View Full Version : Teacher ‘petrified’ after being attacked by student
Baltimore educator says she cannot bring herself to return to work now
Six days after she was sucker punched and beaten in her own Baltimore classroom, high school art teacher Jolita Berry still finds it almost impossible to watch the MySpace video of the attack. And she can’t make herself go back to work.
“I am petrified to go back to that particular building,” Berry told TODAY’s Matt Lauer on Thursday in New York. “I miss the good students that I have. I love them dearly, but I can’t do it.”
The attack happened last Friday morning in Berry’s classroom in Reginald F. Lewis High School in Baltimore. One of the girls in the class approached the 30-year-old teacher and got nose-to-nose with her and threatened her.
I'm telling you from experience of running a 100+ men construction site...these are the same kids that become adults and drive us crazy!:eek:
Link to video...today.msnbc.msn.com/id/24047456/
Stay safe.
What is happening to the kids today?
dr. mabuse
04-10-2008, 11:42
Back in the dinosaur days in Texas, if anyone did that, the teacher would service them, then the principal would service them, then they would get it at home.
When I was in junior high, 1 wangster tried to do that with the science teacher. He was corrected on the spot with a fist. No, the parents didn't threaten to sue.....:munchin
What is happening to the kids today?my parents would killed me for talking back to a teacher!
Cutting grass
Raking leaves
Chopping wood
House-hold chores
Shoveling snow
Is unheard today for kids!
If you had seen the "Olympic" torch demonstration out here yesterday...it would boggle your mind. Ineed keep my camera available...I can show you some crazy-ass things.
Stay safe.
x-factor
04-10-2008, 11:50
After college, while I was waiting on my clearances, I taught high school for a little while. One day I was teaching the emotionally handicapped (ie disturbed, borderline violent) kids. God bless them, they've been through hell and are damaged through no fault of their own...but still a couple of them were really nasty.
They wanted to leave class early and of course I wouldn't let them. I had to sit by the door to physically block them from leaving. So one of them says to me "what if we all jump you right now?"
I told the class "Yeah, if you all rush, you'd probably get me and get out...but the first one to try it is catching an ass-whipping. Who wants to be first?"
They didn't really have an answer for that so we talked about where to get good BBQ for the rest of the class.
Radar Rider
04-10-2008, 14:14
I think that a lot of these kids could benefit from an "Adventure Living" experience. My church works with a program where delinquents are offered the opportunity to go to a challenge camp rather than be dealt with judicially. It is a nature camp with no TV or other such amenities, and has defined rules and community responsibilities. The camp we work with has an 85% success rate; those that don't 'pass' wind up back in the judicial system.
While it is not a total solution, and can't even begin to address "what is wrong with kids today?", it does have a positive effect on those that successfully complete the program.
my parents would killed me for talking back to a teacher!
Cutting grass
Raking leaves
Chopping wood
House-hold chores
Shoveling snow
Is unheard today for kids!
If you had seen the "Olympic" torch demonstration out here yesterday...it would boggle your mind. Ineed keep my camera available...I can show you some crazy-ass things.
Stay safe.
If I was dumb enough I would have received the same but it would have started out with a Ass woopen and then followed with all the work details. And if that did not straighten me out I might get another...
Surgicalcric
04-10-2008, 14:35
my parents would killed me for talking back to a teacher!
Same here brother. My father would have quite literally beat my ass.
It is unfortunate in today's society that kids are being raised to think this is acceptable, well some kids anyhow.
Crip
Radar Rider
04-10-2008, 15:06
I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless
beyond words.
When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of
elders, but the present youth are exceedingly unwise and impatient of
restraint.
--- Hesiod, Eighth Century B.C.
This quote and others attributed to Socrates and Plato make the point that adults throughout history have been alarmed by the behavior of young people and that civilization hasn't yet come to an end because of the rebelliousness of teenagers.
I honestly believe that kids are no worse than they've ever been, but that bad behavior is simply more visible due to stupid things like mytube and youspace.
If you're 'from the past', you can't tell me that fights happened and some word of mouth crowds gathered when everyone said that Socrates and Plato are going to fight at 4 o'clock behind the gym. Even the spontaneous events were egged on by the shouts of "Fight, Fight, Fight!" Back then, they weren't recorded.
In these days of multi-media, such things ARE recorded, and that makes it all seem so much more real. BUT, it has been happening forever.
The Reaper
04-10-2008, 15:21
RR:
I disagree.
When I was growing up, it was extremely rare for a child not to have two married parents of differing genders.
Now that is the exception rather than the norm. There is no shame in siring or birthing children out of a committed relationship, and without a long-term intent to raise them as parents. How many kids have little contact with their fathers, and in many cases their mothers as well?
This results in kids with few, if any parental figures, role models, mentors, or discipline. Most are shielded from reality checks, accountability for their actions, or responsibility, having no parents present who understood the concepts.
Welcome to the Nanny State, where the socialist village can raise your unwanted children, at no cost or penalty to you.
TR
Back in the dinosaur days in Texas, if anyone did that, the teacher would service them, then the principal would service them, then they would get it at home.
That's how it rolled when I was a kid...if you got it at school the last thing you wanted to do was tell your folks. :eek:
Radar Rider
04-10-2008, 16:10
I do not oppose your perspective, Sir, but reality intrudes. Too many couples stayed married because it was religiously or socially 'unacceptable' to divorce. My Dad (RIP) and Mom (RIP) put up with a lot of stuff as children that no one knows about, because at the time it was hidden. Mom and Dad didn't go out in packs and beat other teens, because they were severely beaten or otherwise abused at home. My Dad's dad was a miserable SOB that beat his wife and kids. It never made the news, because that's "just how it was". Grampa committed suicide at age 44; he shot himself in the chest with a shotgun. He couldn't shoot his face because he was too good looking (vanity into death, I guess).
Unless if I just happen to be some particularly miserable case, I think that my family's experience is more the rule than the exception. Dad and Mom thankfully broke the abuse cycle with their 8 kids, but I saw Dad's anger and Mom's psychological damage.
I don't think that two homos raising a kid will make that kid a homo. Quite a long way from my original post, but I think that dogs should wear sweaters when they're cold, too.
RR:
I disagree.
When I was growing up, it was extremely rare for a child not to have two married parents of differing genders.
Now that is the exception rather than the norm. There is no shame in siring or birthing children out of a committed relationship, and without a long-term intent to raise them as parents. How many kids have little contact with their fathers, and in many cases their mothers as well?
This results in kids with few, if any parental figures, role models, mentors, or discipline. Most are shielded from reality checks, accountability for their actions, or responsibility, having no parents present who understood the concepts.
Welcome to the Nanny State, where the socialist village can raise your unwanted children, at no cost or penalty to you.
TR
JustinW20
04-10-2008, 16:16
That's how it rolled when I was a kid...if you got it at school the last thing you wanted to do was tell your folks. :eek:
Amen to that. 'Course I went to an all-boys, Catholic high school. Even in the early '90s, wall-to-wall counseling was not an uncommon occurrence. I can't even imagine what would have happened if a student was dumb enough to raise their hand to a teacher.
As scared as I was of Father Tom wuppin’ my butt, I was ten times more afraid of what would happen when I got home and my folks found out I’d been screwing up at school...:eek:
How come we don't write about GOOD kids?:confused:
Stay safe.
Radar Rider
04-10-2008, 17:55
How come we don't write about GOOD kids?:confused:
Stay safe.
My son is a good kid. A GREAT kid, in fact. He's an honor student and has a Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do. He doesn't do stupid shit, so he doesn't make the news. I'm writing about him now. ;)
Amen to that. 'Course I went to an all-boys, Catholic high school. Even in the early '90s, wall-to-wall counseling was not an uncommon occurrence.
Catholic school here...in the 60's/70s. You can only begin to imagine. Boys got their asses whupped and girls...eieeee we got the edge of the rulers...or called to the nunnery to be possibly suspended. Not that I know anything about all that. :rolleyes:
I still hate nun outfits. :( :D
Just as many goods kids as ever. The bad ones are just worse. That's because some parents are total wastes
Radar Rider
04-10-2008, 19:37
Just as many goods kids as ever. The bad ones are just worse. That's because some parents are total wastes
Really? Great Grandpa beat the shit out of Grandpa. Grandpa beat the shit out of Dad. Dad started out following the same pattern, but broke the pattern with his 8 kids; he'd sit us down and talk and talk and talk..... I suspect that if you research the 1800s and early 1900s, you'll find that kid beating was pretty much the standard.
Okay, we are evolving as a society. Since we can't beat the kids, we have to find a better way in which to raise our children.
The days of beating bad kids, whether we are nostalgic or not, are gone. I don't like punks running around, but we have to be real.
Catholic school here...in the 60's/70s. You can only begin to imagine. Boys got their asses whupped and girls...eieeee we got the edge of the rulers...or called to the nunnery to be possibly suspended. Not that I know anything about all that. :rolleyes:
I still hate nun outfits. :(
You just need to, kick the Habit. ;)
Sorry, I couldn't resist. :D
. Dad and Mom thankfully broke the abuse cycle with their 8 kids, but I saw Dad's anger and Mom's psychological damage.
.
Question: Did a religious faith conversion play a role in the breaking of this cycle? Just curious because it did in our family.
Really? Great Grandpa beat the shit out of Grandpa. Grandpa beat the shit out of Dad. Dad started out following the same pattern, but broke the pattern with his 8 kids; he'd sit us down and talk and talk and talk..... I suspect that if you research the 1800s and early 1900s, you'll find that kid beating was pretty much the standard.
But back then was different. Kids had things to do.
Fetch water.
Chop wood.
Feed the animals.
Help in Planting.
Help in Harvesting.
Help Pa in the Barn.
Help old man Johnson down the way.
Check in in the widow Daniels and make sure she had plenty of wood, water, food, ect.
Granted, this is out in the rural farm areas, but even in the "Big City", kids had plenty of chores to do around the house.
Mostly they were raised as "God Fearin' Folks". Kids and families in general are missing that.
Now-a-days, kids are left with their X-boxs, play stations, I-pods, Cell phones, 200 plus channels on their TVs, ect. There is really NO family any more. No more, sit down and eat the table with everyone and discuss the days "adventures". No more, playing of board games (as simple as it sounds). No more, cohesive "Family Bonding". Now, family bonding is maybe, a trip to Disneyland/world, where the kids run off on their own while mom and dad, (if they do come) go off and do something else.
Okay, we are evolving as a society. Since we can't beat the kids, we have to find a better way in which to raise our children.
The days of beating bad kids, whether we are nostalgic or not, are gone. I don't like punks running around, but we have to be real.
Beatings are one thing. Disciplining them is another.
Whether you call it "nostalgic" or not, that old saying applies today more so then "yesteryear"......"Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child."
Radar Rider
04-10-2008, 20:12
I guess I'm an anachronism. The wife and the boy and I sit down every night for dinner.
dinatius
04-10-2008, 20:14
Deleted.
I guess I'm an anachronism. The wife and the boy and I sit down every night for dinner.
As such, you have a GREAT kid. ;)
My son is a good kid. A GREAT kid, in fact. He's an honor student and has a Black Belt in Tae Kwon Do. He doesn't do stupid shit, so he doesn't make the news. I'm writing about him now.
How many of today's kids, don't have or get that opportunity ??
x-factor
04-10-2008, 20:21
I'm behind RR 100% here.
Because the good kids never make the news, and when they do nobody cares.
I disagree.
We see good kids on the news ALL the time, and PLENTY of people care.
How about the kid who saved up all his change so he could help the lady next door?
How about the kid who had the foresight to call 911 when his mommy couldn't get up off the floor?
How about the kid(s) who held a bake sale to help raise money for their friend that has Cancer.
We see it all the time. Everyday. People care.
Stories like that which Guy posted should be a WAKE UP call to us, as a society. We need to get back that family. That's what is really missing today.
$0.02
dinatius
04-10-2008, 20:29
Deleted.
You have a point, I guess I should ease up on the absolutes, but it seems like the large majority of news is focused on the "bad kids". Maybe I say that because I'M never on the news. :)
Then do something GOOD.
Get involved with something in your community, that you can take to heart.
Stop by a VFW and ask if there's anything you can do for them. Offer to paint up their fence, cut their grass, clean up.
Go to your local VA and VOLUNTEER there. They're always looking for help.
Go to a Nursing Home and talk to the people there. They would love to have someone to talk to. Just to listen to their stories....and believe you me, they have some GREAT stories.
Tell you friends/classmates to join in. You know the old saying....you tell 2 friends, and then they tell 2 friends, and so on and so on....
There's plenty of things to do, you just have to apply yourself.
dinatius
04-10-2008, 20:38
Deleted.
Surgicalcric
04-10-2008, 20:59
Really? Great Grandpa beat the shit out of Grandpa. Grandpa beat the shit out of Dad. Dad started out following the same pattern, but broke the pattern with his 8 kids; he'd sit us down and talk and talk and talk..... I suspect that if you research the 1800s and early 1900s, you'll find that kid beating was pretty much the standard.
Okay, we are evolving as a society. Since we can't beat the kids, we have to find a better way in which to raise our children.
The days of beating bad kids, whether we are nostalgic or not, are gone. I don't like punks running around, but we have to be real.
Yes really, or atleast sometimes... Many parents arent taking their responsibility for raising their kids seriously or at all. They are letting society deem how they are raised and to me that is ass wrong as two men raising a child, or two women for that matter.
Personally I think some kids need their asses handed to them. There are those, obviously like yours, who dont need that to get through to them and a stern talking to about their actions will suffice. At the same time there are others who need to be spanked, whipped, and/or beaten (only figuratively) before they figure out what the hell they are doing wrong and that there is serious repercussions to their actions; I was one of those.
When I was younger, preteen years, I got my ass handed to me often. I thank my father daily (God rest his soul) for being stern and strict with me, for without him beating my ass I may have ended up on the wrong side of the fence later in life when it would have been much more difficult to correct the path I was headed on. Had my father tried time-outs, quiet time, or sent me off to "think about" what I had done I would be in a world of hurt just as many of the kids are today. I remember him sitting me down and talking to me about what I had done, why it was wrong, and that there is consequences for wrong doing. I never remember him hitting me out of anger or as a reflex (except for once when he punched me in the mouth for saying GD; never said that word again), but I can honestly tell you that it always hurt...and hurt really bad. After he was finished he told me he loved me and he hugged me.
I am regretful that your parents endured abusive parents. No child should ever have to endure such, however I believe a parent leaving a child to their own devices is doing them just as great a disservice. I don't remember having the problems in high school that many of todays youth are having and it wasn't that long ago. Some of that I attribute to my parents and the choices they made in rearing me and not letting me make decisions I wasn't responsible enough to make. Whereas many of todays kids are left to themselves because parents have (you name it) to do. The remainder I attribute to the degradation of society as a whole in what we allow kids to witness: TV, radio, movies...
I now have a beautiful 6y/o little girl but she is, without a doubt, her father's daughter. I intend on raising her as I see fit and if that includes her getting her ass spanked when she has tested the limits then that will be that. I refuse to allow society to tell me whats good for my family. The responsibility for my family and my daughter rests firmly on my shoulders. She will be raised to respect her elders, act as a young lady, defend herself, study, and believe her word is her bond. If I can instill those few things in her then I will have done my job as a parent, more or less...
As for the couples staying together I think you will find we as a society dont take commitment as seriously as our parents and their parents, and etc... Yes there are those who stayed together for the kids but I believe you will find a greater number stayed together because they made a commitment to another person, "til death do us part." Whereas today it seems to be, "until something better comes along" or "until you piss me off."
Thats all for now...
Crip
Schmalzy
04-10-2008, 21:08
Ive been very fortunate to have had a great upbringing, but there were two people I feared growing up. God, and then my father. He, never abused the power, but there was a very clear CoC established. Responsibility, integrity, hard work and honor were all qualities that were taught to me to be absolutely required to be a member of our family. There is no doubt in my mind that I would have received an ass whippin beyond comprehension if I EVER hit a woman or pulled what happened in the article.
Go Devil
04-10-2008, 21:18
Humans are quite bright and adaptive as soon as they leave the ol' birth canal.
We normally start pressing boundaries at 6-12 months; "No" is understood very early.
RAISING a child into adulthood requires a DAILY emotional investment from a parent (mother or father) from day 1.
Our world has changed drastically since the Industrial Revolution.
Most of the social education that is needed to become a productive member of a family or society takes place standing by the hip of mom and dad during daily activities (Meals, Work, Study, Social Exchanges, Play, and Rest).
Unfortunately that environment is missing in a great part of our culture. Without the ability to have our children by our sides as they could have been many years ago , communication (dictionary definition) , daily, between parent and child is now the critical event for shaping the minds (SA) of our kids.
Talk to your babies and leave the "Goo-Goo's" to Gram and Gramps!
Invest early. Don't kick the wayward in the teeth and walk away, be a mentor. You might be the only one they will ever have.
My daughter is in the tenth grade. We just returned from meeting with a prospective university that is interested in her talents.
I wish I'd had a fraction of what she has when I was her age.
Go Devil
I see no hope for the future of our people if they are dependent on
the frivolous youth of today, for certainly all youth are reckless
beyond words.
When I was a boy, we were taught to be discrete and respectful of
elders, but the present youth are exceedingly unwise and impatient of
restraint.
--- Hesiod, Eighth Century B.C.
This quote and others attributed to Socrates and Plato make the point that adults throughout history have been alarmed by the behavior of young people and that civilization hasn't yet come to an end because of the rebelliousness of teenagers.
I honestly believe that kids are no worse than they've ever been, but that bad behavior is simply more visible due to stupid things like mytube and youspace.
Perhaps you're right.
Then again...maybe we can draw different inferences.
Hesiod was a poet and a philosopher - and someone was around to record his words for posterity. What does this mean? It could tell us that Hesiod lived during a period of relative affluence, with considerable leisure time. If we look at societies through history, the above factors (affluence and leisure) seem to be at least corrosive - and maybe, an indicator of the looming demise of the society.
Our present age enjoys unprecedented mass affluence, as well as the time to enjoy the abundance.
So - perhaps the behavioral problems have less to do with "modern" youth (whatever era modern might refer to), than to youth exposed to some set of experiences. Perhaps Hesiod whispers to us that by developing a certain environment, we assure ourselves that youth will be frivolous and reckless.
Ah, well. Not to worry. Affluence seldom lingers long in a society that abandons the old virtues of hard work and thrift in favor of luxury and hedonism.
Radar Rider
04-10-2008, 21:32
I don't have a perspective on this, I guess.
Mom and Dad were married for 53 years; my oldest brother was married for 24 years until the cancer got him. I and my sweetheart just celebrated 19 years (6 April). If our families are stable, it is muddled as to see why others have such difficulties.
I just asked my 17 year old son "Why are you such a good kid?". He said it's because of "you and Mom". I think it's because of his Mom, but it's nice to be recognized.
I can't forget when the boy and I went to a concert called "The Sounds of the Underground" in 2006. It was an all day hard rock fest; at the end, as we were both somewhat burned out, he watched the "mosh pit" with some degree of disgust. I thought that he was tired and asked him what was up. He told me that "Those kids in the pit are idiots". The young man is more mature than I am.
Mustang66
04-10-2008, 21:59
Reading over this thread reminds me of time when my wife, daughter (3 yrs old at the time) and I were walking around the mall. My daughter was not in a stroller but walking with us and behaving herself in the way we as parents taught her to behave. We were walking out of a store and a woman comes up to us with her son in a stroller and asks her son "Why can't you act like that?". while point at my daughter. I asked her "Why don't you teach him to act that way?". She got extremely angry and stopped off cussing me. I'm sorry but being parents is a privelage not a right. Till this day, 6 years later my daughter behaves herself in public as she has been taught. I know many of us want our kids to have it better than we did, I know I'm one of them, but within reason. Having a better life does not mean they cannot be taught life lessons and discipline along the way. Yes to this day she is daddy's girl and I teach her everyday, in an attempt to get her ready for this world, which I honest don't know if I can prepare her enough with the way this world is going. My penny worth's of thoughts.
I guess I'm an anachronism. The wife and the boy and I sit down every night for dinner.
Wouldn't it be wonderful if we could all do that? I am, unfortunately a product of the failing economical climate in this country (no denial comments, please) and as such, am forced to work rather than spending that kind of time with my family. -- no offense or disrespect intended (I would love the same opportunity), but I think that is a generalization... it takes more than presence at the table to raise good kids...
That being said, My children are in the public system during the day, where they learn. Before and after that, they are with family, whether myself, my wife, their aunt, or Grandparents-- they are with family. Family that tells them NOT to do the things that BET or the Xbox will teach them to do. Are they denied these things? No. Do they receive the major part of their education from them? Absolutely not!
They have chores and responsibilities. Errors are seen as learning opportunities, not opportunities for a bruised bottom-- HOWEVER-- blatant opposition to the rules or manners result in just that.
What am I getting at? In a nutshell, the result of all of this can be summed up with one word: PARENTING. It seems to be all but lost. Gay or straight, Married, Divorced, Widowed, Adopted... don't care... good parenting results in good kids. Bad parenting results in bad kids.
Its long past time for ADULTS to own this. If you can't face the realities of your life and still focus on that which matters most, DONT HAVE KIDS! If you're not ready to be an adult yourself, DONT HAVE KIDS. And mostly.. I am sick to death of people who have kids to raise their social status and then pay other people to raise them... I wont even begin to raise my voice on this one, because I'm likely not to stop if I start.
I hereby reserve the right to further contribute my .02 in this post, as it comes to me.. :D
...the failing economical climate in this country (no denial comments, please)...
Ok, instead of comments, how about I provide facts?
Real GDP is indeed growing at a slower rate than in the last 4 years, but its still growing. In fact, the annualized real GDP is higher now than any time in the last 78 years. If you're driving in a car at 1mph or 10mph, you're still making forward progress. We haven't seen an annualized decline in GDP since 1991.
Unemployment has risen a fraction of a percentage from last year, but its still lower by a full percentage point than 5 years ago, and 2.5% lower than 15 years ago.
Lastly, inflation has been on a downward trend since 2005, sitting a half a percent lower since then. At 2.9%, it is significantly lower than the 5.4% rate in 1990.
So, looking at the cumulative data for the entire economy rather than individualized situations, how is our economy "failing"?
This story is very disgusting. It happens everyday though. The parents of these kids dont want to be parents, they want to be "friends" to their children. If they want to be anything at all to them. I have seen it many times. The parent thinks that this is what parenting is, to be my childs best friend. This is utter bull shit. The goal of a parent should be to raise a child to be a responseble productive adult. Children dont want their parents to be their buddies they want them to be parents. When parents try to be Buddy, the kids take advantage of the situation and use the parents.
Look at most split house holds. The kids live with parent A. Parent A is strict about homework, chores, and curfew. Kid threatens Parent A with, "I will go live with Parent B, and you will loose child support and have to start paying". Of course parent B is the one that wants to be a buddy. Parent B sees this as an opertunity to stop paying child support back and start getting paid.
You can see it in even younger kids in a stable household when they try asking one parent and then the other when the first one says NO. That is when you have to have a united front as a couple.
The second thing in this story is the Wuss of a teacher being to terrified to go back in the class room. She misses the good kids and they miss their teacher, they are depending on her. She is teaching them that if something bad happens to you, you should run and hide instead of sucking it up and driving on. It would have been different if she had said that she needs alittle time to heal and she would be back as soon as possible. Instead she is crying and giving up. What is this showing the students, even the bad ones.
We have all been there to some degree but it is how you handle it that shows the world who and what you are. I think this teacher needs to go and see some of our wounded vets and see that how they are handling thier situations.
Rant over
Ok, instead of comments, how about I provide facts?
Real GDP is indeed growing at a slower rate than in the last 4 years, but its still growing. In fact, the annualized real GDP is higher now than any time in the last 78 years. If you're driving in a car at 1mph or 10mph, you're still making forward progress. We haven't seen an annualized decline in GDP since 1991.
Unemployment has risen a fraction of a percentage from last year, but its still lower by a full percentage point than 5 years ago, and 2.5% lower than 15 years ago.
Lastly, inflation has been on a downward trend since 2005, sitting a half a percent lower since then. At 2.9%, it is significantly lower than the 5.4% rate in 1990.
So, looking at the cumulative data for the entire economy rather than individualized situations, how is our economy "failing"?
I have no doubts that the data that you provided is absolutely correct. However, I still think that the economic situation for families has changed drastically in the past 30 or 40 years.
I grew up in a house where dad had a "good" job at GM. Mom stayed at home with the kids. I came home to dinner with the family, dad had regular days off, etc. We weren't rich by any means, but we were comfortable. Nice home, two decent (never new) cars, and we didn't want for any necessities. Dad made it to all of my games, was at the parent teacher conferences, etc... most of the families that I knew of were like this (single income), were stable, and divorce was rare.
Those days are gone.
My wife and I both have to work to make it. We live in a very modest older home, have chosen to only have one child, drive very modest used cars, and we still have the same 19" TV that we had in college. Our standard of living isn't any better than what either of us had growing up in single income families. The single income middle class family, at least from where I sit, is a thing of the past. To be "middle class," you almost have to have two incomes, which puts a strain on the "family unit" that worked so well for the generations before us.
Also, though salaries are up, the number of hours required to get that salary have increased greatly. My wife's standard work week is 60 hours, she works nights, weekends, and holidays, and that is not uncommon for managers of businesses... some weeks, she works 80 hours. I have to work "secondary" duties in addition to my 40 hour week....
So we may make more than those before us, but we are working more hours, nights, weekends, holidays, etc. to do it. This, in addition to the fact that both parents now have to work, puts a strain on the family unit....
So, while I do see what you are saying from a statistical point of view, I also know what I have observed. Nearly every family I knew while growing up was single income, mom stayed home with the kids, etc...... Now, I can count on one hand the number of people that I know in that situation, and most of them have highly technical (upper class) jobs.... this has undoubtedly affected the raisiing of our children.
I know families where the kids spend more time at a sitter than with their parents, or basically raise themselves. They have no role models, and are charged with too much responsibility at too young of an age.
I also agree with what Reaper said in regard to divorce. I remember when I was in second grade, there was that one kid in our class who's "gasp" parents had divorced. Now, in any given class 3/4 of the kids are the product of broken homes. There is no stability, as new boyfriends and girlfriends are marched in and out of the kids' lives, they are shipped from home to home, etc....
That's what I always found so curious about the "defense of marriage act." The Bible condemns divorce as strongly as it does homosexuality, and it is indisputable that far, far, far more children are negatively impacted by divorce than could ever be by two gay people getting a marriage license, yet we are so determined to "protect marriage" by banning gay unions. it's almost laughable.
Over half of all marriages end up in divorce... think of how many kids that screws up....but nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to outlaw divorce... I mean, after all, we might find something younger and better someday, right? But if we are really serious about protecting our children, and "saving the sanctity of marriage," then what actually needs to be looked at? Gay marriage, or the ridiculous divorce rate?
There is a gay couple that lives on my block. Two dudes that have been together for 15 years. They helped me landscape my yard, and we invite them over whenever we have a fire pit going out in the yard. Good dudes... big basketball fans.... they even let us use their pool during the summer with our kid.
I can't see how their getting a marriage certificate would in any way "damage" my daughter's concept of family or marriage. However, should I or her mother pack up and leave, and she had to split time between homes, I can undoubtedly say that she would be damaged by the experience.....
But nobody wants to touch that..... Odd. Anyway, rant over.
In closing, I agree with you Razor, but I also think that the economic reality for most families has changed drastically in the past 25 or 30 years,a nd not in a positive way.
I also agree with Reaper in his assessment that the incredibly high divorce rate (with many people getting married 2 or 3 times) has also had an incredibly negative impact on our kids.
And yes, kids are getting worse....
I grew up in a house where dad had a "good" job at GM. Mom stayed at home with the kids. I came home to dinner with the family, dad had regular days off, etc. We weren't rich by any means, but we were comfortable. Nice home, two decent (never new) cars, and we didn't want for any necessities. Dad made it to all of my games, was at the parent teacher conferences, etc... most of the families that I knew of were like this (single income), were stable, and divorce was rare.
Those days are gone.
My wife and I both have to work to make it. We live in a very modest older home, have chosen to only have one child, drive very modest used cars, and we still have the same 19" TV that we had in college. Our standard of living isn't any better than what either of us had growing up in single income families. The single income middle class family, at least from where I sit, is a thing of the past. To be "middle class," you almost have to have two incomes, which puts a strain on the "family unit" that worked so well for the generations before us.
I hear ya, and agree with your assessment at the micro level. The question you have to ask, though, is what were the good paying jobs in the "good ol' days", and what are they now?
I grew up in a paper mill town. Even lower level hourly guys were paid well, because they did something others weren't willing or able to do--in this case, make quality paper and work shifts in a semi-dangerous environment. Today, that town is dying because the paper company, who is beholden to its shareholders, found they could build a mill in Russia, pay less for environmental controls, pay workers less (but hire more of them because they're not nearly as productive), pay nominal shipping fees and in the end generate better profit margins. The mill still runs, but at a mere fraction of its former production rates, with fewer workers, and at reduced wages because demand isn't as high for their product. It sucks for the guys that gave the best part of their lives to the mill, but its an economic reality. The demand for higher priced domestically produced paper (or GM autos in your dad's case) is low, so prices adjust lower and wages follow.
In the end, supply and demand are strong drivers. Unfortunately in our society today, there's higher demand to watch a grown man toss a ball through a hoop (and a small supply of those who can do it well) than for a cop to help control crime, a paramedic to save lives after an accident or a soldier to kill the bad guys in a far away land rather than Main Street USA. All those unemployed auto workers out there aren't bad people, but they (or their unions) priced themselves out of a job. I deeply respect and appreciate the job you do as an LEO, but the societal demand for law enforcement isn't high enough (until things go wrong, that is) to warrant higher pay.
Economies and markets are dynamic; how many coopers do you run into nowadays? How about print setters? Many hand loom weavers? Technology advances and the competitive advantage of foreign markets giveth and taketh away. If someone wants a bigger piece of the pie, they have to be willing (and able) to invest the human capital required to move into a job with higher demand. Otherwise, the economic express train will zip along without them. I'm not claiming its fair, but its damn sure real.
Again, thank God you're doing what you do, 'cuz I sure wouldn't be willing to do it. However, if doing what you do means you struggle to make ends meet, and the struggle isn't offset by job satisfaction, then perhaps you need to investigate what you could do in today's economy that would bring in higher wages. Economic evolution is an efficient but cruel mistress.
Plutarch
04-11-2008, 23:43
I went to high school in the 80's. Even at that time, the boys who got into trouble were given the choice of calling their parents or taking "licks" from the football coach.
For those not familiar with licks, it was basically bending over and having a large man strike you with a thick wooden plank with holes drilled in it so that it whistled through the air on it's way to your backside.
No one EVER called their parents.
I just asked my 17 year old son "Why are you such a good kid?". He said it's because of "you and Mom". I think it's because of his Mom, but it's nice to be recognized.
.
I remember telling my Dad this one day. He deferred the responsibility to me, saying "no, I showed you the way and you chose the path." We argued back and forth for years ( giving each other credit for my upbringing.) Good times. I miss Dad a lot.
But again, if it were not for my Mom and Dad, and the upbringing I had as a kid - the summers I spent working while other kids played; the jobs I got when I was 15; the work ethic and strong back as a result; the beatings I took when I lied or cheated - I would not be where I am today.
No question I had great parents who did an exceptional job with all 4 of us - with no playbook or "Dr Spock" to refer to.
Thanks Mom and Dad
Economic evolution is an efficient but cruel mistress.
Agreed, Sir.
I understand what you are saying, and wasn't trying to say otherwise. I am just pointing out that, for a majority of Americans, the reality of day to day life is much different than the picture presented by the statistics that you listed.
People are working more days, longer hours, swing shifts, and are paying out more for insurance than in any generation before. While the numbers are up, the quality of life is not.
I also understand that the types of jobs out there are changing. The rub is that not every American is capable of doing those jobs. Unlike times past when anyone with a strong back, good work ethic, and desire to earn could support a family, you now have to have a technical skill.
Unfortunately, not everyone possesses the mental faculties needed to get their MSE certification, become a chemist or engineer, etc.... for this group, the future is bleak.
But as you said, a cruel mistress she is.;)
So, looking at the cumulative data for the entire economy rather than individualized situations, how is our economy "failing"?
Sir, I am reminded of a statistical jest. Suppose a person has one foot in boiling water (212 degrees), and another foot in ice (say, -10 degrees). On average, they're comfortable!
I suspect the economy has similar attributes. From the NY Times:
Income inequality grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans — those with incomes that year of more than $348,000 — receiving their largest share of national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows.
The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, also reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.
While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.
LINK (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html)
So, on average, people are moving ahead somewhat. If one delves into the numbers, some are doing quite nicely, whereas others perceive that they are not. Humans being humans, this is likely to generate some jealousy and resentment.
If one supposes - as I do - that we will experience some economic distress over the next year, then the political implications may become significant.
Will it change? I think not. Should it change? That's way above my pay grade. :D
GratefulCitizen
04-12-2008, 14:27
I also understand that the types of jobs out there are changing. The rub is that not every American is capable of doing those jobs. Unlike times past when anyone with a strong back, good work ethic, and desire to earn could support a family, you now have to have a technical skill.
Unfortunately, not everyone possesses the mental faculties needed to get their MSE certification, become a chemist or engineer, etc.... for this group, the future is bleak.
I don't entirely agree with this assessment.
There are plenty of opportunities to make a good living for those lacking advanced skills.
However, people must follow the work. They may not be able to live where they grew up.
I would also argue that the larger problem is spending, not earning.
Patience, frugality, and long-term planning will make the difference.
I would also argue that the larger problem is spending, not earning.
Patience, frugality, and long-term planning will make the difference.
Funny you mention that. What does this chart from the U.S. Commerce Dept. say about American saving habits on the whole?
That we are spending money that we do not have.
The Reaper
04-12-2008, 15:31
Funny you mention that. What does this chart from the U.S. Commerce Dept. say about American saving habits on the whole?
I am not sure, what does it count as "personal savings"?
IRAs, 401Ks, mutual funds, equities, money market funds, etc., or just savings accounts?
It could mean that we have transitioned from the conventional passbook savings accounts to a more diversified means of accumulating wealth.
TR
GratefulCitizen
04-12-2008, 15:36
I am not sure, what does it count as "personal savings"?
IRAs, 401Ks, mutual funds, equities, money market funds, etc., or just savings accounts?
It could mean that we have transitioned from the conventional passbook savings accounts to a more diversified means of accumulating wealth.
TR
Beat me to the punch.
To be clear, in the earlier comparison between spending and earning, "spending" was meant to be an idea distinct from investment or debt reduction.
Radar Rider
04-12-2008, 17:12
I also agree with what Reaper said in regard to divorce. I remember when I was in second grade, there was that one kid in our class who's "gasp" parents had divorced. Now, in any given class 3/4 of the kids are the product of broken homes. There is no stability, as new boyfriends and girlfriends are marched in and out of the kids' lives, they are shipped from home to home, etc....
That's what I always found so curious about the "defense of marriage act." The Bible condemns divorce as strongly as it does homosexuality, and it is indisputable that far, far, far more children are negatively impacted by divorce than could ever be by two gay people getting a marriage license, yet we are so determined to "protect marriage" by banning gay unions. it's almost laughable.
Over half of all marriages end up in divorce... think of how many kids that screws up....but nobody, and I mean nobody, wants to outlaw divorce... I mean, after all, we might find something younger and better someday, right? But if we are really serious about protecting our children, and "saving the sanctity of marriage," then what actually needs to be looked at? Gay marriage, or the ridiculous divorce rate?
There is a gay couple that lives on my block. Two dudes that have been together for 15 years. They helped me landscape my yard, and we invite them over whenever we have a fire pit going out in the yard. Good dudes... big basketball fans.... they even let us use their pool during the summer with our kid.
I can't see how their getting a marriage certificate would in any way "damage" my daughter's concept of family or marriage. However, should I or her mother pack up and leave, and she had to split time between homes, I can undoubtedly say that she would be damaged by the experience.....
But nobody wants to touch that..... Odd. Anyway, rant over.
You know, I could not care less if two dudes choose to cohabitate. Bringing the bible into the argument is only for those that can't provide a reasonable argument. That is simply an attack on people that have a belief by which they think morals exist.
Marriage is just a word; the reality is what two people choose to do in a committed relationship. That being said, if I choose to have relations with my significant other and another girl, should that also be recognized? Just look at the recently busted cult in El Dorado, Texas. They think that an old man should be able to marry and screw children. Is that right, in your view? The law is the law. We have to draw the line somewhere.
Personally, I draw the line at consenting adults. Bringing children into the equation is a straw man argument, IMHO.
I only brought it up to demonstrate that if we were really concerned about the "sanctity" of marriage, and the survival of the family model, then we should be for more concerned about our astronomical divorce rate than we are about the small percentage of our population that wishes to have a same sex marriage.
The former is much more destructive to the traditional family, and affects far more families, than the latter.
However, I don't wish to hijick the thread with what was, admittedly, a rant. If you want to debate it any more, feel free to PM me.
I am not sure, what does it count as "personal savings"?
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (the source of the chart; sorry for not footnoting that earlier):
Personal saving is the amount left over from disposable personal income after expenditures on personal consumption, interest, and net current transfer payments. This amount is available to acquire financial assets such as bank deposits and mutual funds, to use towards acquiring a home, or to reduce liabilities by repaying principle on mortgages or consumer debt.
If expenditures on personal consumption, interest, and net current transfers exceed disposable personal income in a quarter, personal saving will be negative. This can occur because current income is not the only possible source of funds for consumption expenditures. Although spending must eventually fall back into line with income, households can spend more than their after-tax income for a time by withdrawing deposits saved in previous periods, by selling financial or tangible assets, or by borrowing.
So I read that to say that personal savings are what you have left over from your gross income after paying all the various personal (i.e., non-business) taxes (not including OASDI), buying "stuff", paying interest on loans and paying off your credit cards. I interpret that to mean personal savings include the money available for investments, but I'm open to suggestions otherwise if someone knows differently. Guy "Gordon Gekko" Jones, any input?
Paste Eater
04-12-2008, 20:36
Same here brother. My father would have quite literally beat my ass.
It is unfortunate in today's society that kids are being raised to think this is acceptable, well some kids anyhow.
Crip
Graduated high school in 03, and I'd have had my ass kicked and handed to me if I did anything like that.
The rule in my house was, if you get in trouble at school, you get in more trouble at home...
my kids will be raised the same way
Radar Rider
04-16-2008, 15:36
Personally, I draw the line at consenting adults. Bringing children into the equation is a straw man argument, IMHO.
I only brought it up to demonstrate that if we were really concerned about the "sanctity" of marriage, and the survival of the family model, then we should be for more concerned about our astronomical divorce rate than we are about the small percentage of our population that wishes to have a same sex marriage.
The former is much more destructive to the traditional family, and affects far more families, than the latter.
However, I don't wish to hijick the thread with what was, admittedly, a rant. If you want to debate it any more, feel free to PM me.
PM you. :rolleyes:
In the case of the polygamous sect, what do you think? Remove anyone that is underage. Should the head dude be able to marry 16 women? Why not? Should 17 people be married? There is a line, and that line is one man and one woman. Change that, and you MUST allow polygamous marriages, or admit your hypocrisy.
Radar Rider
04-19-2008, 16:13
I notice no opposing responses. I am correct in stating that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
GratefulCitizen
04-19-2008, 16:46
I notice no opposing responses. I am correct in stating that a marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
I agree that marriage should only be between a man and a woman.
However, the polygamy issue is not that simple.
Technically, what many of them do is not illegal.
Morality cannot be legislated.
I am of the opinion that chaotic behavior in this nation is the natural consequence of godlessness.
The passing and enforcement of laws will never promote good behavior, it can only punish a percentage of "bad" behavior.
Unfortunately, "bad" behavior ends up being measured on a sliding, relative scale.
Lacking an absolute standard, this is inevitable.
Razor,
You're kill'in me!:D
I did ask this question in class...
"Why would you take on an ARM if; your earning potential will NOT cover your mortgage payments in the future?"
Some people looked at me like was crazy.:confused:
According to the Bureau of Economic Analysis (the source of the chart; sorry for not footnoting that earlier):
Personal saving is the amount left over from disposable personal income after expenditures on personal consumption, interest, and net current transfer payments. This amount is available to acquire financial assets such as bank deposits and mutual funds, to use towards acquiring a home, or to reduce liabilities by repaying principle on mortgages or consumer debt.
If expenditures on personal consumption, interest, and net current transfers exceed disposable personal income in a quarter, personal saving will be negative. This can occur because current income is not the only possible source of funds for consumption expenditures. Although spending must eventually fall back into line with income, households can spend more than their after-tax income for a time by withdrawing deposits saved in previous periods, by selling financial or tangible assets, or by borrowing.
So I read that to say that personal savings are what you have left over from your gross income after paying all the various personal (i.e., non-business) taxes (not including OASDI), buying "stuff", paying interest on loans and paying off your credit cards. I interpret that to mean personal savings include the money available for investments, but I'm open to suggestions otherwise if someone knows differently. Guy "Gordon Gekko" Jones, any input?I'll run this by some mentors this week.
Stay safe.
Radar Rider
04-19-2008, 19:24
feel free to PM me.
Why do you want a PM? Is it that your shit is so weak that you can't post it? I don't make the rules; I just want you to come on here and defend your bullshit point of view.
Radar Rider
04-19-2008, 19:34
Edit by Razor: Be civil, or be quiet.
I'll run this by some mentors this week.
Thanks, brother. I'd be interested in their opinions.
Why do you want a PM? Is it that your shit is so weak that you can't post it? I don't make the rules; I just want you to come on here and defend your bullshit point of view.
I asked you to PM me out of respect for the original topic of the thread. Hijacking a thread to another topic is bad form.
I told you my position and reasoning behind it in my response to your PM. I am not going to engage in an "internet tough guy" match with you, not will I discuss a topic with someone who is using personal insults as a debating method.
Have a great day.
Radar Rider
04-19-2008, 21:06
Edited by Razor: That's enough.
Thanks, brother. I'd be interested in their opinions.Since the original topic was about students...
Can the proper rearing and education of child/student be considered an investment?
BTW...I would say yes.
Stay safe.
Defender968
04-20-2008, 10:16
Since the original topic was about students...
Can the proper rearing and education of child/student be considered an investment?
BTW...I would say yes.
Stay safe.
Absolutely, an investment in the world’s future.
But like any investment they can lead to a loss much easier than a gain, they take hard work, and many aren't willing to put forth the effort.
And I've seen that on the streets way too many times. The problem is that many parents aren't making the payments, and in my mind the payments are discipline and love, children need both. If either is lacking then there is a high likelihood the investment/child will go south.
As others have said, too many parents trying to be their kids friends instead of being a their parent, and unfortunately the folks who are least well equipped to properly raise children are having them at a faster rate than the responsible ones.... anyone seen the movie Idiocracry, it's not great acting but it describes what's happening today IMHO.
GratefulCitizen
04-20-2008, 11:48
Absolutely, an investment in the world’s future.
But like any investment they can lead to a loss much easier than a gain, they take hard work, and many aren't willing to put forth the effort.
And I've seen that on the streets way too many times. The problem is that many parents aren't making the payments, and in my mind the payments are discipline and love, children need both. If either is lacking then there is a high likelihood the investment/child will go south.
As others have said, too many parents trying to be their kids friends instead of being a their parent, and unfortunately the folks who are least well equipped to properly raise children are having them at a faster rate than the responsible ones.... anyone seen the movie Idiocracry, it's not great acting but it describes what's happening today IMHO.
At some level, it's an economic problem.
There is a potential market-driven solution:
Base someone's social security retirement income upon a combination of the contributions they made during their working career
-and-
upon the contributions their "vested" former dependents are making.
By "vested", I mean any dependent for whom they were responsible for at least 10 years prior to the dependent reaching 18 years of age.
Parents/guardians would be economically motivated to raise their children to be responsible and productive.
Defender968
04-20-2008, 20:33
At some level, it's an economic problem.
There is a potential market-driven solution:
Base someone's social security retirement income upon a combination of the contributions they made during their working career
-and-
upon the contributions their "vested" former dependents are making.
By "vested", I mean any dependent for whom they were responsible for at least 10 years prior to the dependent reaching 18 years of age.
Parents/guardians would be economically motivated to raise their children to be responsible and productive.
Interesting thought, I think it might be easier to just put birth control in the water, and require a permit to get the antidote, but I guess that's why I'm not in politics, there are many who would have me incarcerated for simply thinking such a thing :p
ZonieDiver
05-06-2008, 16:36
I started teaching high school in '75, quit in '82 and started again in '90. At first, I constantly wondered, "What the hell is wrong with 'kids today'?" Eventually it dawned on me that they are essentially the same as I was when I was in school, but that society had erased many of the "lines" that once held kids back. Most try hard to be 'good' - sometimes in the face of big obstacles.
I currently teach in a evening school, and most of my students start school at 7:30 - 8:30 a.m. and are in school until 8:30 p.m. - for four days a week (no evening school on Fridays!) They are not all perfect, but most work hard and try their best. (Still, I look forward to retiring because their parents can drive you nuts!)
This may be off-topic - and if so, I apologize in advance.
From time to time, one comes across something very positive. The 6 minute video at the link appears to fit that definition.
LINK (http://www.komando.com/videos/5-6.asp)
I enjoyed it. I hope others do too.
To echo what was previously mentioned...as an Educator myself, parents are truly the biggest hurdle among teachers, from common courtesy and overall behavior to those that get good grades, the majority of the time, children are the direct result of their parents.
now, i was brought by two parents that never attended college but valued education and did everything they could to get me to do well in school, to include military school and several rear end adjustments, none completely worked. I on the other hand was there to have fun, which i did. I barely graduated too. Was i a problem in class, no. I was the type that pissed teachers off as well because everyone was pushing and guiding me to good grades and all i wanted to do was surf and play soccer. Study? Wasnt interested.
I made it through college with above a 3.0....but thanks to serving in the military and realizing the importance and value of education. Took me a little longer to academically mature.
Teachers are in a no win situation at times, well most of the time. If it's not the parents its the school district and administrators (red tape) and ridiculous SOP's.
500 Proof
11-26-2010, 22:11
Now-a-days, kids are left with their X-boxs, play stations, I-pods, Cell phones, 200 plus channels on their TVs, ect. There is really NO family any more. No more, sit down and eat the table with everyone and discuss the days "adventures". No more, playing of board games (as simple as it sounds). No more, cohesive "Family Bonding". Now, family bonding is maybe, a trip to Disneyland/world, where the kids run off on their own while mom and dad, (if they do come) go off and do something else.
The huge chunk of time spent on the internet or playing video games, combined with a lack of family bonding and general social interaction e.g. playing outside building dams or forts with other kids, partially explains the increase in piss poor social skills and defective behavior.
Could many cases of so called ''aspergers'' really be the result of over protective parents and kids with too many video games and internet time? Seriously, go out and have a snowball fight with the kids in your neighborhood ...
The huge chunk of time spent on the internet or playing video games, combined with a lack of family bonding and general social interaction e.g. playing outside building dams or forts with other kids, partially explains the increase in piss poor social skills and defective behavior.
Could many cases of so called ''aspergers'' really be the result of over protective parents and kids with too many video games and internet time? Seriously, go out and have a snowball fight with the kids in your neighborhood ...
Having a son with "so called aspergers" and being intimately involved with other kids with the same affliction, as well as dealing with many of these kids on a law enforcement level, I can tell you that a kid identified as such in school is rarely just a case of lack of involvment. In order for a child to receive the proper school services, he/she has to have had several evaluations from both private and state psychologists and psychiatrists, they are assigned a social services case worker who designs and implements their IEP or Individual Education Plan, and if they are lucky, get assigned teachers who have been trained to deal with many of the situations that come up with these children.
Children like you are trying to talk about simply have no structured home life. At least one of their parents, if they are fortunate enough to have both of them in the home, has a criminal history and usually both of them have a criminal history of some sort. They see drug abuse on a daily basis and think nothing of it. These are the kids whom I have often arrested as a juvenile shoplifter and continue to arrest on a regular basis in their mid-20s for everything from drugs to assaults to B&E's. There is no similarity between these kids and those with "so called aspergers."
Could many cases of so called ''aspergers'' really be the result of over protective parents and kids with too many video games and internet time?
FWIW - Asperger or Asperger's is a proper noun.
If you ever have any experience with Asperger's kids or adults, you'll most likely be able to recognize it...but not all of the time. Asperger's, like most such syndromes, have gradients of both the severity of the symptoms associated with it and the ability of those afflicted with it to voluntarily engage socially. More than you realize lead very productive lives within highly focused careers as doctors, engineers, systems engineers, and lawyers.
The character of 'House' - an Asperger's afflicted MD - makes for a different sort of doctor on television and is not as far fetched as one would think; there are many like him and their ability to hyper-focus within a very narrow spectrum of cognitive interest makes them exceptional practitioners of their professions.
I have known a number of kids and adults with Asperger's Syndrome, and currently tutor a high school Junior who has fairly severe Asperger's. He is one of the most intelligent people I have ever known and his memory retention is phenomenal. He is a very concrete thinker and has trouble understanding the many nuances associated with life - especially during social interactions and with the inferential reasoning of literature - and his focus in life revolves around movies. I have known others whose focus is sports or cars or historical facts or statistics, but with this kid, as long as you can take a topic and relate it even in the most superficial way to movies or a movie character, he'll get it and never lose it, and you can then guide him to an acceptable understanding of even the most subtle of literary references...even if he quiclkly chooses to not embrace it or desires to go no further with it.
Based upon my experiences, many of the issues with Asperger's kids in school are associated with their concrete sense of 'fairness', the subject (either a lessened ability or desire to quickly switch topics when engaged in an activity they enjoy or a strong push on their part to switch when attempting to get them to engage in a topic they do not), a less structured classroom environment, and their level of social ineptitude (which often makes them easy targets for teasing - especially during puberty and the middle school years).
Overly protective parents do not an Asperger's kid create - schools and diagnosticians know this and can, in most cases, readily provide reasonable solutions and accomodations for it.
Richard's $.02 :munchin
GratefulCitizen
11-27-2010, 18:47
Have a niece with Asperger's.
My sister went to great lengths seeing to her education.
She finished high-school last spring at age 16.
She also demonstrated natural aptitude in ballet.
The single-minded focus turned out to be a blessing.
She is currently in the pre-professional program at the Pittsburgh ballet.
My two year-old demonstrates many behaviors consistent with autism spectrum "disorders".
So did his siblings, especially his oldest sister.
She started kindergarten at age 4 and excels in school.
Not worried about them.
The world's big enough for everyone to find a place where they fit.
In many cases, I would disagree with the term "disorder".
"Different" doesn't mean "broken".
500 Proof
11-27-2010, 20:57
Having a son with "so called aspergers" and being intimately involved with other kids with the same affliction, as well as dealing with many of these kids on a law enforcement level, I can tell you that a kid identified as such in school is rarely just a case of lack of involvment. In order for a child to receive the proper school services, he/she has to have had several evaluations from both private and state psychologists and psychiatrists, they are assigned a social services case worker who designs and implements their IEP or Individual Education Plan, and if they are lucky, get assigned teachers who have been trained to deal with many of the situations that come up with these children.
Children like you are trying to talk about simply have no structured home life. At least one of their parents, if they are fortunate enough to have both of them in the home, has a criminal history and usually both of them have a criminal history of some sort. They see drug abuse on a daily basis and think nothing of it. These are the kids whom I have often arrested as a juvenile shoplifter and continue to arrest on a regular basis in their mid-20s for everything from drugs to assaults to B&E's. There is no similarity between these kids and those with "so called aspergers."
My apologies, I can see that what I wrote might have been offensive. I don't doubt that there are many people who are reasonably diagnosed with the syndrome. In my response to Sdiver's comment, I drifted away from the original thread topic a bit, disconnecting with the part relating to 'anti social' and criminal behavior and focused more on the general consequences of inadequate socialization.
I have personally known more than a few parents that seemed pretty over protective and prone to a kind of ''hypochondria'' in regards to their children. Usually they'd strictly control who their kids could spend time with and how they could play, which unsurprisingly resulted in maladjusted children that only fueled their hypochondria further.
bandycpa
11-27-2010, 21:04
In many cases, I would disagree with the term "disorder".
"Different" doesn't mean "broken".
Amen, GC. For years I wondered how my 10 year old (diagnosed as high-functioning autistic) would possibly survive in this world. The older he gets though, the more I see that other "normal" kids have far worse issues to deal with than he does.
He has acclimated into his classroom environment. His IEP has been a Godsend, and the teachers he has are phenomenal in working on his weaknesses while emphasizing his strengths. His friends in class watch out for him, which is a double edged sword in that he is in a good environment, but at times will rely on them to take care of him. It's a work in progress. After all, the boy *is* 10.
His mother and I have learned that we should celebrate his differences rather than hoping he will someday "snap out of it". I love my boy the way he is, and he's doing a helluva job of growing up...differences and all.
Bandy
As a 21 year old resident of the same county for my admittedly short and inexperienced life, I may be off the mark but I have ideas based on my own observations and inferences.
IMVHO, many, or at least a fair number of parents “today” are simply too weak/meek for their role as parents. I sell footwear, and parents come in with their kids to pick out shoes. The parents ASK their kids to try things on, or what color they want. Many times, the child will refuse to try shoes on and react violently and loudly. Instead of taking the kids “out back,” the parents just coddle them and listen to the “orders” of the child!! It’s as if the children, whether 3 or 4 or 10 years old are going to punish the parents if they don’t listen. It’s pathetic. Tell the child what he likes and what he can choose from. If he doesn’t want to try on shoes raise your voice and get a little boisterous. What’s your 5 year old little angel going to do about it if you don’t listen to him? Give me a break. Offending your child shouldn’t be too high on the priority list, and the holding of them on a royal pedestal, IMHO, only fosters a sense of entitlement and arrogance in the child that will likely grow over time. One couple allowed their little boy to wear a girly t-shirt and let him pick out a pair of pink Vibram 5 Finger toe shoes. They proudly told me their son’s favorite color was pink. It all seems like a bad joke. I try to imagine John Wayne seeing a kid with pink toe shoes and what he’d say to the kid’s parents.
Again, IMVHO, ultimately it comes down to thinking that is something along the lines of “Who am I to decide what is right and wrong?” as if this whole “diversity” thing means that right and wrong are so malleable that parents decide that to “force” morality on their children is the ultimate sin (if they believe that anything is a sin). Heaven forbid the child not feel free to “express themselves” in all their vast knowledge and creativity (aka watch his mouth). The child should decide for himself what is right and wrong, right? Who am I, as a parent, to force my child to adhere to a rigid and unwavering CoC or punish him by force? (spanking, etc.) Where are the parents’ b*lls? I think this way of thinking seems to be playing out, with the younger couples especially. As an anecdote, I know of a 14 year old high school girl who decided to get a new boyfriend from another school district. He was 18. Her parents had no qualms about letting her continue the relationship. “Yeah, because an 18 year old boy dating a 14 year old girl has the moral compass of a Saint and is disinterested in sex, drugs, and alcohol.” But who am I to decide that this kid is a troublemaker, or to infer that his preference for underage girls will likely be related to a preference for many other things intolerable though unseen? Well, some months later the girl’s house got busted for a loud party and drugs and alcohol and OD’d kids were present and taken to the hospital. The boyfriend decided to throw the party at his 14 year old girlfriend’s house while her parents were away. As if that was a train that nobody saw coming.:rolleyes:
It seems that many of these people think that if their kid gets good grades and maybe goes to college that the child is somehow absolved and forgiven for any moral transgressions. I know several people my own age who habitually insult their parents and the parent just sucks it up as if it’s appropriate. But Heaven forbid when Johnny tells his mom he no longer wants to go to Harvard Law and is going to find work with his B.S. All of the sudden he has committed an atrocity, it’s shameful to find rewarding or satisfying work outside the realms requiring extensive academic preparation. That is too lowly for MY son.
In conclusion, I think the parenting methods and tactics, as well as misplaced values that I’ve observed only serve to instill a sense of arrogance, entitlement, and selfishness in children, as opposed to humbleness and respect. Believe it or not, this rant was brief.
- Dan P
500 Proof
11-27-2010, 23:25
As a 21 year old resident of the same county for my admittedly short and inexperienced life, I may be off the mark
Always figured that if your lack of experience is a significant factor in the quality of your theories and thoughts, then it will show in them.
The motivations and circumstances of an theorist are irrelevant to the validity of their theory or idea.
The motivations and circumstances of an theorist are irrelevant to the validity of their theory or idea.Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson would disagree.
500 Proof
11-27-2010, 23:36
Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson would disagree.
How so?
incarcerated
11-28-2010, 00:00
How so?
Here we go...! :D
How so?During his tenure as the director of Freud's archives, Masson became convinced that Freud developed his "seduction theory" as a smoke screen for the widespread sexual abuse of young girls in fin de siècle Vienna.*
In developing this controversial argument, Masson took the sustainable position that contexts do matter when looking at the development of theories and testing their validity.**
__________________________________________________ ____
* Janet Malcolm, In the Freud Archives (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984).
** In retrospect, I probably should have gone with Peter Paret or Sean Wilentz. Sorry:o.
I went to high school in the 80's. Even at that time, the boys who got into trouble were given the choice of calling their parents or taking "licks" from the football coach.
For those not familiar with licks, it was basically bending over and having a large man strike you with a thick wooden plank with holes drilled in it so that it whistled through the air on it's way to your backside.
No one EVER called their parents.
:confused:
Always figured that if your lack of experience is a significant factor in the quality of your theories and thoughts, then it will show in them.
The motivations and circumstances of an theorist are irrelevant to the validity of their theory or idea.
Take note of the crowd that will be reading this. People that are parents, older, and more experienced than I am.
As you must have noted, countless young men have joined PS.com and stepped on their d***s with their theories. If I came here and theorized from Ft. Living Room about what it may be like to be in a firefight, how much water would my theory really hold? Perhaps I will do what the 17 year old Rambos do and tell SF soldiers about who's better, SF or SEALs? I would counter that the motivations and circumstances of a theorist will significantly affect the validity of a claim.
- Dan P
500 Proof
11-28-2010, 14:23
During his tenure as the director of Freud's archives, Masson became convinced that Freud developed his "seduction theory" as a smoke screen for the widespread sexual abuse of young girls in fin de siècle Vienna.*
In developing this controversial argument, Masson took the sustainable position that contexts do matter when looking at the development of theories and testing their validity.**
__________________________________________________ ____
* Janet Malcolm, In the Freud Archives (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984).
** In retrospect, I probably should have gone with Peter Paret or Sean Wilentz. Sorry:o.
I think I understand what your getting at. I'll read up on it.
500 Proof
11-28-2010, 14:26
I would counter that the motivations and circumstances of a theorist will significantly affect the validity of a claim.- Dan P
As I said, ''if inexperience is a significant factor in a theory, then it will be apparent.'' I think that in a discussion like this, truth is truth, it doesn't matter who is speaking of it or why they are speaking of it.
Of course, if you're giving bs advice to someone that is inexperienced in the workings of a firearm, it would be helpful for them to know that you are inexperienced too.
Cheers