http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/22/little_shits_sa.html#comment-3240560">comment from Ted
You don't usually get the $400K, just a fat lip. This woman surely didn't expect any sort of justice -- these kids did this because they thought they could get away with it.
I don't think children today are being taught morality and ethics the way older Americans were. I was born in 1962 and my wife in 1966; we discussed this case last night, and how our parents would have punished us. My father would have given me a good paddling, but what would have hurt me more was the look of disappointment in both his eyes and his voice. Letting him down would have been far worse than taking a paddling.
There would also have been an apology, made in person, within 24 hours of the person.
The shame and guilt acted as a moderating influence on my behavior as a child, and still does as an adult. I do not believe children today are being instilled with a healthy sense of shame and guilt, to their detriment and the detriment of society as a whole.
roadgeek
at June 22, 2012 10:51 AM
To Roadgeek: As John Rosemond has said, punishing kids for misbehavior HAS to include hurting their feelings, like it or not. If they don't feel ashamed of what they did, they learn nothing from it. Trouble is, too many mothers, in particular, think of this as horribly wrong, somehow.
Here's what I said at Bratfree (this is two posts, actually):
......many a person has pointed out, over the years, that it's not enough, unfortunately, for parents to teach kids what the parents consider to be right and wrong; kids have to be AFRAID, from the start, of what their parents will do to them if they are even SUSPECTED of being involved in something horrible. This is done by making sure that every time school-age kids are punished for something, it's the type of punishment that insures that particular kid won't do "it" again. Thus, they learn to behave in a general way over the years, so that by the time they're old enough and smart enough not to get caught, they've developed the sense of empathy that makes them not WANT to behave badly.
As they taught us in psychology, it's our actions that determine our attitudes more often than the other way around. Miss Manners understands this perfectly well, which is why she scolds those feather-brained parents who think it's wrong and hypocritical for kids to say "please" or "thank you" until they FEEL those feelings. Sorry, parents, it doesn't work that way. They NEVER feel those feelings unless they've been pretending to feel them for years.
_____________________________
peace-n-quiet:
^I didn't know about the action coming before the attitude in psychology. That is interesting. That is also a promising point about putting fear into the child before they're old enough to be smart enough not to get caught. You said empathy will have developed by the time they are old enough to outsmart their handlers. However, when do they develop this sense of empathy so that they will not want to behave badly? What age does this come? Because the way I am seeing it, it simply does not come with a lot of people. I know inmates from working at jail who said that their mother or father would've beat the crap out of them if they even slightly disrespected an adult. This was drilled into them from childhood. But yet, they are still sitting in jail because they sold drugs or stole something. So, it's like they won't call an older person by their first name. But yet, they have no problem embezzling money from a bank account that could've very well belonged to an older person or running a mini-Madoff scam that screwed old folks out of their retirement money. It's like they know what they are doing is "wrong". But they don't give a shit.
__________________________________
(me again)
In the case of the recently deceased Henry Hill ("Goodfellas") I would say it's probably a safe bet that he would have grown up rotten no matter what sort of environment he was living in. (However, from what I've heard, plenty of rural people in the Depression managed to keep their family sizes down, so in theory, urban couples in the 1940s could do the same, and it just MIGHT have made a difference in his life had his parents chosen to have fewer than 7(?) children and lived in a nicer neighborhood that didn't consist mostly of Mob members and "nobodies" as Hill so contemptuously put it.)
I think it's worth noting something I saw on a poster in a textbook once - it showed a small child with heavy bruising in a mugshot pose (holding a sign, maybe) and underneath it said "4 out of 5 convicts were abused as children." Of course, this could easily be misleading, since it's not clear whether or not that includes, say, teen pot smokers or just violent felons. However, from what you said, I wouldn't be surprised if the parents of the criminals were not at all loving or respectful of their children - just violent. That's abuse.
Here's a very thoughtful piece by Miss Manners:
"One surprising but useful byproduct of being a doting parent is that the child doted upon gets upset when that parent is unhappy with him. The more cheerful and satisfied the normal state of the parent, the easier it is to register displeasure. Thus, a surly parent may have to resort to terrible measures to convince the child that there has been any loss of satisfaction, since none was apparent anyway; but a happy parent may be able to instill awe and remorse with only a severe look. This is an incentive, if any were needed, for maintaining an affectionate and pleasant household. Your truly devoted parent has incredible power. Miss Manners has known them to wither children into fearful obedience with only the quiet statement 'I am disappointed in you.'
"Along with physical violence, emotional violence is outlawed by Miss Manners as a means of punishment. It is not necessary to assassinate a person's entire character in order to clear it of undesirable practices. 'Clean up that mess this minute' is a permissible parental remark; 'you're a slob' is not. Keeping the complaint within boundaries is, she admits, difficult. Family life is conducive to the development of amateur lawyers, and there is always a temptation to make a more significant case. But 'why do you always get everything wrong?' is not a question that leads to self-improvement, whereas 'why are you leaving that dish in the sink instead of washing it?' while no more sensible, may be."
(end)
Unfortunately, I know at least one social worker who thinks that even saying "I am disappointed in you" is way too harsh to say to children. I don't quite know how she manages to benefit her clients!
After all, respecting children does NOT mean treating them as your equals! Respecting their intelligence means expecting a lot from them at home and at school, but it also means a certain amount of common courtesy. In fact, there are at least FOUR types of respect, which sometimes overlap: 1. Grudging acceptance of other people's right to exist, such as when bullies stop bullying 2. Common courtesy, as between strangers 3. Reasonable deference to superiors, whether you like them or not, & 4. Admiration. Note that only the last type has anything to do with FEELINGS. The rest is just behaviors.
And finally, I think it's also very important for parents to let a kid know that the parents will, at least, be angry if the kid's peers do something horrible - or even mildly mean - and the kid does nothing to stop it - or, in some cases, report it. (I have to say, I don't understand the adult taboo against tattling when there are plenty of exceptions to the rule anyway. One GOOD parental response, regarding sibling-tattling, that I once heard of was: "Thank you for bringing that to my attention, but it is not important enough for me to get involved in." That way, the mother said, the kids would learn when not to bother her - and not to hesitate to tell her when, say, a sibling was putting a garden hose into a neighbor's basement window and was about to turn the water on.)
lenona
at June 22, 2012 11:21 AM
I have 5 children and never subscribed to the school of thought that says we should coddle our children. Padding (literally and figuratively) all of lifes corners so that neither their feelings, egos, or bodies are ever bruised.
This type of upbringing has spawned a generation of babies that scream for attention at inappropriate moments, children that are poor sports, teens with overinflated senses of self worth lacking empathy, and a burgeoning prison population of those that feel entitled because nobody ever told these little bastards "No, you can't do that! Now stop crying and go apologize before I smack you."
My children are good adults and are watching my wife and I care for our parents. They in turn will be there for us. Who the hell will be there for the touchy-feely parents of the over indulged that are now being raised in this nation?
Savant Idiot
at June 22, 2012 2:46 PM
Ironically the families of the children said that they have been receiving death threats. Because there's no better way show your objection to harassing and bullying behavior than to respond with death threats.
Jonny T
at June 22, 2012 2:46 PM
I don't buy that this is some new kind of childhood behavior. Kids have been awful beasts in packs since the beginning of time. Adults, too. Witness the death threats. Nothing makes people morph into assholes like the power of anonymity and numbers.
MonicaP
at June 22, 2012 4:34 PM
roadgeek: I don't think children today are being taught morality and ethics the way older Americans were. I was born in 1962 and my wife in 1966; we discussed this case last night, and how our parents would have punished us. My father would have given me a good paddling, but what would have hurt me more was the look of disappointment in both his eyes and his voice. Letting him down would have been far worse than taking a paddling.
Monica: I don't buy that this is some new kind of childhood behavior. Kids have been awful beasts in packs since the beginning of time.
Monica, I agree with you that kids acting horribly, particularly in groups, isn't something new. However, roadgeek may be right in that it may be more prevalent today than it was when we were kids.
I don't think 100% of the blame can be laid on poor parenting -- I'm sure parents can do their best to teach their kids to treat others with respect and still have them turn out to be jerks (or juvenile delinquents or criminals) --but I think poor parenting plays a very significant role. Between them, my two brothers and two sisters have ten kids (eight girls and two boys.) They've instilled great values in these kids and I can assure anyone that none of them would ever engage in this kind of reprehensible behavior.
JD
at June 22, 2012 5:20 PM
However, roadgeek may be right in that it may be more prevalent today than it was when we were kids.
Maybe. I think this scenario would have been unthinkable 50 years ago because the bus monitor would have had the authority to hit them. I'm glad she doesn't, but there's something to be said for striking fear into kids' hearts.
In some ways it might be better now than it was when I was a kid. I was bullied mercilessly throughout grade school. It was seen as a right of passage, and since there was no physical violence involved, no one was inclined to do anything about it. We might have swung too far to the other side, like when 6-year-olds are suspended for making POW! POW! noises with their fingers, but I'm glad there's more awareness of it.
I also don't think bullies always end up terrible people. A friend's daughter was involved in some bullying in middle school. Her parents were horrified. They addressed it. Eventually she matured, and she's a lovely teenager now. Sometimes it's a phase they grow out of -- or are helped to grow out of with some discipline.
MonicaP
at June 22, 2012 5:34 PM
Maybe. I think this scenario would have been unthinkable 50 years ago because the bus monitor would have had the authority to hit them. I'm glad she doesn't, but there's something to be said for striking fear into kids' hearts.
Or, if the bus monitor wouldn't have hit them, the parents of the kids would've. I know that I had done something like this and my dad found out about it, he would've swatted my ass with a paddle until it was on fire. (My father never hit us kids -- 'hit' as with a fist -- and never spanked us just because he was mad and felt like it. When we got spanked, it was always because we'd done something to deserve it.)
I also don't think bullies always end up terrible people.
I don't think so either and didn't mean to imply they do. But I think one of the key things is, as you noted in your example, the parents addressing bullying behavior when their kids engage in it.
JD
at June 22, 2012 5:53 PM
Um, media, can we please shine a light on the PARENTS?
makerD
at June 22, 2012 6:24 PM
I'm embarrassed by this. This story does not merit national attention.
In this woman's position, assuming I would have tolerated the students' behavior, I would reject any offers of interviews or publicity.
Patrick
at June 23, 2012 5:52 AM
I'm really getting annoyed by people criticizing her for the money that's been raised for her. They don't mind all the celebrities and athletes who make tens of millions of dollars, but they're bent because she hasn't announced that she'll give the money to some charity. A financial planner will tell you that you need about a million dollars to retire comfortably. Since she only makes about $10,000 a year, I'll bet that she doesn't have enough put away for retirement. But still, there are people who want her to give away all the cash which means that she'll have to rely on the government to support her in her retirement.
I'd trade being bullied for $400,000 any day.
Ted at June 22, 2012 7:19 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/22/little_shits_sa.html#comment-3240560">comment from TedYou don't usually get the $400K, just a fat lip. This woman surely didn't expect any sort of justice -- these kids did this because they thought they could get away with it.
Amy Alkon at June 22, 2012 7:24 AM
All I see is a Cheerios commercial.
Robert at June 22, 2012 7:46 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/06/22/little_shits_sa.html#comment-3240587">comment from RobertSorry - video has been fixed.
Amy Alkon at June 22, 2012 8:03 AM
I don't think children today are being taught morality and ethics the way older Americans were. I was born in 1962 and my wife in 1966; we discussed this case last night, and how our parents would have punished us. My father would have given me a good paddling, but what would have hurt me more was the look of disappointment in both his eyes and his voice. Letting him down would have been far worse than taking a paddling.
There would also have been an apology, made in person, within 24 hours of the person.
The shame and guilt acted as a moderating influence on my behavior as a child, and still does as an adult. I do not believe children today are being instilled with a healthy sense of shame and guilt, to their detriment and the detriment of society as a whole.
roadgeek at June 22, 2012 10:51 AM
To Roadgeek: As John Rosemond has said, punishing kids for misbehavior HAS to include hurting their feelings, like it or not. If they don't feel ashamed of what they did, they learn nothing from it. Trouble is, too many mothers, in particular, think of this as horribly wrong, somehow.
Here's what I said at Bratfree (this is two posts, actually):
http://www.refugees.bratfree.com/read.php?2,216523,page=2
......many a person has pointed out, over the years, that it's not enough, unfortunately, for parents to teach kids what the parents consider to be right and wrong; kids have to be AFRAID, from the start, of what their parents will do to them if they are even SUSPECTED of being involved in something horrible. This is done by making sure that every time school-age kids are punished for something, it's the type of punishment that insures that particular kid won't do "it" again. Thus, they learn to behave in a general way over the years, so that by the time they're old enough and smart enough not to get caught, they've developed the sense of empathy that makes them not WANT to behave badly.
As they taught us in psychology, it's our actions that determine our attitudes more often than the other way around. Miss Manners understands this perfectly well, which is why she scolds those feather-brained parents who think it's wrong and hypocritical for kids to say "please" or "thank you" until they FEEL those feelings. Sorry, parents, it doesn't work that way. They NEVER feel those feelings unless they've been pretending to feel them for years.
_____________________________
peace-n-quiet:
^I didn't know about the action coming before the attitude in psychology. That is interesting. That is also a promising point about putting fear into the child before they're old enough to be smart enough not to get caught. You said empathy will have developed by the time they are old enough to outsmart their handlers. However, when do they develop this sense of empathy so that they will not want to behave badly? What age does this come? Because the way I am seeing it, it simply does not come with a lot of people. I know inmates from working at jail who said that their mother or father would've beat the crap out of them if they even slightly disrespected an adult. This was drilled into them from childhood. But yet, they are still sitting in jail because they sold drugs or stole something. So, it's like they won't call an older person by their first name. But yet, they have no problem embezzling money from a bank account that could've very well belonged to an older person or running a mini-Madoff scam that screwed old folks out of their retirement money. It's like they know what they are doing is "wrong". But they don't give a shit.
__________________________________
(me again)
In the case of the recently deceased Henry Hill ("Goodfellas") I would say it's probably a safe bet that he would have grown up rotten no matter what sort of environment he was living in. (However, from what I've heard, plenty of rural people in the Depression managed to keep their family sizes down, so in theory, urban couples in the 1940s could do the same, and it just MIGHT have made a difference in his life had his parents chosen to have fewer than 7(?) children and lived in a nicer neighborhood that didn't consist mostly of Mob members and "nobodies" as Hill so contemptuously put it.)
I think it's worth noting something I saw on a poster in a textbook once - it showed a small child with heavy bruising in a mugshot pose (holding a sign, maybe) and underneath it said "4 out of 5 convicts were abused as children." Of course, this could easily be misleading, since it's not clear whether or not that includes, say, teen pot smokers or just violent felons. However, from what you said, I wouldn't be surprised if the parents of the criminals were not at all loving or respectful of their children - just violent. That's abuse.
Here's a very thoughtful piece by Miss Manners:
"One surprising but useful byproduct of being a doting parent is that the child doted upon gets upset when that parent is unhappy with him. The more cheerful and satisfied the normal state of the parent, the easier it is to register displeasure. Thus, a surly parent may have to resort to terrible measures to convince the child that there has been any loss of satisfaction, since none was apparent anyway; but a happy parent may be able to instill awe and remorse with only a severe look. This is an incentive, if any were needed, for maintaining an affectionate and pleasant household. Your truly devoted parent has incredible power. Miss Manners has known them to wither children into fearful obedience with only the quiet statement 'I am disappointed in you.'
"Along with physical violence, emotional violence is outlawed by Miss Manners as a means of punishment. It is not necessary to assassinate a person's entire character in order to clear it of undesirable practices. 'Clean up that mess this minute' is a permissible parental remark; 'you're a slob' is not. Keeping the complaint within boundaries is, she admits, difficult. Family life is conducive to the development of amateur lawyers, and there is always a temptation to make a more significant case. But 'why do you always get everything wrong?' is not a question that leads to self-improvement, whereas 'why are you leaving that dish in the sink instead of washing it?' while no more sensible, may be."
(end)
Unfortunately, I know at least one social worker who thinks that even saying "I am disappointed in you" is way too harsh to say to children. I don't quite know how she manages to benefit her clients!
After all, respecting children does NOT mean treating them as your equals! Respecting their intelligence means expecting a lot from them at home and at school, but it also means a certain amount of common courtesy. In fact, there are at least FOUR types of respect, which sometimes overlap: 1. Grudging acceptance of other people's right to exist, such as when bullies stop bullying 2. Common courtesy, as between strangers 3. Reasonable deference to superiors, whether you like them or not, & 4. Admiration. Note that only the last type has anything to do with FEELINGS. The rest is just behaviors.
And finally, I think it's also very important for parents to let a kid know that the parents will, at least, be angry if the kid's peers do something horrible - or even mildly mean - and the kid does nothing to stop it - or, in some cases, report it. (I have to say, I don't understand the adult taboo against tattling when there are plenty of exceptions to the rule anyway. One GOOD parental response, regarding sibling-tattling, that I once heard of was: "Thank you for bringing that to my attention, but it is not important enough for me to get involved in." That way, the mother said, the kids would learn when not to bother her - and not to hesitate to tell her when, say, a sibling was putting a garden hose into a neighbor's basement window and was about to turn the water on.)
lenona at June 22, 2012 11:21 AM
I have 5 children and never subscribed to the school of thought that says we should coddle our children. Padding (literally and figuratively) all of lifes corners so that neither their feelings, egos, or bodies are ever bruised.
This type of upbringing has spawned a generation of babies that scream for attention at inappropriate moments, children that are poor sports, teens with overinflated senses of self worth lacking empathy, and a burgeoning prison population of those that feel entitled because nobody ever told these little bastards "No, you can't do that! Now stop crying and go apologize before I smack you."
My children are good adults and are watching my wife and I care for our parents. They in turn will be there for us. Who the hell will be there for the touchy-feely parents of the over indulged that are now being raised in this nation?
Savant Idiot at June 22, 2012 2:46 PM
Ironically the families of the children said that they have been receiving death threats. Because there's no better way show your objection to harassing and bullying behavior than to respond with death threats.
Jonny T at June 22, 2012 2:46 PM
I don't buy that this is some new kind of childhood behavior. Kids have been awful beasts in packs since the beginning of time. Adults, too. Witness the death threats. Nothing makes people morph into assholes like the power of anonymity and numbers.
MonicaP at June 22, 2012 4:34 PM
roadgeek: I don't think children today are being taught morality and ethics the way older Americans were. I was born in 1962 and my wife in 1966; we discussed this case last night, and how our parents would have punished us. My father would have given me a good paddling, but what would have hurt me more was the look of disappointment in both his eyes and his voice. Letting him down would have been far worse than taking a paddling.
Monica: I don't buy that this is some new kind of childhood behavior. Kids have been awful beasts in packs since the beginning of time.
Monica, I agree with you that kids acting horribly, particularly in groups, isn't something new. However, roadgeek may be right in that it may be more prevalent today than it was when we were kids.
I don't think 100% of the blame can be laid on poor parenting -- I'm sure parents can do their best to teach their kids to treat others with respect and still have them turn out to be jerks (or juvenile delinquents or criminals) --but I think poor parenting plays a very significant role. Between them, my two brothers and two sisters have ten kids (eight girls and two boys.) They've instilled great values in these kids and I can assure anyone that none of them would ever engage in this kind of reprehensible behavior.
JD at June 22, 2012 5:20 PM
However, roadgeek may be right in that it may be more prevalent today than it was when we were kids.
Maybe. I think this scenario would have been unthinkable 50 years ago because the bus monitor would have had the authority to hit them. I'm glad she doesn't, but there's something to be said for striking fear into kids' hearts.
In some ways it might be better now than it was when I was a kid. I was bullied mercilessly throughout grade school. It was seen as a right of passage, and since there was no physical violence involved, no one was inclined to do anything about it. We might have swung too far to the other side, like when 6-year-olds are suspended for making POW! POW! noises with their fingers, but I'm glad there's more awareness of it.
I also don't think bullies always end up terrible people. A friend's daughter was involved in some bullying in middle school. Her parents were horrified. They addressed it. Eventually she matured, and she's a lovely teenager now. Sometimes it's a phase they grow out of -- or are helped to grow out of with some discipline.
MonicaP at June 22, 2012 5:34 PM
Maybe. I think this scenario would have been unthinkable 50 years ago because the bus monitor would have had the authority to hit them. I'm glad she doesn't, but there's something to be said for striking fear into kids' hearts.
Or, if the bus monitor wouldn't have hit them, the parents of the kids would've. I know that I had done something like this and my dad found out about it, he would've swatted my ass with a paddle until it was on fire. (My father never hit us kids -- 'hit' as with a fist -- and never spanked us just because he was mad and felt like it. When we got spanked, it was always because we'd done something to deserve it.)
I also don't think bullies always end up terrible people.
I don't think so either and didn't mean to imply they do. But I think one of the key things is, as you noted in your example, the parents addressing bullying behavior when their kids engage in it.
JD at June 22, 2012 5:53 PM
Um, media, can we please shine a light on the PARENTS?
makerD at June 22, 2012 6:24 PM
I'm embarrassed by this. This story does not merit national attention.
In this woman's position, assuming I would have tolerated the students' behavior, I would reject any offers of interviews or publicity.
Patrick at June 23, 2012 5:52 AM
I'm really getting annoyed by people criticizing her for the money that's been raised for her. They don't mind all the celebrities and athletes who make tens of millions of dollars, but they're bent because she hasn't announced that she'll give the money to some charity. A financial planner will tell you that you need about a million dollars to retire comfortably. Since she only makes about $10,000 a year, I'll bet that she doesn't have enough put away for retirement. But still, there are people who want her to give away all the cash which means that she'll have to rely on the government to support her in her retirement.
Louis Villaescusa at June 24, 2012 12:24 AM
Leave a comment