Wednesday, November 01, 2006

The new-untouchables

I'm worried about the decline of general discipline in youth. With all this fuzz about children's rights and protection is working against the children. Protecting children against paedophiles is only a good thing. But protecting children against parent's upbringing does not serve the public interest. They outlawed all forms of corporal punishment towards children in Finland. This means parents are no longer allowed to take misbehaving kid to their knees and spank them.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm against violence. I'm against corporal punishment in schools. Kid's discipline through corporal punishment is in my opinion on parent's responsibility, and theirs only. There is a difference between smacking a kid's tooth out with a fist and spanking misbehaving kid on the bottom. Using a fist or a leather belt is violence and should stay outlawed, regardless of the situation and age.

When I was a kid, I didn't even think about saying bad words to elder people. I had respect. When there was a group of us, say, 10 teenagers, and if we were misbehaving as teenagers sometimes do, any eldery person could just come to us and adjust us verbally. We didn't even think about stabbing that guy with a knife. What I read from the newspapers nowadays? 16-year old stabbed 20-year old in a subway with a kitchen knife. What in the World was the teenager doing with a kitchen knife in the subway anyways? This goes on and on. Kids don't have the proper discipline nowadays. I wish I could say it's the fault of the parents, but it's the fault of the society that prevents parents raising their children as well.

You need to raise the children with discipline, so they can survive in the corporate world. I would not hire, little alone give a raise or promote a young professional who uses the f-word towards me. We have an old saying in Finland. "Joka vitsaa säästää, se lastaan vihaa." - Roughly translated: "Who saves the cane, hates the child." And this is true. Now if I see 13-year old kids beating up a granny, I don't dear to go in between. I get shanked. Better to call the police. But the police can't do anything to correct those kids either. They can just stop the beating that time. If a kid is under 15 there's very little police and authorities can do.

Father Erkki Auranen from Kouvola's lutherian church was talking about the same thing. He also is against fists and leather belts, but also says you should punish a child out of love, not hate. You should explain the child why he/she recieved the punishment. It doesn't work anymore if on the confirmation in church you are told about 10 commandments. "Respect your mother and your father." Those are just words to the kids in the sunday school. You need to raise the children to be good. But even the church elders disagree with this. Bishop Voitto Huotari told this is incorrect and was worried that a man of God is talking about this kind of things. Maybe Bishop Huotari is an anarchist and don't believe in discipline anymore?

They even cut the authority of the army in my country. When I was in the army the sergeants were complaining that their training was much rougher and they are not allowed to give same kind of discipline they recieved. Not that I thought about it that much, but when the next group came in and I heard about the new rules that came summer '99 to the army. For example: You are not allowed to shout to a person, only a group. You are not allowed to make soldiers run as a punishment. You are not allowed to shout wake up call in the mornings, but have to go to each room separately and with normal voice tell them to wake up. Basically sergeants were not allowed to adjust soldiers in any other way except writing a letter to the company leader. It fights against the principle of the army when you hear a sergeant commanding a soldier to clean up a mess in the soldier's own room and you hear him reply: "F*** you, I'm going to the café!" What can the sergeant do? Write a letter to the company leader? So much for respect...

And this fights agains the meaning of the training. If there would be a war, and a squad leader needs something to be done, it is unsafe for the whole squad if one starts to say: "Wait a second... Go over that fence and shoot that window... They might see me. Let's talk about this order one more time..." or even worse: "Me run there? You mad? No way! Run yerself."

And if we have some people who take practical measures in action, we'll put them down too. Aftenposten writes Principal Anne Lise Gjul at Dvergsnes School has some issues with pee around the walls and toilet seats. I understand the frustration. I'm a guy and I'm ashamed to go to public toilets. Men just don't know how to pee in the toilet while standing. Maybe I have inferior and weaker specimen, but I can aim to the water at the bottom of the bowl and it doesn't spread around the toilet seat. (Which should be in upward position if you choose to stand while doing your business.) Most of the time I sit down on the seat, since I don't like to have sprinkles on my legs. Test it out your self. Go to pee without pants on and you'll feel little sprinkles on your legs, no matter how you pee - if you're standing.

Bringing children's rights to pee while standing and commenting on that decision on a nationwide level is absurd. What Anne Lise was doing is practical, not trying to bring any male/female thing into it. It saves the cleaner a lot of work. Also, the men's toilets in general are in horrible condition. If the school has urinariums, no problem. But the toilets are not really ment for that. Would anyone object if your office wouldn't have smoking facilities and you are a smoker? No. There just isn't smoking facilities. If the school don't have urinariums, don't stand while you pee.

Rocks are not good for humans. They help ducks to digest, but they provide very little help to humans. If a teacher sees a kid eating small rocks, is the teacher not allowed to tell the kid to stop that? During the school time I think the teacher should stop the kid from harming himself, either directly or indirectly. Regardless if the kid has the "human right" to do so.

It's not about human rights, it's not about opressing children. It's about saving the cleaner a lot of work and also about this thing called hygiene. Please, I beg of you Anne Lise, teach Vidar Kleppe about hygiene.

Please, love your children, teach them respect, discipline, hygiene and if nothing else, to save themselves from themselves.


Don KeyShot said...

"Wait a second... Go over that fence and shoot that window... They might see me. Let's talk about this order one more time..." or even worse: "Me run there? You mad? No way! Run yerself."

Well... one good thing comming out of that would be: no war

As for urinating while sitting... I guess you will probably have to go and saw zippers during the night, so people have to get the pants down. Otherwise, a major fashion trend that comes up with some kind of pants that have no zipper/buttons.
If you put a sticker of a man taking a piss while seating, some will think they have to point at it, and the result might be worse...

Sami Rautiainen said...

I found an interesting article in Finnish newspaper "Iltalehti" about the subject.

"Koululaiset toivovat, että aikuiset olisivat nykyistä kiinnostuneempia lasten elämästä ja asettaisivat enemmän rajoja."

Which translates to:

"Students wish the adults would be more interested in children's lives and set more borders."

Read more:

Sami Rautiainen said...

Sorry, the link didn't go through.

The extension is .shtml