently seen that many stay-at-home moms have totally messed-up kids, many working moms have great kids, and vice versa; and that overall, neither is proven to be better. All other things remaining equal, I think working parents are more likely to instill responsibility and discipline, because they are more likely to weigh the kids' needs against their own needs and say "no" once in a while.

Regarding the idea that feminism has made women less nurturing, I believe that nurturing is instinctive more than learned. Furthermore, both daughters and sons of working moms actually have more opportunities to practice childcare (thus learn / practice / enjoy nurturing) with their younger siblings than children of stay-at-home parents. I think there have always been some females who are on the low end of the nurturing spectrum, and their kids suffered in the past just as much as today. Maybe it's even better now, because moms who aren't nurturing can choose a career and their kids can enjoy the nurturing of another caregiver during the day, rather than experiencing their mother's resentment all day long. But either way, I would stress that a non-nurturing mom is the exception rather than the rule.

And I wouldn't blame the media. Yes, the media is totally irresponsible, but it's up to the parents to decide how this is allowed to translate to their kids' behavior. Again, parents can say "no." Why don't they? Blaming the media, the schools, the community, the welfare system, etc., just gives parents more excuses not to parent. Even today, it has been proven that parents are kids' number one influencers. Take responsibility, folks! Stop making excuses for yourself and your kids, and start setting and meeting appropriate standards.

Reply

SKL- I am with you mostly on this one.

I have one beef. The media has shifted our culture. Even if parents limit their childrens expose to media it shows up in other ways. For instance, what is cool at school.

Here is part of the actual report. It is from the conculsion.

1. A key change lies in the gradual and then swift rise in visual media programming highlighting materialism and consumerism (including advertising), individualism, then violence, hedonism, and lack of civility. Thus, the values and the general cultural context surrounding children's lives have been substantially altered. Yet, broad cultural patterns are much neglected variables in the explanation of several recent phenomena—in itself a reflection of bias on the part of researchers. But this lack of research does not mean that a society's complex set of values and norms have no profound influence on the development of behaviours. They do. In the same vein, social scientists and psychologists have become particularly reluctant to offer advice that may sound moral (Sleek, 1998).

2.The above changes were accompanied by a general acceptance of a lower level of civility, whether in terms of civic engagement, graffiti, altruism, politeness, clothing, personal deportment and self-presentation (both at home and elsewhere).

Reply

leela,

You make a good point. The media has a secondary influence to the extent that it influences behaviors of those around us.

However, parents can counter this effect by modeling civil behavior, and talking to their kids about it. Yes, they will still see a lot that their parents don't approve of. But the parent's influence will be more important than that of others. The old "if Johnny jumped off a bridge would you do it too" is still relevant.

That said, kids will always push as far as their parents let them, plus a little. This is true whether the parents are strict, moderate, or permissive. It's best to set and model standards that are a bit higher than the way we actually expect our kids to act when we're not around. Then when they are seeking the thrill of bending the rules, at least they probably won't put themselves in danger or cause harm to others.

Reply

I do agree that feminism has a lot to do with this.

For anyone who says it`s not about changing women, look around! Feminism really seriously gives mixed messages to little girls. At least it was that way for me - I was supposed to be feminine, but not TOO feminine, because I needed to be the same as a boy... But I`m not the same as a man, and I wasn`t the same as a boy back then.

Feminism is great for the women who *WANT* to go out there and do their thing. The women who want to proclaim that they`re everything a man is and more. But what about the women and girls who want to have a more traditional life? What about the ones who WANT to get married and have children?

When I was in grade school, one of my teachers was a through and through feminist. Actually, several of them. When we`d have classroom presentations about what we`d do in the future, I wanted to get married, have children, etc.
I cannot tell you how many times I was told that I "didn`t need to conform to those stereotypes!" And that I "Could be anything I wanted!" ..... Which totally ignored the fact that I *wanted* that in my future.

For me, feminism told me that I *couldn`t* do what I wanted, while saying the opposite. Instead of adding to my options, it took away the option I wanted. It told me that I should be ashamed of myself for wanting the type of future that fit into men`s stereotypes. Because, obviously, I couldn`t have come up with that myself.

Equality is a good thing for everyone, male or female. But I really cannot bring myself to believe that feminism is good for anyone but the women pushing it. Instead of destroying the barriers between men and women, they`ve just torn them down and rebuilt them somewhere else. The phrase I often hear - "Everything a man is and more" just reaffirms that - so, women are supposed to be better than men now, eh? Whatever happened to real equality? Sounds like women are just sticking themselves in the upper spot that men formerly held...

Reply

Tamyu,

This is a little off topic, but I do think all girls should be brought up with the expectation that they will have a career. The reason is that there is no guarantee that a girl will get married young, or for that matter, ever. (I always expected to get married young and have lots of kids, but I've never met the right man - yet - at age 40.) I absolutely love kids, but parenthood can only happen for me if I can support my children on my own salary. And these days, even women who get married don't necessarily have a husband capable of supporting a family on one income. So planning for a career is really a safety net even for those girls whose true dream is to focus on nurturing their family.

Having said that, I agree that a career motivation should not be valued over motherhood. A career may be a destination or it may be merely a vehicle on the path to a destination. As I noted above, I feel that it is natural for most women to want to nurture, sometimes above all else, and there is nothing wrong with that. That the feminist movement devalued motherhood is probably the worst thing that happened to women in the 20th century.

I agree that the feminist movement was all about making women more like men, as if maleness was the ideal state. The only thing uniquely female is motherhood, and it ought to be celebrated. Radical feminism's disrespect of this amazing gift actually reinforced the feeling that women are less than men, since women can never be fully male and now couldn't be fully female either.

Despite the above, I don't buy the argument that feminism is the reason for girls to act up. I don't think girls' behavior has worsened any more than that of boys, so I don't think it makes sense to correlate only the girls' behavior with a gender-oriented movement. I just think girls, like boys, have not learned in early childhood how to constructively deal with disappointment and conflict.

Reply

It's unfortunate that some women have de-valued your desires, Tamyu, but that is not what many feminists are about. Like any group, there's a wide spectrum; while I'm a "through and through" feminist, I don't de-value family--I have one! And I love and need and cherish them. To me, feminism means women going places where previously only men have been (like the White House!), being able to chase their dreams, whatever they may be, to have equality in the home and workplace, and to change social perceptions about women and their capabilities--among other things.

Reply