Few people would defend the Victorian attitude to children, but if you were a parent in those days, at least you knew where you stood: children were to be seen and not heard. Feud and company did away with all that and parents have been bewildered ever since.
The childs happiness is all-important, the psychologists say, but what about parents happiness? Parents suffer constantly from fear and guilt while their children gaily romp about pulling the place apart. A good old-fashioned spanking is out of question: no modern child-rearing manual would permit such barbarity. The trouble is you are not allowed even to shout Certainly a child needs love and a lot of it. But the excessive permissiveness of modern parents is surely doing more harm than good.
Psychologists have succeeded in undermining parents confidence in their own authority. And it hasnt taken children long to get wind of the fact. In addition to the great modern classics on child care, there are countless articles in magazines and newspapers. With so much unsolicited advice flying about, mum and dad just dont know what to do any more. In the end, they do nothing at all. So, from early childhood, the kids are in charge and parents lives are regulated according to the needs of their offspring. When the little dears develop into teenagers, they take complete control. Lax authority over the years makes adolescent rebellion against parents all the more violent. If the young people are going to have a party, for instance, parents are asked to leave the house. Their presence merely spoils the fun. What else can the poor parents do but obey?
Children are hardy creatures (far hardier than the psychologists would have us believe) and most of them survive the harmful influence of extreme permissiveness which is the normal condition in the modern household. But a great many do not. The spread of juvenile delinquency in our own age is largely due to parental laxity. Mother, believing that little Johnny can look after himself, is not at home when he returns from school, so little Johnny roams the streets. The dividing line between permissiveness and sheer negligence is very fine indeed.
The psychologists have much to answer. They should keep their mouths shut and let parents get on with the job. And if children are knocked about a little bit in the process, it may not really matter too much Perhaps, theres some truth in the idea that children whove had a surfeit of happiness in their childhood emerge like stodgy puddings and fail to make a success of life.
permissive giving permission that gives powers to do smth, but does not order that it shall be done
bewilder puzzle, confuse
romp play about, running, jumping, and being rather rough (esp. of children)
spanking punishment by slapping on the buttocks with the open hand or a slipper
confidence - here. assurance, belief that one is right (e.g. self-confidence)
get wind of begin to suspect
obey do what one is told to do; carry out (a command)
roam walk or travel without any definite aim or destination over or through (a country, etc.)
1. What are modern psychological ideas in the field of bringing up children? 2. Why do you think the author of the text rejects them? 3. What do you think about shouting? Can it lead to understanding? Is it good when speaking with children? 4. Whats your attitude towards good old-fashioned spanking and physical punishment in general? 5. What is the result of the undermined parents confidence in their own authority according to the authors point of view? 6. To what result can lax authority lead? 7. Do you think children should always obey their parents? What about parents obeying their children to make them happy? 8. Would you agree with the author that extreme permissiveness id harmful for children and can result in negative development? 9. What do you think is important in order to have normal relations between parents and children? Is tolerance necessary?
