There is no doubt that as the children grow, they have more disputes with their parents. While, some part of society believes these conflicts to be dangerous, however, I ponder that certain clashes are important, so that children can present their viewpoint too.
To begin with, the reason why people think such incompatibilities to be a problem is that these disparities build not only a conversation gap, but trust issues also. For instance, scolding and punishing a child for his choice of cloth, friends, and some habits, may result in a situation, where youngsters would prefer to hide the things that parents need to know, which may lead the path towards the danger. In contrast, if parents calmly observe the deeds and presents a logical explanation of those issues while discussing with their children, considering the adolescent's point as well, then the results could be better.
On the flip side, I think there are myriad advantages of these conversations: firstly, the juvenile develops his logical thinking, look about the odds and even, before forming an opinion. To exemplify, a toddler may thoroughly refuse to follow the religious myth being followed by his family, either by doing research or by actively thinking. Secondly, such children may not hesitate to raise their voice against any type of violence in the future. Finally, they have a better future and are more mature in comparison to other children of their age, as they are parented in a way in which they analyse before reacting.
In conclusion, I wrap it all by saying, although there is a minute risk of loosing connection with the offspring in the arguments, but if they are allowed to think and form their own views, then it could bring good results.
There is no doubt that as the
children
grow, they have more disputes with their parents. While,
some
part of society believes these conflicts to be
dangerous
,
however
, I ponder that certain clashes are
important
,
so
that
children
can present their viewpoint too.
To
begin
with, the reason why
people
think
such incompatibilities to be a problem is that these disparities build not
only
a conversation gap,
but
trust issues
also
.
For instance
, scolding and punishing a child for his choice of cloth, friends, and
some
habits, may result in a situation, where youngsters would prefer to
hide
the things that parents need to know
, which
may lead the path towards the
danger
.
In contrast
, if parents
calmly
observe the deeds and presents a logical explanation of those issues while discussing with their
children
, considering the adolescent's point
as well
, then the results could be better.
On the flip side, I
think
there are myriad advantages of these conversations:
firstly
, the juvenile develops his logical thinking, look about the odds and even,
before
forming an opinion. To exemplify, a toddler may
thoroughly
refuse to follow the religious myth
being followed
by his family, either by doing research or by
actively
thinking.
Secondly
, such
children
may not hesitate to raise their voice against any type of violence in the future.
Finally
, they have a better future and are more mature
in comparison
to other
children
of their age, as they
are parented
in a way in which they
analyse
before
reacting.
In conclusion
, I wrap it all by saying, although there is a minute
risk
of loosing connection with the offspring in the arguments,
but
if they are
allowed
to
think
and form their
own
views, then it could bring
good
results.