Archive

Archive for the ‘Ideas’ Category

Some Thoughts About Children and Childhood

March 22nd, 2009

As some of you may know I’ve been doing a lot of childhood-related learning and introspection. The most direct evidence of this is the many posts on this blog regarding education and unschooling. But I’ve also been putting effort and time into understanding my own childhood and my own feelings towards children and the traditional family in general. As my own understanding begins to broaden, and I learn more and more about the nature of children and how that nature is stifled in compulsory schools, churches and bad families, I’ve also been able to see my reactions to children change immensely. It is an ongoing process, to be sure, but I wanted to share some thoughts I’ve had and a few of the specific experiences that stand out to me. But first a little background:

I grew up in a household where answers to probing questions (and when you’re a child, what questions don’t probe?) were “Because I said so” or “Because the Bible says so,” and the solution to so-called “bad behavior” was a belt. I believe now that actions such as this come from the incredibly evil assumption that children are born bad, and that their badness must be remedied by parents who are magically bestowed with the title of Paragon of Virtue by the simple act of reproduction. Especially in the South, at least in my experience, violence and bullying in the home are not only condoned but expected. “Spare the rod,” as it’s said. This violence is, of course, kept quiet. The fact that children are whipped on the buttocks is no accident. Is it both the easiest source for extreme physical humiliation, but also the easiest to hide. Once, I believe in junior high school, I rode my bike with a cousin down the road to a convenience store. Not a road really, a highway, populated by log trucks. It is hardly ever visited by more than a few trucks an hour, but it is dangerous nonetheless. When we got back, there was no discussion on the dangers of riding in such a road or the necessity for helmets or an attempt to connect or teach in any way. Instead I was struck across the lower back with a belt 16 times. I did not stop taking risks. In fact, since then I have taken much larger ones. I did, however, stop respecting my father. Violence can only get you obedience, nothing more. And before I hear cries that this man was only concerned with my safety, then please explain to me why bike safety was never discussed, helmets were never encouraged, and why I was allowed to ride on that same highway to a nearby relative’s at will? Moving on…

During high school I went to live with my mother, and my slightly older sister had a baby girl, Desiree. When she cried it was as if everyone in the house was being personally attacked. Looking back, it pains me to think that I reacted so anxious and bothered at something so natural and necessary. As Desiree got older it became apparent that while I had switched homes, the tactics had not. Spankings were a norm, along with bullying and unquestionable authority, from my sister and mother. I gain small comfort in the fact that I never carried out any of these spankings myself, as I often threatened them and turned her over to her mother.

Let me make one thing clear before I move on. Violence against anyone, and especially against children, who must live and grow with the largest power disparity possible to human beings, is abhorrent and entirely immoral. If you believe otherwise, please have the decency to tell me so that I can stop communicating with you.

It is no surprise to me that when I see Desiree now she switches between extreme openness - in an attempt to gain the affection she lacks - to extremely closed-off - in an attempt to avoid punishment and contempt just for voicing her opinion. She has the tendency to go completely still and quiet when you are angry with her. I watched this develop as she grew. Desi would declare a preference or desire, and she would be attacked for doing so. And so how can one expect anything but silence when you angrily ask her what she wants? She learned all too well that wants are something she must keep to herself.

For so long I was an accomplice to this style of parenting, unwilling to face the effects it was having on Desiree, and the effects it long ago had on me (something I will go into some other time). My younger brother had a child and my sister had a second. My sister’s brand of violence was somewhat mild, although still debilitating. My brother, however, had grown up with our father, and his parenting was a chaotic mix of demands for abject devotion and outright screaming and violence. But still I saw them on a semi-regular basis, and spent each trip tossed between elation at spending time with such wonderful kids and the agony of tiptoeing around the horrible parents in the room. As time went on and I introspected about my own childhood, and learned more about child development, the trips became more irregular and the steps not nearly as light. Then late last year a friend informed me that my brother was having a second child. With a second woman. Whom he hardly knew and is no longer with. I was amazed at how angry I became. I have since made it clear that I will not see him again until he seeks therapy.

I have since spent more time exploring my own childhood, discovering the principles and emotional intelligence one requires in order to be a good parent, and seeing the great struggle that children of even the most common families must endure just to keep their capacity for open thought, curiosity and empathy. I have tried to live by the rule that one should always side with the child, and that children are interested in reciprocation, affection and negotiation. That they wish to moral and rational just like the rest of us. That they can be trusted. And that as a parent, the child’s respect for you must be earned, just like you have to earn it from everyone else. Paraphrasing Stefan Molyneux (since I don’t know the exact quote): “We are choosing to bring a child into this world. She didn’t choose to be a part of our family. And so it is up to us to make sure that could she choose any family on the planet, she would still want to be with us.”

I still have quite a lot of work to do before I can really understand my own childhood, and even more before I could consider having a child of my own. Years of work. But already, just observing the way I feel and act around kids is consistently amazing. Seeing a child makes me grin every single time. Yesterday a dad was pushing a stroller and had another toddler on his shoulders, and I held the door open for them. Moments later I realized that I hadn’t even considered the father, I had opened the door for the kid on his shoulders. Today at the laundromat I watched a few kids play between the rows of washers and dryers. They were happy, but so polite and self-managing. Their parents didn’t constantly harangue them and I didn’t once see a child who had ran too fast or get too loud shoot a frightened glance at this mom or dad, awaiting the coming punishment. One of the kids, too small to join in on the running, strolled around watching everything. I mean everything. There wasn’t a time that I passed by that he didn’t hold eye contact, reading my expression.

What I hope to do in the near future is find a way to increase my knowledge of children and their learning process by getting involved either in the local unschooling community or tutoring of some kind. Or both. Before the current compulsory education system came into place (around 1915, and it’s been tweaked and “perfected” ever since then) children at even the young ages of three and four were doing incredible things. Now a child in public school who can spell “cat” by age seven is considered an acheivement of free education… The school is one of the many chains that hold children back, and it is the chain that I intend to dedicate myself to breaking. If children grow up knowing that they can ask questions, there is no limit to what answers they might find.

Ideas, Personal

The Truth About Voting

October 28th, 2008

See more from Stefan Molyneux at FreeDomainRadio.com

Ideas

The Beginning of the End: Finally!

September 24th, 2008

The two remaining investment banks in the United States have been, for all intents and purposes, nationalized. I could go into the reasons for why this happened, but others have already done so in a far better manner. But to sum up: the government caused several major problems through over-regulation that it then attempted to “solve” with far more government regulation. So now the Fed has more power over American private finance than ever before, and this will to America going completely bankrupt all the quicker. It happened the same way in Germany, Russia, etc. And once that line was crossed, those countries skipped ahead from a slow descent into implosion to a nose dive.

Others in the Objectivist community are saying that this is an event the country can survive, that the effects can be reversed, that the country just might not cave in on itself…

Really? History and reason begs to differ. Governments do not give up power. It just doesn’t happen. Even in the few cases where it seems like a government is giving up power (such as China’s recent institution of some freer policies), it is only doing so to keep itself afloat (men who starve to death can’t pay taxes).

Countries only have a chance to become freer when the current government is completely decimated (and even then it isn’t a sure thing, of course). Germany and Japan became freer after they were destroyed in WWII, Russia became freer after Communism ran out of flesh to feed on. And America will only have a chance to become free again when the current Socialist government dies.

Why then are the pursuers of a philosophy whose greatest artistic achievement - Atlas Shrugged - supports helping to speed along the death of a violent, immoral government interested at all in attempting to save ours? Must we wait until every hospital and airport has been socialized? Are we not yet convinced that enough lines have been crossed? Are we not yet convinced that there is no going back? Don’t just tell me that it is, show me that it is. Explain to me the realistic steps that could take place that would move our government back to a freedom-supporting entity.

I would much rather sit back, stock up on silver (it’s too late to buy gold…) and wait for the fall. And when that happens, we can be ready to help people understand why it happened, and what should be done now.

Even if the government reverses some of what it has done once things get too bad, what does that prove to anyone? Certainly not that our government should be replaced. Business will get blamed for what went wrong, and the government will get credit for setting it right, just like the Great Depression. No one, except for the few that already do so now, will question the validity of the state we live in until it fails. And it will fail very soon, and I look forward to it.

Current Events, Ideas

Good Words

August 16th, 2008

Petrichor: The pleasant loomy smell of rain on the ground, especially after a long dry spell.
Ambisinistrous: Having two left hands; clumsy. (The opposite of ambidextrous)
Residentarian: A person who is given to remaining at table.
Wine-knight: One who drinks valiantly.
Unbepissed: Not wet with piss, from some long forgotten world where so many things were covered in urine, a word was needed to distinguish the dry remainders.
Quomodocunquize: To make money in any way possible.
Psithurism: The whispering of leaves moved by the wind.
Preantepenult: Not the last, not the one before the last, and not the one before that. The next one.
Onomatomania: Vexation at having difficulty in finding the right word (classic!).
Kakistocracy: Government by the worst citizens.
Indesinence: Want of proper ending.
Gymnologize: To dispute naked, like an Indian philosopher.
Mawdlin-drunke: “When a fellow will weep for kinding in the midst of his Ale, and kisses you, saying; By God Captain I love thee, go thy ways thou does not think of me so often as I do of thee, I would (if it pleased God) I could not love thee so well as I do, and then he puts his finger in his eye, and cries.”
Felicificability: Capacity for happiness.
Chrestomathic: Devoted to the learning of useful matters. (As opposed to:)
Mataeotechny: An unprofitable or useless science or skill.

Taken from Reading the OED by Ammon Shea

Ideas

Quoting Katie

February 10th, 2008

But when it comes to evolution, many people are still as cognitively trapped as this mandrill is by his cage, comfortable and natural though it might seem. Some people look at primates and think that shared ancestry is a slur on mankind. But no fact changes an ever-present identity, and wonderment is not diluted when extended to facts at all scales of time and space. As Darwin so famously concluded, ‘There is grandeur in this view of life, . . . ; from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being, evolved.’”

Emphasis mine. From Katie’s post on the Darwin Day Photo Contest.

UPDATE: That reminds me. I just ordered this awesome t-shirt. It’s a trifecta: it pokes fun at Che Guevara, promotes evolution, and has a funny picture of a monkey in a Cuban hat! Who could ask for more? I got this one too.

Ideas