Rant

[stillbeing]

EDIT: Seems I'm not the only one who thinks along these lines. At least someone at The Age appears to be following reason - Read on here.I’m not sure why I’m posting now since this journal is now defunct (and I will be shutting down my Molly_Cule journal due to complete lack of interest), but anyway, there is just too much so deeply wrong with the

Comments

[evildoom_bunny]

I've read it! But I don't disagree..

I think the media is missing the point. What teenagers DON'T need is parentage similar to yours - uber-vigilant, paranoid, all of those things.

They need to know that they are trusted to go shopping in the city if they want to.

Parents should be ensuring that their kids know they love them a great deal. And parents SHOULD be swallowing their fears and letting their kids do their own thing, within reasonable measures (for example, I went to the BDO when I was 13 or 14, but I went with David).

I think there's two types of parenting which are the worst: the do-nothing approach, where they half-heartedly plead with darling madison not to do XYZ, to no avail. And the uber-control approach.

Neither work or do children any good. Kids need discipline, they need to know the boundaries, but at the same time, kids need to be told they're loved, even if the kid would probably protest the decleration.

Aaaagh.. I'm not sure that all makes sense, but you get what I mean!

PS - Aw.. don't kill molly_cule! I read it!!!!

[stillbeing]

No, it does make sense and you do have a valid point. Whether parents let their kid run wild for fear the child will hate the parent, or whether they're wrapped up in cotton wool for fear of anything bad happening, the reason is still the same - the child is idolised and although I'm crossing into pop-psychology here, I don't think that's the way for a child to learn about society and the world around them.