To say that the next generation is primarily screwed in terms of resilience

Yes, some people in previous generations did suffer, but the fact is in many cases they did get on with things like work.

Because they had to. Because everyone needs to support themselves.

Now there is this idea that struggling means other people must support you somehow, or you should be given an easier time, extra time on assignments, say, or your teacher or professor can't ask you a question in class. The things the other students all have to do.

The thing is, society can't support that many people who can't work because of their feelings, and it's not fair to other students and job seekers when they are passed over because they don't need extra accommodation.

I really wonder how it is all these younger people got the idea that having a hard time means they don't have to work or perform to the standard expected of others.

We had no freedom of clothes or hairstyle when I was at school either, somehow we managed. How have things changed in that way?

I don't live in the UK, but I do gather from MN posts that the school system there is very much results based, whereas here I believe children are allowed to be children for longer. I also agree that social media plays a big part in these problems, but as I see so many young kids on screens a lot of the time surely it is up to their parents to try and get them involved in other activities and away from SM at a young age, People can't just sit back and blame social media and yet not do anything about it. There does seem to be a lot of ineffectual parenting.

I've worked with children and young adults for the last 20 years. IME a large part of the issue is that parenting has changed. Resilience isn't something you just have or don't, children will look to adults to model healthy ways of coping with adversity.

My colleagues and I are seeing an increasing number of parents who are extremely resistant to their child experiencing any level of stress, discomfort or disappointment. Parents who describe themselves as being "devestated", "heartbroken" or "distraught" because their child has fallen out with their best mate, missed out on an award or been dumped by their first boyfriend/girlfriend. They see it as their job to swoop in and solve all their child's problems, to remove any obstacles, to make their lives as easy and stress free as humanly possible and often expect schools to do the same. On one level I get it, none of us want our kids to suffer. But these kids are not developing the problem-solving, conflict resolution or emotional regulation skills they need to cope with adult life.

We are also seeing a huge increase in parents who don't just let their child have a say, they let them have the final say in all things. So many parents who are scared to say 'no', who want to be their child's friend first and foremost, even if that means allowing their child to treat them like shit. Children have rights too and they should be given choices where possible, but ultimately the adults should be in charge and they simply aren't in many of the families I come across now. This dynamic is so much more common than it was 10 years ago and it ultimately does the child a disservice as they expect the world to bend to their will and can't cope when it doesn't.

Yep - going quite a stretch further, it's related to the old-fashioned term "character building". Like some adults of yore (hello, Dad, you bastard!) I'm sure there are people nowadays using it as a gloss to excuse bullying young people.

That doesn't invalidate either concept. Resilience is a far more accurate term for life skills including coping, picking your battles, problem solving, learning from failure, adaptability, and so on.

I might have to agree with you @Namechangechangeobv

Resilience is a useful word, meaning to bounce back from whatever. Man Up is a tough it out trope. There's not really much overlap. Both can be useful, but it's very divisive.

The other day my colleague told me he hates the word resilience. He thinks it’s been used to replace the term ‘man up’. An interesting concept I thought…

It's always a debatable point but today I have a new slant on it. DH runs a small business and one of the senior people came in today worried about a teenage (17) son invited to stay over with the lass he's been dating for several months (at her parents' home and invitation). The father and mother are both worrying themselves sick that the girl aims to get pregnant. IMHO, our employee is bonkers. The lass is 17 too, it's clearly consensual and her parents are making them a safe space to do what they have probably done already. There's approval from the girl's parents, and AFAIK, both teens are on track for university. I don't understand this.

You can’t speak for them. Our parents did grow up then and have said many times they wouldn’t want to be a teen now or have the childhood their grandchildren have. I grew up in the 70s and 80s and it was positively idyllic in comparison to now. I’d have found being a teen now far harder and would hate it.

I mean in the 70s

We always had a phone fortunately.

I'm not saying those things won't need therapy at all. But unless the primary causes are addressed, then the number of young people needing to access it will grow into an ever more enormous tsunami.

It depends though doesn’t it as to what is causing the ill health. Illness caused by online abuse, grooming, horrific intrusive bullying, EDs, self harm etc as a result of society today will often need therapy. It’s hugely prevalent and actually we should be protecting kids from all the above if we don’t want to shell out for therapy after. Then there is the fall out from the horrendous pressures in schools that is nothing like it was in the 70s or 80s. We need to examine that too…. And so it goes on. Life is very different for teens than it was for previous generations and we need to recognise that.

Anyone linked to this article in today's Times yet? https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gen-z-need-life-lessons-more-than-therapy-c6xlp5pxx Sorry - it's behind a paywall.

It's kind of the point I was trying to make. We can't just expect therapy and mental health provision to fix them. It would be like the NHS itself - a bottomless pit which needed more and more money which would never be enough, rather than tackling the root causes of ill health.

@mimblewimble when I was young, which was in the seventies, most homes did not have a phone. If you were ill the teacher would get a fellow pupil to walk you home. There was no way to directly contact your mum.
My older relatives are about the same age as that woman. None of them thought the forties was a kind time for children. There was a major war with some children being bombed in Britain. My gran hated being evacuated.
I think you have to understand the context.
Imagine if most healthy and fit men were fighting a war abroad and cities in Britain were being bombed regularly. Adults would be stressed and anxious and would not be the best parents they could be. My great Aunts family were bombed out of their house and they moved with their three children into my fathers already overcrowded home.
Most children growing up then would rather grow up today instead.

I think there is value in learning to pick yourself up and power through adversity, if you can. There is also value in understanding your feelings and not putting yourself into unmanageable situations in the service of powering through. I suppose what we're not necessarily great at is knowing which is which.

From children's own point of view though, facing some discomfort, difficulty and stress and learning to manage a reasonable amount without exceeding the individual's coping ability in order to stretch it a bit seems like a good thing. No matter what your parents think and want, you can't have a happy life with most of the things people want to achieve for themselves without some disappointment, hurt and set backs.

I was like that at school. Have always been upfront in performances on lead roles (I eventually was in a covers band’s for 7 years before I had DC).
Realised last year through DC, that I’ve lived with adhd all my life and didn’t know. At least I think it’s just adhd. It’s makes a hell of a lot of sense.
I’ve done Right To Choose for a diagnosis as the adult mental health team stoped taking referrals just before I applied through my GP and I need to have this diagnosis sooner than later. I’m 46.

Yes she genuinely exists, she's in her 90s, an amazing woman still with her wits very much about her.

I am not sure why people are questioning whether her household had a phone - presumably the school would have had some way to contact the family in an emergency, I didn't ask her about those details as it didn't really seem relevant.

I just thought it was an interesting perspective, I'd expected her to say young people are too mollycoddled. 🤷🏻

Where we are from in rural Ireland the local publican had a phone and if there was an emergency (like when my granny’s father died) people would ring the pub to pass on the message.

My late dad was born in 1922 and he went to a secondary school and had to do an exam ( a bit like an 11plus) in order to stay on past age 14.
My late mum was born in 1925 and left at 14 and went to work.
I think ( but not sure ) that schools had their own rules back then , but I'm not entirely sure what the citiria was around education and in 1939 it all changed anyway ( especially with children being evacuated and so on)

If you think the pandemic was disruptive to children, think what the second world war was like. This elderly woman will probably have had her father, Uncles and other male relatives sent away to fight, and some will have died and/or been seriously injured. Rationing was in place. Some cities were regularly bombed and families spent many nights in air raid shelters. I know some schools like my fathers did not have enough teachers so school was only in the morning or the afternoon. It was a difficult time and the teachers in secondary schools will have been those not fit enough to serve, and thus often with their own physical or mental issues. Classes routinely had up to 60 pupils. So no it would not have been as kind a place for anxious children as now. How could it be?

An elderly customer recently told me that 80 years ago, when she was in secondary school

My Dad just turned 80 - he was in secondary in 1950s and was born just before second world war end.

So this woman to be in secondary 80 years ago would be at least 91 and would have been born 1930s in secondary school during 40's - a period of national disruption I'm sure we'd all agree.

Landline phones were not common in uk homes in the 1940s , maybe for very wealthy people , but ordinary folk had nothing. Not sure about pay phones for public use , they might have existed , but I can't imagine there were loads around.
A few businesses might have had one , but you had to go through a switchboard for many numbers.

The historical knowledge of even fairly recent times is very poor amongst younger adults.
Schools after the second world war, especially secondary schools, were desperate for teachers. Teaching was still very divided by sex with women teaching English and men Science. But a lot of men were killed during the second world war.
My parents who attended school in the forties and fifties said as a result of the teacher shortage they brough teachers out of retirement who were not up to it, and had teachers who had served and behaved like sergeant majors or were still partially shell shocked and mentally not up to teaching.
They said there were some great teachers as well, but the teacher shortage meant there were teachers who should not have been teaching and would not be allowed to these days.