rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) (08/23/84)
Fine...
I didn't move the discussion to this newsgroup. It was started in net.singles
and it was deemed more appropriate for this newsgroup. This machine has been
hopelessly fouled up for the last few weeks, so I probably missed a good number
of articles. Judging from what mail and news I *have* received, I'd say I
benefitted from the downtime.
It's interesting that all the people who rail at me for proposing "the
hands-off method" or imposing "my preferred methods" of childrearing have
failed to notice that (until I was asked "What would I do?") I did not
discuss methods but rather ideals for what should be the basis for a parent's
decisions regarding the raising of a child. One would think that every parent
would agree with the very simple and unadorned tenet I put forth: that since
a child is a living human being (and not a toy or a pet or a piece of property)
whose proper upbringing is the responsibility of his/her parents, the child
(whose life is in the hands of those parents until adulthood) has the right
to expect a rational upbringing by his/her parents, meaning an upbringing that
allows the child to develop his/her own individuality as much as possible and
that notions of a parent's "rights" to decide what the child's individuality
will be ("MY child will be a doctor/go to Harvard/etc. just like me/because
I didn't get to and I wanted to") are immeasurable when compared to the
child's rights to a sane upbringing. The fact that so many feel otherwise
should have shocked me, but it didn't, having witnessed the upbringing of
so many children by so many parents. It gives new meaning (no, rather "the
same old meaning") to the phrase "vicious cycle". Apparently the notion that
children are put on earth to be molded as their parents see fit is much like
(exactly like) the notions that black people were meant to be subservient to
whites or that women were meant to be possessed by men: too long enduring and
too long in dying.
There are words to be said about people who refer to speaking one's mind as
"adolescent behavior" (does this reveal further contempt for children?) and
who proudly proclaim that they bypass and ignore *everything* that someone has
to say. I won't bother to say those words; these people have spoken for them-
selves. I've been misinterpreted before and I'll be misinterpreted again. (If
people have problems understanding each other in face to face communication,
can we expect electronic communication to be close to even *that* level of
accuracy?) I said something rather simple that I would have thought most
rational people would agree with. Either I'm wrong or the bulk of the
respondents are not rational people. Perhaps the answer lies somewhere in
between. But when the final level of counterargument comes down to "Are *you*
a parent?" or "*Your* upbringing must have been rotten", one can see the
vacuousness of this form of argument from miles away.
Apparently many people feel the need, feel it is right, to mold their children
as they see fit, to make children into what *they* want them to be, regardless
of the individuality of the person whose life they feel they can fuck with at
will. (Don't complain about the language; a phrase that was any less strong
would not have accurately portrayed the meaning.) I could say that that's
fine, do what you want, but the lives of people who don't have control over
this manipulation being performed on them are being affected. (Yes, I'm
talking about their children.) And I'm a lot less concerned with the parents'
opinions of me (which would have been the same regardless, no doubt) than with
the lives of those children. I don't have any say in the upbringing of their
children. The sad thing is that their parents do, and they choose to exercise
it as much as possible in the extreme. Adam said it much better than I have
in his last article. (And, imagine that, he's not a parent either.)
Please don't bother either following this up or replying to me, because I'm
withdrawing from the discussion. (I won't even stoop to answering empty
personal attacks that have no bearing on the subject at hand, sure as I am
that many will take this as an open invitation to post such items.) This will
allow the discussion to follow a more "natural" course as determined by the
readership, to include topics such as "How to Make Your Child Into A Doctor If
He Wants to Be a Musician", "What to Do If Your Child Expresses Personal
Beliefs That Are Contrary to Yours", "Deciding What Your Child Wants",
"Choosing Your Child's Individuality and Personality While He/She Is Still In
the Womb", and "Corporal Punishment as a Means of Ensuring Compliance and Clone
Like Behavior". Again thank you to Adam, Larry, Brian, and Russ, for letting
me know that it's not totally dark out there. (Did Patty ever tell this group
what her childrearing methodology was? Just curious, I had thought it would
prove interesting and helpful.)
--
BRIAN: "No, you've got it all wrong! You don't have to follow me! You don't
have to follow ANYONE! You've got to think for yourselves! You are
all individuals!"
CROWD: "YES, WE ARE ALL INDIVIDUALS!" Rich Rosen pyuxn!rlrward@hao.UUCP (Mike Ward) (08/25/84)
[] >Please don't bother either following this up or replying to me, because I'm >withdrawing from the discussion. I hereby withdraw my suggestion that we need a moderated net.kids. -- Michael Ward, NCAR/SCD UUCP: {hplabs,nbires,brl-bmd,seismo,menlo70,stcvax}!hao!sa!ward ARPA: hplabs!hao!sa!ward@Berkeley BELL: 303-497-1252 USPS: POB 3000, Boulder, CO 80307