The confusing signals teens must decipher
BY ROSEMARY MCLEOD
Relevant offers
Columnists
OPINION: We have an odd belief in this country that you can solve social problems not by changing social conditions, but by changing laws.
Thus we brought in an anti-smacking law out of disgust at the abuse of our children, who are seen by many people as, at the very best, human pets. Unfortunately the same people neglect their animal pets, and probably abuse them as well. Why not? They abuse themselves too.
There are many ways of being abusive, and we're past masters of all of them. I use the collective "we" here because we are a community, whether we feel like we are or not, and abusive families belong to us. Their problems are our problems, their failures our failures, and isolating and stigmatising them doesn't help their kids in the long run. To solve this problem - violence against children - we'd need to be a community that valued children and families highly in the first place, which I'm not sure we do.
Now we plan to raise the driving age, so that young drivers will be less lethal on the roads. I'm not against this; I'd rather save lives too; but it's interesting to think about why we had such a young driving age in the first place.
People last century - like my grandmother - left school at 14, and started work. They were well drilled in a basic education in which they were not encouraged to think creatively, still less to think of ever attending university, and were expected to take part usefully in society. There was no question of being disruptive in the classroom: they were beaten if they were, and their own families would have agreed with the proposition that teachers, not students, should be in charge. Because they came from big families, kids had responsibilities at a young age, caring for younger brothers and sisters under the watchful eye of busy parents, and helping with the chores. They had to take responsibility, be beaten, or leave; there was no question of sitting down to discuss their feelings about it. Harsh but straightforward.
We must have had a different idea of what childhood is, because people then entered the world young and had to make their way in it, often living with strangers, if they were in service, or working on other people's farms. Nobody would have tolerated their drinking or taking drugs. They'd have been sacked, and there would have been no sympathetic welfare system to pay them for doing nothing. If they lost their job, their parents would have had no sympathy for them either. They couldn't afford to keep them.
A year after leaving school, and having adjusted to the working world, teenagers could get a driver's licence. That made them more useful to employers, and because we were still a rural society, being able to drive soon became essential, as it still is for rural teenagers. They will now be penalised by the proposed law change for the sake of urban brats, like boy racers, who have behaved irresponsibly.
The issue here is as much what we've allowed teenagers to become, as whether they should be driving. We lowered the drinking age, after all, though most of us predicted that would end in disaster: it was obvious that once 18-year-olds could buy booze, younger teenagers would get their hands on it easily, and then teenagers would drive drunk, since adults do.
And if I find our attitude to recreational drugs confusing, so must kids. With so much pressure to legalise marijuana, the effect surely has to be that young kids suspect it's not all that serious to use it - yet we know very well that it impairs judgment every bit as much as alcohol does. Then there's the party pill industry we've allowed to develop. That endorses the idea that you have to be high on something to be enjoying yourself, an idea we legitimised when we made it legitimate. What did we think the result would be? Safe teenage drivers? Responsible kids?
I don't advocate a return to the brutal clarities of the past, but if we wonder why teenagers behave the way they do, surely we should ask ourselves.
- © Fairfax NZ News
Sponsored links
Newest First
Oldest First
I think it all has to do with huge changes in NZ society which revolve primarily around families. For example, families are started later in life, I suspect they are on average smaller (no facts to back that up!), we allow kids to take fewer risks, we don't want kids to grow up the same way we did, there are huge pressures to keep up with "the Jones'", and (rightly or wrongly) we have a much more permissive moral code than in the past which is being passed down in families. I also believe families have bee significantly devalued by society.
Although I'm not one for flowery and intelligent sounding words such as Peter King's #4, I think he's saying the same thing as Rosemary in that in the past those in their teenage years had to be more mature than the current or recent crop of teens as they were "burdened" with responsibilities either within their own families or in a job.
Is it right or is it wrong? I guess that's up to society to decide which is effectively what the politicians are doing. They are societies representatives who make and change laws to fit with society's expectations.
Not sure I have made a point - never mind.
MB #5 has an odd idea as to what constitutes "rights" - the "right" to purchase alcohol is not intrinsic to human natire - it is one granted by society and law, and society and law are perfectly capable of restricting it to any age thought desirable.
Why on earth it should be linked to the age of criminal responsibility escapes me also - is MB saying we can only be criminally responsible if we can buy alcohol? Heck - let's ban teh stuff, then we can never be criminals......even when we make it illicitly...:):):)
Generally a fair piece - with two exceptions. It is, in fact, rural drivers who proportionately drive more dangerously than others, produce more fatalities and more often drive drunk, not the "urban brats". Ms McLeod didn't, by any chance, grow up on a farm? There still seems to be a view in the rural sector that society's ills are all down to the "townies".
Second, forbidding some adults - those aged 18 and 19 - from buying alcohol is a removal of their rights. That can only justified if those same adults are also not held responsible for their actions. If the age at which alcohol can be bought is raise to (say) 20, then (for example) the age of criminal responsibility must also be set at 20.
Robert Epstein argues in his book The Case Against Adolescence that teenagedom is an artificial construct which denies young people power and responsibility and thereby engenders dependency and irresponsibility. Historically teens have been perfectly competent. However in not allowing teens to work we have created monsters. The old system of apprenticeships put young people to work in applied (and paid) learning. One has to ask in all seriousness what is taught at secondary school that couldn't be taught at tertiary or technical institutions to people who actually wanted to be there.
"With so much pressure to legalise marijuana, the effect surely has to be that young kids suspect it's not all that serious to use it - yet we know very well that it impairs judgment every bit as much as alcohol does."
Only that people realize they are impaired when on cannabis, and they don't smash the place or their mates to pieces.
Alcohol is responsible for more than 1000 deaths per year, cannabis on its own for none!
Spot on. Because hardly anyone from parents on is willing to take any resposibility for youth and teach it to them things are out of control. Also we have built a PC society where it is disadvantageous to anyone to try. It is easier to turn your back.
As to making laws, well that is the way all governments go. It is easier to make blunt axe cumbersome laws and law changes and hand responsibility to the Police than really think about things. Boy racing- its been around since the first cars but now its a problem? No, our attitudes and PC stupidity are the problem. Lowering the drinking age was an election bribe to the youth vote by a desperate 1999 National Govt seeking an impossible re-election. Now we live with that stupidity.
As for the new driving age disadvantaging rural youth, there could be an avenue for those who can prove they are rural with no public transport and prove they are employed with an employer endorsement to get an exemption to drive to and from work during proveable working hours. But that could be too sensible for our idiotic law makers.
"With so much pressure to legalise marijuana, the effect surely has to be that young kids suspect it's not all that serious to use it - yet we know very well that it impairs judgment every bit as much as alcohol does."
Presumably, therefore, you believe that alcohol should also be criminalised?
Brothel scares and stresses neighbourhood
Prisoner spent nine months planning breakout
Bain defence still less than convincing
'Naughty' toilet traps terrified toddler
Tattoo tribute makes them brothers in arms
Trap for burglars catches policeman
Armed thieves loot Greek museum
Million-dollar view, shame about the house
Disease 'adverse event' - kiwifruit growers
Telco keeps Christchurch options open
Fay aims shot at OIO over Crafar
Hurricanes weather elements to beat Chiefs
Travellers stranded after Air Australia goes bust
Guptill blasts Black Caps to victory in first T20
Quake felt across lower North Island
Hurricanes weather elements to beat Chiefs
Police car pig painter mystery unsolved
New York apartment sells for NZ$105m
Brothel scares and stresses neighbourhood
One dead after Northland crash
Stranded Aussies pay to go home
O'Connor attacks Smith's stance
Protester refuses community work
Helicopter companies still owe $5 million
Blackberry jams preserve the past
Residents tell of crime concerns
Another exellent piece Rosemary.I have been saying for 20 years "there is the drinking classes and the drunken classes" ,"there is a demand side to the drug problem-not just a supply side","civility,manners ect ect".People have been dumbed down to the lowest common denominator by Govt., police,courts,teachers,media ect ect and how-because these so called "institutions of good- and parents" never lead by example-do you ever hear them praising the young/old on manners, standards, dress, appearance, wisdom ect.no you do not .Why? Because they think society will improve if they don,t make some young [and not so young]individuals "feel" excluded.Well, that idiotic 'standard' has not worked.And never will.Govt, has become to dogmatic imposing PC, being more 'reflective AND debative' with social policy is a PROPER start.And the Police should promote those with a broad vocabulary on social and personal standards to the media unit-public acknowledgement of ALL APPALLING displays of character, is NOT a sign of a Police State.[They do comment on the WEATHER-with regards to driving-PRIOR to ANY accidents OR ANY laws being broken].Bikies do NOT make people take drugs-as court records show.Where are the Police drug dogs?-with regards to the demand side.Oh that's right- the Police are a "movement' just like the 'Greens'.So much for the CURRENT laws.