When you swipe to the left on Android phones, there are a bunch of articles that are supposed to be related to things you like. I found one today about Gen Alpha kids.
Generation Alpha Is Being Called Honey Badgers: What Does the Trending Term Mean?
A lot of the attitudes that the writer assigns to Gen Alpha kids are not really particular to this current Generation, they are, in fact, just human nature. There are several quotes from various experts:
“They are persistent seekers of justice, and as a result, will stand up to someone three times their size without hesitation,”
“For example, if an adult enforces a no-electronics rule at dinner but then uses their own cell phone, they are likely to question the inconsistency and challenge the rule,”
“Generation Alpha can oftentimes challenge and refuse to accept the status quo, questioning rules and customs that may seem arbitrary or hypocritical,”
“They are fearless, tenacious, always go after what they want without a second thought, and never back down from a challenge,”
If I look at the behavior alone- they challenge rules and particularly inconsistent application of rules, they go after what they want and don’t back down, that stuff is just regular human behavior that we discipline out of kids through time. They are innately selfish by nature and will grab what they want from other kids. They need to be taught to share and disciplined into social behavior.
Some of the motives ascribed to them as to WHY they are like this, namely this: “They are persistent seekers of justice” are probably more attributable to the adults. I mean, we’re all about justice when that justice means someone else needs to share with US, not as concerned about justice when it means we need to share with them.
But who doesn’t question rules that seem arbitrary or hypocritical? This isn’t behavior specific to Gen Alpha, it’s just basic human nature. We all do this.
One of the reasons proffered for this alleged unique behavior is the “Millennial parents, who employ different strategies than previous generations.”
Uh, I have some news for the writer: I, a boomer, had some of these same dumb ideas when I was a young parent. I too thought that I would not be the kind of father who said things like: because I said so! I would sit with junior and walk him through the rational thought processes, and junior, being fully rational too, would see the beauty of my concern for him, and accept the direction given to him. Or, as the article puts it, “allowing the child to be part of the decision-making process and seeking to better understand them,” says Ryan Fedoroff, MEd, of Newport Healthcare. “This develops independent thinking and problem-solving skills in children, which can make them feel empowered, more confident, and practically fearless.”
Sure. Allow your child to be ‘part of the decision-making process’ which will allow him to ‘better understand’ the process…. which will ‘develop independent thinking and problem solving skills in children’, which in turn ‘can make them feel empowered, more confident, and practically fearless.’ And what, boys and girls, could possibly go wrong if your four-year-old is empowered, confident and practically fearless?
Except, and here’s what happened in my case, junior wasn’t as rational as I had thought he would be. He was immature and selfish. Selfish because he was a little human and, like all of us, wanted what he wanted, and immature because, well, he hadn’t had time to mature. What I had missed in all this was that being rational about where you fit in the scheme of things takes time. It takes failure and the wisdom that comes from learning from those mistakes, and that only comes through time. So rationally walking junior through why he can’t have flaming hot cheetohs for every meal was a real waste of time, and at that point I discovered the wisdom of MY father and pulled out the old gem: you can’t because I said so.
There was a viral video some years ago when mom was trying to reason with a little kid- maybe 4 or so. And he kept interrupting and saying, “But Judy ( I don’t remember the exact name), listen! You’re not understanding…” He wanted what he wanted and wouldn’t be dissuaded or reasoned with. Every time she would try to reason with him, he would interrupt and continue to push the same point, which was no more than saying: But I want it!!!! That’s not his fault, his reasoning just isn’t up to level yet. And it’s up to the parents to understand that, not act like he is more mature than he is. Sure, giving junior that much rope to argue his point might feel empowering to him, but to what end? Junior feels empowered to forward purely selfish arguments.
The characterization in the article is that “authority imposed on children” is “harsh”. Well, you don’t want to impose harsh authority on little boo-boo, do you? What a meany you would be. But the fact of the matter is that as the adult, you are responsible for junior. That makes you, wait for it… the authority. Of course, authority can be either harsh or not. But the law makes the adult responsible, and therefore the authority, whether the adult likes it or not. By all means, you don’t want to go out of your way to exasperate your kids, but those kids actions are legally on you. So you ARE the authority. And if that seems harsh that you will have to tell Junior to listen to you whether he likes it or not, and if he doesn’t, there’s gonna be some paddling in the future, then that’s the way it has to be. You ARE the authority, you have the wisdom and the experience, and junior will have to listen to you whether he feels empowered or not. He can get empowered as he gets older.
Motives
I can’t help but feel that a lot of the motives attributed to the kids in this article aren’t really correct. They sound like the adults quoted in the articles are just projecting on to the kids.
“They are persistent seekers of justice”
“They are defending each other, defending their families, defending strangers, because they feel so connected to others,”
“Events experienced by this age group, particularly related to racial injustice and equality, like Black Lives Matter, have increased awareness and influenced a commitment to addressing racial inequalities,”
I’m not convinced that giving these kids devices does anything towards making them ferally empathetic. My own experience with my grandnieces and nephews is that they are nearly zombies in front of their ipads. I say hello, and if I’m lucky, I may get them to look up and acknowledge me. They are utterly zoned in on their devices and are losing human connection. Watching videos of teachers talking about the ipad kids is telling me the same thing. Hopefully this isn’t widespread, but as much as Gen Alpha is growing up on devices, they seem severely socially, emotionally, and intellectually retarded, not extra empathetic.
“They may also have an easier time setting boundaries and expressing themselves than previous generations because of their confidence and being raised knowing all feelings are valid (even if all behaviors aren’t).”
One of the things the teachers on these ipad kid videos are saying is that the kids are unresponsive, and if they are “setting boundaries” it’s to tell the authorities in their lives that those authorities “can’t tell them what to do, cuz, you aren’t my mom!”
I suppose you can spin that kind of disobedience as “setting boundaries and expressing themselves” and having “confidence” and “knowing their feelings are valid”… but in reality, it also makes for completely self-absorbed humans who won’t learn or cooperate.
The article does acknowledge this, in much nicer terms than I did. The trick in child-raising is to find what junior is good at, and teach him to use those strengths for the good, while mitigating the bad effects. Because just about any trait we have will have both good and bad usages.