Do we spoil our children

[Shar]

Couln't find a post in this one so I suppose it came over as a topic from the old board. I hope this gets rid of the date posted but if it didn't, it is my own fault for not writing staff and asking them to start a new one with this title.

I have forgotten what many of the old posts said but seems it was a majority that said we did/do. Heavens, I am on to great grandchildren now so the children thing doesn't apply personally. I didn't do much spoiling with my son but to hear my friends tell it, I did with my daugher. She was easy to spoil (if that is what I did) as she was so agreeable and sweet. It is very odd that you believe you raise 2 children with similar methods but they are so different isn't it? The son, poor thing, is quite like me. He is the one that said that. The daugher seems to also have many of my traits. I would imagine that is enviroment as opposed to genetic.

The son and daughter were quite permissive with their children. The grandchildren are more strict with theirs. I wonder why? The granddaughters tell me I had quite an influence on their lives. They indicate it was a good influence. I prefer to accept that. Both of them lived with me at various times, one with the mother there, the other with mother there and then again just the two of us. Both had great mothers and Dad's so I feel the credit should be given to them and I was just a fun diversion. I worked, but I seemed to have more time....certainly patience......to give them attention.

So many grandparents are raising their grandchildren now days. I wonder...do we spoil them, and are we a good influence on them in the majority? Certainly I could buy them more. The only thing I did not like about that role was those darned PTA meetings I went to so often. But, I didn't care much for that with my children. Jack volunteered me for secretary of his boy scout orgination. Then, I was the only mother at the Father/Son banquet. Then I was a den mother and that was his idea. Sherlyn just wanted me to keep her horse pastured and fed. That took more time that the scout activities.

What exactly is spoiling a child? Seems to me, sometimes we equate that with love. Atteniton doesn't seem to spoil them.....I think not teaching responsibility does. If it is tempered with love. Sure is a time consuming thing though, isn't it? Thank goodness the granddaughters are covering that one and I can just.............spoil.!!

[Quentin]

Shar, a very interesting and enjoyable post. In my opinion being a parent is the most important thing humans will ever do. It seems you have done that very well.

So what is the criteria for being a good parent? It probably differs from child to child, parent to parent. But if I had to provide general rules for parents with young children, I would provide three:

1) Express your love to them almost daily by words, hugs and kisses (we still kiss each other on the mouth), and deeds (do little things for them which they like);

2) Never make a rule without having a rational reason for it; and

3) Never make a rule unless you intend to enforce it.

Do you have some general rules?

[norman]

Shar I too enjoyed your thoughts & think you asked a good question . “What is spoiling ?” Maybe this is an over simplification but I think that when parents continue to pacify instead of providing guidelines for social behavior that is spoiling.

When 1st. born children communicate with a variety of sounds. Parents begin to recognize those sounds and do what is necessary to comfort the child. As the child grows older the parent can either modify the child’s behavior or continue to cater to the child’s sounds.

When it comes to gifts/everything I think we’ve all seen children that have “it all” yet are well mannered in public; while others with everything are throwing temper tantrums. On
the other end of the financial scale to same thing takes place. I’m of the opinion that it isn’t gifts or lack of gifts that creates a spoiled child it is all about providing as Quentin pointed out “rules”. Mentioned too by Quentin was demonstrated love for your child, that is a must, if a parent can’t demonstrate affection for their own childen what message does that send to the child ?

Once you have established & follow through with a pattern of family behavior that makes you proud to be in public with your children no matter what age they are, spoiling a child has not been one of your parental faults.

[eye-c]

The most tragic thing I see right here is a family where one child is obese and always has been. Its GROSS! I blame the Mother as I see them when shopping and this boy gets what he wants or makes a fuss!
The daughter was a healthy size until fairly recently, but is now getting rather portly! The Mother is big too, but I look at the boy and think, "there`s a heart attack at a young age happening!" Its so wrong for the Mother to do that to her own child!!! I feel like saying something, but its not my place to, but its hard, as I see this boy just getting fatter and fatter!
I love my kids but "No!" was easy to say for their healths sake, when they were young!

[BobK]

Originally Posted by eye-c

The most tragic thing I see right here is a family where one child is obese and always has been. Its GROSS! I blame the Mother as I see them when shopping and this boy gets what he wants or makes a fuss!
The daughter was a healthy size until fairly recently, but is now getting rather portly! The Mother is big too, but I look at the boy and think, "there`s a heart attack at a young age happening!" Its so wrong for the Mother to do that to her own child!!! I feel like saying something, but its not my place to, but its hard, as I see this boy just getting fatter and fatter!
I love my kids but "No!" was easy to say for their healths sake, when they were young!

Saying "No" is hard for a whole lot of people. Confrontation to decrease a problem or keep it from happening in the 1st. place takes being responsible.

Parenting requires saying no when kids do things that are detrimental to themselves. Otherwise they grow up expecting society to conform to /or supply their needs and wants.

Will that trend change? Doesn't seem likely to me.

[eye-c]

It is scary wondering how these kids will be as adults!
An example of the trend nowadays happened within my own family this weekend! My 13 year old nephew had a falling out with his Mother and HITCH-HIKED up here to my Parents!!! He lives a long way from here and is extremely tall for his age, but is a child still, and I took him to the bus home today, after a lot of texting between his Mother(my sister) and our Mother over the weekend! I didn`t know the circumstances of the visit until we got back to my Mothers and she told me!
I was horrified when she told me what he had done! He is so naive about the World and he could have gotten himself in terrible strife!
He was lucky! But others have not been so lucky doing this sort of thing and I think anyone would soon realise he isn`t as old as he looks, and he could have had a very different outcome!
When we were growing up we got mad at our parents too, but none of us would EVER have thought of doing THIS!!!
I remember having an argument with my daughter when she was about 12 and she said she was running away! I said I would pack her bags, which I did, and off she set! We lived on a 5 acre farmlet, and she got to the bottom of the drive. I was sweating, I admit, but was fairly confident she wouldn`t go anywhere!
Some time past and back she came, embarrassed, but we talked over her problem, and were able to resolve it.
I imagine right about now, my sister and nephew are having a long talk, and I sincerely hope they can work things out!
I am horrified that he even thought to do this!!! Thankfully he came here though - and safely as it turned out! Could have been very different!
My x husband and I brought our children up as we were brought up and had no major problems at all. So, this new way of doing things...is it a good thing? Personally, I don`t think so!

[solo]

Yes, and if we don't toughfen them up they are going to be in big trouble when climate changes and supplies run lowl

[solo]

surprised I didn't get some reaction.

[solo]

nobocy here. Doesn't seem like a goood place to chat.

[solo]

Gues I'll go back to depression chat where there are people who like to talk

[BobK]

Originally Posted by solo

Yes, and if we don't toughfen them up they are going to be in big trouble when climate changes and supplies run lowl

This isn't like chat. It's best to give a little time for someone to reply.

Since you mentioned supplies running low I'm guessing you meant at some point in the future when 6 billion plus people have used up earth's resources. Or at least the resources needed to sustain life as we know it.

Reverting back to farming & the agricultural beginnings will result in ? How will the worlds population be fed when there is no fossil fuel driven mechanical or electrical machinery to process the massive amount of food needed?

What does it take to make a 1 gallon can of white paint? Start at the mining site for the minerals needed and follow the path of all it takes until you apply it to the walls of your home.

Now apply that thought process to every other item filling land fills world wide. Staggering the amount of waste that isn't going back into the ground except as unused non recycled trash.

Were using up what earth has to offer. Makes me wonder if the combined effort by differant countries of space exploration isn't an attempt to preserve some remenats of mankind.

I wonder too what kids being born today will face when they are seniors in their 60's.

[eye-c]

We are being made very aware of the damage we are doing to our planet and it is very scary, but measures are being taken to prevent further damage by all, although it may very well be too late. Some just don`t care, but it will be forced on them as we all adopt different methods in our lifestyles. I think the majority of people are making some effort to change their thinking and embracing conservation methods of waste disposal etc.
Its not going to happen over night, but we MIGHT be able to prevent FURTHER damage to such a big degree; do you think? At least impede our course of destruction.

[skxyx101]

There are too many people for the the earth to sustain if we try to keep our current lifestyle. In 1800 there were an estimated 978 million persons on earth, today the worlds population is 6.7 billion and estimated to rise to nearly 9 billion by 2050. Of course that 9 billion figure will be dramatically altered if the affects of global warming follow computer models. In either case it will be a different world by 2050.

[Cuz]

No need to worry about any of that Global Warming nonsense, Sky.

Just ask any of the Flat-earth Fundies ...
it's all "cyclical;
NOTHING which man does has the slightest impact on climate-change.
In fact, the climate's not changing at all - no such THING as Global Warming.

And "Jesus" walked on water and the moon is made from green cheese.

[skxyx101]

and have no children to worry about so why should I be concerned about global warming. Maybe I'll join a born-again christian group and wait for the rapture.

[BobK]

Originally Posted by skxyx101

There are too many people for the the earth to sustain if we try to keep our current lifestyle. In 1800 there were an estimated 978 million persons on earth, today the worlds population is 6.7 billion and estimated to rise to nearly 9 billion by 2050. Of course that 9 billion figure will be dramatically altered if the affects of global warming follow computer models. In either case it will be a different world by 2050.

This is not sarcastic it a logical look at what the additional amount of people will cause.

I hope those computer models project the amount of land needed to house the 9 billion. The amount of land needed to provide access roads to where those homes are built. The amount of land needed to build places for those additional people to shop. The stripping of forests for the wood needed to build. The additional resources needed to supply all kinds of house hold items.

Once all that is in place and the land needed to grow food is reduced, the land is stripped of nutrients due to over producing, use of pesticides kills off worms & bacteria needed to make the land fertile, the forests are washing away into rivers because there is no root base to hold back erosion, then what?

[Cuz]

You paint a pretty hopeless picture, Bob. Maybe you should just take Sky's advice -

Originally Posted by skxyx101

.... join a born-again christian group and wait for the rapture.

[BobK]

Originally Posted by Cuz

You paint a pretty hopeless picture, Bob. Maybe you should just take Sky's advice -

Looking at what is happening now and using Sky's projection of population growth it doesn't seem possible to me that earth will be able to sustain that many people.

There is an option.

Feeding several hundred with 7 fish & turing water into wine could be upgraded by turning barren areas into 1000 times more productive lush fields. Getting pollution out of the water & turning it into wine might be a little trickier. Both those were done on a smaller scale when the population was smaller. I'd hate to think those were just stories to have people believe in some mysterious power wouldn't you?

[Cuz]

Good HEAVENS Bob !
Don't tell me we share a common skepticism about all that malarky.
Who would have thunk it ?!

And I had you pegged as a fundie for sure.

[BobK]

Originally Posted by Cuz

Good HEAVENS Bob !
Don't tell me we share a common skepticism about all that malarky.
Who would have thunk it ?!

And I had you pegged as a fundie for sure.

I've said many times I don't get into differances in discussions concerning religion. I think the stories that were generated were because there was no science capable of explaining anomolies in what was taking place at any given time.

Not much differant than the belief the world was flat until proven otherwise. People lived in fear of falling off the earth. Fear is a powerful motivator.

The really funny part of fear is that people that live in fear, will fear not having fear.

[Cuz]

Precisely.
And I reckon it is that paranoid, irrational FEAR which is the root cause of America's military excesses over the last half century.
Fear of the commos, fear of "terrorists", fear of IRAQ for goodness sake !

All of which might have been baddies .... but I contend that the RESPONSE (because of fear) has been WAY out of proportion to any perceived threat.

[skxyx101]

Originally Posted by Cuz

Precisely.
And I reckon it is that paranoid, irrational FEAR which is the root cause of America's military excesses over the last half century.
Fear of the commos, fear of "terrorists", fear of IRAQ for goodness sake !

All of which might have been baddies .... but I contend that the RESPONSE (because of fear) has been WAY out of proportion to any perceived threat.

I think you have read America wrong here Cuz. None of the people I'm aquainted with were afraid of Commies, Bin Laden or Iraqi's. Even with the almost constant Orange or Red alerts put out by the bush administration I never felt threatened, those alerts were so obviously driven by political concerns. America has a been saddled with the military industrial complex since the 2nd world war. the Pentagon and manufactorers of military hardware have a vested interest in maintaining a threat level. They do this by buying congressmen and through certain media outlets. I'll admit there are some American's that buy into all this b.s., I also believe that those that buy into it are the same people that buy into the birther movement, tea baggers, the KKK and christian fundalmentalism. They're loud but are far from being a majority of the American population.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by skxyx101

None of the people I'm aquainted with were afraid
.... those alerts were so obviously driven by political concerns.
.... the Pentagon and manufacturers of military hardware have a vested interest in maintaining a threat level.
.... there are some American's that buy into all this b.s
.... They're loud but are far from being a majority of the American population.

No DOUBT you are 100% correct, Sky.

However, that fear-driven, hate-filled minority seems over-represented in Chat Rooms and Forums.
Which perhaps does skew my perceptions.
But also - there must be ENOUGH of them to elect the likes of Bush - and to acquiesce to the decades of aggression and carnage that the world has witnessed.
I would have thought that, in "the world's greatest democracy", if the nutters were so "far from being a majority", then successive U.S. regimes could have been pulled into line ?

[skxyx101]

Possibly true Cuz. But remember bush wasn’t elected by a majority of the voters in 2000, he was appointed by the U.S. Supreme Court by a 5 to 4 split vote. And in 2004 there was ample evidence of vote rigging, caging and outright fraud.
But my main point is that the aggression exhibited by the U.S. over the last 60 years has been promoted by the military industrial complex which has a vested interest in maintaining the idea of an outside threat to the U.S.

[Mugsy628]

The ruling force in the United States is money, and I'm ashamed to say it because I'm a US citizen, but it's true. War has always been a big money maker for the US. The 2nd world war got us out of the depression. The 60's, during the height of Viet Nam were BIG money-making years in the US. People with money have clout, and they want to KEEP their money. There are a lot more liberals in the US than anyone knows, but we just don't have the clout. We tend to look at things such as poverty, hunger, murder, etc. as immoral, and therefore, we don't become rich. The US used to be called the Land of Opportunity because it gave everyone a chance to become wealthy. Too bad more of those people didn't see the immorality the love of money produces.......

[TC]

Hello there, Mugsy. I agree that many of today's children are handed way too much money but I have to disagree as far as your comment that America is no longer the land of opportunity. Despite experiencing the worst recession in our lifetime, 87% of Americans polled believe it's still the land of opportunity.
http://www.adweek.com/aw/content_dis...9697d661d7e870

Americans are equally divided when asked if our children will have the same degree of opportunity as we have today.

Global opinion is also positive. The NY Times had an article (written by Bono) that said, "...in the developing world, the United States was still seen as a positive, even transformative, presence".
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/10/18/opinion/18bono.html

Mugsy, can you explain what you meant when you said, "we tend to look at things such as poverty, hunger, murder, etc. as immoral, and therefore, we don't become rich"?

[bebedos]

Funny but for all the truth.............

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxBl9BXLom4

[skxyx101]

An Oct. 3, 2009 Rasmussen poll found 62% of Americans believe their children will not be better off than their parents.

[BobK]

Originally Posted by skxyx101

An Oct. 3, 2009 Rasmussen poll found 62% of Americans believe their children will not be better off than their parents.

Not knowing how the poll was phrased makes me wonder what criteria was used to determine "better off".

[Mugsy628]

We all want our kids to have good things, but trying to give them a better life than we have had? We can only do that until they leave home, and I guarantee, the world is going to give them the kind of life the times call for. I will never have as good a life as my parents made for us, and my son will probably have an even harder time. Better, I think, to prepare them for the fact that once they have to make their own way, it will not be an easy ride.