Children and Mental " Wellness".

I began to see this commercial on tv and it was the first reference I had seen or heard of that coined the phrase " mental wellness" versus " mental illness". Please watch the commercial.

Apparently this is a new campaign targeted at identifying mental health issues in children before they become a major issue in adulthood. I have no issue with the basis of the campaign, and I think it's a great idea. However, treading lightly here, I have a strong disagreement with the portrayal in the commercial.
To me, this is a normal family, discussing a normal situation. Although the husband raised his voice, the argument was brief, and for all we know, when he came home from work that day the issue was forgotten and the family had a wonderful evening. What I did not see, was a violent confrontation, no verbal abuse, no breaking things, no name calling. etc. Things that I would expect to shake to foundation of a child's sense of security, or their "wellness". Is it not odd that the family portrayed has a hard working father, a stay at home mother, and obviously grandparents waiting in the wings for a visit? What about the single parent households on welfare with the drug addicted neglectful mother, and the abusive boyfriend or stepfather? How's that for a mental "wellness" scenario? I'd like to be realistic...children need to be protected, but up to what point? To never have a disagreement in front of your children, imho, gives them a false sense of reality and isn't that damaging to their mental "wellness"? Children should see parents have disagreements, and also see how their parents resolve the problem, or else how do they learn themselves? From their peers? God forbid. Teaching children to deal with conflict should begin in the home by the parents, and to me this campaign took a scenario from most families on the planet and demonized it as damaging to their kids health without offering the end result that perhaps it was resolved after the fact. I'm sure a few will weigh in on this and strongly disagree, and that's fine. I cannot help but compare the world I grew up in, or my parents, compared to now. Children were treated far stricter in days gone by, without being coddled to the point of damaging their self esteem if someone argued in front of them. We grew up tough enough to know it wasn't about us, and shrug it off. Our kids are being put into " protection bubbles" from everything that could possibly damage them in some experts eyes. They cannot build up any kind of immunity to this rough world, if we keep finding ways to protect them from it.

I don't know if I feel ya there. I don't believe that getting pissed so easily and raising one's voice in such a venemous, hissing manner, and slamming the front door in anger is ever warranted in 'day-to-day' family affairs. If we can pretend that the issue was indeed forgotten at the end of the day and the family had a great evening, then it goes to show how flimsy this Dad's emotional character really is - I certainly do not associate with people so obviously unstable. He could have said, "Sorry babe, I have to work and that isn't negotiable, you understand," rather than just defaulting into the beginnings of a low-grade hissy fit.

I remember my folks would go at it in 'arguments' (if you could even call it that) far beyond what is portrayed here, and it did, very much, impact me in school and in other areas. Even this commercial made me especially uneasy, as I just kind of automatically recalled all those gladly forgotten memories of my parents not utilizing the voices of reason and respect for each other.

I see one of the problem's in raising children with a healthy mind as being linked to emotionally based reasoning. Everyone alike has a tendency to let their emotions get the best of them, even to such a degree as forcing various emotional tones in situations that do not warrant it, simply because they are dependent, for lack of a better word, on riding the tide of idle moods and extreme emotional states.
Emotional intelligence is far more important than I.Q., and way, way too often, I see parents emotionally manipulating each other, and their children, and in turn, these children end up with pretty severe psychological issues that aren't easily resolved in the school counselor's office. These kids grow up, and either have to painfully learn a bunch of basic sh*t regarding emotional i.q., self-reflection, and logic that should have been instilled in them in their most formative years; or they give up the good fight and repeat the cycle. Such is the world in which we live.

To have disagreements in a relationship is natural, and we would be fools to always repress our feelings and interests for the sake of maintaining some superficial Brady-Bunch peacefulness in the household. However, and especially in front of children, it is obvious that it would be in the best interest of every party involved in any disagreement, that we keep our emotions in check and under the guidance of reason - for thereby children may truly learn how to responsibly handle disagreements and arguments like civilized humans, which is without recourse to angry bitching and emotional pissing contests.

All the Best, OP

a reply to: AccessDenied

I have seen this commercial lately also. it reminds me of the many Nazi literatures and short films during the late 20's and early 30's where the Hitler Youth and children in general were groomed to report the minutest details within their daily family life. As you pointed out, nothing "special" is happening. Just a normal discussion. The Nazi "commercials" back then showed almost identical "normal scenes" just they focused a bit more on the "literature" that the parents were reading. In essence it is sending the message to the kids: "Don't trust your parents, come to us and we will help..."

I don't have any Youtube link for it. The Nazis made 10's of 1,000's of little films and printed tonnes of such pamphlets and books. Back as a boy I had come about a stash of such saved literature and the films I saw during periods in history research. So if anyone has copies and videos of said material, please post it.

Yet seeing this commercial is "Dejavue" all over again.

a reply to: Guenter

I'm really surprised to see the Godwin's Law phenomenon within the first page of this discussion; you are quick on the draw there, cowboy!
Dude, this commercial does not press kids to rat on their folks - on the other hand, it is asking parents to be mindful of their speech and behavior around their children because kids are delicate and impressionable, such that their behavior is largely a reflection of that seen at home.

a reply to: kissy princess

I have not invoked Godwin's law by pointing out that I have seen the same material with just about 70 years in between. Look as to WHO the sponsor is. Companies Comitted to Kids and look as to WHO are the main sponsors and contributer of said "Non Profit" organization.
It is the same message, the same method of presentation and so forth. Maybe you should read up a bit and explore, (maybe in a museum or similar) how Nazi literature really looked and was worded.

a reply to: AccessDenied

Ha! That little skirmish wouldn't have caused a "mental" problem, unless the child was already hallucinating! It would be an "emotional" difficulty (not mental), that would be very short lived in an otherwise healthy child.

If children weren't stronger than this, we'd all be lunatics by now! Good grief.

An occasional situation like that is not a problem. But if it gets excessive, it does toll on the kids. This issue should actually be addressed by showing a commercial like this to gently remind parents that the kids are paying attention more than they may think. Kids are often more aware of what is going on in their environment than adults are.

a reply to: Guenter

ummm, yes you did. That was one of the most extreme examples of Godwin's law.

You made a bad analogy (here):
1. Some Third Reich propaganda was composed of ads designed to instill fear and conformity among German Citizens.
2. Further, some of this propaganda was designed to persuade German children to believe that loyalty to the state apparatus meant reporting abberations in their parents' behavior that may be indicative of disloyalty to the Nazi Party.
3. Thus, that the commercial above suggests parents be mindful of their behavior around their impressionable children, we must therefore conclude the ad is propaganda with some (neo)Nazi agenda.

I guess it doesn't matter, really - and I do sort of see where you are coming from. I have no reason to believe you are not genuine in your concern here. But what I really would like to ask, suspending all consideration of everything (Nazi's, CCK, etc.), with just a focus on the content of the message: do you agree with the moral focus of the content, or find it disagreeable? If either reason, why?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

You are missing the point: Of course, almost any child could write-off an incident like this without any stress, should these instances be few and far between. However, to identify this behavior as 'every-day' and 'normal' between two parents around a child, is a symptom of mental pathology and low emotional intelligence - if this behavior were to take place regularly in front of children - with no positive resolution to the conflict, then it would most certainly result in some sort of pathology for the child.
These types of repeated scenarios in childhood, are often the 'how' behind, "How did that guy become such an asshole?"
This is basic sh*t, guys.

originally posted by: kissy princess
a reply to: Guenter

ummm, yes you did. That was one of the most extreme examples of Godwin's law.

You made a bad analogy (here):
1. Some Third Reich propaganda was composed of ads designed to instill fear and conformity among German Citizens.
2. Further, some of this propaganda was designed to persuade German children to believe that loyalty to the state apparatus meant reporting abberations in their parents' behavior that may be indicative of disloyalty to the Nazi Party.
3. Thus, that the commercial above suggests parents be mindful of their behavior around their impressionable children, we must therefore conclude the ad is propaganda with some (neo)Nazi agenda.

I guess it doesn't matter, really - and I do sort of see where you are coming from. I have no reason to believe you are not genuine in your concern here. But what I really would like to ask, suspending all consideration of everything (Nazi's, CCK, etc.), with just a focus on the content of the message: do you agree with the moral focus of the content, or find it disagreeable? If either reason, why?

Sure the mental wellness is a concern. And sure what the add says hits the nail on the head. Just where I have a problem with is as to WHO sponsors the adds. If this would be sponsored by the public health department and similar, I have no problem with. But why would McDonald's and similar economic powerhouses be part of this financing such adds for this NGO ? That's why this add triggers in me the dejavue. I am not saying that it has anything to do with NAZI propaganda as in support for NAZIS, but the method and wording is identical! And if corporations finance it, someone gotta make a profit out of it.

a reply to: Guenter

For sure. Many, many times throughout history we have seen sinister motives hidden behind altruistic propaganda. 'Good-guy badges' and such. I'm interested in doing some more research on this CCK and their sponsers. All too often I make an effort to see a conspiracy behind actions such as the commercial above - even when they may in fact truly be honorable and genuine. But I agree that it doesn't seem the part on behalf of these sponsers, unless they are looking to collect some karmic-bownie points or something. When some agency is crying, 'What about the CHILDREN!?!?,' then for me, an alarm goes off and I begin to suspect an ulterior motive. I guess you could say that while I agree with the content the commercial, I am, as you are, suspicious of who is promoting it, and why.

a reply to: kissy princess

That's why I said "Dejavue"

a reply to: kissy princess

Nope. Not missing the point. In no way would that lead to a "mental problem" in an otherwise healthy child. Which room are you sleeping in, at the top of the castle, princess?

That little argument would cause a moment of "emotional discomfort", and would be over as soon as the mother turned around and said "what do want for a snack, honey". If there had been domestic violence involved, of course, that would be another whole issue. But there wasn't. It was a very normal disagreement, in what appears to be a normal household, in front of a child actor who was being coached into looking distressed.

This child has to go into the real world and live. Children need to be prepared. You can't protect them from real life.

You are most certainly making a mountain out of mole hill. In fact, do you work for the people who made this commercial?

a reply to: ladyinwaiting

Lady, I don't act a bitch and behave poorly in front of my children only to then give them a cookie when they become upset. "Eat something sweet and forget about the unresolved negative emotional confrontation that just happened in the kitchen" (now that sounds like a perfect recipe for the fat-chick compulsive binge-eater type with a daddy hang-up). If the example above is commonplace in any household, then it serves to remind anyone with eyes to see that it is just the tip of the ringfinger of the skeleton in the closet. You write that 'children need to be prepared,' yet the attitude you present allows for the most poor preparation of their emotional and mental equipment in their entry into the 'real world.' If you really feel that scenarios such as that are commonplace & everyday occurances in many households, then you are probably right - there is plenty of trash in the world that believes emotional-based reasoning and manipulation to 'get one's way' is somehow superior to being calm and gathered, and guided by assertive reason and rationality. I certainly do not associate with people who do not display some sense of integrity and control over their emotional body, do you? If adults are not the ones to set the example of an intelligent, balanced individual (even though we are all f*cked up in some way), then who is to do so?

a reply to: kissy princess

I see this struck a personal chord with you and I understand your position on the subject. What annoys me is that this is a snippet, which gives no clue to the whole. Even more so, it seems to be portrayed by a middle class family, which if I were truly interested in preventing the mental illness in children, and promoting mental wellness, is not a demographic in which I would focus. The ones most at risk are those living below the poverty line, in a one parent household, where there could be unemployment issues, depression and addiction. Why would they not use that as a scenario, if they were truly interested in what they were campaigning about? Why not reach out to the children that statistics prove need it the most? The commercial itself is misleading imho, and that is where my issue rests.

originally posted by: Guenter
a reply to: kissy princess

I have not invoked Godwin's law by pointing out that I have seen the same material with just about 70 years in between. Look as to WHO the sponsor is. Companies Comitted to Kids and look as to WHO are the main sponsors and contributer of said "Non Profit" organization.
It is the same message, the same method of presentation and so forth. Maybe you should read up a bit and explore, (maybe in a museum or similar) how Nazi literature really looked and was worded.

Thank you for including the Wiki of Companies Committed to Kids. Lots of info and insight there on their true ulterior motives. I read through a list of previous commercial campaigns and I remember some of them and the messages were positive. However, as you pointed out, children's rights are one thing, but there is a fine line in giving them rights that empower them over their parents, and a few of the campaigns somewhat hint at that. It could be easily misconstrued. Quite the contradiction as well that the funding companies all market products towards children that are counter productive to the ad campaign they back.

a reply to: kissy princess

Hm. I think you have changed the dynamics of the scenario into something it isn't. We aren't give any information about this scenario, except what we see. You seem to be over-blowing what we see to make a point, or somehow implying this goes on every day in this family. We don't know that from this scenario. We have to take it at face value.

I'm moving on from this this morning, however, I do feel you are overly exaggerating what we see here. Not sure why these folks have chosen this little glimpse to make such a big deal over. Maybe they also occupy a room in a castle, or I'm not sure what the motivation is. Personally I find it odd, as there is no demonstration of abuse here, or neglect, or any type of emotional or psychological abuse here for that matter. If there was, the remarks would be directed towards the child, and would be demeaning for her in some way. They aren't. I absolutely wish parents wouldn't fight in front of their children. I also wish children would eat their broccoli. In a perfect world, both these things would be true.

I have worked with children for many years, and have advanced degrees to do so. I don't typically say that, nor do I come out on ats as such. But I absolutely know what I'm talking about. I can typically predict by now how most children will behave in a given situation. Not to get off on another tract here, but I have also taught Child Development, among other such related courses at a large university, and have a strong foundation on which to base my opinions.

I can tell ya, if this family was in my office, or the office of any of my colleagues, and we saw this video, the response to the parents would be "you might want to give some thought to arguing outside the child's presence". No, we wouldn't call CPS, wouldn't court order them to counseling. They seem rational, and would likely take the suggestion -- from what we see here, and again, is all we know.

So, whatever you think, you think; and that's fine with me. Maybe I'm just trying to bring you back to Earth a little bit. I'm sure you will make a great parent; I think you will, actually. But the truth is, we don't know from this vid exactly what kind of parents these are. We saw two frustrated parents, and a sad looking child in the room.
Parents become frustrated at times. Children become sad. It doesn't necessarily follow that any of them will be psychologically damaged, or emotionally scarred, or develop a major mental illness, or any of the life changing and devastating consequences you might be imagining. It simply doesn't.

I didn't see a traumatized child in any way whatsoever. If she were to be traumatized, I would be looking for other causation, rather than this one argument between the parents.

ETA: And changing the subject after it's over by offering a snack or something? Yes. That is precisely what you want to do. It lets the child know instantly "that argument is over; it has nothing to do with me; life is back to normal". You don't want to encourage talking it to death, which will only assist in helping to move the event from the short term memory, into the long term memory. If you see it as something to be upset about, then the child will react as you are. You don't want that.

Children react to things typically the way the parents do. If Mom freaks out over this and thinks it the worse thing that could happen, so will the child. If Mom takes in in stride for what it is, so will the child.

Now, if the child was emotionally unstable already, and having a meltdown over the incident, of course you would need to deal with it, with more depth. But we don't see that here.

The DSM-V is all sorts of crazy and wrong. Literally everyone could be technically diagnosed as mentally ill at some point. The fact that they're targeting children is sick. Yeah some kids are nutsy coo-coo--but they are the minority. The majority are normal, weird, kids. It's ok to be weird when you're little. You're little. Now, as long as 'weird' isn't homicidal tendencies, self-injurious behavior, or intentionally violent and destructive behavior that is over the top, then I'm not seeing the dilemma. Kids grow out of things. There are no studies looking at what the effects of antipsychotics and things like that have on kids at all in the long term. Plenty of childrens' lives have already been ruined by misdiagnosis and overmedication to the point where they live with physical disability and are permanently brain damaged.

Now, taking your kids to therapy--fine. But medicating them when other, better long-term options are available should be criminal. Not all psychs are going along with this, but plenty are--so find those who use their brain a bit and who have some integrity.

For instance--I honestly don't think that a kid can be bipolar to the point of needing hardcore meds. tho ik Everyone's different. But there's a big chance that They might learn to cope with their emotions before adulthood without needing medication.

Therefore, since over-medicating kids makes no RATIONAL sense, it must make MONETARY sense. And, indeed it does.


Parents need to take responsibility and be parents--not friends--spending time with your kids, not being lazy with their upbringing, teaching them values and ethics...giving them supervision...all of these things would do much avert so-called mental illness in children.