Parenting and the Internet

Cephus said:

I'd like to see them hack my finger flipping off the router and ending all Internet access to the house.

Click to expand...

That probably only requires switching it back on when you are not looking.

Cephus said:

And you have a long history of defending kids who are wimps.

Click to expand...

You're damn right I do. I was one of those "wimps" who was in the danger zone, thank you very much, and it was my job by law to protect those kids.

Fiddytree said:

That's part of it, but genuinely we are reacting to a deep-seated societal problem. Many of us were harassed every day, all day, and felt isolated from the whole school, without cell phones, without online bullying. Cephus's argument is that they should stand up to it and if it doesn't work, tough crap. He thinks its some coming of age rite, and it's not. It is a senseless act sanctioned by society, fit with all of the sadistic social darwinistic tendencies.

Click to expand...

Well, I agree that bullying is a problem...and I think it's one that it is different today than when I was a kid.

I think physical violence in schools today is, by far, worse today than it was when I was in school..and for a variety of reasons, including the Internet.

I wasn't a badass. I did get bullied from time to time....but I was the kind of kid that when I got overwhelmed or cornered...I'd lose it and fight. And even though I fought back, the outcome wasn't always in my favor.

Physical bullying issues today in schools stem from teachers not having the ability to manage kid's behaviors like they once did. And it also stems from a lot of parents who can't or won't intervene in problems on behalf of the schools interests or the teachers. They're working their asses off to keep bread on the table.

Years ago...in Texas. Superintendents of city schools were actually members of the same teacher's union...as of course teachers. There was a common bond with teacher and superintendents and superintendents did feel weren't as intimidated by parents...and really even school boards.

That changed. Superintendents or Administers became way more beholding to boards...and no longer belonged to unions with the teachers.

One of the primary duties of the board of education is to hire a superintendent for the district. Once the superintendent is in place, then the board of education and the superintendent should become partners. While the superintendent is the CEO of the district, the board of education provides oversight for the superintendent.

In Texas...school board members use to be appointed by the governor. But for some time now, there are 15 board members, which are ALL elected.

So now, when parents get pissed off because Johnny or Janie isn't being treated like they believe that they should...if the principal of a school doesn't remedy a problem like they think...they don't go to Admins or superintendents...they complain to school board members...WHO ARE ELECTED. Now the board members don't want to piss of the voters. So they tell an admin or supers to contact a principal and get the problem worked out...and in a way that doesn't piss of the voters.

So Superintendents bend to pressure from their bosses who are elected school board members. Thus the politics of it all.

It's a huge circle jerk.

Now add the dynamics of cyberbullies on top of all that I just made comments on. Kids have to endure some really bad **** from the punks. And like I said before, they cyberbullies can instigate getting a lot of kids involved in hitting on one kid.

There some really bad stuff going on.

Until schools can impose a ZERO tolerance to violence of any kind...and back it up. I'm not sure what the answer is. Parents...are damn well responsible for the content their kids have on the net. But a kid is a kid and will bend to peer pressure. They always have, but even more so today than in my day...by a much larger margin. All is good until...kaboom they become a victim and it's brutal.

So again...FT, dunno. No matter what, a parent must eventually stand responsible for their kids safety and well being. But the kids need to be able to be open and honest with the parents when they find themselves being a victim of a bully or bullies and/or getting chain banged by a bunch of kids who are inspired to do what they do by the bullies.

As far as a kid physically being able to defend themselves...that is a tough issue. Who teaches the kids how to be a defensive person...to the degree that they will successfully fend off bullies? I can think of soooo many issues connected to this social problem...and it is a social problem.

Thanks..

If yer kid is a wimp yer prolly a wimp so ya'll deserve what evah ya get till ya 'man up'
"all this cryin' n whining pitchin' a fit get over it

Hard Truth said:

That probably only requires switching it back on when you are not looking.

Click to expand...

Unless I take it with me.

Fiddytree said:

You're damn right I do. I was one of those "wimps" who was in the danger zone, thank you very much, and it was my job by law to protect those kids.

Click to expand...

So it's an emotional thing, not a rational thing with you. Not surprised.

Cephus said:

So it's an emotional thing, not a rational thing with you. Not surprised.

Click to expand...

You're the one who wants the kids to go through the meat grinder, because it mans them up, and if a kid dies in the process: too bad, he was a ***** and a coward.

Whose position really seems out of whack with human decency?

wolfie said:

Do you think that bullying only goes on in facebook...Do you accompany your kids to school and sit with them to make sure no-one calls them nasty names??

Click to expand...

You're jumping to conclusions. I didn't limit internet access for them FOR NO REASON. I limited it because having it open for them and letting them use it per free will CAUSED A SERIOUS PROBLEM - SEVERAL, in fact.

See?

Look, as a parent you can either sit back and just not care, cross your fingers, and hope your kids turn out okay in the end, or you can be active and involved in their lives and redirect them when they're out of line. And by active and involved, I don't mean 100% on them all the time like they're a prisoner. I mean finding a balance that works, teaching them the right/wrong - and then instilling the values where you can leave them on their own and trust that they will do the right thing.

So, what happens when you've done your best, and they don't do the right thing? You might not find out *every* time, but when you do find out (however it comes to you) then what do you do? You have to respond in some fashion. You cannot simply turn your back. What do you do? See what I did: limited net access. I have four children - some I can trust, apparently others, I cannot. Therefor - some have more freedom than others. One has none.

I'm wondering how much I should respond in this thread - I could do two things: 1) leave my responses on this subject very vague, and just whatever and brush it off. . . or 2) detail out bullying, and how it affects people in real life, like me, and my kids (from both ends of the spectrum). . . and what we HAVE had to deal with, and how things are these days - vs how they were in the past.

But I think I'll leave this post as it is, and just let that settle in. In life, even as a parent, you learn lessons, and one lesson I learned is that giving your kids free access to the net isn't ALWAYS A GOOD IDEA - and I don't mean "my kids were bullied, or I'm afraid they will be bullied."

Mom's = real situations, not just online talking points.

Fiddytree said:

You're the one who wants the kids to go through the meat grinder, because it mans them up, and if a kid dies in the process too bad. Whose position really seems out of whack with human decency?

Click to expand...

Our culture is entirely messed up because you have helicopter parents who won't allow their kids to fail or meet any adversity and when they get out on their own, they don't know how to deal with reality!

Glad that's the kind of thing you advocate. :roll:

Fiddytree said:

And when schools continually allow such an environment to foster because they see it as relatively harmless, what then?

Click to expand...

Still partially the parents fault IMO.

Fisher said:

Still partially the parents fault IMO.

Click to expand...

Are you going to address what I asked?

Cephus said:

Our culture is entirely messed up because you have helicopter parents who won't allow their kids to fail or meet any adversity and when they get out on their own, they don't know how to deal with reality!

Glad that's the kind of thing you advocate. :roll:

Click to expand...

No, the culture is messed up when independence means being asked to be subjected to school-sanctioned sadism.

Fiddytree said:

Are you going to address what I asked?

Click to expand...

What you asked is not my problem. We do the private school thing and I damn well guarantee you they would not tolerate it.

Cephus said:

Our culture is entirely messed up because you have helicopter parents who won't allow their kids to fail or meet any adversity and when they get out on their own, they don't know how to deal with reality!

Glad that's the kind of thing you advocate. :roll:

Click to expand...

Yeesh - why is it that everyone points fingers and accuses people of being in the extreme.

Extreme = hover-mothers who monitor their children 100% and limit life.
Extreme = parent's who don't care, and don't even know where their kids are.

I know no one who's either of these. In some areas being observant or concerned does not mean you are like that with every single thing, all the time. Likewise - in some areas, being unconcerned and not involved doesn't mean you are completely absent from parenting and your kid's lives entirely.

But people always jump to these extreme conclusions. I don't get it.

In one thread I'm accused of not caring about my kids at all - and in another I'm accused of being a hover-mother. However do I manage. LOL

Aunt Spiker said:

Yeesh - why is it that everyone points fingers and accuses people of being in the extreme.

Extreme = hover-mothers who monitor their children 100% and limit life.
Extreme = parent's who don't care, and don't even know where their kids are.

I know no one who's either of these. In some areas being observant or concerned does not mean you are like that with every single thing, all the time. Likewise - in some areas, being unconcerned and not involved doesn't mean you are completely absent from parenting and your kid's lives entirely.

But people always jump to these extreme conclusions. I don't get it.

In one thread I'm accused of not caring about my kids at all - and in another I'm accused of being a hover-mother. However do I manage. LOL

Click to expand...

Those are the extremes and I know people who fit into both extremes. My cousins are in their 40s, still live at home, have no life, have never had a serious relationship and are unable to function socially because their parents spent their entire lives telling them how perfect they are and that they cannot ever fail. They were made to feel so utterly superior to everyone else that when it came time to compete in and deal with the real world, they were totally unable to do it and completely incapable of making the adjustments necessary to deal with being an adult. As such, they're both going to spend their lives, living at home, holding down barely passable jobs, thinking they're so much better than that. There's no end to parents in the media who go completely the opposite way.

It's the parents in the middle that don't have the problems though. They raise their children to be able to handle problems, or come to someone when they have issues they can't deal with. They don't raise doormats. Their kids don't go leaping off bridges because someone made them feel bad on Facebook. My kids think Facebook and other social media is a complete waste of time anyhow, they're too busy spending time online with their actual friends to be worried about the idiocy out there on social media sites.

Cephus said:

Those are the extremes and I know people who fit into both extremes. My cousins are in their 40s, still live at home, have no life, have never had a serious relationship and are unable to function socially because their parents spent their entire lives telling them how perfect they are and that they cannot ever fail. They were made to feel so utterly superior to everyone else that when it came time to compete in and deal with the real world, they were totally unable to do it and completely incapable of making the adjustments necessary to deal with being an adult. As such, they're both going to spend their lives, living at home, holding down barely passable jobs, thinking they're so much better than that. There's no end to parents in the media who go completely the opposite way.

Click to expand...

I don't see how that's evidence of either - is that hover parenting or absentee parenting? I don't see what you're trying to say, here, that you shouldn't tell your kids they're great? Or they should have been bullied but they weren't? I don't follow. It seems like a stray, nothing issue you have that doesn't related to this thread at all.

It's the parents in the middle that don't have the problems though. They raise their children to be able to handle problems, or come to someone when they have issues they can't deal with. They don't raise doormats. Their kids don't go leaping off bridges because someone made them feel bad on Facebook. My kids think Facebook and other social media is a complete waste of time anyhow, they're too busy spending time online with their actual friends to be worried about the idiocy out there on social media sites.

Click to expand...

Parents in the middle have problems all the time - all parents have problems because all parents have kids. Even when you're in the middle.

Aunt Spiker said:

Parents in the middle have problems all the time - all parents have problems because all parents have kids. Even when you're in the middle.

Click to expand...

There is such a thing as responsible parenting. Some people do it. Many do not.

Cephus said:

There is such a thing as responsible parenting. Some people do it. Many do not.

Click to expand...

Yes - but that's not saying 'they don't have problems.'

These labels that we're using (hover, middle, extreme, absent) refer to how the parent responds to issues that occur/or that might occur. It's not saying that they actually have more or less issues that do occur.

Aunt Spiker said:

Yes - but that's not saying 'they don't have problems.'

These labels that we're using (hover, middle, extreme, absent) refer to how the parent responds to issues that occur/or that might occur. It's not saying that they actually have more or less issues that do occur.

Click to expand...

It means that there are some methods of raising children that demonstrably work better than others and produce better results at the end. Paying no attention whatsoever to your children does not produce good results. Smothering your children with attention and undeserved praise does not produce good results. Somewhere in the middle does. That doesn't mean it's effortless, just a better approach.

Hard Truth said:

,
Not many parents have the luxury of being able to monitor their kids 24/7. If they did the kid would probably go elsewhere to use a computer without being controlled, if he/she was healthy.

Click to expand...

No one is saying anything about monitoring children 24/7. This is a discussion about home internet access for children. The school argument has been brought up, but that is not home.

Hard Truth said:

I think some extreme situations (and daily bullying may qualify) require parental involvement, but most situations can be worked out by the kids themselves, and they will have a learning experience.

Click to expand...

I agree, and different children will react differently to daily bullying. Some will strengthen from it, but some will wither from it. Regardless, the home is not a place for children to be "plugged in" constantly. There is plenty of time for that when the child leaves the home.

wolfie said:

The internet is the new way to speak to your friends/enemies..
And we can't change that....no amount of inhibition as far as computer liaisons will make any difference...

Click to expand...

I don't dispute that, except that it should stop at home. You're applying adult standards to a child, it doesn't work.

SBu said:

I don't dispute that, except that it should stop at home. You're applying adult standards to a child, it doesn't work.

Click to expand...

He doesn't realize it, but he's making an argument that it's a right to have the internet (since it comes with this 'right to privacy') - and so what about people who don't have the net/computers at all? They're stunting their children's growth :roll:

It's not cheap - and there might be a time in my near future where we have to cut back expenses, and the internet access from home will go. . .oh well.

I don't see it's a necessity until you're older and seeking out employment/education. Up until then, it's entertainment save for when you're doing research - you know - stuff you can do from a library.

MarineTpartier said:

Or they'll just punch you in the face...

Click to expand...

It's very rare for a verbal bully to punch you in the face, especially on the internet where punching someone in the face usually leads to needing a new laptop.

Aunt Spiker said:

He doesn't realize it, but he's making an argument that it's a right to have the internet (since it comes with this 'right to privacy') - and so what about people who don't have the net/computers at all? They're stunting their children's growth :roll:

It's not cheap - and there might be a time in my near future where we have to cut back expenses, and the internet access from home will go. . .oh well.

I don't see it's a necessity until you're older and seeking out employment/education. Up until then, it's entertainment save for when you're doing research - you know - stuff you can do from a library.

Click to expand...

In these times, failure to provide a child over age nine or so with computer access is stunting their growth. They will be competing with kids in school, and later with adults at work, who have years of experience with computers and years of access to information. Even the best libraries contain a fraction of the information available on the internet, esp. current information and topics that interest young people.

Teaching a young person how to learn on their own, how to tell the difference between good and bad information, and inspiring them to be curious about a variety of subjects is the most important educational task of teachers and parents these days. The ability to memorize (mostly] useless facts or perform obscure mental tasks was always over-rated and that is more true now than ever before. We need people who can gather information and think well enough to understand and apply it. There is no better tool for learning these skills than a computer, when it used properly. Recent research has brought out how much play is an essential part of learning, so it is important that young people have unstructured opportunities to use computers in addition to more supervised use.