| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| Women's Lib | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 20 2006, 02:38 PM (255 Views) | |
| TexasShadow | May 20 2006, 02:38 PM Post #1 |
![]()
Jane
|
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/arti...ge_id=1770&ct=5 Teenage girls are now more likely than boys to drink, smoke, steal and take drugs, a survey has shown. Out of control: Girls are more likely than boys to drink, smoke, steal and take drugs Are girls really more troublesome than boys? Tell us in the reader comments below While boys appear less likely to be drawn towards crime or drugs than they were, psychological and social problems are stacking up among teenage girls, who are now expected to compete on equal terms with boys for educational opportunity and jobs. The study of 14 and 15-year-olds was conducted by questionnaire, in schools under exam conditions, and the results compared with a similar one from 1985. Professor Colin Pritchard, who led the research, said: 'Girls now significantly smoke and binge-drink more than boys. They truant, steal and fight at similar rates, and start under-age sex earlier than boys.' He said binge-drinking, which was admitted by nearly a third of girls in their early teenage years, drove other anti-social behaviour such as stealing, fighting, taking drugs and engaging in risky sex. 'There is an element of following role models set by the media,' he said 'We can look back to the Spice Girls where girls were set an example in which aggressive behaviour was considered praiseworthy. 'It is also the case that girls are expected to behave differently today than they were in the past, and that has affected the of boys too.' The study comparison found that the number of boys admitting to smoking has nearly halved to just over a quarter, while the number of girls who smoke has risen to nearly half. The number of girls who admit having smoked cannabis has gone up nearly fourfold, to one in five. In 1985 around half of all boys and girls drank alcohol on a regular basis. Last year the numbers had shot up to 68 per cent of boys and an astonishing 85 per cent of girls. Because researchers in the 1980s did not believe binge-drinking could be a problem among young teenagers, they did not include the subject in their questionnaire. But in the contemporary study, 15 per cent of boys and 29 per cent of girls defined themselves as binge-drinkers. Girls were far more likely than boys to have had sex: 31 per cent against 17. The research, produced by academics from the Institute of Health and Community Studies at Bournemouth University, suggested there had been improvements in behaviour among boys. The number who admitted stealing had halved, as had numbers who were regularly in fights. Truanting was also down. Professor Pritchard said: 'One thing we found among teenagers of all backgrounds was that those who said they liked school were the least likely to binge-drink, take drugs, or otherwise engage in bad behaviour. That is a challenge to schools and parents to make sure pupils are interested.' Martin Plant, professor of addiction studies at the University of the West of England in Bristol, said British teenagers were more likely to binge-drink than those anywhere else in Europe - and the problem was worse among girls. His wife, and co-author of the book Binge Britain, Moira Plant, said many young women drink because it gives them a sense of power, and teenagers will often see drinking and even hangovers as a 'badge of honour'. ¦ The relaxation of licensing laws has been criticised by some of Britain's most eminent scientists. Professor Jonathan Montgomery, an expert in healthcare law, said alcohol was potentially more dangerous than tobacco, yet the Government was making it much more available with 24-hour drinking. And Sir John Krebs, principal of Jesus College Oxford, attacked the marketing of alcopops specifically for young people. 'The Government has stood by and let that happen, whereas it wouldn't have accepted the alcopop equivalent of cigarettes targeted at children,' he said. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| DanHouck | May 20 2006, 04:22 PM Post #2 |
|
Land of Enchantment NM
|
We're losing our kids because we're not raising them. When you strip away all the data, that's the bottom line. |
![]() |
|
| Stoney | May 20 2006, 05:31 PM Post #3 |
|
Huntsville, AL
|
Dan, good to see you again. And I agree with that. I know that the old cliche's about a women in the home are maybe offensive to some and the cost of all these things that weren't around when I was a kid have caused two parents working to afford. But I think this is at some cost. |
|
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Henry David Thoreau | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 20 2006, 07:14 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Jane
|
this is true, but how do we go about solving the problem of both parents working and not having the time or energy to put into what it takes to actually raise kids? Granted, there are some people that can and are doing that, but it takes a real sense of duty and a lot of stamina ... and both parents doing it, helping each other. take a couple of parents who both work hard labor jobs all day... they're just worn out when they come home. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Stoney | May 20 2006, 07:19 PM Post #5 |
|
Huntsville, AL
|
At some point we, and I use that term loosely because this is a private issue, need to consider priorities. Are the priorities a new house, car, TV, Cable, cell phones, etc., or raising kids? |
|
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Henry David Thoreau | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 20 2006, 07:24 PM Post #6 |
![]()
Jane
|
you're right, and there are a lot of folks out there putting the material life before the kids... but there are a lot of others who have no choice. single parents, blue collar workers (factory, mills,) it's a major problem. I don't blame women's lib for it, but women's lib did contribute to taking both parents out of the home. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | May 20 2006, 08:28 PM Post #7 |
|
Member
|
I know families where both parents work, and they are still actively involved with their kids (coaching little league etc.) And, they have some good kids. I know other families where they just let their kids roam the streets and hang out until after dark, and don't know where they are at. Not to blame all, but I've noticed this more in single parent households. Mom and Dad, both working is not the problem. Parenting is. Some people who although they love their children, are just big flakes when it comes to parenting responsibilities. Probably a reflection of their personal responsibility in other areas too. Perhaps one should have to apply for a license to have children. And, those who have bad credit etc. (an indication of responsibility) be disallowed from propogating.
|
![]() |
|
| Stoney | May 20 2006, 09:09 PM Post #8 |
|
Huntsville, AL
|
I agree there are any number of problems. Where do they stem from? Is there a common base? |
|
The character inherent in the American people has done all that has been accomplished; and it would have done somewhat more, if the government had not sometimes got in its way. Henry David Thoreau | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 21 2006, 10:03 AM Post #9 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Now admit it, most men are thinking, "And of course this didn't happen while I was still a boy!"
|
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | May 22 2006, 09:54 PM Post #10 |
|
Member
|
This is an easy one to figure out. Almost any girl that wants sex can get it. It doesn't work that way with boys, not without a lot of whinning, begging, coniving etc. etc. |
![]() |
|
| pentax | May 22 2006, 10:44 PM Post #11 |
![]()
Kamloops - BC Interior
|
According to some article I was reading a month or so back, another of the BIG fads that girls are into to "earn their stripes" is getting really tanked at parties and getting into... how can I put this?.... the "junior-levels" of lesbian action (necking and upper-fondling), all greatly egged on by the boys, of course. There's a slang term for it, but I can't remember it. So what's the deal on THAT??? |
![]() (thumbnail) ![]() "Kirk to Enterprise - Very funny, Scotty.... now beam down my clothes!" | |
![]() |
|
| DocInBird | May 23 2006, 10:25 AM Post #12 |
|
Member
|
Where I am, for a couple of weeks, a tiny little "starter" house costs over $400,000 and one where the kids could have their own bedrooms runs over $750,000. If the parents want a good school system, it is even more. It is very difficult to afford any house on a single salary. Employees are expected to work well more than 40 hours per week if they want to keep their jobs. It is a vicious cycle. In order for both parents to work, they must have two motor vehicles, which means more in insurance costs. Any of the big government proposals to give the children a safe place to go after school means raising taxes, and thus reducing the real income of the working parents. If the parents move to a location where housing is more affordable, their incomes will be reduced proportionally. Womens' Lib didn't create this situation. Women still make less than men in virtually all professions. Peer pressure among the kids has always been a problem, but it appears to be getting worse as the country become more homogenized. Between tv, mtv, and the web, the fads are spreading more quickly. Parents have increasing pressure, because if their child is not allowed to do what the majority of other children do, their child is ostracized and runs into all of the problems at school that this entails. Chaperones at kids' parties are becoming more scarce. If the parents do not go to a different part of the house, none of the other children will want to attend the party. There are no easy answers for these problems. It would be simplistic to say that if a child is "raised right" they wouldn't encounter the same problems. Children of clergy members are exposed to the same peer pressure and succumb at a similar rate. |
|
--doc Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America. | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | May 23 2006, 08:35 PM Post #13 |
|
Member
|
It's a social phenomenon, that young women seem to be so desperate for male affection/attention, they are willing to do things men/boys want them to do, with no thought of their own self esteem. IMO many of the young women/girls of today have been caught up in the concept that their only value/worth is being able to attract a male. Quite contrary to the goals of womens libbers of the past. What to do? Maybe we need a resurgence of women's lib. The constance barrage of cosmetic and personal product ads directed at women/girls is just more brainwashing IMO. |
![]() |
|
| DocInBird | May 24 2006, 01:04 AM Post #14 |
|
Member
|
As a fun and interesting thing to do, the previous time I agreed to do some guest lectures, I took a couple of classes too. One didn't really count, since I needed it to maintain my license. But the other one was very interesting. I was the only male in a class entitled, "The Psychology of Women". Oh my, was that interesting! One of the assignments was to watch x hours of tv and write a paper on what we observed about the portrayal of women. I mentioned that all lingerie ads used announcers with a Brittish accent ("brars and ponties"), and that all cosmetic ads used announcers with a French accent. I also noted that most of these ads tried to reinforce a stereotype that a woman was inferior without these products. Isn't it interesting that none of these products run ads during the NCAA Womens Basketball Tournement? (I mentioned that too). I postulated that women involved in sports are outside their target audience (witness the SRI study in the late '50s or early '60s that revolutionized advertizing). These women feel more confident about themselves and are thus less susceptible to such advertising approaches. They care less about cosmetics and lingerie. But isn't it also worth note that the folks that sell sports bras and specialized sports equipment choose not to advertise in this venue? Tampon mfrs also stay away, mostly. Why? If you will fund it, I'll do the study, LOL. |
|
--doc Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America. | |
![]() |
|
| DocInBird | May 24 2006, 01:25 AM Post #15 |
|
Member
|
I hadn't meant to go there, but I wonder what the percentages are for young women strongly engaged in sports, to the national averages for such behavior. First, they wouldn't have the time. Secondly, drugs, alcohol (also a drug), or rampant sexual behavior would only interfere with their game. I mention sports because it is most often a group effort that requires a high degree of physical exertion. Those who are into writing or painting would be on the opposite end of the spectrum, in my naive view, because creating anything is a solitary endevour with no rules or discipline that is not self-imposed. Note that I have nothing against these arts. I practice both. Someone out there has a picture of of an oil painting I did at Yosemite, years and years ago. This was a wild abstract I did in the valley as the light was changing on the dome. At the time I was from the slash and burn school of painting. I have collected pictures of some of these paintings. I cannot afford to buy the originals. Isn't that funny? I can't afford to buy my own paintings. There was this one woman. I didn't know who she was. She was obviously an athlete. She was stretching before doing another lap of the valley. The way she ran was fascinating to me. It was like she barely touched the ground. Her stride was that smooth. I looked at her run and thought Olympics. She ran like she was born to run. (oh don't get me into a discussion of genetic memory). what a great model for a child. "come run with me little girl." |
|
--doc Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America. | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2













1:03 PM Jul 11