"Where is this unhappiness coming from?" Where all unhappiness comes from, inside each individual. Our unhappiness arises from our failure to understand the nature of reality - impermanent, changing, no solidity, nothing to cling to, no self. We react to stimuli at our sense doors with liking and disliking, which turns into craving and aversion.

Our perception of a contact at a sense door (eyes, ears etc) is always accompanied by a sensation on the body. We evaluate these sensations - good, bad, neutral - and react to them. The only way to be truly happy is to break this habit of reaction, by observing the sensations with detachment, without reaction, and understanding their changing nature.

Trying to create happiness through regulating the external stimuli, whatever they are, is futile.

…The author failed to consider the growing inequality in Australia, as a root cause of childhood unhappiness: When half Australians own 1.5% of the total wealth, which deems the majority of Australians as poor. Marriage and family relationships have become less permanent. Job security is “dead in the water”, increased, as permanent employment has declined. Australians, through inequality, have less cause (and ability) to establish permanent homes, and now join the majority in the diminishing dream of home ownership.

…Australians grow closer to the “revolutionary critical mass” powered by economic and social inequality. This is the “Australia” in which a majority of children dwell; an Australia which “excludes” as a principal of Capitalism, where corporate profits and corporate health dominate the political agenda; where happiness and welfare of society and its children, is subservient.

mums and dads failure to keep their word to each other is a major source of misery. No amount of monetary bribery can compensate for a lack of loving dad and mum at home.

Yes.

My kids have all that they need, especially love.

Thanks for alerting us to the prevalence of unhappiness. I agree that there is no happiness where materialism prevails. Jesus is a part of the 'friendly Trinity of love' and I'm happy to be a part of his body, the Church, the way of joy.

I did a search on the article for the words "divorce" and "separation". It came up negative. There is no other common cause that causes so much trauma and unhappiness in children than their separation from a parent yet the author doesn't mention it. Obviously it is to too politically incorrect to associate family breakdown with unhappiness in children. She talks about lifestyles. She mentions obesity. Fathers are the parents more likely to engage with them in physical activities.

I think the author of the article is incompetent.

"I agree that there is no happiness where materialism prevails."

Male bovine excrement. I'm a materialist and it doesn't make me unhappy.

You don't need religion to be happy - if you do, then I feel sorry for you. Your life must be very empty indeed if you need to fill it with imaginary friends to make it enjoyable.

Lets look at what makes kids the most upset...

1: Fear of the end of the World... when I was young, it was nuclear holocaust that was going to kell us all. Now it's the global warming boogie-man that gives innocent children nightmares.

2: Broken families and fatherlessness. Children all love BOTH their parents, and crave the missing one. Children who don't live with BOTH NATURAL parents are statistically 2,600 per cent more likely to be victims of abuse/neglect than those with both natural parents. There are too many children growing up at risk without their dads, and too many incentives towards divorce and single-motherhood.

3: No future, growing up in a home where nobody works. No hope, no happiness. Yet our welfare system encourages single motherhood, and too often that results in single welfare-dependant (non-working) mother, an no other worker in the home.

What causes these problems? The leftie/greenie/feminist/socialist/ politically correct brigade. With their good intentions which are sadly destroying our children's futures and happiness.

*The author failed to consider the growing inequality in Australia, as a root cause of childhood unhappiness*

I don't think so, Diver Dan. Your statement might reflect more on
your personsal problem and perspective of envy. At school we had
some seriously rich and spoiled kids. Yes we would have liked what
they had, but not having it, did not make us unhappy.

My dad died when I was about 10. Not having a father, did not make
me unhappy either, but certainly taught me about how to deal with
adversity.

1. I think that there is a genetic component to happiness. It comes
back to feedback loops and homeostasis, in terms of brain chemistry.
I've known people who all their lives are relatively content with life,
others who are always miserable, no matter what their circumstances, rich or poor.

2. I think that happiness is relative. If you've done it tough as
a kid, suffered adversity etc, you far more appreciate what you have
and your situation, when things are good. Unlike spoiled little rich
kids, who think that adversity means not having a mobile phone.

3. Lets not overlook drug induced unhappiness. Fact is that drugs
like Eckys fiddle with serotonin levels. Eckys are commonly used
amongst youth, at rave parties etc. They do in fact produce a
short term high, as serotonin levels soar. But the brain responds
though feedback loops and as serotinin levels invariably crash as
a result, kids are miserable and want to top themselves.

If we benchmark Australia, what we can ascertain is that Australia's
youth certainly has equality of opportunity. Its up to them to grab
their chances and make them happen, for they are greater then ever
before. Those who grew up expecting life on a plate, will no doubt
be unhappy that their expectations were not met and blame everyone
but themselves for their situation

@Yabby, if your mother had also died that wouldn't have made you unhappy either. Just imagine that would have had the benefit of doubling the lesson in teaching you to deal with adversity.

Humphrey B. Flaubert<" You don't need religion to be happy - if you do, then I feel sorry for you. Your life must be very empty indeed if you need to fill it with imaginary friends to make it enjoyable."

Lol Humphrey. I like your sense of humour :)

After reading this article, I didn't think it was discussing Godless, 'fatherless' households or nasty feminists, or single mothers at all.

So why get into that old discussion again Runner, Renee, Roscop and PTP?
Why not preach about those subjects on your own thread instead of hijacking this thread?

The author asks the question <
"So, is Australia being good to its kids by continuing to allow advertisers and marketers fairly free access to them, and turning a blind eye to the consequences?"

I think we have given too much leeway to advertisers who make inappropriate children's clothing, make junk food too attractive, and encourage violent electronic media usage.
Children should be encouraged to be children as long as possible, while still being readied to live in our modern, increasingly electronic world.

Suseonline,

"I think we have given too much leeway to advertisers who make inappropriate children's clothing, make junk food too attractive, and encourage violent electronic media usage."

Maybe we have, but in this case the buck doesn't stop with the advertisers: it stops with the parents. They can't shield their offspring from exposure to advertisements, but last time I checked they still control the purse strings, at least until such time as said offspring are old enough to find gainful employment (and child labour has been out of fashion for a while now). If inappropriate clothing, junk food and violent electronic media are as bad as they're cracked up to be (and incidentally, I have some doubts about that), then surely the problem is not that children aren't savvy consumers; but that their parents aren't savvy enough not to buy them crap which is bad for them.

"Children should be encouraged to be children as long as possible"

In my experience of children, and my memories from my own childhood, kids are right greedy little sods. Unless you subscribe to some romantic notion of children as wide-eyed cherubs full of wonder and innocence, I don't see how convincing them that they need the latest toy/ridiculously unhealthy processed snackfood/whatever amounts to robbing them of their childhood - it doesn't take much convincing, because they're such willing participants in the procedure.

Suseonline - "After reading this article, I didn't think it was discussing Godless, 'fatherless' households or nasty feminists, or single mothers at all." Oh really! You can't take things in isolation if you want an honest examination of the issues. Do you know of any studies of childhood obesity in single parent households as compared with children in intact families and similarly with childhood television viewing habits?

Roscop,
Of course childhood obesity is higher in single parent households (and significantly higher for daughters in single parent households interestingly).

And just about every other type of childhood trauma or ailment is worse in single parent households as well.

But this cannot be mentioned in a feminist society. Not politically correct.

Best to focus on secondary issues, such as advertisers, who must love single person households.

*if your mother had also died that wouldn't have made you unhappy either*

Roscop, your deduction skills are clearly not the best. I certainly
made no such claim.

In my experience, its not single parent kids that suffer most,
but kids with squabbling parents, where the kids land up being used
as a weapon by parents, against each other.

The intolerance and narrow mindedness shown by some of you on this
thread, makes me happy that you were never my father.

The Child Obesity campaign is likely to be a major contributor to children's anxiety about their body image. The rise in childrens anxiety about their weight is likely to correlate with the rise in advertising about the Obesity 'epidemic' which tells them they will get sick and die younger.

If they are unhappy its because some sections of society won't leave kids be.

It's the old story. To a hammer, everything looks like a nail.

This article is principally about happiness, right?

"But are they happy? A number of surveys indicate that Australian children are not doing well in the happiness stakes. Mission Australia's recent National Survey of young Australians showed that body image was the third highest worry of young women (11-24yrs) and an increasing issue."

It may be just me, but I'd far rather know what came in as number one and number two worries, than sit through a ramble about body-image, obesity and the evils of advertising, based on what came third.

What a tease.

After Faustino's comment, I should have nothing to add. That is an absolute and correct statement, but let me take it down a notch and cut it down to the size of this article.

I also appreciate the posts by Runner, Renee, Roscop, Yabby, SuseOnline, Vanna and Atman.

Many of the arguments made by my learned colleagues would be true in any generation, but the one single event that reduced children's happiness more than any other, is the invention of the CRT (later replaced by LED).

One may have a caring father and mother, brothers, sisters and friends, but if they all are glued to this stupid screen (and its successors), then the child has no direct relationships. They become addicted to passive and unreal life.

One side-effect is the exposure to advertisements, another is obesity, a third is the lack-of-communication in the family that often results in separation - physical or emotional, yet the root cause is this devilish seductive technology.

I disagree with Suseonline on the point that children should be "readied to live in our modern, increasingly electronic world": Teach them the basic living skills, teach them morals, but spare them this misery while they are young and easily impressionable, in the same way as we commonly spare them other adult activities. Leave these kind of things for universities, if they are to choose a scientific/engineering career.

Another issue, as Atman just noted, is that whatever the government lays its hands on, turns sour. They try to fight obesity - instead they shame children about their body-image. They try to crack down on Pedophiles - instead they make adults so afraid to come close to children that the children are deprived of warmth, touch and affection. They make so many laws about "safety" that children are not allowed to stay outside, walk to school, exercise, play, hike, swim in creeks and breath fresh air.

In the end, there is no substitute for spiritual orientation. Worldly happiness is but temporary and comes with at least that much pain.

Vanna <"Of course childhood obesity is higher in single parent households (and significantly higher for daughters in single parent households interestingly). And just about every other type of childhood trauma or ailment is worse in single parent households as well."

Really?
Where are your stats for this wild statement?
As usual, you don't have any proof for what you say Vanna...

Suxanonline,
You never reference anything.

As a feminist I consider this normal, as they are more inclined towards propaganda and emotional manipulation, than statistics.

But here is your report, (from your obedient one).

“There were higher rates of overweight and obesity in girls aged four to nine whose parents were single (OR 1:60). Children in single-parent households watched more television, ate more food high in fat and sugar and less fresh fruit and vegetables than children from dual-parent households.”

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.3109/17477166.2011.598938/abstract

"Successive Australian Governments have taken little action to curb the corporate takeover of childhood."

I think special interest groups and social engineers have done so much more damage to childhood than corporate interests. People who see themselves as 'children's advocates' are often the worst.

Thanks for that link above, Vanka.
I guess an overseas online library link is as good as any.
I can't imagine how difficult it must be for you to acknowledge all those university studies though?

I have bookmarked that library because it is easy to find what you want to superficially support your point.
I say superficially, because you can't see the full report unless you register with that site.

In any case, I found an interesting study on that site about parenting too :
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-3737.2009.00678.x/abstract

Suzanonline,
The study came from the Household, Income and Labour Dynamics in Australia survey (HILDA), which I find to be the only survey connected to Australian universities of much reliability, and even then, some of the results have to be regarded with a great deal of suspicion, as they do seem to be feminist corrupted.

However, I won’t tell anyone about the results of the survey if feminists find it offensive.

Such as:

“The findings suggested that an additive effect of dietary and activity variables may contribute to the higher rates of overweight and obesity in Australian children, and that girls from single-parent households may be particularly at risk.”

Combining that with results that slip out occasionally out through the feminist censorship net that deal with child abuse and neglect in single parent families, (which seems to be 2-3 times higher than in dual parent families), not to mention the dramatic increase in the rates of child poverty in single parent families, then it does help pinpoint where the unhappy children actually are, or most likely to be.

The system certainly failed my own child miserably, and forced her to live in an abusing and neglecting home with her mother for years. As a result she ended up a half feral child in a SPECIAL class for SLOW children, underweight, not obese, as she often had to go without food, while her mother spent most of the money at the local hotels For those of you who may remember me, that daughter who i went to hell and back for has just completed a 4 year degree in psychology with 1ST CLASS HONOURS and has been selected for a first round PHD next year, and still only 21yo. While having 2 loving parents is the preferred option, she certainly didn't miss her mother.
In the acknowledgement at the start of her honours thesis( of which i am now the proud owner of a bound copy, the best christmas prezzy a dad could get), after thanking her tutors and classmates she wrote the following :- Finally, thanks to my dad, for fighting for me, guiding me through life and always believing in me. I could not have reached this point without the sacrifices you made.

Some local work on child outcomes and family structure

http://www.aifs.gov.au/institute/pubs/RP30.html

I've not read the whole thing yet but what I've read so far looks like an honest attempt to understand the issues.

It's an introduction to proposed research "Development in Diverse Families" but I've not yet located the results of the proposed work (Lexi might be a job for you).

I tend to the view that advertising is very far down on the list compared to other factors in terms of childhood outcomes.

The nature of the parenting style, how well parents interact, the character of the friends a child being a few of the biggies.

For some of those factors there is little that we can do much about as a society, sometimes as a parent there is little that can be done.

A legal system that tends to reward conflict between parents following seperation being one of the factors that we can do something about although it's never going to be perfect.

R0bert

Eyeinthesky, what a lovely story you wrote about your' daughter.
Congratulations on her success despite all the odds.
I know that children can be successful in single parent households if they have at least one dedicated parent like yourself to guide them.

Vanna, I agree that single parent households are not always the best, but you can't tar them all with the same brush.

Most male or female single parents do the best they can. Divorce/separation of parents is a common occurrence in our society, and is one problem that will not go away.

Constantly berating and putting down single parents (especially mothers) doesn't help anyone.

The feminist university researchers are doing all they can to alert us all to the pitfalls of being in a single-parent household.
They also alert us to children at risk in all sorts of other households.

Vigilant reporting of abuse perpetrators, no matter what race they are or from what family environment, is needed at all times.
Now all we need are the answers as to what to do about it...
Forcing unhappy or abusive couples to stay together 'for the sake of the children' is not one of those solutions.

Suzanonline,
"Forcing unhappy or abusive couples to stay together 'for the sake of the children' is not one of those solutions."

So what makes them unhappy?

There has been next to no research undertaken into divorce or separation by any university in this country. Feminists control most of social science research in universities in Australia.

And only in recent times has any research been conducted into single parent families in this country. That research has come about from the HILDA survey, which is actually slightly outside of university research.