If you've seen them, you know what I'm talking about. Basically, these teenagers are surrounded by fatigue-clad drill sergeant wannabes who scream at them and do assorted things to them, including sleep deprivation, pointless drills, endless exercises. All heaped with generous spoonfuls of scorn and derision.
What seems to happen is these parents come on the shows and bitch about how bad their kids have become. Now, in some cases, the kids are bad. But whose fault is that? The parents seem to get off free as birds, when they're clearly part of the problem. They should cart their fat butts to the boot camps, too.
But somehow, it's seen as okay for the kids to go, because they're seen as the property of the parents. And what lessons will the kids learn at these boot camps? Step out of line and have some chowderheads scream in your face?
This has been part of a larger trend I've seen of criminalizing teens. More places now have curfews and other things targeted specifically toward teens. Are the aging Baby Boomers getting bitter about becoming old, so they're wanting to kick the younger folks in the teeth?
It's a crock, and what I've also found is, more often than not, it's girls that are sent to these boot camps. At least they're showing more girls getting sent than boys. That seems like an interesting trend. When a boy misbehaves, it's seen perhaps as a stage, but when a girl does, she's carted off to these indoctrination camps and terrorized into behaving. It goes back to old notions of girls, particularly lower-class girls, being kept in their place. Perhaps better seen and not heard.
Sometimes, the camps "work"--the girls come in all crying and apologetic, and it's scary to see. Not that I'm condoning juvenile delinquency, but watching those jarheads scream and terrorize those kids, you can't help but think there must be a better way.
The better way is for parents to assume some responsibility in raising their kids, and treating them not as things, but as people, worthy of respect. If the parents showed respect, maybe the kids would respect their parents, too. Instead, these people just cart the kids off to let them be harassed by strangers. Seems like a classic "quick fix" where the parents wash their hands of their responsibility.
Sociological studies have shown that disciplinarian households produce adults with serious problems. Check out "The Roots of Evil" by Erving Staub, to name one example. You'll find an interesting study of former SS men who consistently came from households like that. Similar studies of the Victorian era have shown the harmful effects of authoritarian child-rearing.
The boot camp approach to problem teens is just wrong. And what kind of person does that for a living, anyway? To me, a guy running a teen boot camp would have to be a pretty sick individual, psychologically. Perhaps he hates himself, or hates women. I'm not sure, but they obviously derive satisfaction from their work or they wouldn't be doing it.
Of course, they'd say they do it because they want to straighten kids out. But the disciplinarian approach to handling kids teaches the wrong lessons. It produces people more suited toward living in a fascist society than a free one--repressed people who learn how to lick boots and step on the fingers of those beneath them. Instead of producing well-rounded, self-confident individuals, this approach creates cringing conformists. Perhaps that's desirable to those in power, but to an anarchist, no way.
Studies continue to show that children of child abusers are more likely to become child abusers themselves. Is that a brain defect? No. It's just that they've learned wrong behaviors in their formative years, learned the wrong lessons. That's what these teen boot camps are--sanctioned child abuse clinics.
And anybody who says differently is deluding themselves, because while the boot camp fascists might not physically kick the teens' asses, there is considerable psychological abuse taking place. Again, I'd love to see the parents stand there and take the abuse they're willing to have their kids undergo. I wonder if they did that, how willing they'd be to send their kids to these places?
Now, what alternative approach could be tried for so-called problem teens? The real problem may be a lack of communication with the parent. I really think the parents need to assume responsibility for how their kids are, and how they are. They need to talk to them, and to respect them.
There are all sorts of creative outlets that could be used to deal with troubled teens, if the parents are willing to get off their asses and get involved. The parents and the kids could take some activity up together, something they could both agree on, and interact that way.
It's time to give the boot camps the boot. They are no solution at all to a complex problem. And worse, because these people do this to their kids on national television. That's the most obscene part of it all. It's bad enough that they exist at all, but for networks to think these are somehow entertainment? It's sick.
Watch a few of them, and you'll see what I mean. They're disgusting.
First off, the kids are getting these without their consent or full knowledge. Mommy and/or Daddy is just handing the kid their pills and off they go. The kids don't have a fair say in the use of these things.
Second, these are adult psychomeds. Who the hell knows what effects will occur when administered to kids? Seems like they're using the kids as guinea pigs for these drugs.
And these meds aren't curing anything--rather, they are treating what are termed behavioral disorders. So, you dope up your kids and they remain on these drugs for how long? The rest of their lives? What situations in the family have led to the supposed behavioral disorders in the first place? That's the source of the problem.
It's just so typically American to think that a pill can take the place of whatever really needs to be done to solve the problem. And it's also in the eye of the beholder, too, depending on the biases and perspectives of the the parent, themselves. For example, some of the "troubled teens" I'd seen on those shows struck me as quite intelligent, if unruly (to be fair, some of them were idiots, too, but those kids were usually bullied back into place, whereas the smarter ones remained "troublesome"). The parent was obviously upset about their unruly kid, so obviously, from their point of view, the kid's at fault, since they're the parent, and can't be wrong.
If adults want to take their psychomeds, that's one thing--but giving them to kids is just stupid, short-sighted, and possibly dangerous. If nothing else, it's wrong-headed and quite scary. It connotes to the child a message that there's something "wrong" with them, which probably perpetuates the problem, or even creates problems when there were none, before. I'm actually reminded of Betty Friedan's "The Feminine Mystique", where she talks about how many women were taking Valium as symptomatic of a larger problem. I think the overmedicating of children is symptomatic not of childhood pathologies, but of cultural and parental pathologies that are simply not being addressed.
I'm not sure what has caused this whole culture of intolerance toward teens, but I'm watching it, and am getting more annoyed by it. I think part of the problem is many parents of the Baby Boomer generation are more concerned with being buddies of their kids, than being responsible parents. Maybe their approval-seeking personalities are uncomfortable with being good role models, or their lack of security in their identities makes them over-reliant on psychomeds. I'm just not sure, but I'm going to be watching this as things evolve.
2/29/00
a4a
DENVER (Reuters) - Despite a decline in violent crimes committed by young people, such as last year's massacre at Columbine High School outside Denver, public fear about such violence is rising, according to a new report.
[a4a: This is because the press has been covering these stories so continuously.]
The report, due to be released on Wednesday by the Washington-based Justice Police Institute, found that during the 1998-1999 school year the National School Safety Center reported 26 school-associated violent deaths, a 40 percent decline from the previous year.
It was during that school year that 15 people, including two teen-age gunmen, died in the shootings at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado.
The report also said that despite the documented decline in youth violence, seven out of 10 Americans in recent surveys said they believed a shooting was likely in their local school and that such fears were on the rise.
"The data remind us that our young people are neither school-house assassins nor the kids on the other side of the yellow tape, weeping over the deaths of their classmates. Our kids are the ones playing soccer, going to dances and doing the other normal things kids do," institute Director Vincent Schiraldi said in a statement.
Officials at Columbine recently have said that parents did not want to see metal detectors at the school for fear it would turn the school into a fortress.
[a4a: Note that in urban schools, they are already fortresses.]
"They don't need us to turn their schools into prisons, they need our support to live healthy, happy lives," Schiraldi said.
The report also found that zero-tolerance policies in schools aimed at stopping violence by students have fallen disproportionately on minorities.
According to the study, FBI arrest data indicate a 56 percent decline in homicides committed by juveniles from 1993 to 1998, and a 30 percent decline in overall juvenile crime. However, poll data show that people believe that juvenile crime is on the increase, the study said.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Want to raise "responsible, resourceful" teenagers? Listen well, and make sure they do their chores.
The first White House conference on teens, presided over by President Clinton and first lady Hillary Rodham Clinton, featured such time-tested advice, plus new research showing early teenage years are a crucial step in brain development, and called for more government steps to help parents and teens.
[a4a: Whatever that means -- Clinton cut funding for poor families, so I don't know what this "help" will be, or who it's targeting.]
"Anybody that thinks that we've done everything we need to do to help parents with teenagers hasn't had teenagers and hasn't been around lately," Clinton said.
[a4a: Not everybody can be Chelsea. She was "fast-tracked" into Stanford. I'm sure being the President's daughter didn't help get her into college. Surrrrre.]
The conference brought together experts on adolescents, as well as actors Danny DeVito and Rhea Perlman, who are active in children's issues.
It also showcased Mrs. Clinton, the Democratic candidate for a U.S. Senate seat in New York, who has long made children's issues a cornerstone of her political agenda. She wore a pair of reading glasses, infrequently seen in public, as she moderated panel discussions.
At the session, the president announced an executive order forbidding federal employers from discriminating against workers with families, saying he aimed to eliminate any "glass ceiling" blocking advancement of people with children at home.
He called for expanding family-leave legislation and increasing funding for after-school programs.
Clinton also released a report by his Council on Economic Advisers, which he billed as a good news/bad news snapshot of the condition of American teenagers.
"The good news is that the teenagers are far healthier, more prosperous, and look forward to more promising lives than ever before in our history," he said. He cited figures showing high school graduation and college enrollment rates at all-time highs, and declines in youth violence, homicide, suicide, teen pregnancy, and, recently, drug use.
[a4a: More prosperous? Which teens? More promising lives?? What rock has he been sleeping under -- oh, wait, the White House.]
Major challenges include still-excessive rates of teen smoking, drug use and pregnancy. "And despite a marked decline in teen homicide over the past few years, still far too many communities are scarred by gun violence," he said.
The report highlighted the importance of parents spending time with and listening to their children. "Teenagers that had dinner with their parents five nights a week are far more likely to avoid smoking, drinking, violence, suicide and drugs. This held true for single-parent as well as two-parent families, across all income and racial groups " Clinton said.
[a4a: Maybe the decline of the family has been because both parents are having to work to make ends meet? Or their employers are making them work longer weeks, so they can't be home? I think the corporate domination of our society is what's really shafting families.]
Robert Blum, an expert on adolescent health at the University of Minnesota, sought to explode what he said were "myths" about teens, and said chores were a crucial part of growing up.
"Having responsibilities is a non-verbal message that you matter in my family, and kids who don't have chores get the message that you don't count."
He said myths that were important to debunk were that families do not matter in teenage development, that spending time with teenagers was sufficient in itself to improve relationships -- rather, it was important to show emotional "connectedness" when spending time with teenage children -- and that youth violence, early sex and alcohol abuse can be cured with more two-parent families.