This is what I read up in Google for the employment in the society,

it written rich kids always have a high paying job in future due to the higher education they attained compared to poor kids.

I'm thinking is this true?

Few days ago,

I  chit- chat with Kaima about considering Master's degree,

I asked her about her opinion whether Master is important and should I take it?

I told her my friends said people who taking master is only seeking for reputation and actually it just nothing?

Kaima answered me that I supposed to get in master as she said better education will provides better future and becomes a better person;

she told me that because my peers are still young and they still haven't get into a workplace and thus they don't know anything since they don't have workplace experience, and maybe your friend studied till bored already or she dont hit the qualification into master degree so she discouraged you to get into master. 

kaima, as a 55 years old veteran in workplace,

she asked me to trust her that 

'BETTER EDUCATION WILL GAIN HIGH PAID IN LATER LIFE'

she said

'The higher you study, the more you earn in the future,

the better University you get in, the higher paid you get in the future.'

Now I'm thinking is education a sort of financial investment?

The answer is so true when I read up this employment article in Google,

and I found out it's kinda true from one of my friend, Evelyn, she graduated from my University - University of South Australia.

And, my oldest sister,

she graduated from public local university.

I asked them respectively about how many resumes they sent out to get a job?

Evelyn told me

'I sent about 20+ companies and around 5 companies called me.'

My eldest sis told me

'I sent about 100 companies in Singapore, only 1 called me.'

(In the case that their results are almost the same, Evelyn got around 5.0 GPA in Australia and my sister got 3.3 in Malaysia. Means Average credit for both of them. And, Evelyn even told me that she didn't sent result, but just certificate as prove only.)

So now,

I've witnessed the different between public local university and private overseas university.

Look at the article below,

it written rich kid usually get high paid salary in future due to their higher and more reputable education.

Two 21-year-old college students sit down in a coffee shop to study for an upcoming test. Behind the counter, a barista whips up their double-shot lattes. In the back kitchen, another young adult washes the dishes and empties the trash.

These four young adults have a lot in common. They are the same age and race, each has two parents, and all grew up in the same metropolitan area. They were all strong students in their respective high schools. But as they enter their third decade, their work futures and life trajectories are radically different—and largely determined at this point.

The culprit is the growing role of inherited advantage, as affluent families make investments that give their children a leg up. Combined with the 2008 economic meltdown and budget cuts in public investments that foster opportunity, we are witnessing accelerating advantages for the wealthy and compounding disadvantages for everyone else.

One of the college students, Miranda, will graduate without any student-loan debt and will have completed three summers of unpaid internships at businesses that will advance her career path. Her parents stand ready to subsidize her lodging with a security deposit and co-signed apartment lease and will give her a no-interest loan to buy a car. They also have a network of family and professional contacts that can help her. While she waits for a job with benefits, she will remain on her parents’ health insurance.

Ten years later, Miranda will have a high-paying job, be engaged to another professional, and will buy a home in a neighborhood with other college-educated professionals, a property that will steadily appreciate over time because of its location. The “parental down-payment assistance program” will subsidize the purchase.

The other collegiate, Marcus, will graduate with more than $55,000 in college debt, a maxed-out credit card, and an extensive résumé of part-time food-service jobs that he has taken to pay for school, both during summers and while in college, reducing the hours he can study. Though he will obtain a degree, he will graduate with almost no work experience in his field of study, lose his health insurance, and begin working two part-time jobs to pay back his student loans and to afford rent in a shared apartment.

Ten years later, Marcus will still be working in low-paying jobs and renting an apartment. He will feel occupationally stuck and frustrated in his attempts to network in the area of his degree. He will take on additional debt—to deal with various health and financial problems—and watch his hope of buying a home slip away, in large part because of a credit history damaged during his early twenties.

Tony, the barista, has the benefit of not taking on mega-debt from college. He will eventually enroll in some classes at a local public university. But his income and employment opportunities will be constrained by not having a college degree. He will make several attempts to learn a building trade and start his own business, eventually landing a job with a steady but low income.

The good news for Tony is that his parents, while not college educated or wealthy, are stable middle-class with modest retirement pensions and a debt-free house, acquired by Tony’s grandfather with a low-interest Veterans Administration mortgage. They are able to provide a bedroom to their son. That home will prove to be a significant factor in Tony’s future economic stability, as he will eventually inherit it.

Cordelia, working in the kitchen, has even less opportunity than Tony for mobility and advancement. Neither of her parents went to college nor have significant assets, as they rent their housing. Though she was academically in the top of her urban high-school class, she did not consider applying to a selective college. The costs seemed daunting, and she didn’t know anyone who went away to college. There were no adults or guidance professionals to help her explore other options, including financial aid available at private colleges, some of which would have paid her full tuition and expenses to attend. Instead, she takes courses at the local community college where she sees many familiar faces. Cordelia will struggle with health issues, as lack of adequate health care and insurance means she will delay treatment of several problems. Over time, she will have a steady and low-wage job, but she will also begin to take more responsibility for supporting members of her family who are less fortunate.

These four coming-of-age adults in no way represent the entire spectrum of young adult experience, which also includes ex-offenders, mediocre students, and people with disabilities. Young adults in rural communities and small towns, for example, face their own education and economic challenges, such as limited employment options. They will disproportionately populate our volunteer military, fill the growing ranks of disability-pension recipients, or migrate to communities where they have few social supports.

A key determinant in these diverging prospects is the role of family wealth, a factor that plays an oversize role in sorting today’s coming-of-age generation onto different opportunity trajectories. The initial sort begins much earlier. A growing mountain of research chronicles what sociologists call the “intergenerational transmission of advantage,” including the myriad mechanisms by which affluent families boost their children’s prospects starting at birth. The mechanisms include financial investments in their children’s enrichment, school readiness, formal schooling, college access, and aiding the transition to work. Meanwhile, the children in families unable to make these investments fall further behind.

Imagine a ten-mile race in which contestants have different starting lines based on parental education, income, and wealth. The economically privileged athletes start several hundred yards ahead of the disadvantaged runners. Each contestant begins with ten one-pound leg weights. The race begins, and the advantaged competitors pull ahead quickly. At each half-mile mark, according to the rules, the first twenty runners shed two pounds of weights while those in the last half of the field take on two additional pounds. After several miles, lead racers have no weights, while the slower runners carry twenty additional pounds. By midrace, an alarming gap has opened up in the field, and by the finish line, the last half of the field finishes more than two miles behind the winners.

This race of accelerating advantages and compounding disadvantages is a disturbingly accurate metaphor for inherited privilege. As in life, there are well-publicized stories of exceptional runners starting far back in the pack and breaking to the front of the field, therefore able to shed weights and remain competitive. There are also front-runners who perform poorly, squandering their initial advantages and falling back. But the overall picture is one of steadily growing class-based inequality. Consistent with emerging sociological research about children and opportunity, once inequalities open up, they rarely decrease over time.

A healthy democratic society could rise to this challenge, resolving to make robust public investments in time-tested interventions that equalize the conditions of the race. But in our increasingly plutocratic political system, the very wealthy have less stake in the opportunity-building mechanisms in our communities, as their own children and grandchildren advance through privatized systems. These same wealthy families maintain disproportionate influence in shaping our national priorities, such as whether to cut taxes on the wealthy or maintain investments in public education. We are snagged in a cycle of declining opportunity driven by the new politics of inherited advantage.

The United States prides itself on being a socially mobile society where what one does is more important than the racial and class circumstances of one’s birth. Indeed, in the three decades after World War II, between 1947 and 1977, social mobility increased, particularly for the white working class. This imprinted a national self-identity as a meritocratic society, especially juxtaposed with the old “caste societies” of Europe, with their static class systems and calcified social mobility.

That story of European versus U.S. social mobility has now been turned on its head. European nations and Canada, with their social safety nets and investments in early childhood education, are experiencing greater social mobility. Canada now has three times the social mobility of the U.S. Budget cuts at all levels of government have dismantled post–World War II public investments that had begun to create greater opportunities for economically and racially disadvantaged families. Higher education has taken one of the biggest hits. Meanwhile, the relative advantage of wealthy families, in terms of social capital and civic engagement, has accelerated over the past 30 years.

The idea that people’s futures might be economically determined deeply offends U.S. sensibilities. We want to believe that individual moxie matters, that a person’s creativity, effort, and intelligence will lead to economic success. Stories of exceptional strivers, heroically overcoming a stacked deck of obstacles, divert our attention from the data. But the large mega-trends are now indisputable. If you fail to pick wealthy parents and want to experience the American dream today, move to Canada.

Long before our four 21-year-olds considered college, they were on different glide paths. Debt-free Miranda was the beneficiary of parental investments that prepared her for school and high achievement. She grew up in a book-filled and conversation-rich home environment with college-educated parents that had more leisure and vacation time to spend with her. She spent more time in ecologically pristine environments and had access to recreation, health care, and nutritious food. Her parents, knowledgeable about brain development, talked to her, using vastly more vocabulary words than children of other classes hear. When she was away from her parents, they paid for comparably stimulating child-care settings.

Researcher Meredith Phillips found that by age six, wealthier children spent as many as 1,300 more hours a year than poor children on enrichment activities such as travel, music lessons, visits to museums, and summer camp. All this results in much higher math and reading skills and other attainments later in life.

Success-bound Miranda had more opportunities than her non-wealthy peers to develop the important social capital that results from more time with parents and time spent in social institutions such as religious congregations, civic organizations, and extracurricular activities. Working-class youth, often with parents holding down multiple jobs to make up for several decades of stagnant wages, are more socially disconnected or connected in dysfunctional ways. As a result, they develop fewer “soft skills” useful in job networking and workplaces.

ADVERTISEMENT

As our foursome enter K-12 school, once considered the great avenue to equal opportunity, disparities widen. The early literacy and reading support conferred by the more advantaged families leads their children to pull away from others, not just those with low incomes. Class-based disparities in the cognitive skills of reading and math test scores have grown since the 1970s, corresponding with the national income and wealth gap. According to researcher Sean Reardon, the income-achievement gap between children from high- and low-income families is roughly 30 percent to 40 percent larger among children born in 2001 than among those born in 1976.

Among “high achievers,” the top 4 percent of students nationwide, 34 percent come from the top quartile, households with incomes of more than $120,776. Only 17 percent come from the bottom quartile, with incomes of less than $41,472. The income-achievement gap is now bigger than the race gap, a reverse from 50 years earlier. The main explanation is that high-income parents of all races are investing more in children’s cognitive development.

All four of our young adults graduated from their high schools in the top fifth of their classes. But their high-school experience was quite divergent, based on their community and neighborhood. The key decision point—as to whether to attend college and where—was largely driven by disparities in income and wealth in the form of parental investment, K-12 education systems, and college-preparatory supports.

In the 70 years since World War II, college attendance has played a significant role in employment opportunity and lifetime earnings. Over these 70 years, college entry has increased by more than 50 percent, and the rate of college completion by age 25 has more than quadrupled. But since 1980, an income-based gap has grown up in terms of college completion.

Low-income students born around 1980 only increased their college-graduation rates by 4 percent—whereas higher-income cohorts saw their graduation rates go up by 18 percent. The greatest inequality has been among women, driven by increases in college completion by the daughters of higher-income households—and the lack of opportunities for non-wealthy women.

Marcus’s family, like Miranda’s, placed a strong emphasis on attending college and college preparation. He went to a suburban public school that provided college-bound students with Advanced Placement classes, college counseling, and seminars for parents. While not as wealthy as Miranda’s family, Marcus’s family, also like Miranda’s, paid for the services of the burgeoning college-preparation industry to boost their child’s SAT scores. But in terms of family wealth, Marcus was on his own after high school, venturing into higher education and work without family resources and a financial safety net. As a consequence, in his thirties and forties, he will have more debts than assets.

Miranda and barista Tony share an important parental boost that college student Marcus didn’t have: Their parents passed on financial-preparation and money-literacy skills. Both children learned about money from parents who gave them allowances to manage and encouraged them to open bank accounts and save. Initial research suggests that financial literacy may be a more important factor than schooling in lifetime wealth accumulation and retirement savings. Tony learned thrift and debt avoidance. These skills are much more important in the current environment, with unregulated predatory lenders and a bewildering variety of student-loan products to choose from.

Tony will benefit from modest family-wealth transfers, thanks to a previous generation of social investments, which include his grandfather’s government-subsidized home mortgage. Tony will tap into what Sally Koslow, in her bookSlouching toward Adulthood, calls the “middle class trust fund”: free room and board and cable and Internet access. Tony’s parents don’t consider their support for him a legacy advantage. They understand that the deck is stacked against their son, who will most likely never be rich without a winning lottery ticket or marrying into money. Their temporary housing and modest gifts—the purchase of a truck and money to get a trade license—are hedges against his downward mobility and destitution.

Cordelia’s parents did what they could to better her prospects, ensuring she was in a good elementary school and steered to engaging teachers. They found her affordable summer day camps and other enrichment experiences. But when it came time for her to consider college, Cordelia was flying solo. Like many talented low-income students, she didn’t apply to one of the nation’s selective schools. Only 5 percent of the total enrollment at the 28 most selective private colleges is from families in the bottom fifth of income distribution. But 70 percent of the enrollment consists of students in the highest-income distribution. Like the majority of low-income college students, Cordelia did not complete college. A key missing ingredient for Cordelia was effective college guidance, within her school and at home.

How young people finance college has its own disparities. Low-income and minority students that get proper guidance can sometimes obtain significant scholarships at private colleges and graduate with less debt than students attending public universities. Miranda’s parents paid full freight for her college. Marcus, navigating the college-financing jungle on his own, got little financial aid and signed up for a loan package that will cost him twice as much over time due to higher interest payments as the cheapest available plan. If Marcus were attending college 40 years earlier, he probably would have graduated debt-free as a result of lower tuition and public financial-aid programs.

One of the huge breakaway wealth advantages is unpaid internships in one’s career area, an essential leg up in the transition from school to work. Entry-level workers are now expected to show up with work experience. Research shows that half of college-graduate hires had previously interned at the firm where they were hired. While Miranda received family support to take unpaid internships, other college students like Marcus used every non-school hour to earn money in jobs outside their career area.

Family wealth also serves as a form of adversity insurance, as young adults face potential setbacks including prolonged unemployment, bad credit, health or addiction problems, criminal arrests, car breakdowns or accidents, or early parenthood. Young adults may make poor decisions or face unforeseen circumstances, but in almost every case, family wealth will help keep young people on track, whether it comes in legal assistance, treatment, or regular cash infusions.

What, if anything, can be done to offset the torrent of perks and advantages that wealthy parents confer to their progeny as they compete for slots in educational institutions, internships in their field of interest, entry-level jobs, affordable housing, and other resources?

The first step is to acknowledge the depth of the declining mobility and opportunity problem, a story that is just beginning to be understood after three decades of extreme inequality. The image of post–World War II white mobility still reverberates and dominates our national mythology, especially for our political class and whites over the age of 50. But the present inequalities of wealth have fundamentally altered the playing field for the next two generations.

Even ideological critics of social investment have begun to acknowledge the intergenerational class disparities. Conservative Reihan Salam acknowledges the “incumbent-protection story” of wealthy families, observing that “it is possible that non-black families in the top three-fifths of the income distribution are giving their children advantages that protect them from scrappy upstarts in ways that might damage our growth prospects.” Let alone principles of fairness, opportunity, and equity!

Sustained public investments in opportunity are critical to level a playing field that is constantly being upended by wealth advantage. We can’t remove the capacity of well-off families to help advantage their offspring, but we can give others more of a shot.

Other industrialized countries have demonstrated that public investments in health, education, and family well-being can offset the private advantages of wealth and improve social mobility. Initiatives like the “Baby College” of the Harlem Children’s Zone, Head Start, the U.S.’s Nurse-Family Partnership program, and universal preschool programs, such as those in France and Denmark, partially close the gaps in school achievement and subsequent wages. Several of these initiatives coach new parents on childhood health and wellness, discipline, brain development, and games and enrichment resources available to their children.

High-quality pre-kindergarten education, access to health care and nutrition, good K-12 public education, and early diagnosis of learning disabilities and special needs are key interventions that help people equalize life chances. The fact that inequalities of opportunity now accelerate as schooling begins is testament to the need to defend and expand funding for public education at all levels. More than three-fourths of undergraduate college students attend public universities and colleges, which are facing the worst state cuts.

There are also private-sector and personal interventions that could reduce runaway unequal opportunity. Community foundations can partner with business and cultural institutions to ensure that public and private funding for youth enrichment, arts and sports programs, summer camps, and stimulating after-school programs survive budget cutting. This must include resources for outreach to the most socially disconnected families to ensure their children have access to these opportunities.

The U.S. Department of Labor should police the unpaid and underpaid internship marketplace, cracking down on companies that replace paid positions with unpaid ones. Certain sectors that disproportionately offer unpaid internships as a stepping-stone to career networks—journalism, politics, and entertainment—should do deep soul-searching about the implications for the widespread exclusion of working- and middle-class youth. Private-sector and government agencies that offer internships should create stipend and compensation pools to ensure that non-wealthy young people have an equal shot at internships. Donors should fund internship positions at nonprofit organizations they care about, expanding the pool of young people that can intern there.

 Privileged families will always seek to extend their own advantages to their children, but restoring greater progressivity to the tax system would ensure that wealthy families still contribute to the opportunities of others. Another intervention would be to eliminate or reduce the tax deductibility of contributions to private schools and colleges, except if directly used for scholarships for disadvantaged youth.

One elegant solution would be to tax wealth to broaden opportunity. Revenue from a steeply progressive estate or inheritance tax could capitalize an “education-opportunity trust fund” to provide debt-free college educations for first-generation college students.

Wealthy families concerned about declining social mobility should use their special privileges to stop the advantage arms race. They should match any family subsidies with tax dollars and donations to organizations that promote mobility. Without such interventions, the U.S. will further drift toward being a caste society, where opportunity, occupation, and social status are based on inherited advantage, fractured along class lines.

Okay!

So now I'm going to study Master in order to get a high pay job in my later life.

Now,

I been truly felt the heaviness of the powerful resentment in my heart.

I knew the figure who I hatred,

the only thing that I couldn't figure out is what caused I hate them,

thus I went Google find out why I hate them.

I typed in the Google search engine

'What caused hate'

It specifically answered hatred came from long term bullied.

When I read up this paragraph from the article,

I am asking myself

'Is this the real reason which caused me to have a strong hatred in heart?'

I guessed most probably yes.

After I read up the article,

I vividly recalled the conversation between Kaima and me on last week,

I complained to her about my parents,

I told her that my parents want to tortured me by demanding me to take Air Asia normal seat but I refused, then my mum still bought.

I claimed that Air Asia seat is very very painful after a night flight,

7 plus hours flight.

I said if go pulau tioman or bangkok all those I don't mind,

but now this one fly one night and I can't even sleep in the flight till the next morning.

Even I took medicine already, still can't sleep,

my eyes tired till keep rolling tears automatically.

Kaima asked

'Then before she bought the ticket, did you tell her you dont want air asia normal seat because of very suffered?'

I said

'Got, I told her I dont want already, I got explained to her because very painful but she still bought.'

Then I was complaining for a long message in an uncontrollable way,

sort of repetitive saying that I am not good bully and I wont let people take advantage of me and wont let myself suffer

I remembered I keep saying

'I am not good bully, this time I wont let myself suffer ones, I really wont let people take me for granted any more, now I want to more focus on my self needs instead of others first, I wont let myself suffered ones! Enough is enough! I can't withstand any more! When Pn Lye get angry, want to beat me then just let her beat, now my mum want to save money then just suffer myself one night, I wont so good any more... I can't withstand any more! I am not good bully! Wa... people think me cincai cincai then take me for granted. Pn Lye also! She think me this one even beat her also keep quiet and forgot afterwards ones, just beat only since now I am angry.... now my mum think me no matter what seat she bought, sure I dont care dont care and dont know ones... she think let me suffer one night never mind... Now I wont be so stupid any more, I already suffer enough! I want to show that I am not a good bully! Now I want to protect myself first, I wont let anyone make me suffer any more!'

Now after I read the article,

I really think of does hatred comes from bully?

When I type in more specifically that why children hate their parents,

it pop out 10 common reasons that why people hate their parents.

And I believe it's quite true when applied on me; particularly long time not fulfilling their demands.

Parents unconditionally love their children and expect the same from them. Parents cater to their children’s needs, fulfill their demands, help them when required, stand by their side, support them & care for them. They are the candles that burn themselves to light up their children’s lives. They can almost do anything for their children and their betterment.

However, children sometimes do not have the same feeling for their parents. Although, they may respect their parents, or show that they love and care for them, deep down they may even hate their parents for one or more reasons.

Does your child also hate you? Read on to find out the possible reasons.

Many times, parents tend to be strict towards their children and this strictness may sometimes go beyond the limits their children can tolerate. Also many parents make rules for their children, which may not go well with them. Still children are asked to follow these rules and if they fail to do so, the parents usually scold them or even may beat them up in certain cases. This kind of strictness is not at all liked by children and excess of such behavior makes children hate their parents.

Moreover, frequently scolding them or beating them up may cause a sense of insecurity among the children and they would hate their parents even more.

Similarly monitoring and mentoring the children more than required also may instill a feeling of hatred towards their parents amongst many children.

In today’s scenario, most of the parents are working. As a result, both father and mother are unable to pay proper attention towards their children due to lack of time. They are hardly aware of how do their children spend their day, what do they like or dislike, what are their dreams and ambitions, what do they expect from their parents and what are they up to. This may be either because parents are too busy to even talk nicely to their kids or because they may ignore or not need to what their kids tell them. The latter may be due to a variety of reasons (even, valid reasons) such as dual mindedness or absent mindedness caused by work pressure, over-burdening of responsibilities at both home and workplace, giving more importance to work or self than the kids etc. Again, if the parents too much preoccupied, they don’t give their children time, both quality and quantity. Children want their parents to talk to them, play with them, understand them and be friendly with them. Unable to give quality time to children may gradually lead to severe hatred from your children.

It is human nature to demand a lot ones whom you love and care and the vice-versa. This demanding nature increases even more in front of the parents, as they are the ones who are always responsible for their kids, their basic needs, their belongings, their special requirements etc. Right from the birth, a child expects his/her parents to do everything for him/her and fulfill all his/her demands. Thus, whenever children need anything, they go to their parents first and ask for it. Sometimes, their demands may be as small as a chocolate or a new set of color pencils while it may even be as big as a personal laptop or a trip to Disneyland! Usually kids demand small simple things for which parents generally agree. Sometimes parents may disagree due to varied reasons, depending upon the circumstances. Saying ‘no’ to their demands sometimes is not only obvious but equally essential but always refusing to fulfill their demands or too much of being adamant may be a reason for their hatred.

Parents usually teach their kids to be calm and peaceful and that they must not fight. However, at the same time, they many-a-times fight amongst themselves or with others. This not only makes children hate their parents but also disrespect them. It is very usual for couples to fight. Even as parents, they may fight with each other, sometimes in their kid’s presence also. Moreover, many times, children have to act as mediators between their father and mother in their fights. Children hate these kind of fights and the habit of fighting may also be one of the reasons why children hate their parents.

Most of the parents are very protective towards their children and care for them a lot. However, this care and protection sometimes becomes too much for children to accept. No child wants his/her parents to throw an overdose of care at him/her. They do not like to be asked every now and then about their well being. Not only this, often children are barred from doing certain things they wish to because of over-protection. Although it is necessary and obvious for parents to protect their children, but when this protection becomes excess, it may also impact children negatively. For instance, over-protection and extra care may snatch away the freedom of children which is very essential for their development. It may also make children more dependent upon their parents. Children must be made independent and even they love it. Protecting and caring too much may hinder this and make children hate their parents. As it is said, “excess of everything is bad”.

In case of two or more children in a family, it is very common for kids to envy their brother/sister due to the extra attention he/she receives as they feel that the parents love him/her more. However, parents maintain that they love all their kids equally and they actually do. But, at times, knowingly or unknowingly, parents get biased towards one child more than the other. In such a case, the other child feels neglected and he/she creates a false notion in his/her mind that the parents don’t love him/her at all but only the sibling. This may occur when one child is favored more than the other due to any reason and it must be avoided or else the other one consequently starts hating his/her parents.

One of the most common reasons for children hating their parents is due to the ‘generation gap’. As is said, generation gap creates a divide among people, usually in the ways they think and do things. There is usually a difference of about 18-40 years between the ages of parents and children and thus, they tend to behave differently. They perceive things in different manner due to many factors such as societal tendencies, advancements, technology, ideals, thoughts, family, friends etc. As a result, their opinions vary drastically in almost every situation. Moreover, the new generations are more open to new technologies, modern thoughts and modern ways of living life and they find them more appropriate and practical than the older, conventional ones. This leads to a mismatch between parents’ and children’s thinking. Parents usually do not approve of the modern thoughts or cultures, say for example gay marriages, live-in relationships, pre-marital sex, greater exposure of kids to new technologies or new things etc. This creates a mental divide among children and parents. As children these days usually prefer things their way, they often compel their parents to support their ideas leaving conventional ones behind. Reluctance to accept these ideas and not understanding the children’s point of view results in children hating their parents.

The difference in the words and action of the parents is one of the most important reasons why children hate their parents. Usually, almost every child, some or the other time finds his/her parents doing something which they teach not to do, for instance, telling a lie, or fighting. These are very common among adults (parents), albeit they teach their kids not to do so. Similarly, they even make false promises to their kids regarding many things. These unfulfilled promises make children feel that their parents lie to them and have double standards. Genuinely, children start hating their parents.

Today’s world is competitive. Obviously, every parent wants that his/her child must excel in all fields, be it academics, sports, art, music and so on. More than their wish and will, it becomes a matter of prestige for the parents in the society that their children come first in the class or play the sport to represent the city, state or nation. As a result, they compel their kids to excel in as many fields as possible. Even if some field doesn’t interest the child, the parental pressure creates a sense of fear in child’s mind and he/she unwillingly has to participate. In spite of the child expressing his/her dislike towards the particular field, if the parents keep on forcing the child to perform, he/she simply hates his/her parents.

It is quite common for parents to impose their own dreams and ideas on their children even if the children don’t like them. The parents want their children to think and behave exactly as they wish to. They want their children to choose a spouse they like, a career of their interest etc. For instance, if a father could not become a doctor despite of trying hard, he imposes on his son to follow and fulfill his dream of becoming a doctor even though the son wishes to become a basket ball player. The father stops his son from playing the sport and study harder instead. He makes all decisions for his son from what subjects he chooses to what and for how much time he plays and studies. Just like in career, parents impose a lot of their dreams on their children as a result of which children hate their parents.

Absolutely,

I told Kaima about sort of things as what Google mentioned.

I said

'Since young, my parents ill treated me because think me stupid, when i was in primary school, my mum think me everything dont know dont know and dont care, she just gave me 0.20 cent to school everyday and gave my sis and my brother as usual RM2. Because she think me as long as she gave me then I very happy already, so she just treated me like that. When I was young, I went shopping ,centre with my mum, I'll definitely cried, because she will never buy things for me but bought for my sis, because she think I cry cry awhile then never cry already, never fulfil my needs never mind, as long as can save money then let me suffer. Because she think me stupid so she think stupid people dont have feeling, can treat them anyway as how she felt she supposed to. And my father also, when my elder brother demand of anything, he never think of price and just agreed and just let my brother decide and bought it, because he think whatever my brother said is worthy, and whatever I said is not worthy, as long as give me the most simplest ones I already can survive and ignored my needs, and when I was young, my mum never bought any new year dress for me at all, every year wear my sis old clothes, and even school reopened also the same thing, wearing the old uniform and let people think I came from a poor family. Enough is enough! I wont let myself suffered any more. 21 years surviving in this kind of life still not suffered enough? Now I will definitely protect myself and wont let myself suffered,  I wont because of thinking about others feeling then just let people do what their want! One more time, if Pn Lye beat me again, I will going to strike her back, I wont let myself suffered any more! And I wont let her take me for granted any more. And I wont let my parents take me for granted because of their own sake! Buy a cheap flight for me and think of their own sake and terbalik tortured myself for a night? No such thing! Enough is enough! I'm a human being also!'

When looking back into my message content,

I think most probably or I could admitted my hatred towards my parents came from the childhood negligence; lack of basic needs, long term not fulfilling my demands and prejudice in the family.

I neither need them to pay attention to me nor love me more than other siblings,

I just need them to provide me daily basic needs,

I dont need them to talk to me or ask me how I am,

I just need them to raise me up as their kid with the fullest accountability.

That's it.

Frankly speaking,

I am the only kid who won't get jealous among sibling in the family,

I wont grab or demand what my siblings having,

I just need a basic necessity of my demand.

I just request a life of not to being tortured, will be safe everyday.

That's it, is it too difficult to strive for this kind of peaceful life?

Well,

my heart won't be stop raining or wont be stop hating till the time they fulfil my basic needs and perceive me as their daughter.