rotten low down nasty kids!
ok, so i completely lifted this whole entry off of a buddy of mine on myspace. i have always found it interesting. i don't remember going over this stuff when i was in sociology, but that was forever ago. i don't think they'll mind too much that i ripped them off (crosses fingers).
In my sociology class, we were covering parenthood.Which is somewhat odd since the last last blog was entitled "leashing your kids" lol. I don't think they have come up with a name for my parenting method. Even if they did, it's a safe bet that it would be outlawed. Styles of parenting came up, which tied into parental support verses control. Five main styles were mentioned: democratic, authoritarian, permissive, rejecting, and involved. You're probably wondering why on earth I'm actually paying attention in class right? It's because the topic of the traits children exhibited from each of these different styles came into play.
An offspring of the authoritarian style, the results were pretty amusing to me. The style itself is established by rigid rules and expectations, that are strictly enforced. Parents expect and demand obedience. So if you happened to ever ask your parents why you had to do something... and the response was "Because I said so"... you're in my boat. Observations found that kids exposed to this were often conflicted and irritable in behavior: moody, unhappy, vulnerable to stress, and unfriendly. So those that constantly ask me why I'm so stressed all the time... now you have your answer
The democratic style was found to work the best out of all. This is where parents establish clear rules and expectations and discuss them with the kids. They take into account the child's perspective, while also enforcing their rules. Observations for this style found that they were more emotionally healthier and happier. So if Katie is reading this... that's why you smile all the damn time
The permissive style is where parents let the child's preferences take priority over their ideals, rarely making them conform. Observations showed that these kids exhibit impulsive-aggressive behavior. They are often rebellious, domineering, and underachieving. I would think that these kids best qualify for their own "My Sweet 16" show on Mtv. That would make since in the cases that I saw... since most of those kids are yelling at their parents through the whole show.
In the rejecting style, parents don't pay much attention to their children's needs. They seldom have expectations on how their child should behave. Children from this style are often immature and have psychological problems. The uninvolved style is where parents ignore the child, letting the child do what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with the parent in any way. This is usually associated with the rejecting style in many ways. These children are often solitary, withdrawn, and underachieving.
These may or maynot have resembled you in any way, but none the less... research is research. Although I think most sociology research is bogus or complete common knowledge. But hey... I feel a little better knowing that my insanity may not have been self induced.
ok, it's me again. you should know from the broken sentences and misuse of grammar. i half to agree with the last paragraph. at least the part about sociology being complete common knowledge. when i was going through it i'd half to say i was a little bit of all of them, which of course would mean, completely well rounded or at least vaguely spherical shape resulting in what one may call "lumpy" rounded.
In my sociology class, we were covering parenthood.Which is somewhat odd since the last last blog was entitled "leashing your kids" lol. I don't think they have come up with a name for my parenting method. Even if they did, it's a safe bet that it would be outlawed. Styles of parenting came up, which tied into parental support verses control. Five main styles were mentioned: democratic, authoritarian, permissive, rejecting, and involved. You're probably wondering why on earth I'm actually paying attention in class right? It's because the topic of the traits children exhibited from each of these different styles came into play.
An offspring of the authoritarian style, the results were pretty amusing to me. The style itself is established by rigid rules and expectations, that are strictly enforced. Parents expect and demand obedience. So if you happened to ever ask your parents why you had to do something... and the response was "Because I said so"... you're in my boat. Observations found that kids exposed to this were often conflicted and irritable in behavior: moody, unhappy, vulnerable to stress, and unfriendly. So those that constantly ask me why I'm so stressed all the time... now you have your answer
The democratic style was found to work the best out of all. This is where parents establish clear rules and expectations and discuss them with the kids. They take into account the child's perspective, while also enforcing their rules. Observations for this style found that they were more emotionally healthier and happier. So if Katie is reading this... that's why you smile all the damn time
The permissive style is where parents let the child's preferences take priority over their ideals, rarely making them conform. Observations showed that these kids exhibit impulsive-aggressive behavior. They are often rebellious, domineering, and underachieving. I would think that these kids best qualify for their own "My Sweet 16" show on Mtv. That would make since in the cases that I saw... since most of those kids are yelling at their parents through the whole show.
In the rejecting style, parents don't pay much attention to their children's needs. They seldom have expectations on how their child should behave. Children from this style are often immature and have psychological problems. The uninvolved style is where parents ignore the child, letting the child do what they want as long as it doesn't interfere with the parent in any way. This is usually associated with the rejecting style in many ways. These children are often solitary, withdrawn, and underachieving.
These may or maynot have resembled you in any way, but none the less... research is research. Although I think most sociology research is bogus or complete common knowledge. But hey... I feel a little better knowing that my insanity may not have been self induced.
ok, it's me again. you should know from the broken sentences and misuse of grammar. i half to agree with the last paragraph. at least the part about sociology being complete common knowledge. when i was going through it i'd half to say i was a little bit of all of them, which of course would mean, completely well rounded or at least vaguely spherical shape resulting in what one may call "lumpy" rounded.