more indignation from Liberal Street Fighter
Growing up can seem so daunting, for both the child and the parent. In our society, parenting is primarily described as protecting or sheltering children. Pedophiles seem to be around every corner, judging by the relentless string of reports in the Infotainment Media. Families are pummeled by commercialism, economic pressures, consumerism … how, oh how to protect these poor, fragile flowers from such a harsh, cruel world?
Some feel, as I discussed in Nanny Party, that government should pressure businesses and creators to censor or label “offensive” or “dangerous” ideas and images. This isn’t true just from the right, but also many on the left, as well.
Politicians, of course, LOVE issues that allow them to appear to be doing something, holding committee meetings and news conferences trupeting grand proposals to help parents protect their children:
“We should all be deeply disturbed that a game which now permits the simulation of lewd sexual acts in an interactive format with highly realistic graphics has fallen into the hands of young people across the country,” (Hillary) Clinton wrote in a letter to the head of the Federal Trade Commission.
“The development of adolescents is largely dependent on the environmental influences that are present in a child’s daily life,” said Senator Santorum. “Media is such a prevalent and influential presence in our society that it is important that we understand the impact it has on our youth. Hopefully, through a better understanding of the power of media, we can use it in a healthy and productive way to educate our children.”
Is the primary, or only, function of parents and government to PROTECT children? If so, and we successfully shelter them from ALL “harm,” how then do children make the transition to adulthood?
Of course, there are real dangers that children, that ALL of us, need to be protected from, and government action is often chosen as a way to do that. Police, the Military, various agencies like the FDA, EPA and OSHA are tasked with various goals to help protect people from harm. People buy insurance to spread risk out amongst a larger population, to help people weather and recover from inevitable hardships that come into their lives.
Americans have a view of themselves that they are self-reliant, yet parents are often insistent that their values should be the only influences that children are exposed to. Frequent demands arise that society help them to protect their children. Some, like child-proof caps and improvements in automobile safety, have been quite successful in reducing accidental death and injuries of children.
It seems obvious that such moves by government have been beneficial. One would think that we would take those successes and use them as an impetus to make further moves to protect children from environmental degradation, deteriorating schools and a hollowed out economy, but instead some promote the idea that children should be protected from poisonous ideas and images.
I think that the entire idea that the ONLY way to help children grow up is to protect them from a harsh world is incredibly wrongheaded. Yes, protect them from physical dangers, as much as is humanly possible, but there is only so much cloistering one can do before children are stunted by it.
I would submit that the primary responsibilty of parents is to prepare a child for adulthood, not spring it on them when they magically cross some legal threshold. To try to shield children under eighteen from sexual imagery or violence, or even radical ideas, provides for a young adult who is unable to make judgements of their own.
Protection is the wrong paradigm for parenting. A parent girds their child to face the world. Seeking to wall off the world’s temptations and distractions does them ill service. It is no coincidence that some of the wildest kids we all knew growing up were the children of the local policemen, politicians and ministers. Children instinctively know that they have to confront risk and challenges in order to grow. It is no coincidence that children have gone out and reveled in extreme sports, and that children have reportedly made oral sex a casual part of growing up.
It is easy to blame the culture for this, but it’s clear to me that parents, and our schools, refusal to actually engage children as they grow up on the nature of risk and temptation leads to their risk taking. As mysteries are hidden behind veils and v-chips and filtering software, children naturally seek out the forbidden. By refusing to allow them to be naturally exposed to the vagaries of life, children are left with few tools that enable them to take care of themselves.
Parenting is a hard task, but it’s primary purpose is preparation, not protection. A child becomes and independent adult by learning how to filter and evaluate information that comes their way. Filtering it for them does not prepare them to do that. This isn’t, of course, a suggestion that we toss hardcore porn into children’s bedrooms when they’re toddlers. The hard facts of life are that parenting is hard, and it requires a level of involvement and attention that is truly awe-inspiring. Guidance and openness are the rules to follow, not repression and suppression.
This is, of course, easy for me to say, not being a parent myself. In fact, that single fact will enable some to disregard all the words above. I was, however, a child once, and an uncle now. I was blessed with books placed in my hands before I entered kindergarten. If there were limitations in my ability to ask my parents about issues I was curious about, they were limitations created by my own embarrassment than my parents’ lack of openness. Raise your children how you want. If you want to keep the TV off, send them to Sunday School every week, then that is your right and your choice. You, and your child, will have to deal with the consequences of those choices. However, I draw the line at you telling me, telling OTHER parents, what is or isn’t “proper” art or entertainment. Ratings are meaningless, and often become yet another marketing tool. Companies will use the LACK of a warning label to sell you something as “safe,” yet there is still no guarantee that there won’t be something “offensive” in the purchased content. Hell, it’s no guarantee that there IS any content.
Shield them if you can, but you’re making a mistake. It’s a cold, hard, fast and exciting new century, and when they are adults, and it’s time to leave home, they will be trying to evaluate and compete with others who haven’t been sealed off. Who will have the advantage?
Sysiphean children graphic via the Georgia Supreme Court Child Placement Project Newsletter.
Guardian Angel from Christian love dot com.
toxic baby form non-toxic dot com.
