Kids! Eat your veggies now!

[Kynisk Sokol]

As the title of the topic goes, you must all obey ParanoiDave.

This really goes to prove that the junk food diet of the poorest people is to do with their low intelligence and not to do with their income.

http://lifeandhealth.guardian.co.uk/food/story/0,,2124226,00.html

That, at least, is one conclusion to be drawn from a study published today which shows that the government's intervention has made no difference to children's nutrition. One critic, who advised the Department of Health that it was unlikely to work, said that making fruit and veg available at school breaktime was no use in a culture in which healthy food was thought to be uncool.

Bleh. OMFGPLAGARISM

 

[Raven]

No kid eats their greens, unless they're force-fed by their parents.  Fact.  Once again, no-one points the finger anywhere near the families concerned, for fear of being labelled as 'interfering'.  The fact is, obesity in this country is as much a lifestyle problem as a dietary one.  Too many parents let their kids walk all over them with regards to what and when they eat; sit the little buggers down at the table with the rest of the family, and give them small portions of healthy stuff.  And clip their ears if they complain they 'don't want to eat it'.

 

[JackKnife]

No kid eats their greens, unless they're force-fed by their parents.  Fact.  Once again, no-one points the finger anywhere near the families concerned, for fear of being labelled as 'interfering'.  The fact is, obesity in this country is as much a lifestyle problem as a dietary one.  Too many parents let their kids walk all over them with regards to what and when they eat; sit the little buggers down at the table with the rest of the family, and give them small portions of healthy stuff.  And clip their ears if they complain they 'don't want to eat it'.

I do agree at 110% 

 

[IronDuke]

No kid eats their greens, unless they're force-fed by their parents.  Fact.  Once again, no-one points the finger anywhere near the families concerned, for fear of being labelled as 'interfering'.  The fact is, obesity in this country is as much a lifestyle problem as a dietary one.  Too many parents let their kids walk all over them with regards to what and when they eat; sit the little buggers down at the table with the rest of the family, and give them small portions of healthy stuff.  And clip their ears if they complain they 'don't want to eat it'.

Ladies and Gentlemen, we have a winner.


When I was young, I ate what was put in front of me or else I didn't eat at all. Since I didn't have money given to me by my wishy-washy parents, I couldn't buy cheese burgers and pizza at school.

/to which I walked uphill both ways through 40 miles of snow

 

[Albie]

One thing that has been trailed in Scotland (I believe) is to give school dinners away - and these dinners have their needed veg. And another initiative in Yorkshire is the schools themselves growing their own vegetables - if the kids get more involved in the growing of the veg, there more likely to eat it.

But then again, we still can't account for what the parents do - and, as pointed out by Raven, that is where the root of the problem lies.

 

[LooseCannon]

Ah, but therein lies the problem.  They want you to.  Parents are relying on schools to provide physical exercise, nutrition, and worst of all, social development for their children.  This is what happens when you use the TV as a babysitter and don't pay any attention to your children.

I believe that a lot of the problem with physical education is because children don't know how to entertain themselves anymore.  When I was young I could have massive amounts of fun with a stick.  Today's kids seem to need a lot of technology and stuff.  I think this can be solved by sharing imagination with your children.  Provide some intellectual stimulation to their creative centres.

 

[Raven]

Ah, but therein lies the problem.  They want you to.  Parents are relying on schools to provide physical exercise, nutrition, and worst of all, social development for their children.  This is what happens when you use the TV as a babysitter and don't pay any attention to your children.

I believe that a lot of the problem with physical education is because children don't know how to entertain themselves anymore.  When I was young I could have massive amounts of fun with a stick.  Today's kids seem to need a lot of technology and stuff.  I think this can be solved by sharing imagination with your children.  Provide some intellectual stimulation to their creative centres.

Back in the day, you could have hours of endless fun with a bloody cardboard box.  That was when all this was fields, a pint was 2 and 6, locks were made of paper, everyone had a key to everyone else's house (but you didn't need them, since the doors were always open), and that house *points* was a shed, where they used to keep pigs.  If you were lucky, or if it was a holiday, you'd get to lick the pigs for your dinner.

And then the parents turn around and complain when the school disciplines their children, because they won't (or can't).  The school can only provide so much educational and social development; the rest has to come from the home.  And if you can't afford the time to look after your kid properly, then you shouldn't buy one in the first place-it'll just end up in a sanctuary/kennels...or is that something else?

 

[Anonymous]

When I was young I could have massive amounts of fun with a stick.

Yeah, I know that kind of stick. 

Seriously, though, the thing is that school is more than a place where kids learn to add and subtract, what Newton's law is or who won the battle of Marathon. It is first and foremost a social place, and the primary place where children learn to make social contacts. They learn how to make conversation, how to create relationships and how to avoid fights. And, seriously, try to remember what school was like for you. When I was a kid, my willingness to go to school was always dictated by whether I wanted to see certain people or not- I couldn't care less about what the teacher said. Ideally, teachers are not only there to teach kids Maths or Geography, but also people whom the kids can trust and turn to when they need help which their parents can't provide because they can't observe them (schoolmates, problems in class, whatever). The problem is that many teachers are simply incompetent. Some have trouble keeping control over their classes, which results in draconic measures, which in turn results in an atmosphere of fear and tyranny- the pupils hate them and thus would never trust them. Others are too laisez-faire and try to win the kids with popular measures, which, however, results in the children not taking them seriously. I have known few teachers who could both keep control and discipline in class while still being popular, and thus making kids trust them.
The root of that problem is that teachers are being educated to teach, nothing more. They are provided with background knowledge of what they are supposed to tell in class, given a few ideas of how to do so, and off they go. They have no idea how to talk to children, how to understand them and how to take them seriously. The best teacher I ever had was not an educated teacher but in fact an academic who spent all his life at university and was offered a position at my school when they needed a Geography teacher. He could talk to the kids because, solely as a father, he saw kids not as dumb little bastards who have no clue of anything and need to be taught, but as people whom he felt responsible for.

I'm ranting again.

 

[Kynisk Sokol]

The problem is that many teachers are simply incompetent. Some have trouble keeping control over their classes, which results in draconic measures, which in turn results in an atmosphere of fear and tyranny- the pupils hate them and thus would never trust them. Others are too laisez-faire and try to win the kids with popular measures, which, however, results in the children not taking them seriously. I have known few teachers who could both keep control and discipline in class while still being popular, and thus making kids trust them.

On the other hand, you might hear children lamenting about how certain teachers can't control the class when they really should be blaming their own lack of self-control and self-discipline (although it would be a rather archaic concept to them, in addition to their parents).

Seriously, though, the thing is that school is more than a place where kids learn to add and subtract, what Newton's law is or who won the battle of Marathon. It is first and foremost a social place, and the primary place where children learn to make social contacts. They learn how to make conversation, how to create relationships and how to avoid fights.

Basically, you learn how to let the Crowd rule you and be a good little (non)conformist (ties in with the fact that children rate social acceptance above health).

And if you can't afford the time to look after your kid properly, then you shouldn't buy one in the first place-it'll just end up in a sanctuary/kennels...or is that something else?

I know this is unrelated, but this is why abandoned dogs get new homes in Sweden (Scroll down a fair bit).

Bah. OFMGMOREPLAGARIZM

 

[LooseCannon]

Discipline and respecting authority figures starts at home.  Yes, teachers are expected to continue it, but the lack of respect is taught at home, when parents don't pay attention to children and let them do anything they want.  Perun is right.  School is where people learn to socialize and decide to conform or otherwise.

 

[LooseCannon]

I am sure I'll love my children, but I'll be damned if I baby them.  I can't recall ever getting beaten, but if I misbehaved (especially when I was very young) I got a swat.  You can't put a two year old in the corner, or send them to their room to punish them - they're still like dogs, they'll forget.  It's that simple.

Children need rules to grow effectively.  They need to be disciplined and need to not be spoiled.  We need to take a step back from shying away from topics like corporal punishment.  I don't think teachers should be wielding a rod or fathers a belt, but a small swat from time to time doesn't hurt (for long).

Parents need to get balls and start punishing their children in ways that inconvenience them.  What's the use of grounding a child when they have a cell phone and waste your hard-earned money texting their friends all day?  Screw that, if my daughter has a cell phone and she is in deep shit, I'm calling the company and having her SIM card deactivated.

Having said that, there is no way in hell my kids are getting cell phones.

What's the point in putting a child in their room when they have a tv and a computer?  No.  When I was young being put in my room was punishment because then I wasn't outside playing with my friends.  Sure, I spent a lot of time inside reading, but I still loved the outdoors.  Seriously.  If (when) I am ever a teacher, god forbid the child that pulls out a cellphone in my class.  The SIM card is coming out and getting snapped.  They can have the phone back.

Kids are rich and aren't punished nearly enough, and this is glamourized.  Has anyone seen "High School Musical"?  I was forced to one night when I was hanging around with 8 women and a gay guy.  Terrible movie, but a teacher was villainized from the get-go because she took students' cell phones and threw them in the trash.  Well, what the fuck do you expect!  It's an electronic device in the classroom.  Christ.

And then there's the names that parents are giving their kids nowadays.  Names like Todd.  What the fuck is this?  You know what you need?  A good strong man name.  Like Chuck Steak.  Not names like Todd.  Or Tucker.  "Hi Tucker, I'm Todd!"  "Hi Todd, I'm Tucker!"  Fuck Tucker, Tucker sucks.  And what's names like this...Kyle.  I bet ten times out of ten, Jimmy, Vinnie, and Nicky could kick the shit out of Todd, Tucker, and Kyle.

I hate kids.

 

[Invader]

I'll have to speak carefully, since legally I'm still a "kid" (one year to go ).  But anyway...

From my own experience, most of the polite, well-behaving, and smart people I have known have come from rich families.  By people I mean people of my own age, in their late teens.  Sure, this does not mean coming from a rich family means a person wouldn't be a complete idiot, but in general, richer parents seem to raise "better" children.  This might be very culture-specific, though, so it might not apply in other countries.

And I agree with LC about "swatting".  I was, as a small child, occasionally "swatted" if I misbehaved, and looking back, I think it did help.  As for grounding, I've never had that done to myself, but at least now, it wouldn't be a punishment that much (mainly because of the reasons LC mentioned: I've got a PC in my room).

I also agree partly about cell phones.  Here, children get cell phones sometimes even before going to school (<7).  By the time I was in sixth grade, everyone in my class except me had cellphones.  And it's gotten even worse.  Sme children get a new cell phone each year.  In my old class there was a guy who was on his seventh phone.  Ridiculous.  Mine is my second, I got it three years ago (even then it wasn't new), and it's still working perfectly with the exception of the battery (which I need to replace).  Now, I don't think that cell phones are unnecessary, but they're certainly overused.

Another thing I don't understand is the inclusion of cameras and MP3 players into a cell phone.  You have three gadgets in one, and none of them are as good and easy to use as they would be as separate devices.  A camera in a cell phone is not as good as a stand-alone camera of the same quality, and a separate MP3 player is much easier to use and simpler than one in a phone.  In addition, they use one battery for three devices.  It's annoying when your cell phone runs out of battery just because you've been listening to music.  The only benefit is that they take up less space, and also, you'll always have a camera with you.

Rant over.

 

[LooseCannon]

Another thing I don't understand is the inclusion of cameras and MP3 players into a cell phone.  You have three gadgets in one, and none of them are as good and easy to use as they would be as separate devices.  A camera in a cell phone is not as good as a stand-alone camera of the same quality, and a separate MP3 player is much easier to use and simpler than one in a phone.  In addition, they use one battery for three devices.  It's annoying when your cell phone runs out of battery just because you've been listening to music.  The only benefit is that they take up less space, and also, you'll always have a camera with you.

Unless the phone in question is an iPhone.  Then you're set.

 

[Shrike]

Seriously.  If (when) I am ever a teacher, god forbid the child that pulls out a cellphone in my class.  The SIM card is coming out and getting snapped.  They can have the phone back.

I've wanted to do that so many times, but in as a teacher in a modern society you're very crippled. You've got the right to take the phone, but not by force. So if you say "give me that cellphone now, young man" and the student says "ehrm... no", what are you going to do?

Shout I guess, but that's not really my style.

As for the whole MP3/Camera-thing, that's only made it so much worse in class-rooms. When I was in secondary-school, the most we could do was text or play Snake. No you've got boys taking upskirts of their classmates and the MP3 pumping out "Fuck Her Gently". Now, I happen to think that's a fun song, but it has no place in the classroom when the kids are supposed to be reading English lit

I've wished quite a lot of times that physical violence was okay in the class-room Granted, I'm against it in principle, but I'd be damned if it wouldn't make education a lot easier.