Tuesday, April 15, 2014

Authoritarian Parenting Conclusion

When I started this debate, I really had no idea of the effects of being a controlling parent. It is important to recognize the physiological and physical consequences of helicoptering, especially due to the massive amounts of parents who do it. It is hindering! Neither extremes are good, but our society has a lot more fully authoritarian than fully permissive parents. All parents want the best for their kids, and it is their natural instinct to attempt to control all things. That is why it is crucial to self reflect. A parent should recognize when they are actually depriving their child of creative opportunity's, and then take a step back. They get so caught up in their desperate attempts to make their child successful, that they don't allow much of anything unless it's school related. How would a kid find his potentially life-changing passion with a life like this? How can we creatively progress as a society when so many parents are attempting to repeat their childhood through their kid? The answer is we can't! And, as for risk, it is a part of life! A parent who covers their kid from all risky/morally-challenging situations only puts the child at a massive disadvantage. Post-highschool, the  parent's kid is now out in the world with no basic understanding to real life consequences, social expectations, etc. When worded like this, most people would agree that a kid who understands both of those aspects would have a greater chance at success. This is evidence is what I was looking for once I took my side on the debate. This is why spontaneousness, freedom and creativity should be supported, not prevented; and this is why a perfect, nurturing balance of structure and privileges is the best way to raise a kid.

Final Showdown: Strict Vs. Permissive.

On Dr Drew's show, Dr. Drew, he did an interesting six minute segment interviewing Deborah and Dino Piscione, parents who believe in authoritarian raising of her three kids. Drew then gets a debate going by having Pediatrician Dr. Harvey Karp, who is against strict parenting, offer a rebuttal. "To everything is a season," he says, meaning that there is a time for everything to come and go, and too much of one thing is never good. The Pisciones are all about structure, and have a very extensive schedule for all of their kids. Karp says that they need time to relax and chill, because the mind always needs time to be creative and have no boundaries. The Pisciones then counteract this, exclaiming that they do allow time for their kids to relax. The segment ends with Lisa Ling, host of "Our America With Lisa Ling," offering some concluding thoughts. There is nothing concrete when it comes to how to parent, and pretty much the only thing that all parents (hopefully) have in common is they want the best for their kids. There is a difference between reasonable boundaries and excessive helicoptering; and there is a difference between supporting a child's spontaneousness and letting the child be in charge.
"Strict Parenting Controversy." YouTube. YouTube, 03 Dec. 2012. Web. 7 Apr. 2014.

This to me is the perfect article. It had a great balance of everything! The Pisciones came off a little extreme at first, but quickly got rid of that title when they discussed how important their child's creativity is. The Pisciones expressed their need to balance free time in with the structure, which was very reasonable. All in all, these parents seem to be example A of modern day parenting. However, it would be nice to do a follow-up interview once the kids are older, to see how these parents adjusted. The biggest problem is when parents begin to prioritize academics more and more, smashing the child's creativity. But there are two sides to every story; and parents who offer no structure at all could cause a very unintelligent and non-progressing individual. This is why Linda and the Pisciones set a very good example for what this generation's parenting should be.

Monday, April 7, 2014

Strict Parenting Linked to Childhood Obesity!

Today News' Linda Carroll writes an article titled "Strict Parenting Linked to Childhood Obesity"; the title is self-explanatory. Linda explains that "because I said so" parenting actually increases a child's chances at obesity. A study done by the American Heart Association showed that, between the ages of 6-11, having a demanding and unemotional parent can increase a child's chances of obesity by 37%. After Linda consulted and interviewed numerous resources, she came to a conclusion of how obesity and parenting are connected. Everyone is born with a natural instinct of self-regulation. When a parent controls every detail about their child's life, the child consequently is dependent on that parent. The dissolves the kid's ability to regulate his body, including whether he is full or not. Experts also say that completely shutting off a child's access to a certain food for an extended time period only increases his desire for sed food. The result is exactly like the examples in the previous posts; the kid will be exposed to all that food once he is out of his parents reach, and it can be unhealthy. In the end, Linda's unique article adds the helpful physical health aspect to the controversial debate of parenting styles.
Http://www.today.com/health/hug-more-scold-less-strict-parenting-linked-child-obesity-2D79404578, Linda. "Hug More, Scold Less: Strict Parenting Linked to Child Obesity - TODAY.com." TODAY. N.p., n.d. Web. 7 Apr. 2014.

I found this article to be very unique and interesting. I have already been persuaded towards the more lenient parenting style, and this article sealed the deal. However, I cannot say that this is the strongest argument. It was helpful, reassuring, and different, but I would not use this as my main argument. Mostly because I don't find it compelling enough. I find that after a parent reads this, instead of actually being convinced to reconsider their parenting style, they would just maybe become more permissive on diet. As for the food aspect, this article could be hugely helpful. 37% increase for obesity is a big number. That statistic alone could easily could persuade a parent to change there kid's eating times. But, due to the massive scale that this debate is on, I do not feel like this argument has enough momentum to be a deal-breaker. When people think of obesity, over-protective parents is not the leading cause that comes to mind. The positive side is that this article, being on Time Magazine, could be a gateway article into the exploration of bigger advantages to a more progressive parenting.




http://www.today.com/health/hug-more-scold-less-strict-parenting-linked-child-obesity-2D79404578

Monday, March 31, 2014

Precis 2 (Strict Parenting=Good)

Jennifer Brozak, writer of The Advantages of Strict Parents, discusses the controversial topic of strict parenting and it's advantages. Jennifer believes that it is very much possible to have firm discipline yet also have nurture and lovingness. By dividing adolescents up into various aspects, Jen takes an organized look at what kind of discipline/parenting is best; those aspects being academics, self-control, peer pressure, and social interaction. She that setting high standards will result in academic and social excellence; two things that are crucial in success. Jen goes on to say that having constant consequences for a child will them improve their self control, manners, and resist to peer pressure. All this structure that Jen finds necessary to parenting all help make her point very clear; that strict parenting is the correct way to raise a kid.
"The Advantages of Strict Parents." Preschooler. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Mar. 2014.

Although worded and organized well, there are several points in this article that I have conflicting ideas with. There is not one idea in this article that I disagree with; rather the level of extremity that Jennifer wants to take them to. First, kids with stricter parents excel in academics. This is a well known fact, and I fully support it. However, Jennifer claims that parents should have constant high academic standards for their kid, and to consistently have consequences when those standards aren't met. This is where I disagree. Mistakes and priorities are both relevant issues in everyone's lives, regardless of age. Instilling into a child's brain from a very young age that academics is always first can increase stress in the child's brain, resulting in an overall anxious kid. Teaching that academics is first will literally make academics their world, and this squishes crucial social and adventurous opportunities. The experiences that you have out in the world, while growing up, defines you as a person. An academics-only lifestyle ruins this completely, and therefore a not a very well-rounded young adult. The other debatable statement comes when Jen describes how always being strict helps improve self control and peer pressure. There is no doubt that consequences and structure help raise a smart kid with his own feelings about self control and peer pressure, but that is not what Jen is saying. Jen wants to prevent the opportunity all together. If a person doesn't do something only because he is afraid of what his mom will do, does that teach him real life consequences? No, it teaches him that he just needs to wait until his mom won't be around; example being college. Raising a child based on fear, consequences, and 1 dimensional consequences will only increase their desire to do something bad; something that is different. That is why it is important to slowly decrease how much a parent monitors their kid, and have important discussions of why some things aren't ok to do. Otherwise, the parent's young adult will go from being sheltered to exposed too quickly and too extremely. Studies show that the acceleration of sheltered kids to college can actually cause a need to do all the new opportunities at once. This can be very dangerous, and several students have died under these circumstances. Research shows that kids in high school who had a relative of social and academic "college-like" experiences were more adept at handling the change.

http://preschooler.thebump.com/advantages-strict-parents-2211.html

Tuesday, March 25, 2014

Precis 1 (Strict Parenting=Bad)

Dr. Laura Markham in her article,  '"What's wrong with strict parenting?," poses the problems and effects of strict parenting, and offers her advice on ways to form a parent-kid relationship that isn't based on rules or fear. She argues that an authoritarian parenting will result in a child with low self esteem. The low self esteem makes the child act out more, and therefore gets punished more. This is an endless cycle that, in the grand scheme of things, does not work out. Children that are deprived of the opportunity to self discipline and self reflect are consequentially lacking in responsibility. Overall, strictness is going to be the only thing a parent is associated with when a child thinks of them. The positive goals that the parents are pushing for get completely looked over, leaving both the parents and the the child unsatisfied.
Markham, Laura. "What's Wrong with Strict Parenting?" Dr. Laura Markham What's Wrong With Strict Parenting? N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Mar. 2014.

As a current teenage son, I believe that I have enough personal experience to properly validate whichever opinion that I choose. That being said, my opinion is very restricted due to me not having experience with the second side of the argument, which would be being a parent. However, I do not think that authoritarian parenting is the right way to raise a child. The entire point of growing up to grow, expand, and become independent as a human being. Growing up in a household where there is a harsh rule and consequence around every corner can eliminates those chances! A lot of parents are specifically unaffectionate and strict because they want their child to grow up in a household modeled to what society is like. This actually can backfire really quickly. First and most specifically, it is a new generation. Growing up today is totally different than growing up when our parents did. To attempt to household manner similar to child's real life would be unfair and stupid. Secondly, If the kid grows up in a very strict setting with every action getting a reaction, he won't have experienced any real world consequences or have an idea of how rules truly work in a society. No matter what, there will always be a disconnect between society's and parent's rules and consequences. But it is up to the parents to recognize the necessity for a teenager or young adult to eventually learn about the difference.

http://www.ahaparenting.com/parenting-tools/positive-discipline/strict-parenting








Friday, March 21, 2014

Intro

Since the beginning of society, the way parents raise their kids is unique to each family. Each set of parents raise their kid based on their moral standards and expectations. The old theory was that it is necessary to use fear to strictly instill values and good actions into your children, along with strict consequences if the rules are broken. This is not so much the case anymore. As our society grows and becomes more focused on liberal arts, parenting has changed too. Mistakes that kids make are more widely accepted, and consequences are less severe. Nowadays, when a child messes up, having a deep discussion is a more common result than hitting or yelling. "Helicopter" parenting is becoming less and less prevalent. However, there is still a major percentage of parents who believe that the best way to raise a child is come down hard on them whenever a mistake is made. Things such as not tolerating bad grades, tracking, using strict consequences, etc. are how the parents were raised, so they want to continue this parenting style. The logic a lot of times is "well my parents were strict, and I turned out successful." This "if it ain't broke don't fix it" moral is something that many parents believe in, and therefore they pass it on to their kids. These two styles of parenting do seem to collide, with advantages and disadvantages on both sides. As being a teenage son right now, I believe I have dog in this fight. And that is why I think it would be intriguing to explore both sides extensively to see which style fits better in the modern day.