Bad Parenting?

Biggins

peasant wrote: »

The highlighted part is the crux of the matter ...which right?

The right of the parent to show off their prodigy child?
The right of the parent to realise their unrealised childhood dreams through their children?
The right of the parent to just simply be plain irresponsible and to prove everybody who advises against wrong ...just because their child is a willing participant?
The right of the parent to tag along their kids for their own ego trip?

or maybe ...

The right of the child to a normal childhood, to uninterrupted education, to health, to safety?

Look ...I have no issue with children doing extreme sports (did some rock climbing myself as a teen) I have no issue with parents granting their kids a large amount of freedom and self governance either (also enjoyed that as a kid and am thankful for it) ...but does it have to be bloody Everest or a circumnavigation?

In a way this is no different than the cinderalla coach for first communion ...only a lot more dangerous.

Also, it creates precedent and followers. This kid wants to be the youngest person ever to complete the seven summits http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Summits he's ticked off most of them already. More young kids will follow in his footsteps ...until it goes horribly wrong one day.

By all means, take your kids mountaineering or sailing, show them the world, expand their horizons, develop their skills and abilities and support them in doing so ...but lay off the silly competition and the ridiculously dangerous feats.

I understand where you concern is coming from.
As a parent of 4 children myself, I indeed do.

But for one second have you considered what you deem to be normal might be just outside others scope as being "normal" - and who is to say your "normal" is right and theirs are wrong - why can't both be right under the proper guidance, training, companionship and back-up?
Do you know better than the rest? Have you that such high divine knowledge? (...and I am not trying to be smart, just making a point)

All I see is:
The right of the parent...
The right of the parent...
The right of the parent...
...

Have you stopped for one second while typing those, and also thought about the right of the child - under supervision (probably constantly), under high extreme training (much of which I'm sure he has done and tested on many times), under companionship with other's even more highly trained... to try and achieve his/her goals in life?

There is also the right of the parents too to do their best, to see that under the right conditions, they don't indoctrinate their offspring into thinking that something is beyond worth trying for!

...lay off the silly competition and the ridiculously dangerous feats.

Again by your standard of "silly" and "ridiculously dangerous".
You adopted your levels (which is fair enough FOR YOU) and imposing them onto others blankly with even stopping to ask even if your are right first to do so!

...More young kids will follow in his footsteps ...until it goes horribly wrong one day

Indeed they will follow and once in a while things will indeed go wrong.
As will adults who follow other adults who do other stuff.
As will younger who follow other youngsters and adults who do other stuff...
Should we all just stay at home and adopt the reasoning "Ok, we better not do it for others might or might not try it too???"

We as humans, irrespective of age, have achieved so much and there are many examples young and old, that give others inspiration by achieving and/or simply trying.
There are many others young too, that have done dangerous things. And in their footsteps others came behind them and pushed the boundaries further in the previous ones wake and example.
We are human. For sure there will be failings for that reason alone but to deny from the outset the possibility of even trying, to dis-allow putting one step forwards in front of the other according to personal "scopes" - your killing many future ambitions of many others and possible further advancement in the history of humans on this earth, perhaps some day beyond too - right there!

DublinWriter

davyjose wrote: »

Impressive as it is, are these parents right in the head? Should social services be round? Put it this way, if every parent set their kid off round the world, or up a hill that kills a large number of adults each year (that even while at the top, your body begins to quit living), would it still be acceptable? My guess is they'd all be jailed.

It's very easy to pick on these two events and completely wig-out with the "won't somebody think of the children!" hyperbole without knowing the full facts about the preparation, training and safety protocols that happened behind the scenes.

As Stalin said, one death is a tragedy but a million deaths is only a statistic.

If you want to witch-hunt bad parents then go after the tens of thousands who can't cook, won't cook and ply their kids with processed foods full of carbs, salts and sugars while at the same time mothballing them into a sedentary lifestyle in the hope of protecting them from the realities of the world.

peasant

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

Mate serously how is what the kids parents any worse then that beauty pagent crap some young girls have to put up with in america ?

I didn't say they were worse, I abhor both

Snow-Monkey wrote: »

kids are well able to climb they dont see fear like we do you should no that.

Finger right on the pulse there!
Kids can't evaluate risks properly (yet) (see my quote earlier)

Now, Everest isn't just "risk". Risk is climbing the Wicklow mountains in
a fog and people have died doing that.
Everest is an insane gamble with your life ...one wrong decision and you're a goner. Sending someone up there who has bags of ambition but underdeveloped risk assessment skills is irresponsible ...especially so if that someone is your own child.

In the article I quoted you may have noted that the family did Everest not on the standard route from Nepal, but from the Chinese side ...mainly due to the fact that Nepal has an age limit of 16 for Everest and China doesn't.


To draw a very simple hyperbole ...you don't encourage a three year old to play in the road, you don't encourage a seven year old to learn how to drive and you don't encourage a nine year old to climb Kilimandjaro or the same kid at thirteen to climb Everest.
It's irresponsible.

Biggins

I only offer the following as a counter thought - not to be argumentative or to annoy you.

peasant wrote: »

Kids can't evaluate risks properly (yet)

...But the many trainers and on the ground older, more experienced climbers can. This was obviously done many, many times. The boy at NO stage went alone.
Clearly they have done their job continuously under the watchful eye of others too - including the parents and other family relatives who would raise their own fears and point things out too - which would if necessary, be addressed...

peasant wrote: »

Now, Everest isn't just "risk". Risk is climbing the Wicklow mountains in a fog and people have died doing that.
Everest is an insane gamble with your life...

Everything is a risk but again by adopting one persons assessment of "risk" (which might not match others anyway), is unfair to others who having assessed risk and took as much necessary precautions, training, seen their offspring are accompanied by older, skilled, experienced people, etc means a different form of risk assessment is carried out to yours and they have progressed onwards from that.

peasant wrote: »

Everest is an insane gamble with your life ...one wrong decision and you're a goner.

Absolutely. All one can do is make the best decisions possible given the dedication/desires of those involved. For example, the parents gave permission to their son for him to increase his climbs as his training, experience, and knowledge grew with every higher climb. They just didn't decide to let him "go for it" (nor am I saying you said they did).

peasant wrote: »

Sending someone up there who has bags of ambition but underdeveloped risk assessment skills is irresponsible ...especially so if that someone is your own child.

...which is why they saw that he was allowed to be trained hard, very hard, as much as he could take due to his age and over lengthy periods of time.
...And they did not send up up there alone. don't forget that. Does anyone really think the boy during the climb made the biggest on the spot decisions about how to change route, where to stride, etc. Those accompanying him, the more experienced with him, would have spoken up more and if necessary (I'm sure under orders from the boys parents) have reversed if something was wrong.

peasant wrote: »

To draw a very simple hyperbole ...you don't encourage a three year old to play in the road, you don't encourage a seven year old to learn how to drive and you don't encourage a nine year old to climb Kilimandjaro or the same kid at thirteen to climb Everest.
It's irresponsible.

Very true but...
...A 3 year old is only allowed go where the parents allow, having assessed the risks. and if necessary taken further precautions.
...7 year old driving? No, because most hasn't the strength to turn hard steering, length in the feet to reach pedals, and so many other reasons. However there might be the rare "special" kids that could manage these feats under training and supervision too!
...I'm sure the parents didn't just encourage, they also safeguarded the best they could, advised the best they could, stopped their son at times the best they could... and in all that time they also sent the message to their son "Son, if you REALLY want something, with much training, experience (previous climbs), knowledge, and so, so on, your future possibilities are as lengthy as your desires. you won't achieve them all but at the very least, you should try and go for them..."

What more can a parent do?

peasant

IMO it is bad parenting to encourage/support/tolerate excess.

Whether that ecxess manifests itself in kids glued to the computer for hours on end, in kids feeding exclusively on McDonalds, in little princesses demanding cinderella coaches for their communion, children in beauty pageants, teens coming home drunk or drugged out of their minds or indeed teens wanting to circumnavigate the world, climb Everest or go down Niagara Falls in a barrel.

You can have a fulfilling childhood, achieve and even exceed your ambitions, ground yourself for a good life ahead, rise above mediocrity, whatever ...all without going to excess.

Excessive behaviour should be the domain of adults deciding for themselves alone in full knowledge and cogniscence of the (possible) consequences ...not for their children, who don't know any better.

Biggins

peasant wrote: »

IMO it is bad parenting to encourage/support/tolerate excess.

Whether that ecxess manifests itself in kids glued to the computer for hours on end, in kids feeding exclusively on McDonalds, in little princesses demanding cinderella coaches for their communion, children in beauty pageants, teens coming home drunk or drugged out of their minds or indeed teens wanting to circumnavigate the world, climb Everest or go down Niagara Falls in a barrel.

You can have a fulfilling childhood, achieve and even exceed your ambitions, ground yourself for a good life ahead, rise above mediocrity, whatever ...all without going to excess.

Excessive behaviour should be the domain of adults deciding for themselves alone in full knowledge and conscience of the (possible) consequences ...not for their children, who don't know any better.

I hear what your saying and there is a lot of very good sense in it.

I would just point out that what you deem to be "excess", is to the parents of that child (and others), a further step taken also with highly trained repeated guidance and training, prior continuous mental and physical assessments, accompanied on the days with same skill levelled people and a modicum of risk assessment as to when to go, what way to go, knowledge of possible conditions, alternative/emergency plans and proper equipment, etc...

One persons "excess" might not be just mean a full stop for everyone else (not should it be - else man would not have gained the goals he/she has). It could be another persons "pause" - take stock, improve chances, think twice, etc - and then forge ahead fully aware and ready to break boundaries and make inner/outer discoveries.

Again, as a parent, I can exactly see where your coming from and your right in adding words of caution and assessments too.
(its always good to have a prior devils advocate - just in case...)