3 ms·

>> the children belong to society That's the dangerous way of thinking that we should avoid. Children belong to their parents, until they come out of age when

by mamon 8y ago

>> the children belong to society That's the dangerous way of thinking that we should avoid. Children belong to their parents, until they come out of age when they start "belonging" only to themselves. Seeing children as belonging to society is typical for totalitarian regimes (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hitler_Youth)

croon 8y ago
No, it's typical for any society. There's social services in most if not all industrialized societies, that can take children away from their parents for the sake of the child if the parent(s) are ill-equipped to raise them. That's not a bad thing.
- waterhouse 8y ago
  > That's not a bad thing. For the record, I don't consider this obviously true. If you search "cps horror stories", some of the results are about horrible family situations that Child Protective Services has encountered, and others are about family situations that CPS has horribly mishandled. A couple of links focusing on the latter: https://parentalrights.org/child_protective_services/ https://parentalrights.org/child_protective_services/ https://lfb.org/confessions-of-an-ex-cps-agent/ https://lfb.org/confessions-of-an-ex-cps-agent/ I'm not sure if anyone has tried very hard to make a case that the good of CPS outweighs the bad.
- bzbarsky 8y ago
  The problems start when "ill-equipped" is defined as expansively as possible. See the various cases of CPS getting involved when parents try to teach their kids basic independence by letting them walk to the playground on the corner and play there. I think the way CPS is currently done in the US is actually causing a great deal of harm to current kids whose parents are totally reasonable parents...
DomreiRoam 8y ago
I just checked the definition of "belong" I didn't like the idea that parents own children . I did find to meanings: "be the property of" and "be a member of". So I really prefer to say that children are part of a society than children are owned by their parents. Could we say that children are part of our society and that parents are their guardians and primary educators? I would like to convey that we have shifted from the "pater familias" model to something different were we recognize that children are no more properties.
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Belong doesn't always imply ownership, it is more nuanced. "We belong together" doesn't mean that there's a contract of sale putting one of us in the others ownership. Children belong with their parents. Parents belong with their children. It's mutual. That aside: High levels of intellectual learning are not the be-all-and-end-all; ie should not be the ultimate goal. Fulfillment of the person, and in turn of those around them, is a better outcome IMO. Schools often focus on intellectual outcomes to set kids up for their future; but parents should watch that the kids have a measure of fulfillment now -- this is why the huge focus on attendance as the primary statistic in UK schools is so damaging IMO. Kids need an education (not necessarily in a school) but a family holiday can be a part of that education and provide a measure of enjoyment to life. "What is this life if full of care we have no time to stand and stare, ..." (W H Davies)
  - DomreiRoam 8y ago
    As a non native speaker i just reacted to "belong to" and I think "belong with" is really better in the context of parent-children relation. I 100% agree that intellectual outcomes (and even more fitness to the job market) shouldn't be the ultimate goal. We should look back to a well rounded education. And you re quite right that education is provided in a lot of way. "It takes a village to raise a child"

by mamon 8y ago

croon 8y ago

No, it's typical for any society. There's social services in most if not all industrialized societies, that can take children away from their parents for the sake of the child if the parent(s) are ill-equipped to raise them. That's not a bad thing.

waterhouse 8y ago
> That's not a bad thing. For the record, I don't consider this obviously true. If you search "cps horror stories", some of the results are about horrible family situations that Child Protective Services has encountered, and others are about family situations that CPS has horribly mishandled. A couple of links focusing on the latter: https://parentalrights.org/child_protective_services/ https://parentalrights.org/child_protective_services/ https://lfb.org/confessions-of-an-ex-cps-agent/ https://lfb.org/confessions-of-an-ex-cps-agent/ I'm not sure if anyone has tried very hard to make a case that the good of CPS outweighs the bad.
bzbarsky 8y ago
The problems start when "ill-equipped" is defined as expansively as possible. See the various cases of CPS getting involved when parents try to teach their kids basic independence by letting them walk to the playground on the corner and play there. I think the way CPS is currently done in the US is actually causing a great deal of harm to current kids whose parents are totally reasonable parents...

DomreiRoam 8y ago

I just checked the definition of "belong" I didn't like the idea that parents own children . I did find to meanings: "be the property of" and "be a member of". So I really prefer to say that children are part of a society than children are owned by their parents. Could we say that children are part of our society and that parents are their guardians and primary educators? I would like to convey that we have shifted from the "pater familias" model to something different were we recognize that children are no more properties.

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Belong doesn't always imply ownership, it is more nuanced. "We belong together" doesn't mean that there's a contract of sale putting one of us in the others ownership. Children belong with their parents. Parents belong with their children. It's mutual. That aside: High levels of intellectual learning are not the be-all-and-end-all; ie should not be the ultimate goal. Fulfillment of the person, and in turn of those around them, is a better outcome IMO. Schools often focus on intellectual outcomes to set kids up for their future; but parents should watch that the kids have a measure of fulfillment now -- this is why the huge focus on attendance as the primary statistic in UK schools is so damaging IMO. Kids need an education (not necessarily in a school) but a family holiday can be a part of that education and provide a measure of enjoyment to life. "What is this life if full of care we have no time to stand and stare, ..." (W H Davies)
- DomreiRoam 8y ago
  As a non native speaker i just reacted to "belong to" and I think "belong with" is really better in the context of parent-children relation. I 100% agree that intellectual outcomes (and even more fitness to the job market) shouldn't be the ultimate goal. We should look back to a well rounded education. And you re quite right that education is provided in a lot of way. "It takes a village to raise a child"