🚀 go-pugleaf

> While I agree with you on points 1-3, I think that point 4 in the 
> original post was OK provided that it was done correctly.  If a child is 
> hanging out with the "wrong" crowd, a parent has the right to know.  Not 
> so that the parent can cut the communication, as you appear to think 
> would happen, but to allow the parent and the child to discuss what is 
> happening on the internet.  Children had a right to explore, and explore 
> they will, but parents have a right to know, interceed and promote.  
> 
> In the online disucssions of the CDA there was floated the question, 
> "What ever happend to parental guidence?"  It seems to me that point 4 
> can be the starting point for a parental guidence discussion with the 
> child.
> 
> Just my thoughts.
> Claude Warren
> Formerly of Lafayette

Quite right. The main point is that there be some prudence where one
trusts their kid, lets them find their own way, etc. A parent _should_
step in when they perceive a problem.

BUT   (and this is the main point)   a parent should NOT be spying on
their kid. There you will have a complete breakdown of trust. I mean the
kid being able to trust the parents - and that's an important thing when
growing up. A kid will only let their parents in on what they feel they
can trust them with. And a kid can keep them out of just about anything
they do. The point is not to create the rift between them.

Spying on anyone is an outright disaster. Spying on your kid is also
counterproductive. Kids says a lot of stuff. They experiment and try a lot
of stuff. Listening in on their conversations without them being aware is
morally out of whack. I can think of about 1000 conversations that if my
parents heard me having when I was a teenager they would have completely
lost it. But I had to deal with things and learn to deal with them. There
is a lot of growing up to be done, and it ain't all pretty to watch. There
are a lot of situations that kids get themselves into, and spying on them
isn't the way that you'll be able to help. Noticing when they're having
problems and offering to help gets a much better response (and respect
from them). If the problems are big enough that you need to intervene,
you'll know about them without having to spy.

If your kid is completely messed up on heroin, you'll notice without
having to tap their phone lines or listen in on their email. If you don't
notice it, in fact, it would be damn amazing. Most of my friends did drugs
to differing degrees when I was growing up, including myself. Most of them
could handle it, and most of them grew out of it. It just wasn't that big
of a deal. The very few who were messed up, were messed up long before
they ever even thought of drugs. It had nothing to do with the substance
they were taking, it was a matter of how their life was going. I could've
told you who would've ended where in 3rd grade. Parents feel a need to
blame the drugs, because facing up to the root of the problems is often
times too difficult to do.


___________________________________________________________________________


In response to some other comments:  (random points)

>>   Reason #4 equally disgusts me. "Wrong crowd"? What the hell kind of a
>>   parent spies on their kids. 
>
>Gee.  You're right.  Let 'em get hit on by druggies, seduced by anyone, 
>"taught" everything without a single concern.  (Okay, true spying is insane).

Yes, I'm talking about "true" spying here. The sentence seems to smack of
a naive parent, no? Being "hit on by druggies, seduce by anyone..." will
happen. First fact of parenting. The question is: how will they respond.
The problems of their life will not be caused by someone saying, "Hey,
want some heroin?" The symptoms of their problems will be seen in their
seeking out the irresponsible use of these things.

Now, I realize that you're probably thinking of when kids get themselves
into situations that they can't seem to get themselves out of. This is a
problem for any parent. But you're not going to get them out by spying on
them.

>We have as much control over them (after a point...) as they do over us.

True. That's exactly why one should establish a _strong_ channel of trust
between you and your kids. They are people, who think, feel and, to a
point, run their own lives. They don't live their life for their parents,
nor should they. In the teenage years especially, it is so important to
have a trust with your parents. They may use it to get away with stuff
behind your back, but that's going to happen no matter what. The question
is exactly what kind of people are they turning into when you are
completely out of reach of what they're up to.

>> They may end up being the positive influence
>>   in that circle of friends.
>
>They may also push him off a bridge, or get her pregnant.  (Oh yeh... not 
>YOUR kid.. never never).

This is sort of a bizarre comment. If my kid pushes someone off a bridge,
the problems lie very very deep. They are not a function of who they're
hanging out with. That's crazy talk, and denial talk. Getting someone
pregnant - that's more reasonable. Kids sex each other down, it's going to
happen. Does one raise a responsible child? is the real question. Yes, it
IS possible. Kids are _strongly_ affected by how their parents act, and by
how they are raised.

______________________________________________________________________________


-Jeff

-- 
Jeff biggus@colorado.edu
http://ucsu.colorado.edu/~biggus

      "But where danger is, grows
       The saving power also."