Against family...at least the way it is now
March 2nd 2008 14:29
Ok, you'll think i just read Brave new World. No, it's no true.
Well, a post about one of the most important structures we in have in our societies. Family is a group of people often linked by genetic (somtimes not) that are supposed to help each other when in need. When you're a kid, your parents pay your school and take you to the doctor. When they get old, it's you that take them for a walk and of course, to the doctor.
Well, if we take a look at the origins of this group we'll find that in the beggining, the family was like the hole state, and so families were as big and linked as possible, whatever religion you had. Having a kid meant having another one to work in the familie's bussines, and cousins and uncles were close, living togheter, protecting themselves. As society developed, the need for kids shut down, since raising a kid became more and more expensive, and also the state began to protect better its citizens, so you didn't need to go visit your 15 cousins in christmas and be aware of neighbours coming to spoil your land.
Still nowadays, the need for this structure is simple. The state can't handle by himself in a acceptable way the people in need. In most of the cases it would be kids without parents, or the elders without sons. For example, those kids you see begging money in the streets of underdevelopped countries are a good example of a "non-working" family that will bring the hole society problems in the future. Kids will grow, and unfortunately they'll finish without any idea of what it means to be a citizen in a society. That's why we have even laws that creates obligations between members of families. Parents are supposed to raise their kids at least 'till 18 in most countries, some places have also laws that apply in the case the parents need the kids when they're too old, etc. That shows the necessity that society have to handle these people.
So, the next step is making the state be able to handle these people without the help of parents. We're quite far away from that, but we can first start to make the state help parents. What's the fault of the kid whose parents can't afford buying him an ipod as the kids in others schools can? I mean, this is not really important, what's important is the quality of education and health these kids can have. Going deeper in the education matter (the most important) we have to take into account the quality of parents they have. Why the parents? (Notice that i suppose in this post that schools are already provided by the state, what is not true in plenty of cases...)
As in an old post a wrote sometime ago, i don't see education as the simple thing you learn in school. Education is the hole process of experiences we have. People nowadays don't say we keep learning everyday? That's because we don't need to be at school to learn, we learn with every experience we have.
And parents are the most important part in the education of a child. Suposing that the kid spends 8h/day at school, he'll spend another 8h with his parents (or with the babysiter...), what means that a huge part of his education is defined by the behaviour of these people. So, one of the defining things of a future problem for a kid is having bad parents. Or bad babysitters.
What do i mean when i say "bad parents"? These is a wide definition. There will be people that will say that bad parents are the ones that leave their kids do pretty much everything they want. On the other hand, bad parents can also be the ones that don't even leave their kids do almost nothing exept read "good" books and do the homework. At least we can define the limits and say that everything inside can be considered "not-bad". Those limits are simple: the well raised kid will develop himself and his possibilities in the best way, and in the same time be a part in the development of society in the best way. Hohoho, tuff job.
Since it's so dificult to be a good parent, the first question i ask is why the hell don't the society give parents some courses on "how to raise kids"? I mean, they don't have to define a strict set of do's and don'ts, but there are some things we all agree, like don't beat your wife in front of your kid (well, don't beat your wife at all!), etc. Parents should be oblied (for the sake of the kids, and thus society) to have a diploma to be a father. Don't we have to study and pass exams to be able to drive? I am pretty sure that a bad parent can raise a future pedophile that will destroy way more lives than a bad driver.
Well, this post got too long. I'll continue the reasoning in the next one. If you got here, thanks, hope it helps.
cheers.
Well, a post about one of the most important structures we in have in our societies. Family is a group of people often linked by genetic (somtimes not) that are supposed to help each other when in need. When you're a kid, your parents pay your school and take you to the doctor. When they get old, it's you that take them for a walk and of course, to the doctor.
Well, if we take a look at the origins of this group we'll find that in the beggining, the family was like the hole state, and so families were as big and linked as possible, whatever religion you had. Having a kid meant having another one to work in the familie's bussines, and cousins and uncles were close, living togheter, protecting themselves. As society developed, the need for kids shut down, since raising a kid became more and more expensive, and also the state began to protect better its citizens, so you didn't need to go visit your 15 cousins in christmas and be aware of neighbours coming to spoil your land.
Still nowadays, the need for this structure is simple. The state can't handle by himself in a acceptable way the people in need. In most of the cases it would be kids without parents, or the elders without sons. For example, those kids you see begging money in the streets of underdevelopped countries are a good example of a "non-working" family that will bring the hole society problems in the future. Kids will grow, and unfortunately they'll finish without any idea of what it means to be a citizen in a society. That's why we have even laws that creates obligations between members of families. Parents are supposed to raise their kids at least 'till 18 in most countries, some places have also laws that apply in the case the parents need the kids when they're too old, etc. That shows the necessity that society have to handle these people.
So, the next step is making the state be able to handle these people without the help of parents. We're quite far away from that, but we can first start to make the state help parents. What's the fault of the kid whose parents can't afford buying him an ipod as the kids in others schools can? I mean, this is not really important, what's important is the quality of education and health these kids can have. Going deeper in the education matter (the most important) we have to take into account the quality of parents they have. Why the parents? (Notice that i suppose in this post that schools are already provided by the state, what is not true in plenty of cases...)
As in an old post a wrote sometime ago, i don't see education as the simple thing you learn in school. Education is the hole process of experiences we have. People nowadays don't say we keep learning everyday? That's because we don't need to be at school to learn, we learn with every experience we have.
And parents are the most important part in the education of a child. Suposing that the kid spends 8h/day at school, he'll spend another 8h with his parents (or with the babysiter...), what means that a huge part of his education is defined by the behaviour of these people. So, one of the defining things of a future problem for a kid is having bad parents. Or bad babysitters.
What do i mean when i say "bad parents"? These is a wide definition. There will be people that will say that bad parents are the ones that leave their kids do pretty much everything they want. On the other hand, bad parents can also be the ones that don't even leave their kids do almost nothing exept read "good" books and do the homework. At least we can define the limits and say that everything inside can be considered "not-bad". Those limits are simple: the well raised kid will develop himself and his possibilities in the best way, and in the same time be a part in the development of society in the best way. Hohoho, tuff job.
Since it's so dificult to be a good parent, the first question i ask is why the hell don't the society give parents some courses on "how to raise kids"? I mean, they don't have to define a strict set of do's and don'ts, but there are some things we all agree, like don't beat your wife in front of your kid (well, don't beat your wife at all!), etc. Parents should be oblied (for the sake of the kids, and thus society) to have a diploma to be a father. Don't we have to study and pass exams to be able to drive? I am pretty sure that a bad parent can raise a future pedophile that will destroy way more lives than a bad driver.
Well, this post got too long. I'll continue the reasoning in the next one. If you got here, thanks, hope it helps.
cheers.
| 91 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
