Should children stop learning life lessons?Follow

Should we let kids feel exclusion's sting?



The article goes on to discuss different feelings towards this from different parents. It surprises me that more people don't see something wrong with this kind of thing. Not only based on the fact that it creates a false impression of what children should endure in growing up, but also that it makes children at specific ages less of an individual and more of a systematic figure...downplayed as not having individual feelings and emotions that should be expressed because they're "Only 8 or 9 years of age".

I think it's ridiculous that people think something like this is a good idea. The amount of false structure it builds into a childs mentality of how things work in life has to be damaging, if not downright destructive. If a child isn't taught to deal with challenges, face fears, and deal with things like rejection...how can they possibly adapt to future events that are in every sense a reality that they are going to have to face at some point. I think things like this are the very destructive element that they're trying to avoid by implimenting it. Should we really mask reality for our children?

Some of those practices happen at my kids' school. Word always gets around about who's having a party and who is or isn't invited. What most parents in my area do is that we send cupcakes to the entire class so the class can have a celebration with the child of honor (for birthday or whatever), then on the weekend the "real" party happens with the invited kids. Doing it that way seems like everyone's satisfied that there was some kind of inclusion on some level.

I think the reason why there's a trend of having everyone included is because of the stories of people who as children were bullied or ostracized during school and have gone postal later. I remember reading the news stories about school shootings in that the shooter was usually a "quiet, shy and somewhat of a loner." So the rationale is make everyone happy now because you're trying to avoid the postal episode in the long run.

I know when my kids have felt hurt because they were left out of something, I just try to comfort them and tell them "It happens sometimes. I'm sorry your feelings got hurt, but not everyone gets to go to every party."

I don't like the "bullied" concept and how they correlate it to future violence, and how they tie the two together. IMO someone that deals with bullying (not all kids have to deal with it, though) is better able to have a sense of self-awareness about themselves, their own attitudes and limits emotionally. I think the protection is going a little too far in terms of shrouding the concept of real life so that children don't have to deal with it.

For instance, as an assumption, I would think that someone in their teens or in their college years would be more apt to outburst due to a stress such as competition or conflict because they are not equipped or experienced in handling such an event because of sheltering at a younger age, whereas someone who's delt with & experienced such events as a growing lesson in life would be able to cope with the stresses & emotions that come with such events through wisdom from experience.

The trophies I think are going too far, but the parties I can see. When a kid is picked on by a select few, the others often do nothing and avoid contact with the kid as if they will be picked by association. They will avoid inviting a kid to their party because some popular cliché might say a negative word about it. The party rule is an attempt to reduce this negative feedback to bullying. I do wish they would be more proactive in actually punishing the bullies instead of this stuff though. When my eldest son was in third grade there was a notorious bully in his class who was disciplined many times for violence against other kids. When this bully stabbed my son with a pencil in the face three times. The school refused to discipline the child saying that the child said my son ran into the pencil when running around (three times??!?!), and a couple of the bullies friends backed up that story. We ended up pulling him out the public school and sending him to parochial school.

Edited, Aug 9th 2006 at 12:42pm EDT by fhrugby

It would be more randomized (and determined in secret) than that.

I can't see the logic in the party/exclusion issue, either. I mean, I see the intended logic, but come on. Since when is it considered bullying for people to have preferences as to who they associate with? If anyone considers it an act of bullying...it's just absurd.

The exclusion from a social event is simply the preferences of that person expressing their individual wants & desires by inviting only who they prefer. Not only does that take away from the child having the party by forcing him to automatically relate to everyone in his class outside of school, it takes away from the child learning and -understanding- that some people might not prefer his or her company and that you need to understand that to understand yourself & your own feelings. If you don't experience that emotion, you're never going to understand what it is.

If a child cannot be taught that there's just some things in life you have to accept, and move on from there, then what's the point in teaching them anything at all? If you turn them into robots, they're just going to grow up confused and hurt all the time because they don't know anything. That teen that get's rejected at a job interview, ends up acting out his frustration through violence because he doesn't know how to address the emotion. That guy that kills a girl because he was rejected for a date...and doesn't know how to cope with someone saying "No" or not liking him that way. It makes more sense (to me at least) that things like this would be more to "blame" for these social outburst rather than in place to help them.

On the other hand, and perhaps more importantly, setting a blanket invite policy while on school grounds avoids classroom drama that the instructors have better things to do than deal with.

No one is restricting what children you may invite into your home. They just don't want it selectively done on school grounds.

Understood and not forgotten, but don't you think that might lead to an inhibited form of social interaction in school...which is essentially the biggest social outlet for children between the ages of about 5-18? Sure...you learn as you get older to expand your social horizon, but this pretty much eliminates the need to get to know people and build friendships based on common interest and preference because it takes the exclusiveness of it and turns it into a common rule that it's "all or nothing". What's the point of localized social skills between specific kids if they know they're going to have to associate with everyone regardless in that social setting?

And again, the "not doing it in school" bit simply relates right back to the concept that children won't get the chance to experience those social challenges that come up early when they're still learning how to cope & deal with things. If they remove the element that creates that sequence of events that leads to the rejection, then they're eliminating the lesson in social interaction that's needed to help cope with said rejection.

Oi!! teacher it's my f*cking party i'll invite who i damn well please!!!

And i don't fancy Mary Jane Rottencrotch, i fancy her mate Gertrude, she has top knockers!

I remember my own high school having more then ten, which makes it seem suprisingly silly. The school in general was always a bit odd about things though I suppose with forcing people to go to pep rallies though I'm not familiar with what most high schools may do with that sort of thing. But I would think the reason they may have more then a few valedictorians probably isn't so much for the self esteem of the students so much as to help make the school sound better then it really is.

I laughed so hard I cried.

Priests should stop telling everyone to be like Jesus. This is setting the bar too high.

I should at least get a trophy or something when I fail. My damaged self-esteem might drive me to a life of crime!