HDTenEightyP/NetNews huggingface dataset:
From: gjs@wdl30.wdl.loral.com (Gregory Scott)
Subject: Parental Rights (was Re: Runaways)
Organization: Loral Western Development Labs
Distribution: na 
Date: Fri, 10 Apr 1992 15:13:31 GMT

In article <1992Apr09.235044.905838@locus.com> judy@locus.com (Judy Leedom Tyrer) writes:
>In article <1992Mar31.225148.18075@cco.caltech.edu> danlip@cco.caltech.edu (Daniel Adam Lipofsky) writes:
>>
>>.... In addition, by her actions, she also supports
>>the gross human rights violations which occur daily in this country,
>>mainly that those under 18 years of age are denied the rights of free
>>movement and are jailed without trial and without committing any crime.

   [stuff deleted]

>A juvenile you cannot enter a legal contract.  At age 16 you can buy a car on 
>credit (assuming you can find someone who will sell it to you) and not make a 
>single car payment and you are NOT legally responsible.  You cannot be sued.  
>
>If you damage someone's property, you are not held legally liable.  Your 
>parents are.
>
>However, since your parents are legally liable for your actions, they have
>the privelege/responsibility of controlling your freedoms.  This is necessary
>for their own well being.  And, it is deemed by our society to be for your
>own good as well.
>
>A 16 year
>old can declare himself an emancipated minor.  This means that he is now
>legally liable for his own actions.  He can now be considered an adult and
>enter into adult legal contracts.  He can manage his own affairs.
>
>Frankly, I think this is about as good as we, as a society can do.
>-- 
>"This is just a test.  Had this been a real life, you would have been given
>further instructions on where to go and what to do."
>							Judy Leedom Tyrer

Judy,

Even though I agree with most of what you have said, I MUST disagree
with you last statement.  There is much more that society can do to
help parents.

1.  Parents must have some mechanism by which they can be absolved 
of legal responsibility for out of control off spring.

Under current law a parent can be jailed if a child does not attend
school.  However, what can a parent do if (s)he drives the kid to
school and the kid walks across campus to a friend's house without 
even entering a classroom?

2.  Parents must have a mechanism by which they can prosecute their
off spring for actions that would be considered crimes if committed
by someone else.

In a previous post, someone (Was it you, Robin?) talked about her
daughter trashing her house and the law would not (could not) touch
the kid.  The kid is out of control. The parent ends up paying for
the repairs to the house and replacing the damaged goods.  The law
HELPS the kid get away free.

As you point out, A 16 yo can emanciapte him/herself without much
difficulty; but parents have no such legal escape route.

Parents Have Rights Too! (or should have)
Greg Scott
gjs@wdl1.wdl.loral.com
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Re: Parental Rights (was Re: Runaways)
Date: 11 Apr 1992 02:40:56 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: na
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.cs.berkeley.edu

rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix) writes:
>I have some pretty ambivalent feelings about this statement. If
>parents are not responsible,who is? If the kid defaults on
>responsibility we end up with costly government intervention. I do not
>want to be responsible for damage being done by someone else's
>kid! It means that all of us become responsible rather than the parents.
> [...]
>It is unfortunate, but it is just too expensive for everyone else to
>pick up the tab on kids like this.
> [...]
>Perhaps there should be teenager liability insurance:-)
>I, for one, would sign up.
>But even my nice kid could make a mistake or have an accident.
>I increased my auto insurance so if she had a major auto accident I
>would likely not lose my house! I have  homeowner's so if
>she accidentally burns the house down by leaving her damn curling iron
>plugged in I can repair the damage.

Two comments:

1.  Insurance means everyone else picking up the tab.  This "costly
government intervention" that you're against is the same as the
(not costly?) intervention by the same insurance companies that run
the government anyway, except I suppose that if it's the government
then non-parents-of-teenagers help pay, too.  That should bring the
cost down per capita.  But in any case this whole response seems to
be dragging in a red herring -- the dispute about the economic role
of government -- in a way that loses sensitivity to the original
problem, which must be pretty distressing to the parents involved
totally aside from the money cost.  I mean, here is your kid being
violent and uncontrollable, and you're suffering in your daily life
in a lot of ways, and someone adds insult to injury by saying that
it's your responsibility, presumably because you should have done
something to prevent it.  That's hard to take, I'd guess.

2.  Earlier in this thread someone talked about the writing of laws
to protect young people's rights, saying sarcastically that this had
left parents without any.  My vague impression is that when those
laws were written, there was a lot of abuse of children (which there
still is, sorry to say) but NOT a lot of the sort of story we're
hearing in this thread about truly out-of-control (not just throwing
a fit once) dangerous kids.  Was I naive back then, or have kids
gotten much worse recently, or what?  If there really are a lot of
kids like the ones we've been hearing about, I think someone needs
to start talking about what's wrong that makes that happen.  I mean,
if it's a trend, then there's a social reason for it, beyond the
individual stories of the individual kids.
From: caroline@sco.COM (friend of a fiend)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Re: Kids Getting Braces
Keywords: braces, suggestions
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 92 18:12:30 GMT
Organization: The Santa Cruz Operation, Inc.


In article <1992Apr3.152350.12728@gvl.unisys.com> paula@prc.unisys.com (Paula Matuszek) writes:
>
>How about a topic with (I hope!) substantially less emotional
>upheaval?
>
>My 13 AND 15 year olds are getting braces starting next week.  Does
>anyone who's been through this have any suggestions or advice on what
>to expect or how to handle it?

My kid really wanted her braces when she got them (at about 12, I
think).  It was a kind of "rite-of-passage" thing, part of growing
up for her.  She was very proud of them at first, showed them off
to everyone, etc..  Now, they've been on for several years, and she's
really looking forward to having them off in a couple more months,
with the same kind of excitement and anticipation that she originally 
had about getting them in the first place.

The braces will cause the kids' jaw bones to ache when they go
in for adjustment and tightening.  You might warn them that this
may happen, give them whatever over-the counter pain reliever you
usually use for minor aches & pains and be sympathetic if they are
a little cranky for a day or so.

I don't know what to suggest if the kid doesn't want the braces,
though, because this wasn't an issue for my daughter.

=caroline=
-- 

It's been a bloody odd day.... not even a two plus two equals five kind of
day, more like two plus two equals ... fish ... or something.

						-- from 'Cages'
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Re: Minors right of access to contraceptives?
Date: 16 Apr 92 21:03:30 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr16.165058.22693@morrow.stanford.edu> AS.DCB@forsythe.stanford.edu (Dan Blomquist) writes:
>In article <807@dogear.spk.wa.us>,
>root@dogear.spk.wa.us (Bob Kirkpatrick) writes:

>>Fred, this isn't about civil liberties. What is being advocated isn't
>>some sequel to the 1960's Free Love genre.
>>
>>Bob Kirkpatrick
>
DAN>>I disagree about being a sequel to the 60's Free love  era.
DAN>How can we teach our kids any morals about sex when we don't
DAN>practice them ourselves?  

The sad truth here is that what kids hear is not "use some morals",
they hear the message "use my morals". I practice lots of "morals"
that I consider fundamental. They probably do not even remotely
resemble what would you would deem "moral" for you and your life.

I am not married. I live with a man "in sin". I doubt from your
previous posts that that would fit your idea of acceptable FOR YOU.

I absolutely love him with all my heart. If he were ever to decide that
he was not happy living with me, I would continue to love him and I
would let him go and get on with living life without him.
There is no way anyone can guarantee that a marriage won't fail, a
spouse won't die etc. Many people are married to addictive persons,
abusers, or even "unequally yoked" to "sinners".

DAN>Abstinence may not be the answer for some
DAN>but how about ONE partner for LIFE.  Diseases don't get passed
DAN>around when you don't pass your body around!

It is easy to be a middle-class white heterosexual, married to someone
who shares your views on religion, morals, etc and judge everyone who
is in a less fortunate situation.

For those who are poor, gay, married to people who are not ideal
mates, widowed, or for someone else *WHO DOES NOT SHARE YOUR GOOD
FORTUNE*, this may not be a realistic option.

Diseases don't get passed around when you responsibly use condoms to
protect your partner, either.

Diseases are always a sad fact of life. They are not punishment for
immoral behavior. They are opportunistic little lifeforms who take
advantage of our ignorance and our denial.

I say again, I applaud the person who uses condoms to prevent the
spread of disease. I applaud those who choose abstinence to prevent
the spread of disease. I abhor the ignorance and denial that leads to 
the practice of unsafe sex. I hope it is never an option for anyone.

rf
From: JXT109@psuvm.psu.edu (Jennie)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Re: Kids Getting Braces
Date: 7 Apr 92 22:29:17 GMT
 <1992Apr3.152350.12728@gvl.unisys.com> <23620@scorn.sco.COM>
Organization: Penn State University

Getting braces at that age <13-15> is much better than getting them later.  I
developed TMJ late in high school, and that coupled with an overbite and a
crooked front tooth got me into braces just as I started college.  My teeth
were harder to move since I was older, and I will also have to wear a retainer
for the rest of my life because I was older [not wear it continuously; I still
wear it at night, and will soon wear it only once a week or so].  I also had
the fun of being solely responsible for choosing an orthodontist, making and
keeping appointments, keeping them clean, wearing rubber bands...

In short, if you dentist says the kids need braces, get them because it's
just no fun when they get a little older.  Getting them put on and big
adjustments are tiring, but not painful or particularly scary... you just need
to be patient, and liking your ortho and his staff helps a lot.  If you can
get them to wear rubber bands when and like they are supposed to, the braces
come off much more quickly.  I was rather consistent about it, and got my
braces off in just over two years.  Then the retainer has to be worn when its
supposed to...  basically, braces can be an opportunity for your kid to start
learning to be responsible for himself, and if he's not, he gets consequences
meted out by someone other than the parent!

Just a tip: when the retainers come... *never* wrap them in a napkin.  Those
little buggers are expensive to replace!

--Jennie
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Re: eating disorder
Date: 16 Apr 92 04:31:55 GMT
Distribution: alt.parents-teens
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

>
>first, thanks to everyone who responded to my question.
>
>the day before we were to take my daughter to the psychologist, she told
>us she didn't want to go. at first i thought she had a problem with
>going to a psychologist. the next day she told us that she felt she was
>in control of the bulimia part and just wanted to loose some weight.
>
>not wanting to force her to go to the psychologist, we decided to enroll
>her in a weight loss clinic. for now we will just keep an eye on her and
>trust her if she tells us she is no longer making herself sick. with
>info i have gotten from responses, at least now i know some signs of 
>bulimia. 
>
> 

Dear Andy,

I am an alcoholic who has been sober for 6 years. I know little about
bulimia but I suspect it may have it's roots in compulsive/addictive
behavior and may have some things in common with my experience as an
alcoholic.

The biggest concern in addictive behaviors is denial. Almost without
exception people with addictive/compulsive disorders have a very tough
time admitting to themselves and others that they have a compulsive
/addictive problem. I told myself and my family that I was too
stressed on the job, my relationships made me do it, it wasn't that
bad,etc. Most people do that!

The denial of the problem is truly an indication that there really is
a problem when the other symptoms are apparent!

As an alcoholic I tried to limit my drinking ( kinda like the
alcoholic version of dieting?) for years. It only worked for a very
brief period of time.

I tell you this because I wish that i had been helped to face the grim
reality that I was an alcoholic a lot earlier. It could have saved me
so much pain if I had had an opportunity for treatment when I was
younger, Before it really screwed up my llife.

By  the way, I was a full-blown alcoholic by the time I was 15 years
old.

You don't have to be a full grown adult to have an
addictive/compulsive disorder. I envy the young people I meet today
who got early treatment and sobered up while they were still in their
teens!

Your daughter *is very lucky to have you*! Please get her into a
treatment program or take her to three or four overeater anonymous
meetings. Give her the chance to enter adulthood strong and free!

I wish I had had a parent who cared as much as you seem to. Your
daughter will always be grateful for your help and support once she
beats this thing!


Best wishes!

Robbie
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Re: Minors right of access to contraceptives?
Date: 16 Apr 92 19:54:29 GMT
Distribution: usa
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest)

In article <1992Apr16.153153.16152@morrow.stanford.edu> AS.DCB@forsythe.stanford.edu (Dan Blomquist) writes:

>>Ajay Shah, (213)749-8133, ajayshah@usc.edu
>
>Right - and look at where we are today.  STD's that defy medical
>treatment.  

STDs are diseases. They are public health problems. They  are spread
by bacteria and/or viruses that do not discriminate against people of
certain religions. The more we try to make them sound like punishment
for the decay of morals the more people behave in denial.

In the past diseases like leperousy, schizophrenia, epilepsy, etc were
treated as though they were some kind of scourge for someone's sins.
We all know it isn't so.


>AIDS which can not be controlled because the people with
>AIDS can not control themselves. 
>I hurt - I want to live my life the way I want to and nobody is
>going to stop me!"

The vast majority of AIDS infection was spread by people who didn't
know they were infected. Hemophiliacs and blood recipients had no idea
that they were infected early on. Most homosexual people didn't know
they were infected for YEARS after infection. I cannot speak for
drug addicts as most seem to be committing slow suicide anyway.

This is judgemental moralizing at its worst. The few cases of people
who knowingly transmitted AIDS to others are the 1-in-a-million case.
To presume that hundreds of thousands of people knowingly transmitted
HIV because they were looking for a little fun and didn't care who
suffered is absurd. To suggest that the people with AIDS are evil,
callous and cruel like this is exactly that, evil, callous and cruel.
>
>"Nobody" cares about the other person anymore - it is a "Me
>generation world"...

It is incredibly sad to say that no one cares about anyone anymore.
Personally, I do care about the people with AIDS who are suffering and
dying. I care about the teenagers who must make painful decisions in a
difficult world. I care about those who are harshly judged by others
who haven't a place in their hearts for those less fortunate .

The place caring begins is with you, with me. It is not some "out
there" kind of thing. It is not something to be done by everybody
else. All we can do is mind our own lives. If you feel you have time
to monitor everybody else's "care quotient" you ought to think about
doing some volunteer work. You would probably feel a lot better about
the world.

rf






>
>Dan
From: bh@anarres.CS.Berkeley.EDU (Brian Harvey)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Re: 8 year old hates 3rd grade math
Date: 16 Apr 1992 01:38:21 GMT
Organization: University of California at Berkeley
Distribution: usa
NNTP-Posting-Host: anarres.cs.berkeley.edu
Keywords: teacher, math, hate

holly@mailhub.scf.lmsc.lockheed.com (Holly Wise) writes:
>My 8 year old daughter hates math.  She gets excellent grades in every 
>subject but math. [...]  Any way to turn this attitude around?

I am on your daughter's side on this one.  She's right, you and the teacher
are wrong, and you should ease up about this issue.

(Background:  I used to teach math and computer science in high school; I
now teach computer science in college; I do not hate math.)

The stuff that your daughter is being taught in school is not math at
all.  It's arithmetic, a very different thing.  She is being taught
a set of counterintuitive algorithms for doing, with great difficulty and
lots of chance for error, something that a $10 machine can do quickly,
easily, and correctly.  The only reason arithmetic is still taught in
schools is inertia.  Once upon a time kids were made to learn how to do
square roots by hand.  It took a long time before schools stopped torturing
kids in that particular way.  The rest of arithmetic will follow someday.

It would be different if she were taught MATH in school!  Math is fun;
it makes sense; it's not arbitrary and difficult and boring.  But you
aren't allowed to learn any math in school until you've spent six or
seven years sitting through arithmetic.

So, the first thing I'd do is buy your daughter a calculator and tell her
it's okay for her to forget about the arithmetic work.  If you can get her
teacher to go along with this, so much the better.  If not, you will have
to stand up for your daughter against the school, or, if the problem is
serious enough, take her out of school.

Then, after she's convinced that you really mean it, you might see if she's
willing to try exploring some real mathematics.  I suggest that you get
"The I Hate Mathematics Book" (I think that's the title; it's at home and
I'm at work) in the Brown Paper Schoolbook series.  That's a good starting
point.

Has your daughter said anything specific about WHY she hates arithmetic?
There may be some particular thing about her school situation that makes
it especially painful for her.
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
From: lazarea@mercury.ncat.edu (Andy Lazare)
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
Subject: Re: eating disorders
Date: 15 Apr 92 15:25:06 GMT
Distribution: alt.parents-teens
Organization: North Carolina A&T State University

In article <1992Apr12.031527.22000@decwrl.dec.com> shedevil@vix.com (Anne P. Mitchell) writes:
>Andy,
>
>I have *no* experience with this in any aspect, but I do sense having
>read that much of this is triggered by a person's *perception* that
>they are fat and ugly, even when they aren't.  Therefore I would be a
>bit concerned that sending her to a weight loss program could actually
>*reinforce* that perception ("Why would mom and dad send me to a
>weight loss program unless I really AM fat?")


i did want her to go to the psychologist. it was her choice not to go
and her idea and decision to go to a weight loss clinic instead.

i don't see it as all bad that she realizes she's overweight. some 40+
pounds. if she didn't think she was overweight she wouldn't see a need
to change her eating habits. i don't feel that she thinks of herself as
ugly. actually, she's very pretty. i know,what else would a father
think. 

we just felt that if we let her handle it the way she wanted, it would
give her a more postive attitude about the whole thing. 

-- 
andy lazare                  internet  lazarea@garfield.ncat.edu
n.c. a&t state univ                    lazarea@mercury.ncat.edu
greensboro, n.c.             bitnet    lazarea@atsuvax1.bitnet
 
Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
From: rfelix@netcom.com (Robbie Felix)
Subject: Re: Parental Rights (was Re: Runaways)
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 01:02:35 GMT
Organization: Netcom - Online Communication Services  (408 241-9760 guest) 
Distribution: na 

In article <cftjhj#.ekman@netcom.com> ekman@netcom.com (Crossly the Glad-Eyed Bear) writes:
>In article <1992Apr10.151331.16232@wdl.loral.com> gjs@wdl30.wdl.loral.com (Gregory Scott) writes:
>>Even though I agree with most of what you have said, I MUST disagree
>>with you last statement.  There is much more that society can do to
>>help parents.
>>
>>1.  Parents must have some mechanism by which they can be absolved 
>>of legal responsibility for out of control off spring.

I have some pretty ambivalent feelings about this statement. If
parents are not responsible,who is? If the kid defaults on
responsibility we end up with costly government intervention. I do not
want to be responsible for damage being done by someone else's
kid! It means that all of us become responsible rather than the parents.

The likelihood that an out-of-control teenager is gonna take
responsibility for their own actions is nil. I don't like the idea of
government intervention. All it means to us is that we share the cost,
and you KNOW if the government is responsible the costs will be
extremely high. ( Remember the 500 dollar toilet seat escapades?)

The statement that you made to the guy who was facing
parenthood comes to mind. When the guy said he couldn't afford some of
the costs associated with parenting, you  said "Sure you can, you just
don't know what your gonna give up yet".

It gets more costly as time goes on rather than less! People who think
that pregnancy and infancy are a big expense don't realize that they
are a tip of an iceberg, emotionally and financially.

The costs of parenting are great. If you cannot afford them you ought
not parent. When you choose to have children ( it is a choice in this
country) there are a lot of hidden costs. THis is one of them.

If your child gets sick you will have to pay for their medical care.
If they break their classmates nose, you will have to get it fixed.
You hope to God it never happens. But if it does,these are things 
you accept when you choose to have children.

It is unfortunate, but it is just too expensive for everyone else to
pick up the tab on kids like this.

Perhaps there should be teenager liability insurance:-)
I, for one, would sign up.


But even my nice kid could make a mistake or have an accident.
I increased my auto insurance so if she had a major auto accident I
would likely not lose my house! I have  homeowner's so if
she accidentally burns the house down by leaving her damn curling iron
plugged in I can repair the damage.

I can't insure her for everything but I have to accept responsibility
for the rest of it for 18 years. That is what I signed up for when I
decided to give birth to her.


RF

Newsgroups: alt.parents-teens
From: djones@isis.cs.du.edu (Darren Jones)
Subject: Test - Please Ignore
Organization: Nyx, Public Access Unix at U. of Denver Math/CS dept.
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 12:32:58 GMT



I did say ignore it .... :-)