2007 EXAM
ADVICE? POINTERS? TNX =D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The issue of how to raise in today's society and the role that parents play in that upbringing has been met with some debate. Is it more beneficial for parents to allow the children to develop by themselves and learn from their mistakes or is it better for parents to protect their children from harm's way so that they may grow up safely and securely? In two opinion pieces published in the Daily News newspaper, two opposing views on the issue are presented. The first is written by Jane Brown, a retired principal, who uses her professional experience to assist her in convincing readers that "overprotective parents stifle growth". In an authoritative and compelling tone, she contends that it is necessary for parents to 'step-back' from protecting their children in order to allow them to develop sufficiently, or else their children's personalities and behaviour will be adversely affected by the time they are adults. On the other hand, Jack Lee, a father, argues quite the opposite. He believes that it is absolutely crucial for parents to protect their children from the dangers of the world and he attempts to position readers to hold the same view as him with his fearful tone and sensational language. Both pieces are targeted at Australian parents and aim to alter the way in which the readers parent their children.
Jane Brown commences her opinion piece with language designed to elicit a sense of fear from the readers. She details the terrible repercussions that shall eventuate if parents continue "mollycoddling" their children. By attributing a number of unpleasant characteristics to teenagers who are supposedly "overprotected" such as "unable to cope with future challenges", "lonely", and "isolated", readers are made to feel that if they themselves overprotect their children, their kids will grow up to be detached and unproductive members of society. The reader, not wanting this to occur, may now be open to the author's suggested laissez-faire approach to parenting, on account of the fear that their children will not grow up to be "resilient adults".
In order to show the extent to which parents are going to protect and service the needs of their children, the writer mockingly describes cases were parents have "blindly search[ed] for their child's lost jumper" and even "complet[ed] their children's homework". In doing so, the author makes the parents reading the article reflect on their own actions that they have done for their children, and compels them to see the errors of their way. This is enhanced by the writers use of adverbs such as "blindly" and "obediently" which imply that parents are acting subserviently to their children's demands, and without hesitation.
Brown gains some credibility for her argument not only from her professional experience as a principal, but also through her use of evidence from studies. Her reference to the "Children's Society", which she claims holds the same view as her, provides integrity to Brown's argument and presents her as informed on the issue. The readers are likely to side with her point of view as she is seen to have a substantial basis for her argument which she hyperbolically refers to as "a mountain of evidence".
Adopting a more concerned and emotive point of view, Jack Lee argues that parents must shelter and shield their children from the plethora of danger in the world if they want them to develop safely and securely. Jack emphasizes the risk of harm coming to children through his use of fearful language designed to provoke reader alarm. By referring to a world full of "carnage" and "tradgedy", the writer attempts to a elicit a sense of fear in the reader and prompts parents to feel that they must be more protective of their children. By admitting that world itself "terrifies" him, Lee stresses to readers the extent of danger in the world, given that a grown man is made fearful.
Where Brown believes it is crucial for parents to allow children to "make mistakes", Lee holds the belief that parents must protect their children from everyday hazards such as the Internet. By referencing the Internet, which the writer describes as a "danger", Lee stirs connotations that are associated with the Internet in the reader's mind, such as pornography, pedophilia and "adult themes". The readers are reminded of the everyday possible threats to their children, and are thus compelled to be more protective in the way the parent their kids.
On the opinion page of this newspaper, this is a large black and white image of a young boy curled up in a fetal position in a box of cotton wool. The boy has a grim expression on his face and his folded up arms suggest that he is frightened. This image no doubt supports Brown's argument - that by "wrapping our children in cotton wool", society is creating a generation of defenceless sooks. The box acts as a hyperbolic example of parental overprotection and the effect this has on children is expressed through the deportment of the boy.
In Brown's opinion piece, the retired principal attempts to alarm and arouse fear in parents by describing how their children may develop to become "incapable beings". She uses evidence and her title as a "retired principal" positions readers to see her as an authorative figure on the issue and holding a credible point of view. Driven by a much deeper emotional conviction, Lee instead focuses on his own personal experience as a father and dangers he sees as a threat to children, and how this warrants further protection from parents.
Home
Help
Search
Login
