How we have changed

[jtiwana]

SCHOOL*-*1950s* v 2016


Scenario*:*
Johnny and Mark get into a fight after school.*

1950s -*Crowd* gathers. Mark wins. Johnny and Mark shake hands and end up best friends.*

2016*-*Police* called, and they arrest Johnny and Mark & charge them with assault.
Both expelled even though Johnny started it.
Both children go to anger management programmes for 3 months.
School governors hold meeting to implement bullying prevention programmes.*

--------------------------

Scenario*:
Robbie won't be still in class, disrupts other students.*

1950s -*Robbie* sent to the office and given six of the best by the Principal.
Returns to class, sits still and does not disrupt class again.*

2016*-*Robbie* given huge doses of Ritalin. Becomes a zombie. Tested for ADHD – result deemed to be positive. Robbie's parents get fortnightly disability payments and school gets extra funding from government because Robbie has a disability.*

--------------------------

Scenario*:
Billy breaks a window in his neighbour's car and his Dad gives him a whipping with his belt.*

1950s -*Billy* is more careful next time, grows up normal, goes to college, and becomes a successful businessman.*

2016*-*Billy's* dad is arrested for child abuse. Billy removed to foster care; joins a gang; ends up in jail.*

--------------------------

Scenario*:
Mark gets a headache and takes some Aspirin to school.*

1950s -*Mark* gets glass of water from Principal to take aspirin with, Passes exams & becomes a solicitor.

2016*-*Police* called, car searched for drugs and weapons.
Mark expelled from school for drug taking. Ends up as a drop out and a drug peddler.

--------------------------

Scenario*:
Johnny takes apart leftover fireworks from Guy Fawkes night, puts them in a paint tin & blows up a wasp's nest.*

1950s -*Wasps* die.*

2016-*Police* & Anti-Terrorism Squad called. Johnny charged with domestic terrorism, investigate parents, siblings removed from home, computers confiscated.
Johnny's Dad goes on a terror watch list and is never allowed to fly in an aeroplane again.*

--------------------------

Scenario*:
Johnny falls over while playing football during morning break and scrapes his knee.
He is found crying by his teacher, Mary.* She hugs him to comfort him.*

1950s -*In* a short time, Johnny feels better and goes on playing football.*No damage done.

2016*-*Mary* is accused of being a sexual predator and loses her job. She faces 3 years in prison.
Johnny undergoes 5 years of therapy and ends up gay.*

--------------------------

This should be sent to every e-mail address you know to remind us how stupid we have become ???

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[wildbill]

Wow, those are quite the scenarios! Oh my!

[Coyotebutcher]

Scenario: guy is bored and has nothing better to do than complain

1950: begins writing letter to news paper about how he thinks times have changed. Gets bored of writing and throws letter in the garbage.

2017: writes ridiculous post for online forum and tells everyone to email it to everyone they know. Hits submit


Weird how people who were alive in 1950 love to use the internet to complain about how times have changed

[bobtodrick]

Scenario#1. 1950...exactly as you describe.

Scenario #2. 2017. Johnny and Mark meet after school and Johnny gets his clock cleaned. Two days Mark is coming out of the local 7/11 after buying a Slurpee when Johnny and four of his friends accost him. Mark is left lying in a pool of blood, dying from multiple stab wounds.
Is it okay for the police to show up now?

[sjemac]

None of those scenarios are true.

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by Coyotebutcher

Scenario: guy is bored and has nothing better to do than complain

1950: begins writing letter to news paper about how he thinks times have changed. Gets bored of writing and throws letter in the garbage.

2017: writes ridiculous post for online forum and tells everyone to email it to everyone they know. Hits submit


Weird how people who were alive in 1950 love to use the internet to complain about how times have changed

well you responded to it,
so which one are you?

Guy is bored and has nothing better to do than complain about a post on an open public forum .

[Coyotebutcher]

Better than sending my complaint reply to the paper by written mail though isn't it?

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by Coyotebutcher

Better than sending my complaint reply to the paper by written mail though isn't it?

one in the same actually

[bobtodrick]

Originally Posted by sjemac

None of those scenarios are true.

Cambridge Dictionary defines 'scenario' as the possible outcomes of an imagined event.
No one here is claiming any of these are true.

[sjemac]

Scenario*:
Robbie won't be still in class, disrupts other students.*

1950s -*Robbie* sent to the office and given six of the best by the Principal.
Returns to class, sits still for that day. A few days later, he acts out again and is given another 6 by the principal and a few more at home for good measure. For some reason he can't stop acting out in class and is getting 6 "good ones" from the principal on a fairly regular basis -- plus the ever increasing dose of "home correction" that follows the "good ones" at school. By 10 Robbie hates school and his parents are fed up. They pull him from school to the great relief of the principal and put him to work on the farm where he remains for 50 years -- uneducated and broken down by accidents and hard labour.

2010's*-*Robbie's behaviour is deemed by his teacher to be a symptom of boredom and frustration. Referred to the special education teacher who does a Level B test and determines that there may be a learning disability. The school ponies up $1000 to have an educational psychologist come in and do a Level C. That test indicates that Robbie does indeed have some attention deficit problems that are coupled with an inability to process written text quickly. The school begins providing content to Robbie in different formats other than text and the Family School Wellness worker begins meeting with Robbie weekly in order to help him deal with his frustrations in a manner that does not disrupt the class. A further visit to a pediatrician leads to Robbie getting a prescription for Concerta to help him bridge the early years as he learns how to cope in an environment that is difficult for him to understand and process. His parents are directly consulted on every step of this process. By grade 10 Robbie has turned the corner is off the Concerta and is now succeeding at school and while his outbursts are not gone completely they have lessened considerably. In 2016 in grade 12 Robbie is valedictorian and going on to engineering at UofA where his first year is a resounding success and he is near the top of his class.

Those are both true stories. 1950 was my uncle and 2016 was one of my former students. Both stories are fairly representative of how things were done and are done now.

[huntinstuff]

1950. Steve and Tracy are best friends and always hang out. Boys beat up Steve for "hanging out with a girl"

1980. Steve and Tracy are best friends and always hang out. Everyone thinks they will get married someday

2000. Steve and Tracy are best friends and always hang out. People think Steve is probably gay since he doesn't grab Tracy's butt or boobs in public.

2017. Steve and Tracy are best friends and always hang out. People think they are secretly having sex and rumours abound.

67 years and no one got it right. No one asked either......

My fav is 1950. Boy gets strap from principal
2017. Boy is Dr in hospital and euthanized former principal

[bb356]

1971 ... Justin is crying and filling his diaper on the Canadian tax payer's dime.
2017 ... Justin still is .

[ETOWNCANUCK]

Originally Posted by bb356

1971 ... Justin is crying and filling his diaper on the Canadian tax payer's dime.
2017 ... Justin still is .

The most accurate

[jtiwana]

I am sure there are people who are better off in 2017 but personally I grew up fine (subjective) because of fear of getting a good whipping from my teachers and parents. I can safely say the same was true for most of my friends. I guess to each his own but I am bringing up my kids the old school way.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by jtiwana

I am sure there are people who are better off in 2017 but personally I grew up fine (subjective) because of fear of getting a good whipping from my teachers and parents. I can safely say the same was true for most of my friends. I guess to each his own but I am bringing up my kids the old school way.

Sent from my A0001 using Tapatalk

My kids fear my anger. I feared my father's anger. I've spanked my kids maybe five times total. I only spanked when they were young and it was a safety issue (trying to toddle into the lit fireplace).

I got probably 30 times that -- from my mother mostly. They redid my room when I was 8 and found 16 wooden spoons hidden under the dresser (I was a complete pain).

When she started breaking spoons on my arse without a wimper, the gig was up. My dad's displeasure though, was and still is, one of the worst things I can experience.

The fear of a "good whipping" is gone once you learn to take one.

[tri777]

Scenario*:

Gets personally invited to dinner at the
Whitehouse for building suitcase bomb..er..clock.

[silverdoctor]

Nah, things haven't changed at all... Bill to ban spanking - once section 43 is removed, smacking your child on the arse becomes assault.

Section 43 of the Criminal Code(1) reads as follows:

Every schoolteacher, parent or person standing in the place of a parent is justified in using force by way of correction toward a pupil or child, as the case may be, who is under his care, if the force does not exceed what is reasonable under the circumstances.

http://www.parl.ca/LegisInfo/BillDet...billId=8063354

Bill to Amend—Second Reading—Debate Continued

On the Order:

Resuming debate on the motion of the Honourable Senator Hervieux-Payette, P.C., seconded by the Honourable Senator Joyal, P.C., for the second reading of Bill S-206, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (protection of children against standard child-rearing violence).

Hon. Kim Pate: Honourable senators, I'm pleased to rise today to speak to Bill S-206, an act to repeal section 43 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

In discussing why I believe section 43 must be repealed, I begin, for two reasons, with the Supreme Court of Canada's 2004 decision regarding this provision, Canadian Foundation for Children, Youth and the Law v. Canada (Attorney General).

[Translation]

First, this decision illustrates the complex nature of this provision and insofar as section 43 is concerned, what we see does not necessarily reflect reality.

[English]

Section 43 is often understood as a defence against charges of assault for well-meaning parents or teachers, but there is massive confusion in the law surrounding section 43, including the elaborate Supreme Court criteria that attempt to narrow and interpret its application.

In his speech on this bill, Senator Sinclair provided an overview of the law surrounding section 43, in which he concluded that if the provision did ever happen to work as a defence for a parent, "it would be by sheer luck, given the vague and confusing state of the law of assaulting children."

I will not add to this apt assessment, except to say that it is confirmed by my own experiences. Not once throughout decades of work with marginalized and criminalized women have I seen section 43 used successfully to keep a vulnerable woman out of prison and to keep her child from going parentless.

Section 43 is also sometimes viewed as an affirmation that parents must decide on their own whether or not physical punishment is in the best interests of their children. But, despite finding section 43 to be constitutional, the Supreme Court also reiterated that physical punishment is not of any benefit to children.

In fact, not one single expert witness in the case suggested that there was any benefit to physical punishment. The Supreme Court's conclusion was not that physical punishment could be in the best interests of the child; rather, the court clearly held that the best interests of the child, which would be served by preventing physical punishment, may be subordinated to other concerns in appropriate contexts.

Research by the Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, CHEO for short, makes clear that the myth that physical punishment is for a child's own good has been thoroughly debunked. Further, the CHEO clearly identifies:

While many parents believe that physical punishment will keep their children out of trouble, delinquency and anti- social behaviour have actually been found to increase over the long term in children who are physically punished.

(1750)

Physical punishment is "a risk factor for physical injury of a child and erosion of parent-child relationships."

Children who are routinely hit are also more likely to experience poorer psychological adjustment and increased levels of aggression throughout life.

Finally, as the CHEO points out, allowing the assault of children "perpetuates the use of violence by the next generation." It is with these consequences for the next generation in mind that I turn to the second reason that I refer to the Supreme Court's 2004 decision. This reason is a more personal one.

When the decision was released, my now adult children were children of the age targeted by the decision. My wonderfully astute son, Michael, was 13 years old and my equally wonderful daughter, Madison, was 5. My son had watched the case with interest and had his own older brotherly interpretation of its outcome, particularly the rule restricting physical punishment to children between the ages of 2 and 12. What was Michael's concluding pronouncement? "Nobody can hit me," he announced, "but we can all hit Madison."

What my son zeroed in on then, and what we must also now recognize, is an absurd and atrocious reality at the core of section 43. No child should have to wait until they are a teenager for the right to have legal protection from harm that we now enjoy as adults. Nor do we want them to risk learning that they deserve to be assaulted and that, worse still, it is for their own good. By the time they are older, children who are routinely assaulted as an intended means of correcting their behaviour may suffer in ways that significantly negatively impact them and future generations.

CHEO's joint statement on the physical punishment of children and youth is based on research that consistently associates physical punishment during childhood with higher adult aggression, criminal and anti-social behaviour, and abuse of one's own children and/or spouse.

[Translation]

These effects do not occur only in cases of serious abuse. They also occur when a child is punished with a spanking, which is often considered a minor assault.

[English]

There can perhaps be no more clear or stark evidence of the imperative of ensuring that children are protected from assault than the mountains of evidence and testimony of the negative impact of corporal and other assaultive punishments and "corrections" on children documented in the painstaking and too often excruciatingly painful, albeit necessary, detailed descriptions shared in the report of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

The TRC's call for the repeal of section 43 emphasizes the role that physical punishment and the belief that it should be inflicted on children with impunity played in the abuses perpetuated in residential schools. The trauma experienced during childhood by survivors of Canada's residential school system has been ongoing and intergenerational, continuing to have not just negative but sometimes devastating consequences for their families and communities.

In the time since the 2004 Supreme Court decision, my children have now become adults. Their generation has grown up without any advances being made in the criminal law and with cycles of violence surrounding physical punishment of children continuing unbroken.

We owe it to all children, past, present and future, to remedy the gap in our law that still condones the assault of children. It is time to heed the calls from the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, from the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child, from the Children's Hospital, and the nearly 600 organizations that have endorsed its joint statement. It is long past time, my friends and colleagues, to repeal section 43 and finally provide children with full legal protection from assault. Thank you, merci, meegwetch.

(On motion of Senator Martin, debate adjourned.)

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by sjemac

Scenario*:
Robbie won't be still in class, disrupts other students.*

1950s -*Robbie* sent to the office and given six of the best by the Principal.
Returns to class, sits still for that day. A few days later, he acts out again and is given another 6 by the principal and a few more at home for good measure. For some reason he can't stop acting out in class and is getting 6 "good ones" from the principal on a fairly regular basis -- plus the ever increasing dose of "home correction" that follows the "good ones" at school. By 10 Robbie hates school and his parents are fed up. They pull him from school to the great relief of the principal and put him to work on the farm where he remains for 50 years -- uneducated and broken down by accidents and hard labour.

2010's*-*Robbie's behaviour is deemed by his teacher to be a symptom of boredom and frustration. Referred to the special education teacher who does a Level B test and determines that there may be a learning disability. The school ponies up $1000 to have an educational psychologist come in and do a Level C. That test indicates that Robbie does indeed have some attention deficit problems that are coupled with an inability to process written text quickly. The school begins providing content to Robbie in different formats other than text and the Family School Wellness worker begins meeting with Robbie weekly in order to help him deal with his frustrations in a manner that does not disrupt the class. A further visit to a pediatrician leads to Robbie getting a prescription for Concerta to help him bridge the early years as he learns how to cope in an environment that is difficult for him to understand and process. His parents are directly consulted on every step of this process. By grade 10 Robbie has turned the corner is off the Concerta and is now succeeding at school and while his outbursts are not gone completely they have lessened considerably. In 2016 in grade 12 Robbie is valedictorian and going on to engineering at UofA where his first year is a resounding success and he is near the top of his class.

Those are both true stories. 1950 was my uncle and 2016 was one of my former students. Both stories are fairly representative of how things were done and are done now.

This.

[58thecat]

What was is not always the way but man we sure could use a little now and then...

[HalfBreed]

The 1950's on appearance looks terribly frightening.

[Diesel_wiesel]

in 1942 our 18 to 15 year old stormed the beaches of Normandy almost to certain death
today they need a safe place to go because words hurt their precious feeling
hmmmmm go figure

[Okotokian]

The 1950's versions of those scenarios didn't always turn out so rosy. Fights always resulted in handshakes and friendships? Yeah... there was no bullying back then. You must have gone to Candyland Junior High School.

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Diesel_wiesel

in 1942 our 18 to 15 year old stormed the beaches of Normandy almost to certain death
today they need a safe place to go because words hurt their precious feeling
hmmmmm go figure

And they would do so again if called upon.

[Newview01]

Originally Posted by sjemac

And they would do so again if called upon.

Don't count on it.

What was once the enemy is now a part of our society i.e. communism / socialism. The individualistic and patriotic ideologies that existed in 1945 are frowned upon today. There is too much tolerance / acceptance to provoke those sentiments.

[MAC]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Don't count on it.

What was once the enemy is now a part of our society i.e. communism / socialism. The individualistic and patriotic ideologies that existed in 1945 are frowned upon today. There is too much tolerance / acceptance to provoke those sentiments.

So Tolerance and acceptance are bad. We must remain constantly enraged in order to meet your views. I agree with sjemac. Our youth would surprise you.
There is no tolerance by the youth regarding an invading army marching into a country.

MAC

[fargineyesore]

Good on you and Sjmec.

Our youth get crapped on too much and are a product of our society, that was ran by their parents, not them.

I'm glad that there is more of an awareness of some mental issues in students. Who knows what a kid's home life is like?

[sjemac]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Don't count on it.

What was once the enemy is now a part of our society i.e. communism / socialism. The individualistic and patriotic ideologies that existed in 1945 are frowned upon today. There is too much tolerance / acceptance to provoke those sentiments.

Right and the communist and socialist youth of the early 40's didn't fight at all did they?

I mean aside from the 50 million Russians and Chinese that is.

[fitzy]

Originally Posted by Newview01

Don't count on it.

What was once the enemy is now a part of our society i.e. communism / socialism. The individualistic and patriotic ideologies that existed in 1945 are frowned upon today. There is too much tolerance / acceptance to provoke those sentiments.

I saw this before I had to join a conference call and came back to find it answered perfectly. Thanks sjemac

Our youth of today is very patriotic. I don't think you're giving them the credit they deserve.

[Donkey Oatey]

Penn Gillette said it best.

There are 2 truths in this world. Firstly things are always getting better. Secondly people are convinced things are getting worse.


As to today's youth I was having a chat with a gentleman that would have been late 40's early 50's and he said that the conflict with today's youth is that they communicate differently than any other generation. Made sense to me.


As for the 1950's being the "standard". Um ya in 1950 10 kids got polio and ended up in walkers or wheel chairs.

2017 yuppie parents are scared of big pharma making everyone sick and won't vaccinate her kids.

[Okotokian]

On a related note, I like what South Caroline basketball coach Frank Martin said...

"You know what makes me sick to my stomach? When I hear grown people say that kids have changed. Kids haven’t changed. Kids don’t know anything about anything.

We’ve changed as adults. We demand less of kids. We expect less of kids. We make their lives easier instead of preparing them for what life is truly about. We’re the ones that have changed. To blame kids is a cop out."

My wife (a retired teacher)'s view is similar. She thinks 98% of todays kids are great. There are a few ruined by bad parents, and a lot of older people thinking the youth of today have gone to heck, just like their parents thought the youth of yesterday had gone to heck.