Thursday, August 26, 2004


"Mom, I want choc-" SLAP.

Normally, I post up my share of Nineteen early Thursday, around 12 am or so. This time I’ve had less to write about and also been somewhat busy for my writing. Statistical data of the site’s traffic has not been very well lately, most likely explanation being inactivity for which I give my part of the apology. It brings me to something I’ve wanted to cover since last week. I’ve received some feedback about Nineteen which questions the purpose of this site. The writing on Nineteen has been criticized as “seeking attention” and that the people writing have too much time on hand. Now I’m a reasonable person and I like to argue logically and reasonably. Firstly, with regards to why we write, my share of the answer is simple – just for the sake of writing. The writing here maybe critical and very subjective, but it is still writing. Orwell’s greatest essays were purely subjective and it criticized other people, yet he is arguably one of the greatest writers of our time. Did he set out with the purpose of criticizing people and thereby seeking attention? I don’t really think so. He wrote for the sake of it. So again are we seeking attention? Hardly, just look at the simplistic layout of the site. If we were really seeking attention, this is what Nineteen would look a little more like:

Maybe worse. Popularity, dear reader, is the effect, not the cause, of the writing. Finally, as to having too much time in our hands - maybe our hands aren’t too preoccupied with our genitals in all our free time (as RealTM puts it.) Whatever is written on Nineteen is only done in our free time, and it only takes a quarter-hour to write something of quality every week. In any case, I’ve been busy the past week so I cramped a 2-week worth of writing into this one.

Moving on... The other day, some kid came to me for advice regarding her course selection for highschool. I did my best to sound enthusiastic by telling them to go screw themselves, but it didn’t work. Flipping through the course selection booklet, I came across some very ridiculous courses. Things like “parenting”, “fashion” and “managing personal and family resources”. Parenting? Who, in a sub-matured state of mind, needs to learn parenting? Isn’t that supposed to be intuitive? It’s like offering a course in breathing or taking a dump. Then there is fashion; that’s not so bad if I want to fall into the snare of corporate whorery. In response to this, one would have to learn how to manage their personal and family resources in order to not spend money on unnecessary products (note to the stupid – a Nike water bottle will not make you any more athletic than you dream of.) Schools shouldn’t spoil and corrupt children this way by offering impractical courses. They should offer more factual teachings, like “Civilized Behaviour” and “Discipline by the Stick.” The other day I was using public transit to get home, and up front where the handicapped are supposed to sit was some blonde MILF with her unmannered child. The boy shouted at his mother with phrases like “Mom, you stole the money!”, “Mom, why are people staring at me?” and “Mom, how come you have hair down there?” Clearly, the child had never been disciplined, very much like his own mother. In my entire life, no one has given me a better reason to split their skull into two like this boy did. How can children go undisciplined in such a way? If a kid talks to me like that or even begins to think about embarrassing me in public, I’d slap him. If that doesn’t work, I’ll use a stick on his back. This is not child abuse, it’s discipline. Stupid teen magazines are the reason why we have parents who are afraid to raise their children right, or maybe they just don't know how to do it. If you can't do it right, place the child in a box addressed to the Nineteen Editor Office and drop it in the mailbox. Say NO to Seventeen!

Update: Just before someone else comes whining about how hitting children does not help in raising them, I guess I have to say it explicitly (thereby beheading the black humour in the article) – I do know, and I do believe, that harming a child is not morally and fundamentally right in raising children. I do know that the best way to teach children about right and wrong is via instrumental conditioning. However, I do think that hitting a child (on the hand, for example) is still effective in disciplining them, though it should not be taken to the level where it will severely harm the child, physically and psychologically. I detest it when people ruin my sarcasm.

Fashion design wasn't about consumerism (i got to design funky mardi-gra(s?) unwearable shoes) and parenting/family studies was a waste of time(not that i wasted any time over it) was abt social theories and child psychology(which wasnt too bad)...but ur probably not interested.
Discipline is almost a lost cause....maybe the kids should be taught before they do something of the sort. Like minority report "i know you're going to say this on the bus, therefore i shall whip you before we leave the house" muahahah
I write because I suffer from excessive narcissism.

But hell, who doesn't?
i like this blog but i think you got something mixed up. the blond lady is THE REASON WHY we need to teach parenting in school.

dude hitting children isn't the right way to teach them but it's funny anyway.

Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?