Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site cbscc.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!cbosgd!cbscc!pmd
From: pmd@cbscc.UUCP (Paul Dubuc)
Newsgroups: net.kids
Subject: Re: Rights and Rosen: Rebuttal to T. C. Wheeler
Message-ID: <3476@cbscc.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 21-Aug-84 13:11:46 EDT
Article-I.D.: cbscc.3476
Posted: Tue Aug 21 13:11:46 1984
Date-Received: Thu, 23-Aug-84 00:34:10 EDT
References: <962@pyuxa.UUCP>, <2960@alice.UUCP>
Organization: AT&T Bell Laboratories , Columbus
Lines: 91

>[from T.C. Wheeler:]
>I would suggest that all of those who are currently beating the dead
>horse over kids rights vs parents rights wait awhile until they have
>their own set of kids then wait 15 years while they experiment then
>post the results.  ...

I definitely agree that those pontificate on how children should be
raised should be parents themselves.  Everyone is an expert on how
to raise kids until they have some of their own. :-)  There's really
no substitute for experience.

>... Every kid is different.  Every parent is different.
>And above all, Dr Spock was wrong and even admitted as much.  There
>is just no way you can reason with a two-year old, at least 99% of
>them.  The values your child receives will be your values so
>preaching teaching other values is wasted.

It's true that young children learn more by example than by reasoning
on their own.  An awful lot of what influences them has its effect
before kids reach the age of reason and they pick up on their parent's
values.  But I don't think this means we need to be fatalistic about
the child's development.  For one thing, if our own values are good
and right there ought to be little problem.  We teach our kids more
by what we are and what we do than anything we say.  Not that verbal
instruction isn't important, but if such instruction is not consistent
with the way a parent acts it has little effect.  If that's true we
need to examine our own values and their example to our children.

>Let's get back to finding
>out what to do about earaches, diaper rash, and the other myriad of
>problems parents must face on a day-to-day basis.  I'm sure most
>parents don't sit around discussing the proper way to instill a
>set of values on their children.  It is just not the real world
>of parenting.  There are far too many other problems that have to
>be addressed on a daily basis.  The rights discussion has little
>to do with what we do every day other than as back-burner
>thought once in awhile.

Many of us are concerned about how to instill proper values in their
children.  It's lot's more important than figuring out how to treat
diaper rash.  Adam has given some very good thoughts on that.  But,
Adam, you've maintained that some of us have read you and Rich in
the extreme.  I'm not sure that you haven't done the same with
Mr. Wheeler.

I do hope that most parents will give priority to thinking about
the kinds of values they want their children to have.  If the parents
don't someone else will.  What I really don't like is all the talk
about parents being incompetent based on what they teach or don't
teach their children.  Where does such talk lead?  The only place
I can think of is the place where someone besides the parents see
fit to do the teaching.  If someone raises their child to be an
immoral bigot that's a shame and a tragedy.  But as soon as people
go around saying that the child of a bigot should be learning other
things (implying someone other than the parents should be doing
the teaching) a dangerous precident is in the making.  Who is going
to supplant the teaching of such parents?  Only the state.  And once
moral an ideological teaching is made a criterion by which to judge
parents incompetent we are all in trouble.  If the state can usurp
the parental rights of a bigot, it can do it to anyone--depending
on what the state sees fit to call bigotry.  (Whose definition of
bigotry shall we go by?).

My point is that as bad as we think other parent's are, no one
has the right to say that another parent's attitude is the cause of
great problems in society.  That is a non sequitur.  We should all
keep our ideals for raising our children,  but we should only
apply them to our *own* children.  If there is any harmful bias
to be worked out of our growing children it should be done by their
parents, or no one.  Any solution to such "attitude caused" problems
that bypasses parental authority is unacceptable.  Contrary to Rich's
assertion, parents do have rights--rights to fulfill the child's need
for parentage.  Parents may abuse them but they should never be usurped
(on grounds of teaching content).  If parents don't excercise and
protect their rights someone else will take them over.  The kids
need for parentage doesn't change.  Someone *will* teach them.  God
help us if that someone becomes the state (or anyone beside the parents).

If our aim here is to help people to excercise their parental rights
justly, lets stop blaming each other attitude and teaching for the
problems of society.  I see an all-too-easy justification here for
shortcutting the parent's influence on their children by declaring
the parents incompetent based on the values they instill.  Who will
be the rightful judge of competence?

-- 

Paul Dubuc 		{cbosgd,ihnp4}!cbscc!pmd

  The true light that enlightens every one was coming
  into the world...		(John 1:9)