Raising Children @ MindSay

Tell me what you think about this article from the OpinionJournal, by Tony Woodlief.  Here’s the link:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/taste/?id=110010571

 

“Another school year has sprung itself upon us, which is always an occasion for my wife, a former Detroit public-school teacher, and me to remind ourselves why we home-school. Part of the reason, in addition to my wife's expertise in this area, can be found in Thomas Sowell's ‘A Conflict of Visions,’ published 20 years ago. Mr. Sowell contrasted the ‘unconstrained vision’ of utopians, who want to radically improve humankind, with the ‘constrained vision’ of realists, who begin with the proposition that man is inherently self-interested, and not moldable into whatever form the high-minded types have in store for us once they get their itchy fingers on the levers of power. Mr. Sowell's book has been influential among conservatives for its compelling explanation of the divide between people who want to reshape us--often via large intrusions on liberty--and those who believe that the purpose of government is to protect institutions (like markets and families) that channel our inherent selfishness into productive behavior. It is also a handy guide for parenting.

 

While some mothers and fathers stubbornly cling to the utopian beliefs of their childless years, the vision of humans as inherently sinful and selfish resonates with many of us who are parents. Nobody who's stood between a toddler and the last cookie should still harbor a belief in the inherent virtue of mankind. An afternoon at the playground is apt to make one toss out the idealist Rousseau (‘man is a compassionate and sensible being’) in favor of the more realistic Hobbes (‘all mankind [is in] a perpetual and restless desire for power’). As a father of four sons, I've signed on to Mr. Sowell's summation of a parent's duty: ‘Each new generation born is in effect an invasion of civilization by little barbarians, who must be civilized before it is too late.’

 

The constrained vision indicates that world harmony and universal satisfaction are mirages. People are innately selfish, and they'll always desire more goodies. This means that tradeoffs between competing wants are inevitable. My wife and I therefore forbid our children to use the word ‘fair.’ Parents still in the thrall of the unconstrained worldview are prone to manipulation by their kids, who like little human-rights lawyers insist on fairness as an imperative. And don't get me started on the damage that an exaggerated sense of fairness and entitlement has done to public schools. In our house things are much simpler: That last piece of cake had to be divided somehow, and in this imperfect world your brother got the extra frosting. Deal with it.

 

While the unconstrained worldview teaches that traditions and customs are to be distrusted as holdovers from benighted generations, those of us with the constrained view believe it's good to make our children address their elders properly, refrain from belching at the table and wear clothes that actually cover them. Mr. Sowell noted that some benefits from evolved societal rules can't be articulated, because they've developed through trial and error over centuries. This reveals the sublime wisdom in that time-honored parental rejoinder: ‘Because I said so.’

 

It's not surprising, then, to see Mr. Sowell approvingly cite Edmund Burke's observation that traditions provide ‘wisdom without reflection.’ This is lived out in our house by the dictum that parents are to be obeyed first, and politely questioned later. That seems oppressive to parents with the unconstrained worldview, who want to nurture Junior's sense of autonomy and broad-minded reasoning. It's awfully useful, however, when Junior is about to ride his bike into the path of an oncoming car. Obedience may be a dirty word in progressive schools and enlightened parenting circles, but it saves lives.

 

Mr. Sowell also notes that among those espousing the unconstrained view, intentions are pre-eminent; utopians are cooking up a better tomorrow, after all, and should be excused for breaking a few million eggs while making the human omelet. In our house, however, you are in big trouble if you push your brother into the pool, regardless of the sincerity behind your desire that he learn to swim without his floaties. Hiding an animal trap directly on the path Dad takes to get his morning paper is likewise unacceptable, no matter how badly you want to catch a critter. And while other parents cherish whatever art their little Monets create, we punish activities that incorporate Mom's jewelry and Superglue, no matter how glittery the final product.

 

Many parents in the unconstrained camp adhere to Rousseau's sentiment: ‘Man is born free, but everywhere is in chains.’ They not only fail to punish bad behavior but snarl at anyone who rebukes their precious darlings. In our house we have reversed Rousseau's theory: You are born in bondage and should be darn grateful for the free room and board. Besides, if you want to talk about restrictions on liberty you can take it up with your mother, who hasn't had an uninterrupted trip to the bathroom since 2001.

 

I sometimes speak to groups of high-school and college students, and I have taken to disabusing them of the feel-good notion that they can do anything they want so long as they are passionate about it. Intentions, as Mr. Sowell observes, mean very little in the constrained worldview--and, besides, individuals are neither equal nor perfectible. This means that some of us will dig ditches for a living, especially if those certain someones, who know full well who I'm talking about, don't stop shooting spitballs at their brothers and get back to their math workbooks. Firmly in the constrained camp, I'm less concerned that my children self-actualize at an early age than that they learn a trade and get out of the house.

 

As it turns out, this tension between realists and utopians has existed for at least as long as people have been making a buck dispensing wisdom about how other folks should raise their kids. Ann Hulbert's ‘Raising America: Experts, Parents, and a Century of Advice about America’ reveals successive generations of disciplinarians pitted against ‘gentler Rousseauian’ proponents of the inherent goodness of a child's nature. Ms. Hulbert quotes the president of the National Congress of Mothers proclaiming in 1897 that science-based parenting innovations would so change civilization that ‘those of us who live to see the year 1925 will behold a new world and a new people.’ Fast forward past two world wars and the global ravages of utopian totalitarianism to 2006, when education expert Stephanie Marshall writes exuberantly that ‘the fundamental purpose of schooling is to liberate the goodness and genius of children.’

 

Perhaps the fundamental purpose of schooling should be to liberate parents from the necessity of supporting our kids well past our retirement years. But regardless, this notion that humans are inherently angelic, and that it is society that corrupts them, is at the heart of much bad parenting, as well as inept schooling. Rather than help our children develop internal constraints that channel their energy and passion into productive enterprises, we end up teaching them that limits and discipline are for chumps. Ms. Hulbert notes that even Dr. Benjamin Spock, whose advice in his book ‘Baby and Child Care’ was so often blamed for parental permissiveness, had seen enough of the consequences: ‘I can hardly bear to be around rude children,’ he wrote. ‘I have the impulse to spank them, and to give a lecture to their parents.’”

My weekend was a pretty nice. I was studying but still allowed myself to relax every once in a while so that I wouldn't go all coo-coo for Coco Puffs.
On Sunday I went to to cousin's little girl's first comunion. I was so proud of Rita Marie, of the almost thirty or so children making the sacrement she was literally the only one to be well behaved. Seriously, this was not ony a mass but was supposed to be a reverent event.
Where do these kids get this crap from. Rita is homeschooled so she didn't go through the parish's preparation program, and it showed. Now, I'll admit, I come form a strict devout family (even though I wouldn't personally concider myself devout) so I have a different view then most. I also grew up going to a more conservative parish and still go to a pretty conservative parish.
That being said, these kids were obviously not ready or properly prepared. There was a few of them in front of us where one girl of about the same age as Rita (nine) was playing with a doll the entire time. Another group, the boy and girl were hitting each other and spitting at each other. None of the children knelt down to pray after recieving the Eucharist (and kneeling is supposed to be done no matter what).
It didn't help that the preist made a show of the mass. During his homily he called a handful of the children onto the alter to play a game. He interviewed the children.
The priest didn't even proporly close the mass. During the time when he was supposed to say the closing prayer and give the final blessing he called children up to the alter again for photo's.
The church has changed a bit since I was a child but this was a joke, they turned the mass into a show. When I was a child if I had acted like that my tough German mother would have pulled me out of the church and taken me home and told me that if I wasn't going to behave I wasn't ready to make my first communion. Heck, she probably would have even smacked me (In my family if your mother gives you a smack it means business and you have no other option but to take it and shut up and obey).
Do parents even care about how they are raising their children?
Ok enough ranting.
I was super early for the mass. I thought it was at eleven when in fact it was at eleven-thirty. I went to the dollar store down the street from the church and bought a fifty-cents card to give to Rita Marie. I was still early so I wonder the halls of the parish's school. I went to that school almost fifteen years ago and I was amazed how in that time nothing has changed. Most of the teachers are the same and the class rooms all look the same as I remember with only a few minor thing changed like newer desk (the one's I used when I went there were like thirty years old back then). I couldn't help but laugh .
Anyway, we had a lunch at my cousin's place to celebrate afterwards. As is ussual I just hung out with my father, Uncle Ray, and Cousin Ray. We just drank black coffee and smoked cigars and talked politics. I'm not a  "manly man" so that is pretty much it when it come to being manly. I was glad they all were there I would have gone insane if I was stuck inside the cramped house with all the women.

Thanks,
Mark
 

"Don't what?"

Adam replied. "Don't eat the forbidden

fruit."
God said.

 

"Forbidden fruit?
We have forbidden fruit?
Hey Eve..we have forbidden fruit!"

 

" No Way !"

 

"Yes way!"

 

"Do NOT eat the fruit! "
said God.

 

"Why?"

 

"Because I am your Father and I said so! "

God replied,

wondering why He hadn't stopped

creation after making the elephants.

A few minutes later,

God saw His children having an apple

break
and He was ticked!
"Didn't I tell you not to eat the fruit? "
God asked.

 
"Uh huh,"
Adam replied.

 

"Then why did you? "
said the Father.

"I don't know,"
said Eve.

 

"She started it! "
Adam said.

 

"Did not! "

 

"Did too! "

 

"DID NOT! "

 

Having had it with the two of them,

God's punishment was that Adam and Eve

should have children of their own.

Thus the pattern was set and it has never changed.  

BUT THERE IS REASSURANCE IN THE STORY!

If you have persistently and lovingly tried to give children

 

wisdom and they haven't taken it,

don't be hard on yourself.

If God had trouble raising children,

what makes you think it would be

a piece of cake for you?

 

THINGS TO THINK ABOUT!

1. You spend the first two years of their life

teaching them to walk and talk. Then you spend
the next sixteen telling them to sit down and shut up.

 

2. Grandchildren are God's reward
for not killing your own children.

 

3. Mothers of teens now know why
some animals eat their young.

 

4. Children seldom misquote you.

In fact,
they usually repeat word for word
what you shouldn't have said.

 

5. The main purpose of holding children's parties
is to remind yourself that there are children
more awful than your own.



6. We childproofed our homes,
but they are still getting in. 

ADVICE FOR THE DAY:

Be nice to your kids.
They will choose your
nursing home one day.

 

AND FINALLY:

 

IF YOU HAVE A LOT OF TENSION

AND YOU GET A HEADACHE,

DO WHAT IT SAYS

ON THE ASPIRIN BOTTLE:

 

"TAKE TWO ASPIRIN"

AND "KEEP AWAY FROM CHILDREN"!!! !!

I did a post about "Emo-ism" or whatever a couple weeks ago and received a reply from a 13 year old girl. She was pissy about what I had to say, so I replied. I figured I would try to explain. Bad idea. Instead of just letting it go, she responded to my reply. This time I decided to just delete it. Why? Because one, she's a child. Children are observent, but their ideals now days are not peppered with experience and wisdom. It's peppered with what they think they know about themselves and the world around them. As adults know, you usually don't realize who you as a person until you're in your twenties if you're lucky.  Two, you don't argue with fools, especially foolish children.

 

I am looking for a new blogging community for this kid reason alone. I feel I'm too graphic for this community which has a lot of kids and no way to keep them from accessing my post unless I shut it off to the very few folks that are regulars. I've been noticing that alot of  my vistiors are under 18 and I believe it's due to my tag. Although, it didn't help when I posted about "Emo-ism". I feel it's unfortunate that I have to do this (I really do, because my musings of my life are not for children) because "parents" are so uninvolved in raising their kids that they let their children watch anything on tv and surf the Internet without any boundries. If you're interested in reading my misadventures on another site, reply to this post and as soon as I figure out where I'm going...I'll drop you a line...

This may be the only really thing of note that I have blogged about in ages, but it has been bumping around in my mind the past couple of days, so here goes.  And yes, eventually I will get to the point in my own, round-about, way.

I have no brothers, though I have often wished for one in my youth.  But the older I get, the more I am glad that I don't have one.  He would more than likely be just like the other red-neck idiots around here.  Racist, sexist,  bigoted, and extremely homophobic. 

I refuse to allow my son to grow up that way.  Or my daughter for that matter.  But I worry more about Christopher as they get the brunt of having this behavior shoved down their throats.

This really sparked when, with the help of Matt, Eternity discovered the lesbian band Tatu.  She likes to listen to them in their native Russian and asked what one of their songs was about.  (Malchik Gay, or Gay Boy, if you are interested).  That sparked a discussion about what Homosexual, Gay, Lesbian, Bi-sexual, means.   And our children, sharing their mother's sometimes unnatural curiosity, asked Questions.  Lots of them.  And, understanding their undying curiosity, Matt and I answered them honestly.

But my parents, mainly my father, are such hypocritical bible thumpers, they have no problem saying words that I will not use such as (and I use them here for the sake of this post.  I never ever use these words and I find their use distasteful in the extreme), fag, nigger, towl-head, etc.  It's not just my parents either.  The sperm donor is the same.  As are my brother in laws.

I try to teach both of my children to treat people like they would like to be treated.  To not be homophobic, racist, bigoted, sexist.  It's easier with Eternity.  She will be friends with anyone regardless of how different they are from her.  And girls are usually more tolerant than men.  And right now, Christopher is the same.  He doesn't care what color or nationality his friends are.  But I worry more about the homophobic atmosphere here.  The word fag is tossed around so easily.  So much in fact that you will rarely see an openly gay person in this town.  A child here would be terrified to come out of the closet because their parents would disown them, their friends would ditch them, and worse. 

Christopher is seven, in my opinion, too young to have a sexuality.  But he might grow up and decided he's gay.  He might decided that he is straight.  I don't care.  Matt doesn't care.  All we care about, for both of them, is that regardless of what their sexual preference is, they are well treated and treat their partner well.  But if Christopher is straight, I don't want him to be homophobic.  I don't want him to treat gay men like they have some horribly contagious disease. 

But how, whether it be here or somewhere else, do we override popular public opinion, and teach him to be accepting of other people's sexual preference?  How do we override what his biological father, grandparents, and uncles say freely within his hearing?  How do we keep this society from telling him what is 'right or wrong'?

Thank fuck Christopher is so very much his own person.  He is secure with who he is and secure in the fact that his mother (because right now my opinion is the only one he cares about, mine and now Matt's) and his step-father to be, loves him and accepts him in all is hyper craziness.

I just worry that as he gets older he might start to care and listen to what society tells him is right.  And I don't like what our society says is right.  With all the political and religious groups bashing gays and gay marriage, what is a mother who wants her children to grow up and take people as they are and like them or dislike them for their treatment of other people, to do?

In some of the words of Christopher's favorite band, Green Day, how do keep him from being part of the redneck agenda? 

This place is no place to raise children.