Jump to navigation
Liberal Parenting Scolds
R. Alex Whitlock
Over a month back, Kuff
compared and contrasted the 2004 Texas Republican Platform with a new bill designed to help parents censor the movies they show their kids if they so desire. The basic accusation was that Republicans are hypocritical when it comes to raising kids. Though Kuff quoted the two sources without comment, the thrust of the comments was that parents need to watch over their kids
Except that's exactly what this law is designed to help them do.
The law would allow DVD manufacturers to put in a device that would automatically censor naughty words, sex scenes, violence, and so forth. This way parents that want to censor what their kids watch can do so while the rest of us are not saddled with watered-down material or more diffiiculty buying more risque or bloody features. The law doesn't even allow for the modification of movies by third parties, only how the product is used in their own home.
Win/win, right?
Apparently not because some people believe that they know better how you should raise your kids than you do. While I don't ascribe to the theory that there is no "right" and "wrong" way to raise a kid, I'm apparently more - for lack of a better word - liberal when it comes to allowing parents to raise their kids in a way that they seem fit than are some actual liberals.
Kuff
follows up arguing that such devices make parents "lazier rather than more responsible." since it " does nothing to address the question of how one's kids will behave when you're not there to watch them."
Perhaps so. For my part, it is very unlikely that I would ever use such a device since I plan to (emphasis on "plan to") limit overall access to television. Oh, wait, but that would put me in the same category since I can't follow my kid everywhere. With that in mind, I should just give up, let them watch soft-core porn on HBO late into the night. It's the responsible thing to do since they're just going to see it elsewhere, right?
I actually don't plan to (emphasis on "plan to") run a PG household. Ideally, I'll be able to discuss matters of sex and violence and help guide the kids down a deeper moral understanding of the underlying issues with both of those.
But what I don't plan to do (emphasis on "plan to") is subject my children to (or allow my children to be subjected to) the degrading, vapid 24/7 skinfest that is pop culture. I'm relatively certain that they would get access to it elsewhere, but with any luck I will prevent them from being immersed with this junk.
I believe that one's environment does have a great effect on who they become. While I don't necessarily think it's in the kid's best interest to control the environment, I do believe in the "garbage in, garbage" out principle. Kuff may disagree, and such is his right, but I no more trust him to tell me the right way to raise a kid than I trust those that would tell me that the devil of temptation will irrevocably enter my kid if they see one stray boobie on TV.
And as for the laziness involved, some parents don't have the time sufficiently to raise their kids. This is particularly two in double-income households where both parents consider their careers non-negotiable as well as those that have to do it for financial reasons (hence all my "plan to"s above). I may or may not agree with this particular way of going about it (auto-edited DVD players, I mean), but I am disinclined to play judge and jury with their right to do so when this is a symptom of the larger problem of the destruction of the formal household... but if I say that I'm being judgmental, aren't I?
buy cheap softwarecheap softwareoem softwarecheap adobe acrobat
Observations
Someday I hope to write something up on why I think the women's lib movement and it's push to allow women to work in more jobs (a worthwhile goal) had the adverse affect of *making* women work even when they don't want to, thusleading to your "destruction of the formal household."
Simply put, when you double the workforce, salaries get cut in half. Therefore, both parents have to work now to have the same standard of living as they would if just men worked.
It's complicated by the state of credit and debt in this country, but that's the jist...
I don't consider two working parents and a formal household to be mutually exclusive (and I certainly hope that no one read my comment on the matter as a desire to keep women "barefoot and pregnant"), though I do think that to a degree two professionals with strong career goals is inconducive to what I would label a "formal household."
I would argue that there needs to be one "lead" career and one side career. I don't think it necessarily ought to be the man that has the lead career (if Eel and I make it, it won't be). So what would constitute a side-career? Either part time work or 40-hour work that comes with flexible hours. My aunt in California managed to get great employees simply by offering 3/4-time work with (some) benefits. It really surprises me that more companies don't do this. While the structure of the household has changed (to daycare-oriented) and then changed back again (when that didn't seem as good as it turned out to be), the corporate environment didn't change with it. There are a lot of potentially great employees out there that simply don't want to work the career-track (work, advance, raise, work, advance, raise, with layoffs scattered in the process and starting at the bottom again each time) and if employers would just offer steady work off the tracks, I think they would benefit just as much as the family of the employees would.
There are, of course, cases where parents both have to work in excess of 40 hours a week. Anna's and Brian's family comes to mind, as do most in their Pasadena neighborhood. In fact, Pasadena was what came to mind when I wrote that passage.
I think you're right that the current environment makes it necessary for both parents to work. I do think that there are a lot of dual-income households where that's not the reason, but I'm a lot less sympathetic to their plight than I am those with a teacher and a welder/fitter having to bring in enough income to have a decent house with a decent school.
The credit/debt thing, as well as the topic more at large, is coming up on the second part of my wealth/happiness post.
My point is that there's simply no substitute for the hard work needed to instill one's own values in one's children, and for knowing your children well enough to have a feel for how they'll react in situations you can't control. I believe too many people will latch onto something like ClearPlay as a total solution rather than a tool in the toolbox, much as too many people install a firewall and assume they're in no further danger from hackers. I think this is something we both agree on, whatever else we may feel about this.
Thanks for stopping by, Charles.
The point of view reminds me of what my neighbor, Mrs. Tyler, said about cruise control in cars. It makes people think less when they're driving and causes accidents. I've heard the same argument made about automatic transmissions.
There may be something to that and your criticisms of ClearPlay, but just because something has the potential to have a side effect that I don't like isn't a good reason to make (or keep) it illegal.
As such, I view the proposed law to be a good one. My thinking is that it is a tool in a toobox, and in two-income households parents need all the tools they can get.
Add an Observation
Comment spam is an ongoing problems that we're trying to address. Previously we required people to create accounts and log in. I am thankful to say that is no longer the case. We're giving Captcha another try and are playing around with a text-based Q&A variant of Captcha. So bear with us as we try to figure out how to best get a handle ont he problem. Please note that any comment on a post more than 30 days old will go into the moderation queue, where I will get to it when I can which could be once a week.
