Vice and Virture II- Parenting

[sweetnpetite]

"The attempts of parents to make their children virtuous are generally little else than attempts to keep them in ignorance of vice. They are little else than attempts to tach their children to know and prefer truth, by keeping them in ignorance of falsehood. They are little else than attempts to make them seek and appreciate health, by keeping them in ignorance of disease, and of everything that will cause disease. They are little else than attempts to make their children love the light, by keeping them in ignorance of darkness. In short, they are little else than attempts to make their children happy, by keeping them in ignorance of everything that causes them unhappiness.

In so far as parents can really aid their children in the latter's search after happiness, by simply giving them the results of their (the parents') own reason and experience, it is all very well, and is a natural and appropriate duty. But to practise coercion in matters of which the children are reasonably competent to judge for themselves, is only an attempt to keep them in ignorance. And this is as much a tyranny, and as much a violation of the children's right to acquire knowledge for themselves, and such knowledge as they desire, as is the same coercion when practised upon older persons. Such coercion, practised upon children, is a denial of their right to develop the faculties that Nature has given them, and to be what Nature designs them to be. It is a denial of their right to themselves, and to the use of their own powers. It is a denial of their right to acquire the most valuable of all knowledge, to wit, the knowledge that Nature, the great teacher, stands ready to impart to them.

The results of such coercion are not to make the children wise or virtuous, but to make them ignorant, and consequently weak and vicious; and to perpetuate through them, from age to age, the ignorance, the superstitions, the vices, and the crimes of the parents. This is proved by every page of the world's history. "

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/vices.htm

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I'd have to disagree with the dramatically prosey argument.

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'd have to disagree with the dramatically prosey argument.

Please expand.

 

[Quiet_Cool]

Please expand.

Easier said than done. The topic you tackled is immense, and can be argued for months on end before actually cornering a part of it for extensive discussion. And then... Well, too much is opinion, frankly, whether you have kids or not, it's still opinion.

But I do agree with Joe. To disagree that is.

Q_C

 

[Guest]

And I agree with QC, and in turn also agree with Joe.

That was a load of romanticised bullshit, in my opinion.

Sorry, Sweet, but it just isn't that way. Not in my experience, anyway. I'm not saying whoever it was who said all that doesn't have a point, but that degree of molly-coddling and wrapping up in cotton wool just doesn't happen.

Parents don't care enough. Parents are too caring. Parents care in the wrong way. All common gripes and complaints.

The truth? Parents love and do the best job they can. That's what my experience tells me. And that goes for the over-whelming majority.

Lou

 

[Weird Harold]

And I agree with QC, and in turn also agree with Joe.

That was a load of romanticised bullshit, in my opinion.

Except for the generalization/implication that ALL parents are as described, I do agree with the point the author of that essay is trying to make -- far too many parents make the type of mistakes listed.

Parents teach their children what they learned as children. Sometimes by inverting it and sometimes by repeating it, but almost all parents learned to be parents from how they were parented. It's an innefficient and error prone process, but I can't think of any way to change it that isn't too draconian to be acceptable.

The truth? Parents love and do the best job they can. That's what my experience tells me. And that goes for the over-whelming majority.

The 'best job they can," ranges from "horrific failure" to "absolute perfection" with far too many of the former than should be acceptable. The "majority" of parents do a good job, but that "Majority" seems to me to be shrinking -- in part because the "good parents" are responsible enough to limit their family size as well as raise their children well.

 

[Guest]

Except for the generalization/implication that ALL parents are as described, I do agree with the point the author of that essay is trying to make -- far too many parents make the type of mistakes listed.

Parents teach their children what they learned as children. Sometimes by inverting it and sometimes by repeating it, but almost all parents learned to be parents from how they were parented. It's an innefficient and error prone process, but I can't think of any way to change it that isn't too draconian to be acceptable.

Can't argue there. I did say that in my experience parents aren't that way. I also said that the author of the piece probably has a point - it was the way that point was made which got to me. I think my parents did a wonderful job with me, but, then again, I would think that. Put it this way... I don't think they made any errors, so, in turn, there are no errors for me to repeat (Edited to add: I could cock up all their hard work yet, but I'm trying my hardest not to. I realised what I said came off as sounding very pretentious indeed.)

I'd rather not sit in judgement of other parents (most of whom I think also do a damn fine job). How can I judge that which I don't know?

This kind of broad over-generalisation just bugs me.

The 'best job they can," ranges from "horrific failure" to "absolute perfection" with far too many of the former than should be acceptable. The "majority" of parents do a good job, but that "Majority" seems to me to be shrinking -- in part because the "good parents" are responsible enough to limit their family size as well as raise their children well.

I agree. But, again, to say that "parents" as a whole group, all do wrong by their children, is just plain wrong.

 

[Weird Harold]

...This kind of broad over-generalisation just bugs me.
...
I agree. But, again, to say that "parents" as a whole group, all do wrong by their children, is just plain wrong.

I think one point that isn't being considered about this essay is that it may not be directed at parents, but at "child psychologists;" who have, over the last 60 years or so -- since Dr Benjamin Spock's book became popular -- increasingly advocated the very things the essay denounces.

It's more of a (exagerated) rebuttal of currently advocated parenting techniques than a denunciation of actual parents as a group.

 

[sweetnpetite]

Can't argue there. I did say that in my experience parents aren't that way. I also said that the author of the piece probably has a point - it was the way that point was made which got to me. I think my parents did a wonderful job with me, but, then again, I would think that. Put it this way... I don't think they made any errors, so, in turn, there are no errors for me to repeat (Edited to add: I could cock up all their hard work yet, but I'm trying my hardest not to. I realised what I said came off as sounding very pretentious indeed.)

I'd rather not sit in judgement of other parents (most of whom I think also do a damn fine job). How can I judge that which I don't know?

This kind of broad over-generalisation just bugs me.




I agree. But, again, to say that "parents" as a whole group, all do wrong by their children, is just plain wrong.

I really didn't read it that it was to sit in judgement or even a statement that all parents do it, but more like advice on why it's not such a good idea to try to protect your children from too much.

If you read it as advice rather than condemnation, do you still disagree?

 

[sweetnpetite]

I think one point that isn't being considered about this essay is that it may not be directed at parents, but at "child psychologists;" who have, over the last 60 years or so -- since Dr Benjamin Spock's book became popular -- increasingly advocated the very things the essay denounces.

It's more of a (exagerated) rebuttal of currently advocated parenting techniques than a denunciation of actual parents as a group.

Actually it was written in 1875 as part of a larger document dealing with making vices (such as drinking) illegal. I think that the writer was probably assuming that the reader would agree with his POV as part of an analagy. But I personally think it's pretty good advice.

 

[sweetnpetite]

My first thought upon reading the article was the current furvor over abstinance only 'sex ed' programs. And the thoughts some parents have that if they don't talk about sex, kids won't do it. Or that if we tell them about birth control, they will think that sex is 'ok.'

 

[smoothdevil]

I really didn't read it that it was to sit in judgement or even a statement that all parents do it, but more like advice on why it's not such a good idea to try to protect your children from too much.

If you read it as advice rather than condemnation, do you still disagree?

As a parent of 2 grown ... or so they think "adults" ... I don't believe it is wise to protect them from everything as some lessons can only be learned by letting them make their own mistakes and if you taught them well, they will figure out why they made them or with some parental insight.

As parents we need to protect them from the blowtorch rather than the match. I won't go into the "little miracle syndrome" currently in favour ...

just an opinion

 

[cantdog]

And no one gets good judgement without making decisions.

I think fostering innocence is a disservice to the child, however endearing it may appear to the grandparents. Innocence is just ignorance in other clothes.

 

[Joe Wordsworth]

I think exposing someone to a thing they are unable to fully understand is an unnecessary hazard.

 

[cantdog]

Yep, and that's the needle a parent has to thread. You have to let go, or they can handle nothing. You can't do it too quickly, or they are likely to get burned. It's a real trick doing it right, and a lot depends on the child.

 

[cantdog]

This is proved by every page of the world's history. "

These Victorians never shied away from this kind of grandiose statement, either, did they?

 

[dr_mabeuse]

The reason the human race has survived and prospered is culture, which may be described as the accumulated wisdom and experience of the species. We acquire knowledge and pass it on to our offspring so that every new generation doesn't have to start from scratch and learn everything all over again.

A parent who tells his or her kid that heroin is bad for them or that driving drunk is a bad idea is trying to save the child the trouble of learning these facts again for themselves through their direct experience. Sometimes it works, and sometimes it doesn't, depending on both the child and the parent.

I don't see where informing them about the dangers of heroin requires you to let them use it though, or that you need to let them get an STD or pregnant so they can learn about the dangers of unprotected sex.

 

[cantdog]

The thesis of the Victorian fellow was that keeping them in ignorance helped nothing.

Besides which, Zoot, when do you stop? At some point you have to release your grip. At some point, they must face the world using their own judgement. You can't be there to the grave for them, steering their decisions. There will come a moment from which their judgement will be the strongest factor safeguarding them.

The best gift you can bequeath to them is a good head on their shoulders, the ability to deal with the world. You mustn't make them use only your judgement, or they won't have any of their own.

Besides, to what extent did you follow your parents' every dictum? They step into the role of their own captain earlier than you might like.

 

[Weird Harold]

Actually it was written in 1875 as part of a larger document dealing with making vices (such as drinking) illegal. I think that the writer was probably assuming that the reader would agree with his POV as part of an analagy. But I personally think it's pretty good advice.

Tht explains the flowery language and hyperbole then. It's still agood rebuttal to modern "Child Psychologists."

The best gift you can bequeath to them is a good head on their shoulders, the ability to deal with the world. You mustn't make them use only your judgement, or they won't have any of their own.

Besides, to what extent did you follow your parents' every dictum? They step into the role of their own captain earlier than you might like.

For me, the time to turn my daughters loose was when they could disagree with me and explain WHY their opinion differed from mine. Of course, I encouraged argumentation up to a point from the time they could talk and asked their opinions on everything for what to have for dinner to who to vote for. I didnt necessarily follow their opinions, but they often surprised me with thoughtful viewpoints from what most people would consider a very early age.

I didn't "turn them loose" all at once either. When they started to demonstrate wise choices about what to eat, that became their decision (subject to an occasional veto). When they demonstrated a grasp of finances, they were turned loose to decide what to do with their own money.

By the time the law said I had to turn them loose, they were already on "a leash" no stronger than cheap thread.

PS: I did follow essentially the philosphy outlined in the essay fragment. I didn't deliberately expose my daughters to drugs sex and violence, but I didn't go out of my way to shelter them from exposure to fictional depictions of them either -- instead, I took the opportunities to discuss the issues -- within the limits of their understanding -- when the subjects came up on TV, in movies or books, and in the news.

 

[English Lady]

Ya know, it' a big bear of mine that children just don't seem to be left to be kids for very long any more, some of it is hormonal, kids are goingthroughpuberty earlier and earleir these days and some of itis society with its boob enhancing clothing for 8 year olds

I was wrapped in cotton wool as a kid,my mum has always been the controlling kind and I can see that quite clearly now but I still reckon she did a damn good job as a mother. I enjoyed my childhood, loved it, enjoyed it all.

I'll not let my daughter run into the road to find outthat cars are dangerous, as I wouldn't let her stick her fingers in everything as a baby as I prefer her not to be burnt/electricuted/maimed to find out some things are dangerous.

Beth is at that "Why?" stage right now. She questions everything and I do my honest level best to give her an answer to all the questions I can and I think she takes most of it in now.

I think this works well for me because I say no and shout if she disobeys so essentially she's just avoiding being told off by learning how not to run into road/hit people/touch the cooker when it's on etc etc but as she know asks whyto everything she's starting to understand the reasoning behind mummys comands

 

[Seattle Zack]

If you can't afford 'em, then don't fucking have 'em is my opinion.

But these dumb breeder cows still keep squirting them out nonetheless. With no regard to the societial cost. How much does it cost the taxpayer for each of your "blessed events?" Ten grand? Twenty? Try 30 years in prison. A million five? Let's celebrate your irresponsibility. Have more, you'll get a tax break. If you ever pay taxes, which is doubtful.

More kids, more kids, more kids. As long as you don't have to pay for them.

 

[Op_Cit]

Damn, I was all set to write a really good reply on this thread and then along came Zack. Looks like I'm going to have competition for the "mister popularity" contest.

He's straying a bit but the basic notion is valid, and here's how it ties back:

Not exposing (I'm not saying "inflicting") kids to whatever danger (psychological/physical/etc.) is the simplistic answer for the parent who doesn't know or can't think of how to teach the child to deal with it. And if you don't know how to raise a kid, then why are you having one?

 

[Seattle Zack]

Damn, I was all set to write a really good reply on this thread and then along came Zack. Looks like I'm going to have competition for the "mister popularity" contest.

I was blissfully unware of the "mister popularity" contest, so I have to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would never join a club that would have me as a member. Best of luck to you all, nonetheless.

Still, my sentiments are heartfelt. As a childless (knock knock) bachellor who works with kids every day, I hope these dumb breeder cows just stop having kids. Just fucking stop. Now.

 

[Op_Cit]

I was blissfully unware of the "mister popularity" contest, so I have to paraphrase Groucho Marx, I would never join a club that would have me as a member. Best of luck to you all, nonetheless.

Still, my sentiments are heartfelt. As a childless (knock knock) bachellor who works with kids every day, I hope these dumb breeder cows just stop having kids. Just fucking stop. Now.

You know, see how many people you can get to put you on ignore...

Anyway, I understand completely where you're coming from.

I am of the opinion that, for any member of a species aspiring to sentience, reproduction is the ultimate hubris and the greatest sin. The only penance for which is complete, unflagging effort to get it right (raising 'em). Anything less is the foulest of deeds.

Now, as soon as people wake up and get on this morning they can start the dog pile. Here, let me help get them started:

"Well, I never! What right do you have to say such a thing?! Until you've had a child of your own you can't begin to comprehend...."

And in your case it may also include:

"It takes two to make a baby, and in this male dominated society those 'breeder cows' wouldn't be popping out babies if those goddamned good for nothin' fucking men didn't get them pregnant...."

 

[elsol]

"It takes two to make a baby, and in this male dominated society those 'breeder cows' wouldn't be popping out babies if those goddamned good for nothin' fucking men didn't get them pregnant...."

Well... actually Jack did forget to the add the breeder maggots that can't strap a condom on every now and then.

While the male dominated society thing might not fly... it was an obvious omission.

It does take a sperm to make the whole thing work after all... even if they're lesbian breeder cows and one is REALLY butch; two eggs, a baby do not make.

Sincerely,
ElSol