Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
Do British people have a tendancy to dislike children?
I've been surprised to read several articles recently (in UK publications) as to whether the British like children. I also happened to tune in to a radio discussion yesterday on France Inter. In the UK, recent quite horrific child abuse scandals have put the spotlight on our historically atrocious record of caring for and protecting children in the broadest sense: In 2007 the UK and US were described as the worst places in the world to be a child according to UNICEF* and the report covered such wide-reaching issues as child poverty, under-age sex, substance abuse and low birth-weight babies.
But in France, what has been picked up on regarding British children (apart from the inevitable binge-drinking which is highly embarassing as it's all we're known for just about everywhere around the globe!), is the so- called 'Anti-Teen Mosquito': A device you've proably heard about, which emits a high-pitched sound designed to disperse youngsters if too many of them hang around together in British city centres. A little like you'd treat dogs, in fact, who incidentally are the only other creatures able to hear it aside from the under-20s.
I live between England and France and it's true that here in the UK I often hear expressions like "oh, children, I couldn't eat a whole one" or "oh I hate other people's kids" or "oh shut up" when a kid cries in the supermarket. Is it peculiarly British this disdain for young people?
If it is, where does it come from and how could it be changed? I find it quite tragic personally but at least it's highlighted something more substantial than 'who's in charge of this or that council? Ok then sack them' as in the Baby P scandal. Or just freeing money up from central government for social workers etc. We won't get very far if this disdain is endemic.
(I pasted this from somewhere else where I'd posted it and I can't take off the 'bold' type, don't mean to appear as though I'm shouting
)
What do you think?
But in France, what has been picked up on regarding British children (apart from the inevitable binge-drinking which is highly embarassing as it's all we're known for just about everywhere around the globe!), is the so- called 'Anti-Teen Mosquito': A device you've proably heard about, which emits a high-pitched sound designed to disperse youngsters if too many of them hang around together in British city centres. A little like you'd treat dogs, in fact, who incidentally are the only other creatures able to hear it aside from the under-20s.
I live between England and France and it's true that here in the UK I often hear expressions like "oh, children, I couldn't eat a whole one" or "oh I hate other people's kids" or "oh shut up" when a kid cries in the supermarket. Is it peculiarly British this disdain for young people?
If it is, where does it come from and how could it be changed? I find it quite tragic personally but at least it's highlighted something more substantial than 'who's in charge of this or that council? Ok then sack them' as in the Baby P scandal. Or just freeing money up from central government for social workers etc. We won't get very far if this disdain is endemic.
(I pasted this from somewhere else where I'd posted it and I can't take off the 'bold' type, don't mean to appear as though I'm shouting
)What do you think?
0
Comments
Still, there's CCTV, ASBOs & Anti-teen devices a plenty.
Wonderful society eh?
Namaste
And yet the social myth that teenagers are a pain in the butt is never revoked. I have never read an article (and I read pretty widely) explaining this to parents.
I am not yet a parent. My ex had two teenagers of 16 and 19 and it sure is a very hard period in a young persons life to master, particularly if they're being manipulative and aggressive as well as insecure, self-centred and prone to emotional rollercoasters!!
However, I can't help wondering why people don't look beyond the 'my kids are doing my head in' to why this is going on. They are not choosing to be anti-social for no reason.
In the UK I still feel it's more warmly received when someone lacks confidence and is self-deprecating (well, I speak for the working class here). This translates into teenagers who end up hanging around in mobs of 20-odd, drinking themselves silly, seeking a sort of fusion, comfort and love through sex; Smoking, being abusive and ducking out of school. On top of all this there's the peculiarly British trait of bullying that my friends in other countries can't get their heads around. I have often heard this referred to as an English maladie.
I wish someone would look into this for the government and report on the chronic lack of self-esteem, not just the throwing up in the High Street on a Saturday night and making our children (for they are all of our children) look like devils.
There is a beautiful African proverb that I like: It takes a village to raise a child.
THis is a social problem, and it began in the sixties and seventies, when the whole world-view changed, and people began to tune in, turn on and drop out.
There was a globally-propelled revolution, and a social change which whilst in many ways, brought welcome change, it also swung the pendulum too far.
And please believe me when I say that this is not intended to be a slight against my good and loving FATP*, but there have been many influences from American social habits that have found their way to over here. I think the rot began to set in with video games, the nature of which are extraordinarily violent in many ways. But that's an extraordinarily glib thing to say - even though I have discussed this with people, and they see the UK becoming a little America..... Gang wars, knives and modes of dress have indisputably wormed their way into UK 'Yoof culcha' from places like New York....
The way the young speak, alone, is testimony to this.....
There is much lacking in society in general to give the young structure, guidance and borders.
It's all missing: Good discipline, good example, suitable punishment and sound morals.
I will be the first to admit: I don't like children.
But to clarify: I have two of my own (thereby hangs a tale!) and what I dislike about them reflects more on the attitude and manners of their parents than it does on the children. So I don't like undisciplined, uncontrolled, noisy, overbearingly controlling children. And I have seen many cases in which the parents appear to be in control, but it's the kids who are pulling the strings.
It's my problem, my attitude and my perception. I have to try to fix this.
But the young irritate me.
That said, I have met some wonderful young people, and their attitudes and manners are refreshingly bright. There is even a teen movement in the UK run and peopled by teens, making great efforts to add a different dimension to the topic and bring youth into a new light.
I hope it gathers momentum......
*(Friends Across The Pond)
I say that because it is something that is 'not said' and the taboo results in lots of passive-agressive mothers. I wish more women were as honest.
(I just finished reading My Mother, My Self by Nancy Friday and am very into the myth of being the perfect woman at the moment).
My mother cannot stick children but I put a poll on my blog and asked her to reply. She instantly ticked the Yes I do like Children bit and I was like, mum you hate them. Even my dad piped up "Oh come on, you have NEVER liked children'' My mum looked mortally wounded.
I never used to like children. In fact they brought about odd sensations in me. I felt resentful of them and very irritated. I also deeply resented the assumption I would have children (as I resent any of society's assumptions) and that my irritation at them would subside with maturity.
Well, in my case it has subsided with maturity and I have discovered I love children, I just hadn't grieved my own childhood that ended quite abruptly, although by my own choosing not by some terrible abuse or anything. I was very straight-laced and couldn't be seen letting my hair down.
Now I feel extremely protective of children and have discovered my own childlike nature and I'm enjoying it.
This is my own experience of course. But wanted to share this important thing that's changed in me.
Childhood ends too soon here. In France children remain children a lot longer and seem a lot more solid emotionally and financially for it. Perhaps (with our age of consent and minor status coming to a head at just 16) we are a nation of women grieving childhoods and protection we never had from parents, the state or the media.
I am probably projecting hugely owing to my own personal experience but I think it is a valid line of enquiry.
I would like to step up on my soap box at this time and go on and on. I have very strong emotions and opinions on this subject so it is best that I don't. So I'll just say this....
I think that the problems with the young of today is Universal Parental Apathy.
It does take a village to raise a child! And sadly there are no more villages.
I honestly wonder why some people even bother to have children when they treat them as impositions on their lifestyle. Apparently they have them because they feel that it's sort of expected of them to "fit in", kind of like going to church on Christmas and Easter and never another day (except maybe for a wedding or a funeral). It's no wonder that their children feel alienated and angry. Wouldn't you?
Palzang
My father cannot abide young children. If he hears raucous and (to him) uncontrolled loud, strident activity from children, in public places, his favourite phrase is "drown them!"
Living in Italy as he does, children are brought up far more liberally and as members of society than they are in the UK. Evening promenades in the town, or excursions to restaurants always, but always involve or include children of all ages, therefore it is the norm there, to go anywhere with your offspring.
Most are extremly well behaved, and still child-ish. Some are spoilt little tyke tearaways that would benefit from a strong firm hand (and I don't mean smacks. I deplore violence, and consider it wholly unnecessary when bringing up children. But that's another topic).
My father used to be a teacher, and his last posting was his favourite: At a private school, for children from 5 - 12 years. based in Richmond.
The children were well-spoken, well presented, polite and well off. But he also worked in an outer London slum-school, which he felt was the wors experience of his teaching career.
My father was a child of the 20's and 30's. He's very into a Noel Coward, Laurence Olivier, 'My fair Lady' kind of living. He claims nothing good ever came out of America after the '50's. Although he recently updated that to the '70's. I have no idea why....!
I actually also love the company of intelligent, well-spoken, curious and bright children.
But as Sara quite rightly points out - where do their childhoods go to?
Before they are 10, they are wearing clothes rendering them indistinguis
hable from someone 10 years older. make up also seems to be acceptable,and jewellery that 40 years ago, I was wearing to dress up in borrowed from my mother's box.... (40 years ago....:eek: don't!! )The media has a great deal of responsibility for this.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again - catch commercial tv at kid's TV time, and look at how stereotypical the adverts are.....
I remember watching a UK comedy TV programme, and the panels or contestants had to get up and make up one-liners on given subjects.
One topic given was - "words you don't want to hear from the Doctor".
The one that sticks in my mind, came from a comedian called Frankie Boyle -
"You have the body of a person half your age - growing inside your womb...."
It drew shrieks of deafening laughter as well as 'hands-over-mouth and shaking-heads' at the audacity. Chiefly because unfortunately, it smacks of the truth.
Teenage pregnancy is the highest in Europe, with a state all too ready to offer support to people who are in need of housing and funds. It's become a bit of a career-move to get pregnannt and get a house and benefits this way.
Where, when and how the hell did all that blow up, and why???
Loads of mitigating corcumstances as to why some children can be particularly odious.
It comes to something when two comedians (one female, one male) can 'glorify' the equivalent of American 'trailer trash' teenagers and make them funny. But the attitudes of these two fictitious characters absolutely reflect the attitudes of most young, today. It's a sad reflection, though.
Are we laughing at them - or with them?
http://www.epigram.org.uk/view.php?id=1182
http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/littlebritain/characters/vicky.shtml
EDIT:
One final thing I forgot to mention. (following Pally's comments, which I agree with.....)
I really, truly believe having children in this day and age (and probably mine as well!!) is selfish, and an unnecessary drain on the world's resources. I actually believe it irresponsible for people to have more than two children, and it's an attachment.
Giving birth to a new life means condemning it to die also.
we're overloading the planet. And we're dying later. So it's not balancing out - and something's got to give.....
But I would never be rude and say this to a pregnant mother, for example. It might be my opinion. Valid or not, that's just what it is.....
I am amazed how people, apparently 'really want children' but when you ask whether they would adopt it's always "well no, we want our OWN of course..!"
Pardon me, but just how egotistical can some people get?
All children are our children and there are very many without homes, love, guidance, warmth, stability and routine.
So are people having children to "have something to love them" as so many teenagers claim, to "have something that looks like me" as we also often hear, or to hang-on to a man! Take away all of these 'motivations' for having children and the rest, I fear, would be in the minority!
"Well.... er... I dunno really, it's the done thing, innit?"
to -
"Well, my/our parents would really love grandchildren....."
Both responses really well thought out, as you can see.....!!
The sanest reply I ever heard was:
Our daughter has a genetic condition, and a baby brother or sister would provide a means of securing an antidote or cure."
The chances of their having a second baby with the same condition were off the scale.....
The complaints about children and young people, the role of parents and society, the way it was better in our grandparents's time - none of it new. The Romans complained about it as much as we do (and in better verse). I imagine that the Sumerians did the same.
Some of it is, I guess, biological (evoiutionary, if you like): the next generation has to take over from us and we are reluctant to let go, so they fight us for control. In the Dawkins 'story', the newer genes need to eliminate the older models. In the Jesus story, John the Baptist has to diminish while he increases.
And what is all this about childhood? A 'childhood' as the 20th century came to understand it was vanishingly rare in most times in the British Isles (and elsewhere) and was almost exclusively to be seen among the rich and powerful. All other offspring had to join the workforce as soon as they could walk. Dickens' stories of the children of the industrial revolution are simply urban repetitions of what had gone on for generations in the farmlands. In fact, Dickens and Beecher Stowe between them could be saidf to have 'invented' childhood, a period of Elysian bliss.
The ancients knew better and told stories like that of Persephone who wastes her time gathering flowers and is stolen away by her uncle, Dis, imprisoned underground and wooed ferociously (no rape in the 'nice' versions) - Fritzl or the Wests anyone?
Do we like or dislike children, here in the UK, more or less than elsewhere? Who knows? We certainly treat them worse than in some places and better than in others.
Some of the gentlest, most intelligent, funniest and most annoying kids I ever met were at Summerhill School: I suggest that respect for our young would be a giant step towards living more comfortably together.
And I speak as a father/stepfather of nine young (seven still living) and five grandchildren.
I have no children myself but always felt my pupils (and parents) were a kind of extended family. There are huge limitations as to what teachers can actually achieve however. What is needed is a complete review and change in the whole structure of the present educational system as well as far more opportunities for young people to engage in meaningful and challenging activities outside of the school envirionment.
In the meantime one can only try to do the best one can whilst trying to see all the conflicting aspects of the world from their viewpoint.
.
I had a form teach for four years who'd reached burn-out in an inner city school and so came to Devon. The problem was she then told myself and four of my good female friends that we'd amount to nothing, end up on a council estate with a loser husband and lots of ill-fated off-spring.
I also started suffering from OCD when I was 15. My head of year told me I had the choice of seeing a psychologist, psychiatrist or family counsellor - except she said it as though she was offering me a choice of oven cleaner (bored, cold and very indifferent). Compassion-aside she is someone I'd very much like to have give a good talking to!
I have to undergo about 150 hours of personal therapy in my quest to become a psychotherapist. Therapy for teachers anyone?
Yes, Simon, that would make sense given your industrialisation perspective.
Sara, dear friend,
I'm not quite sure what you mean by my "industrialisation perspective" but it is true that I do see an industrial approach to education, a sort of factory mentality which wants to turn out identical product, mainly for the benefit of employers and the powerful.
I asked A. S. Neill about the purpose of education way back in 1967 when I was doing my post-graduate Dip. Ed. He was quite clear about his aims: "Freedom" was the word he used. I understand that the stated purpose of Dartington Hall was to "educate for democracy", and the headmaster of Downside (a Catholic boys' school, for out non-Brit friends) once said that he was "educating boys for death". Although I much prefer Neill's aim, what struck me was that here were educators who knew what they were doing the job for.
Having worked as and with many teachers, particularly in the latter years of my counselling practice, dealing with their appalling levels of stress, it seems to me that we may have lost our way.
Children are not a product, nor are they clay to be 'moulded', nor, indeed, are they 'cannon fodder' for industry and commerce. They are not trophies nor the property of parents or the state. I was born in 1943, my brother in 1944, and remember my parents speaking of their decision to have children in the middle of the war as "a victory for hope".
Whether Britain does things better or worse than anywhere else depends on what questions you ask and how long your historical perspective may be. The army had to be called out to one school at the end of the 19th century to quell a riot by the boys!
Our schools should be genuine resources for the growing and the grown, empowering and enabling. But then it would mean taking education seriously as the royal road to a better life, which does not necessarily mean 'fitting in'. In fact, I think it is the role of our young to make sure they don't 'fit in' with a society which is so obviously dysfunctional. We are going to leave them to clear up the mess we are making - surely we want them to be better at it than we have been?
R. D. Laing used to maintain that what we diagnose as schizophrenia is actually a sane response to a schizo world. Perhaps the 'rudeness', drunkenness, cult of celebrity and all the other stones that are thrown at the young are only reflections of our own failures.
Yesterday, I was up a ladder, trying to fit an end-piece to a broken gutter. My (18 years and 360 days old) son, Jack, insisted that I come down and that he attempt the job. "I don't want to see you up that ladder again," he said. The old order passes. And I am overjoyed to hand it on to a generation which, depite all our efforts to corrupt, discourage and impoverish them, may just succeed where we have failed.
As a home-educator for some years as my son went through the grieving for his mother, he and I gathered other, school-excluded children to join us. They were lively, violent and destructive (at times), angry and bored (at others) as well as fascinated, excited and argumentative. We had a lot of adventures and all learned a lot. What I learned, from the very first days, was their need for "in-between" times. These were times in the day when we simply sat and watched our breath. The times were flexible and could include everyone or just one or two. They were informal and natural. They often resulted in awkening awarenesses.
If there is one thing that we do badly for our kids, it is that we do not offer them silence.
Sorry, Sara, if this is a bit long and rambling. Children's rights to be free, to play and to be themselves have been at the centre of my concerns for as long as I can remember.
A wonderful post Simon. Very much agree with the points you raised. Kids can have everything but not that, as it's not 'productive'.
I was giving this thread some thought this weekend as we were out and about Bank-Holidaying with our two.
I was troubled by one thing I saw on a play area - some of the parents. One dad was sporting a (reversed) baseball hat and had jeans hanging off his arse. Plenty of pseudo-teen "attituuude". His son (9-ish) was dressed the same, his daughter (8-ish) dressed like Britney Spears in her Lolita (naughty girl) phase, just like mum, who spent the time engrossed with her mobile phone. All speaking a rather posh Queen's English, I add, before you assume.
It's not just that society pushes kids to be teens as soon as they leave preschool, it also expects adults (who cherish their cred) to stay "teen-like".
Society, tis said, gets the politics it deserves, perhaps it gets the kids it creates too.
Still, it's not all doom and gloom. Kids are kids - little personalities and people in the making. No two are alike. Perhaps some of us even used to be kids ourselves.
Now there's a thought!
Namaste
A telling remark in today's Independent's review of tonight's Channel 4 series The Hospital:
"As one teen mum sagely remarks: 'If all adults could be good parents, there wouldn't be so many teenage parents.'"
Beautiful posts.
You seemed to be making a case that, whereas we seemed to know what children were for prior to industrialisation (when child-hood as such, didn't exist), now we don't equate children with wage-earning, rights or responsibilities and therefore don't know what to do with them. I agree with this.
Yes, indeed. How important this is. From my experience (secondary school through night school to university as a 'mature' student), teachers have often been jealous of their students and begrudged them their futures, stretched out before them like an inviting blank page.
Well, I think this is a little dangerous the whole 'what is madness when the entire world is insane' thing. I know what R.D Laing was getting at (on an abstract level of course) but it's a bit of an unclear message to those with mental health issues. I heard lots of this type of argument when I had a bipolar episode and for me it's on a par with 'Oh don't worry, only bright people like Stephen Fry get it and anyway you must be sooo creative'. But yes, the young have got to be reflections of our own failures. Where else have they learnt it all from?
Heart-warming to read this: An 'adventure' and 'learning from children'. That is, to me, what it should be all about.
Yes. I don't know many people who handle silence well. Between the raised voices in public transport, phones, Blackberrys, i-phones, i-pods... Shouting, horrible slang... I don't know how people live like this day in day out. I need quiet and silence for a few hours a day. I think if people knew how to think more healthily, they'd be less afraid to hear their own thoughts and to be on their own with them once in a while... Even to just let them go!
Not at all. It's a privilege for me to learn from someone like yourself. Thank you.
I think though, what we should remember is that whether we choose to 'have' our 'own' children or not... We are all parents when we become adults. It is not because we decide to make babies or adopt them that we should suddenly think we can turn on a dormant switch behind our heads. It's a part of us, not a role we can choose to play when it suits. That's my opinion. We are the adults, let's get on with that and let children be children!
You stated the following in response to Simon:
"Yes, indeed. How important this is. From my experience (secondary school through night school to university as a 'mature' student), teachers have often been jealous of their students and begrudged them their futures, stretched out before them like an inviting blank page."
and I wondered what actual evidence you had for this statement?
Kind wishes,
Dazzle
Well I ain't got nothing on paper but so often I compare stories with close friends from that time and the anecdotes are shocking. Having received similar comments from the same teachers at each stage, well, I believe them.
Sad.
I would have a LOT to say if my future child came home with those sorts of worries on their back!
Disturbing to say the least. However I can only say that many of the teachers I've worked with myself have been very dedicated to the welbeing and future welfare of their pupils, far beyond what was required of them in their jobs - so they're not all the same.
Kind wishes
Dazzle
I fear that envy and jealousy are to be found among teachers - as among all people. I have certainly seen it at work in the sports' field where a fading international player-turned-teacher discouraged rather than encouraged. Perhaps some of this is underpinned by staff-room politics - and I include university senior common rooms, oy veh!
Where an education system is based on competition, which was the case for so long (and survives, alas) in the UK, it will follow that all will compete if they want to succeed. School hierarchies, both student and teaching staff, are all vertical, ladders to climb.
So, I come back to my reflection on what we are educating for (as I have for the past decades as my own children grew up and suffered in the education mill) and I think that, on the evidence of product, we are educating the young to compete. A very Hobbesian view or Spencerist of a universe of "eat or be eaten". Is the world really like that or do we create it so by the way we raise our young?
And I'm talking early- to mid-nineties....She once, during a Governor's meeting, talking about OFSTED and SATS and this driving, continual testing and examining, read a report, part of which read:
"We are educating children to do jobs which do not even exist yet."
Unfortunately, we are putting the accent very much on the cerebral, and inadequately on the practical.
The arts are suffering, just as physical activities, are.
Children are only now being re-introduced to the sheer delights of cooking, and sports - hitherto a secondary and relegated subject - is slooowly coming back, with emphasis of activity and movement, rather than competition and teamsmanship....
This is, as far as I am aware.
I have been off the 'educational circuit' for some time now, and am going by comments from parents I know, rather than via direct experience.....
I would agree with that. I think that nurturing would be more educational, in the strict sense of the word, rather than functional and geared towards productivity in our capitalist society.
I went to Exeter,the green wellie university as they call it. My favourite subject (womens' studies) was sort of shoved into any department that would house it for a while. Why? Could it be that feminist theory focuses on qualitative evidence, the subjective, the unempirical, the feminine (in the sense of one side of a ideological polarity, not hand bags
I greatly envied the students who came from public school (at the time I think about 70% of them did although now there are quotas in place). They were at ease with philosophy, politics, debating, all subjects my comp had never offered.
One day I went to see the HoD and just plain admitted that philosophy was something I had a lot of respect for but found it so impenetrable and intimidating, could anyone give me some assistance.
His reply? "Look dahhling, you either put up or get out!" Classy, that!
I was mortified but my revenge wasn't writing nasty things on the loo walls a la undergraduate. It was developing a true love and feel for philosophy outside of the university walls!
Oh, and quoting from Dorling Kindersley's illustrated guide for children in my next presentation
"Don't do that if you care what people think of you" said a well-meaning tutor. "I don't" I replied "and half of the kids wouldn't be able to discuss half the concepts in my Dorling Kindersley anyway"! So pretentious. The point is to learn, to enrich, not satisfy the system and tick a few boxes.
Temper, temper Sara, time for a coffee methinks!
Yuck. What an attitude... and for a philosopher!
Then there were those who were quite prepared to use students' research as their own!
That having been said, and with deep love and respect for such wonderful teachers as Robert Shackleton, Enid Starkie, Prof Zaehner and many others, the poor performance of some did not destroy the overall benefit.
I do wonder, sometimes, how right this is. Most of our acquaintances seem to allow for a fair amount of selfish, boorish pugnacity with the justification that it's good for their kid's confidence.
There is a presumption out there, I've gleaned in many conversations or snippets thereof, that a feisty attitude (as it's called) helps prevent bullying, makes the child a 'go-getter' and is essential "nowadays" (read; in the tough materialistic times in which we live).
To witness a bright six year old (former best friend of my son) in public, tell his mother to "shut up" and "give it to me now!" seems par for the course at his primary - excellent ofsted results btw, and in a nice area. Needless to say she's proud of him, as he has the best reading results in his class, has been pushed up through his swimming grades and is being hot-housed in sports.
There are plenty more like that as well. So the next time a kid shoves in front of you at the shops and gives you a mouthful when you say something, take heart - that's exactly what our society needs...
...apparently.
1) The adult screams harder
2) The adult get's visibly scared, offended, embarassed and caves in
3) The adult seethes with resentment
All of this being counterproductive.
It is important for young people to go through this faze or they'll never make anything of themself.
But, it's equally important for adults to, from that moment on, give them a structure to operate within (limit their anger and contain it) and a real presence, standing up to them.
Otherwise, the child grows up thinking they are 'almighty', their anger is not to be permitted and is something they should be very afraid of expressing or plain and simple, that their opinion is more valid than anyone else's.
NOT what society needs I think you'll agree!
So for all our talk of schools... Maybe the time is right to start thinking about schooling for parents.
For something that is supposed to 'come naturally', well, at the time women started giving birth at the dawn of civilisation, there was hardly the same social context as now, was there ?!
I think a lot of todays ills come from a certain 'do as i say not as i do culture' and that makes me cross. Such confuded signals and very cowardly, lazy parents!