Mat Lajak Phenomenon And Parenting Challenges

Challenges faced by parents in controlling children’s behavior

Family is a social unit of two or more people, who are connected through blood, adoption or marriage related relations and shares a mutual commitment to achieve a safe and secure life. The function of the family institution is to protect each other and enlighten each other’s views to move forward in life.

The family structure is an important aspect to develop the children mindset and thinking ability. According to the Syariah Judiciary Department of Malaysia (JKSM), there is a divorce occurs in every 10 minutes and this higher rate of divorce determined the weaker and broken family structure that shapes the mindset of children towards destructive and negative mindset (Zellweger et al., 2012). The families are unable to understand the target behaviors prior to apply interventions to change their behavior. Therefore, the biggest challenge for parents nowadays is their helpless attitude towards children’s tantrums and refusals. Further, by fulfilling the children’s maximum of the unnecessary demands, parents are triggering antecedents or behaviors that leads to negative attitudes within children (Brodzinsky & Pinderhughes, 2013). For example in the news article, it has been mentioned that children are using modified bicycles for their stunts that are endangering them as well as other passerby on the road. Further, the social structure of family has become weaker to manifest values and positive thinking within a children’s personality, or observe his or her characteristic transitions, hence, in the lack of string guidance, the children are committing such dangerous actions. Furthermore, maximum of the parents nowadays are refraining themselves from punishing their children despite of heir serious mistakes. According to, which is an important aspect to develop a child’s personality. Hence, in the lack of punishment, children are not being able to differentiate between right and wrong actions that can affect themselves and the society around them (Blair & Raver, 2012). Therefore, according to me, families are biggest contributors to shape the characteristic and mindset of children and they are again responsible for developing negative aspects in their personality by not punishing their critical mistakes and fulfilling each and every unnecessary demands. Secondly, due to their own relationship related issues, children’s have to face major emotional shocks and hence, they become resistant to normal social behavior. Thirdly, they are not been able to provide basic needs of children that creates a situation of social alienation (Zellweger et al., 2012).

Therefore, as the above sections, parents are the ones who shapes the personality and behavior of the children and hence, they are responsible for the negative and destructive attitudes of their children.

Different parenting styles

Parenting is the most important duty in the world as through this duty, parents shape the future of the nation, generation and the world. Therefore, while proving care and affection to their children they should invest few values and morals within the characteristic of the child.

The first parenting style, Authoritarian is characterized by high demands from children and delivering low care and nurturance to them with harsh punishment to smaller mistakes. This parenting style is little restrictive however allows independence to some extent. Parents limit the behavior of their children and expect that their children are by nature string and self-indulged further they will be able to maintain obedience and values throughout their life. Hence due to high expectation, the children become rebellions to normal social values.

The second parenting style is the authoritative parenting style and this is based on the philosophy of higher responsiveness towards the achievement of reasonable demands. The parents in this parenting style expect a lot from their children, however they provide them independence and provide them support to fulfill their needs. They help them to achieve their targets and uses positive disciplines instead of punishment and forceful measures to control the negative or unnecessary behavior of children. They constantly creates boundaries so that attitude of the children can be controlled and behaviors can be limited (Piko & Balázs, 2012).

The third technique is permissive in which parents did not expect anything from the child however, provides him or her with each of the luxury and materialistic helps that the children becomes addictive to those. Further, they do not control their attitude and behavior therefore, they become full of negative and destructive characteristics. These parents are loving and caring, but do not punish their children on their faults or mistakes hence this abandon independence shape their future and behavior negatively.

Finally the fourth parenting technique is Neglective and in this technique parents are least involved in the proper care and development of children’s behavior. Therefore, the children did not understand the difference between the positive and negative aspects of his or her own behavior and practice each and everything they acquire from the society.

Hence, as a parent, I would choose one of these parenting styles while dealing with the situation mentioned in task 1. If I was a parent using the authoritarian parenting style, I would have punished my child for each of the mistake and would expected that he or she will not make the mistake again. Further, as the parent of authoritative parenting style, I would have provided enough space to my child to understand his or her own behavior, however I would have limited his or her behavior. Further, on serious or punishable mistakes, I would have provided strict punishment so that such mistake did not occur again. Finally, as the parent of permissive and neglective parenting style I would have provided opportunity to my children to commit mistakes.

Impact of weak family structure on children’s behavior

Creativity in children is defined as the ability to think differently in any sense that differs that child from others. This creative thinking can be in any sense, from singing, to paining and dancing. Hence, creative behavior in children is the special aspect of personality that separates that child from the pool of other children.

Mat lajaks are children that modified their bicycles and performs deadly stunts on the roads of Malaysia. Hence, it can be said that they are creative enough to be able to modify their cycles and reassemble them in a way that let them opportunity to perform those deadly stunts. However, according to Damianakis & Woodford (2012), creativity is a positive word, that defines any action which is positive for human kind, whereas in this case, the mat lajaks are modifying their cycles to perform deadly stunts which is destructive for themselves as well as the entire society as their such behavior is influencing for other children, On The other hand, those children are influencing most of the children around them to perform such actions. Thirdly, mat lajaks, instead of several warnings from the society, their parents and the police force, did not refrain themselves from doing such deadly stunts (Simonton, 2013). hence, it can be said that due to their parents permissive, and neglective parenting style, the children has lost their fear to system and social norms, their determination power to differentiate between positive and negative behavior hence, mentioning their such attitude and behavior as creativity would be an injustice to other talented and creative kids in the society. Hence, I will not mention their behavior as creativity.

Therefore, in conclusion it can be said that creativity is associated with positive and beneficial traits of kids, however Mat lajaks are creating threats within the society. Hence, they can be designated as creative youngsters.

References

Baranowski, T., O’connor, T., Hughes, S., Sleddens, E., Beltran, A., Frankel, L., … & Baranowski, J. (2013). Houston… We have a problem! Measurement of parenting.

Blair, C., & Raver, C. C. (2012). Child development in the context of adversity: experiential canalization of brain and behavior. American Psychologist, 67(4), 309.

Brodzinsky, D. M., & Pinderhughes, E. (2013). Parenting and child development in adoptive families. Handbook of parenting, 1, 279-312.

Calafat, A., García, F., Juan, M., Becoña, E., & Fernández-Hermida, J. R. (2014). Which parenting style is more protective against adolescent substance use? Evidence within the European context. Drug & Alcohol Dependence, 138, 185-192.

Chrisman, J. J., Chua, J. H., Pearson, A. W., & Barnett, T. (2012). Family involvement, family influence, and family?centered non?economic goals in small firms. Entrepreneurship theory and practice, 36(2), 267-293.

Damianakis, T., & Woodford, M. R. (2012). Qualitative research with small connected communities: Generating new knowledge while upholding research ethics. Qualitative health research, 22(5), 708-718.

Ishak, Z., Low, S. F., & Lau, P. L. (2012). Parenting style as a moderator for students’ academic achievement. Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 487-493.

Piko, B. F., & Balázs, M. Á. (2012). Authoritative parenting style and adolescent smoking and drinking. Addictive behaviors, 37(3), 353-356.

Runco, M. A., & Jaeger, G. J. (2012). The standard definition of creativity. Creativity Research Journal, 24(1), 92-96.

Simonton, D. K. (2013). Creative thought as blind variation and selective retention: Why creativity is inversely related to sightedness. Journal of Theoretical and Philosophical Psychology, 33(4), 253.

Zellweger, T. M., Kellermanns, F. W., Chrisman, J. J., & Chua, J. H. (2012). Family control and family firm valuation by family CEOs: The importance of intentions for transgenerational control. Organization Science, 23(3), 851-868.