PARENTS ARE STILL IN CHARGE

I have been horrified and inspired by the book by Michael

Carr-Gregg entitled The Princess Bitchface Syndrome. I have

for the first time read an account of the state of play of young

girls and boys in Australia.

I have lived in Papua New Guinea for 17 years and come to

understand deeply the forces shaping young boys and girls in

this country.

But Australia was drifting from me until Michael Carr-Gregg

arrived in a second hand book stand outside the Port Moresby

Post Office.

I have been transfixed by his book and the detailed professional

advice. So much applies to young people in this country.

I have thought back to the evolution of it all since the 1900s and

find a definite progression in the decline of authority of parents,

the emancipation of women and outside influences from the sale

of alcohol and drugs to the messages from movies and the ready

availability of mobile phones and internet.

Let us trace from the last century in Britain and Australia:

1900.  This was the Victorian era with the dominant authority of

the father and a subservience of wife and children. Father set the

house rules that had to be obeyed. Children were often thrashed

for breaking rules. Women were thought too emotional to vote.

1920.    Emancipation of women started after the end of World

War 2. They had come out of the homes to work in factories and

replace men gone to war. Women in England who demonstrated

were called suffragettes. They brought changes through the right

to vote.

1940.     World War 2 came and men went to war with women

back in the factories. But women gained greater freedom against

opposition from husbands who believed that a woman’s place
was in the home.

But children were still very much bound to the home and marched

in lines at school like platoons of soldiers. There was still faith in the

belief that the Government knew best.

1960.    It changed with the Vietnam War. Governments did not

know best. Students demonstrated about war. The contraceptive

pill brought new sexual freedom to women. Young people made

love not war. Dr Spock spoke of  permissive child rearing.

Women were given equal pay. Laws were passed decriminalizing

gay/ lesbian sex. Young people married and produced a generation

that had no wars to fight. The scene was set for social chaos.

1980.  The make love not war young people were now married with

kids who stayed at home rather than spend money on food and rent.

They came and went as they pleased and many became capitalists

buying real estate but living with mum and dad.

2000.  Next generation was growing up with a new approach to

life. They had mobile phones and internet that opened a massive

venue for socializing. Family was losing control as children became

older and more sexually advanced. Many parents could not make

rules that their children would obey. Dr Spock -shame.

There was a giant increase in influence of gays and lesbians with a

desire to take their place in the nation and take over control. This

was the era of HIV/AIDS that was conveniently handed to the gays

and lesbians by governments that thought it was a gay plague.

We can see an evolution developing for over 100 years. It is based

on the growth of rights.

Men have lost their dominant role in family.

Women have become more involved in the community.

Children are demanding rights without responsibilities.

Gay and lesbian activists promote rights without responsibilities.

But all is not lost. Families have to remain strong until the end of

the world. Families still have the task of protecting young people.

Carr- Gregg stresses that Nature can not be hurried.

Young people today are changing fast and taking their place in

a pseudo-adult world. But their intellectual and emotion growth

is still moving at snail pace.

So parents have to change but not by much. They still maintain 

the role of their parents and grandparents but need a little more

understanding. Authority gives way to consultation. But parents

have the right to expect standards from their children. It is all in

a good cause.

Parents understand the growth of children better.

Young people have emotion /intellect that lags behind.

Parents have to understand that they too have rights.

House rules need to be set and adhered to by children.

Best rules are set in consultation with young people.

Children learn best by non-damaging consequences.

Parents should not be doormats.

Parents should be positive in talking to children.

They should make sure rules are enforceable.

Rules should be based on strong family values.

Parents should not break the rules.

Kids do want parents who care.

Parents have to give time to their kids.

PARENTS/ KIDS HAVE RIGHTS AND RESPONSIBILITIES.

But in the end, the buck stops with the parents. It was so in the

beginning and ever shall be.

I remember a report in a Readers’ Digest many years ago. A group

of sociology students were engaged in a project on family. They rang

homes to ask the parents if they knew where their kids were.

A large percentage of calls were answered by kids who had no idea

of where their parents were.

None of the house rules above apply to families in Papua New Guinea

wracked by violence, irresponsible fathers, children who are neglected

and abused and women bashed and infected with HIV/AIDS.

These houses have no rules except that the food has to be on the table

for the family drunk when he arrives home. But there are enough good

men to start it going.

Amen.