How can any parent do this?

Lou67

ThumbRemote wrote: »

Top stereotyping. Well done.

And am I wrong? No.

Despite what you would like to tell yourself, I did NOT say, that every family that is like the type I mention is going to neglect or abuse their children; simply that when this kind of thing happens; it's almost always 'that' kind of family. So you come down off your politically correct soap box.

My post never said that people who live on sink estates and have kids with - in my opinion - daft names, are going to automatically be rubbish parents. It said that the kind of mothers/families who DO neglect their children, almost always come from this kind of environment. I know exactly what I said and what I meant. I can't help it if people don't read my posts correctly. (Or DO read them, but twist the words to suit their own agenda.)

But I stand by what I say, and agree with ruthnjasper that the kids who are more likely to be on the GCSE fail list, are more likely to have 'chav' names like Harmony, Jayde, Chantelle, Tyler, Ashleigh, Shaznay, Destiny, Rio, etc etc, or be part of this daft trend for giving surnames for Christian names (Jackson, Riley, Harvey, Bentley, Forrest, Lincoln) and other similar names.

The school my daughter went to had the kids with these kind of names in the bottom sets and failing their CGSEs, and the more academic ones were called Elizabeth, Sarah, Rebecca, Emma, Charlotte, James, Christopher, Harry.

People with their PC hat on, who call anyone who dares say this kind of thing (or agree with it,) a right-wing bigoted Daily Mail reader, can rant all they like about how much of a sweeping generalisation it is, but deep down, they know, in most cases, it's true. And as I said I stand by what I said, that children who are badly treated and neglected, and get bitten by dangerous dogs, etc etc, are almost always from 'this' kind of family. But I did NOT say that this kind of family will automatically always abuse and neglect their children.

ps.. Re; the name Xander. I know of a couple of families like the type I mention who have boys with this name, so to me it *is* one of those chav names. I guess it's a matter of personal opinion.

Leo2020

But the problem is some people do take stereo typing more seriously - they really do think everyone from a certain housing estate or parents with kids with certain names are the type to get drunk all day and let their kids run riot.

Some people think where I live is rough, some people in the city I live in think if your driving through the area you should keep your car doors locked. It's not that bad, but it isn't great either. You get some good and bad people in any area.

My name (my real one anyway) is not a common name so I wanted something a bit different for my child. It would have felt strange to call him something like John, William, or Christoper.

@PILES - No not short for Alexander.

I went to school with a kid called Gemma, she was very bright but got herself pregnant at 15. She could have easily gone to uni but instead end up having a couple of more kids and living in a council house.

Me with my "weird" name went to college and got a HND.

@Lou67 I wonder if the reason the kids with names like you suggest fail (if that is true) is because people think their are dumb and or a chav or whatever and are made to think they can't achieve. They live up to the stereotype because they're are treated negatively? It's not the child fault they got given a "chav" name but I imagine some people will look down on them because of the choice their parents made.

Maestro.

The daily mail obviously loves this story as it involves a same sex couple.

ThumbRemote

Lou67 wrote: »

And am I wrong? No.

Despite what you would like to tell yourself, I did NOT say, that every family that is like the type I mention is going to neglect or abuse their children; simply that when this kind of thing happens; it's almost always 'that' kind of family. So you come down off your politically correct soap box.

My post never said that people who live on sink estates and have kids with - in my opinion - daft names, are going to automatically be rubbish parents. It said that the kind of mothers/families who DO neglect their children, almost always come from this kind of environment. I know exactly what I said and what I meant. I can't help it if people don't read my posts correctly. (Or DO read them, but twist the words to suit their own agenda.)

But I stand by what I say, and agree with ruthnjasper that the kids who are more likely to be on the GCSE fail list, are more likely to have 'chav' names like Harmony, Jayde, Chantelle, Tyler, Ashleigh, Shaznay, Destiny, Rio, etc etc, or be part of this daft trend for giving surnames for Christian names (Jackson, Riley, Harvey, Bentley, Forrest, Lincoln) and other similar names.

The school my daughter went to had the kids with these kind of names in the bottom sets and failing their CGSEs, and the more academic ones were called Elizabeth, Sarah, Rebecca, Emma, Charlotte, James, Christopher, Harry.

People with their PC hat on, who call anyone who dares say this kind of thing (or agree with it,) a right-wing bigoted Daily Mail reader, can rant all they like about how much of a sweeping generalisation it is, but deep down, they know, in most cases, it's true. And as I said I stand by what I said, that children who are badly treated and neglected, and get bitten by dangerous dogs, etc etc, are almost always from 'this' kind of family. But I did NOT say that this kind of family will automatically always abuse and neglect their children.

ps.. Re; the name Xander. I know of a couple of families like the type I mention who have boys with this name, so to me it *is* one of those chav names. I guess it's a matter of personal opinion.

So you write a post to rebut the suggestion you were stereotyping, and then go on to stereotype 'this kind of family' once again.

seven-day-weekend

sweetstudent wrote: »

I live close to that are as well and the strange thing is she only got jailed for 2.5 years.....it does make me wonder how soft a country we actually are and that the criminals HR mean more to our judicial system that the victims themselves

I too live close to there.

I believe she had post-natal psychosis, a severe mental illness, and that's why she only got 2.5 years.


http://www.expressandstar.com/news/crime/2013/06/21/wolverhampton-rubbish-chute-baby-mother-cleared-of-attempted-murder/

RuthnJasper

Leo2020 wrote: »

But the problem is some people do take stereo typing more seriously - they really do think everyone from a certain housing estate or parents with kids with certain names are the type to get drunk all day and let their kids run riot.

Some people think where I live is rough, some people in the city I live in think if your driving through the area you should keep your car doors locked. It's not that bad, but it isn't great either. You get some good and bad people in any area.

My name (my real one anyway) is not a common name so I wanted something a bit different for my child. It would have felt strange to call him something like John, William, or Christoper.

@PILES - No not short for Alexander.

I went to school with a kid called Gemma, she was very bright but got herself pregnant at 15. She could have easily gone to uni but instead end up having a couple of more kids and living in a council house.

Me with my "weird" name went to college and got a HND.

@Lou67 I wonder if the reason the kids with names like you suggest fail (if that is true) is because people think their are dumb and or a chav or whatever and are made to think they can't achieve. They live up to the stereotype because they're are treated negatively? It's not the child fault they got given a "chav" name but I imagine some people will look down on them because of the choice their parents made.

I really like the name Leo. It's Latin for "lion" so it's a good, strong name to have. Bit mean of your parents to tack the 2020 on the end though...

I think that your last point to Lou is largely true. Children (whether rightly or wrongly) ARE judged by their names, which is why some parents need to give a bit more consideration to their child's future, rather than going for something "classy". One of my cousins has named his children bizarrely in the extreme (my granny was quite upset). I remember thinking when I first heard it that if the poor boy grows up to want to train to be a doctor or a barrister he's going to have to write that on his application form (it's a girl's name - and NOT one of those that can be used for both genders, like Hilary, Leslie or Frances).

That said, this not a recent thing. My dad went to school (in the 60s) with a girl called Hazel Nutt. And I used to work in a very exclusive private school, where one poor lad had the burden of "Wurlitzer" as his name.

Leo is a great name though. x

PILES

ThumbRemote wrote: »

So you write a post to rebut the suggestion you were stereotyping, and then go on to stereotype 'this kind of family' once again.

As you seem to be more interested in debating stereotyping rather than the death of this poor child: from someone far wiser than me, "no one can be faulted for forming opinions and extrapolating subjective truths from the patterns they observe". Its what we all do, even scientists, its how they formulate theories. Many get debunked later obviously but thats the process matey boy.

Lou67

ThumbRemote wrote: »

So you write a post to rebut the suggestion you were stereotyping, and then go on to stereotype 'this kind of family' once again.

I did not REBUT anything I said. Only in your imagination. I said I stand by everything I said. Yes I stereotyped: so what? Much of what I said is true; just because you don't like what I say, does not make it wrong.

I shall repeat what I said, and hopefully you will 'get' it this time. This type of person/family' don't NECESSARILY neglect their children, but if a child IS neglected or badly treated, it is usually from THAT kind of family. It almost always is. Call it 'stereotyping' if it makes you feel better about yourself, but I frankly could not care less what you think.

I don't go back on what I say, and I suggest you read posts thoroughly, before you comment on them, because I am not going to repeat myself again, because you fail to read posts properly, and make things up that are not there, to satisfy your own agenda.

Timalay

sweetstudent wrote: »

I can think of worse things that should happen to them!

At least it would stop them producing more kids whenever they feel like it.

ThumbRemote

Lou67 wrote: »

I shall repeat what I said, and hopefully you will 'get' it this time. This type of person/family' don't NECESSARILY neglect their children, but if a child IS neglected or badly treated, it is usually from THAT kind of family. It almost always is. Call it 'stereotyping' if it makes you feel better about yourself, but I frankly could not care less what you think.

Please clarify for me. On what evidence do you base your claim that it is "usually from THAT kind of family"?

Or by "THAT" do you simply mean "the kind of family that abuses children"?