Over the past few years, we have seen some wild, unacceptable behavior in our society. Grown adults have wreaked havoc in stores, rioted in the streets, and acted out in school settings—all with no repercussions. Allowing such obscenely bad behavior to go without consequence is a serious problem. And this problem begins long before adulthood. When the George Floyd riots began, America watched looters run through Targets across the nation and leave with whatever they wanted. Perhaps even more surprisingly was Target's response to this behavior. Target's CEO responded with a memo saying, “We are a community in pain. That pain is not unique to the Twin Cities—it extends across America. The murder of George Floyd has unleashed the pent-up pain of years, as have the killings of Ahmaud Arbery and Breonna Taylor. We say their names and hold a too-long list of others in our hearts.” So rather than condemn the criminals for the crimes they committed, Target decided this was acceptable—and permissible—behavior. Fast forward to a couple months ago when Judge Kyle Duncan visited Stanford Law School to give a speech and students shouted him down. Judge Duncan is a judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals, and this was how the students of Stanford Law treated him. They knew they had the associate dean of the school's diversity, equity, and inclusion to support them. The future lawyers of America. One of the top law schools in America. And this is how they act. Judge Duncan responded in an interview saying, “Ask yourself: how is anything that went on in that classroom remotely compatible with that mission? Answer: it is the opposite of what it means to be a lawyer. Unless those students undergo a radical change in their whole approach to argument and disagreement, they are unfit to be members of any bar.” Of course he's correct. That is not how you should reason or speak. There needs to be logic to this—and consequences. Under no circumstance is it acceptable to act like a criminal. Under no circumstance is it acceptable for adults to act like fit-pitching toddlers. Under no circumstance is it acceptable to be understanding of that kind of behavior. Yet apparently, it is. So when did this become acceptable? We talk about the Department of Education and the coddling of today's youth, but where does this behavior actually begin? It begins in the home. |
We are living in a time of what I call “new age parenting.” These parents do not believe in discipline. The goal, it seems, is not to parent at all, and I see it all around me. We interviewed a girl once as a potential babysitter, and she was great. But when we showed her our routine for our son's timeout (from which he emerges a reformed individual, I might add), she was shocked. She told us she could not believe we do timeouts—because she did not know any parents who do timeouts anymore. A member of my own family told me they do not believe in telling their son "no". So, that means, he is not learning what “no” means. When boundaries are not taught at home, a child will not understand boundaries when they become an adult. These are not good long-term strategies for children, and we are seeing how this plays out in society right in front of our eyes. We are mass producing little narcissist brats in America. But history will not remember undisciplined morons. So consider the opposite parenting strategy—one that teaches a child structure and discipline. Think about what happens to your mentality when your parents do not allow you to give in to your excuses. When I find myself wondering who raised this child, I am too often wondering in frustration or aggravation because I am witnessing an adult behaving badly. When people wonder who your parents are, you want them to wonder in admiration. We need to teach consequences. We need to believe in discipline. Ultimately, we need to think about the long term. |
Comments
Post a Comment