Spoiled kids
 

:eek:

maybe.

who can judge "most" spoiled? She appears spoiled "enough". Ugh.

I wonder if they are spending any time teaching her HOW to achieve that for herself.

450 pounds for a pair of ghastly shoes? That you can't even run away in?

Never.

I like to be comfortable and I like pink and sparkly as much as the next person but this sort of consumption is obscene. And it's certainly not particular to the UK. I think the US invented the middle-class princess. It started with the damned Princess phone!

One of which, a pink one, my neighbor had and I covet to this day.

:)

The parents can spend their money how they want to - but it's just such a terrible lesson.

honestly if you have money you should spoil your kids: after school activities to develop various skills, tutors, better universities and less need for student loans, hell my father had a time share business and took us all over the world every business trip. not to mention there are much better investments for their security then life insurance. and ofcourse if you get to invest in your house basement or outdoor pool or whatnot, and make your child the main host of his or her friends, at least you know where they are partying and hanging out. there are a lot of good things you can do for your child with money.

but this is... i don't get it.

Traceur's recommendations are not, IMHO, spoiling.

You don't spoil kids by giving them opportunities, education and experiences, or even possessions. You spoil kids by not teaching them right from wrong, by training them to expect everything to be given to them without effort or sacrifice on their part.

Depends on how you define 'spoiling'.

For example, we sometimes joke that its Mum's right as a grandma to 'spoil' the girls when she sees them. In otherwords, when she buys in sweets and treats, or goes a bit overboard on their Christmas presents. That is 'spoiling' them.

In an advert for Ferrero Rocher, at a supposed ambassadorial party, a beautiful woman croons 'Oh, monsieur Ambassador, with these Ferrero Rocher, you are spoiling us.'.

Spending on kids, giving them nice things, making their passage through life easier, or more fulfilled, is often referred to as 'spoiling' but in a good way. It has both positive and negative connotations in the way it is used, even though the original meaning was entirely negative.

But if we refer to a 'spoilt' child it is almost always negative... except when it's not...

well i define spoiling as rewarding honestly. but i have to admit that with my expriences limited to a 3-5 years old, i could pretty much get away with presenting anything as reward by shouting & chanting it excitedly, a.k.a. "let's do letters!" or "we want cucambers!"...

i can see how that might stop working at some point.

For me, it's about expectations.

Obviously you should give a child what they need. And if you give them stuff that will improve their prospects in the future, then that's great too. None of that is spoiling.

You can even give a kid what they want, but don't need. But if you do it so often that they come to EXPECT to always get what they want, well, then you have spoiled them.

The amount of children in my class who got various unnecessary electrical gadgets for Christmas was staggering.

It seems like 75% of the class now have iPods. WHY?!
They are 5-7 years old.

I'm not saying every child is spoiled, I just think it's daft.

I you freeze kids, they won't spoil.

I'm with Glatt. It's about expectations. Some kids in our neighborhood expect to have the latest clothes from the trendiest stores. That's bad enough. What's worse is that some expect their parents to bail them out of any trouble no matter how bad they've been.