What other alternative is there in a secularized society?

while i don't think state-run institutions are the best answer for raising children, it's quite obvious that leaving a fair percentage of children in their current family situations does them a huge disservice.

best quote on the subject comes from Parenthood, where Keanu Reeves' character states:

"you know, you need a license to drive a car...even to catch a fish, but they'll let any butt-reaming asshole be a father."

truer words were never spoken.

One thing we need to learn is that sometimes there's no perfect solution and our institutions have evolved to solve them as best as possible. In this case, I believe parenthood can be subsititued in the Churchill quote about democracy being the worst form of government.

poormedicalstudent:

With respect, I don't think it is obvious at all beyond certain levels of manifest cruelty or addiction/mental health problems. We all think we are experts on other peoples' children, but raising kids is not a "how to" problem. Sure we can recognize people who do it very badly, but, assuming love is present, who can honestly say what doing it well means? The little darlings aren't pets and they have a terrific capacity to thwart the noblest efforts.

As far as I can see, almost all modern child-rearing expertise boils down to minimizing their emotional pain, being their "friends", sparing them boredom and bolstering their fragile little psyches no matter how unpleasant or incompetent they are. Is there any evidence that successful adults are more likely to emerge from such a regime than from stricter or remoter approaches? And what about spiritual or moral guidance? Those who take a more traditional approach are almost certainly going to run afoul of the common wisdom of the modern professionals.

In one of Chiam Potok's novels, the Hassidic rabbi father is pained because his brilliant son is lacking compassion and empathy. So he decides to deprive him of a father's love so that he will experience the pain he will otherwise inflict on others. He doesn't speak to him for years. The kid has a very troubling adolesence, but it does get resolved in the end. Can you say for sure that he was wrong and, if so, on what scientific basis?

As a general rule, I'm opposed to this sort of governmental intrusion.

On specific cases, maybe I'm not.

Having lived for four years in the UK, I can certainly say that most young Brits haven't a clue about raising kids. I have no explanation for it but in observing British kids interactions with my own kid, there's something definitely lacking.

It's not in the philosophy department as much as in the technical aspects of it. Brit kids tend to be left to their own devices at a far earlier age, have very poor socializing skills (other than "might makes right"), and are even worse than American kids when it comes to classroom conduct.

If every kid could be home-schooled, that would be an improvement but it presumes there's somebody there to do the home-schooling. Right now, something like 60% of all British kids (excluding new immigrants) are born to single mothers. These mothers--when they're not just living off state subsidies--are working their butts off to earn a living. They're not prepared--mentally, emotionally or financially--to take on the task of raising kids. A bit of a parental workshop, I think, can only help.

It's a true pity that it's come to this, but it has. And the same lessons might be applied in dense American urban environments as well.

i wasn't attempting to boil it down to a "science has solved the problem, now if only parents would follow it" response. far from that in fact, since it's becoming more and more obvious that nature vs nurture leans towards the nurture aspect with regards to personality, etc.

i believe there are maladaptive patterns of parenting that reinforce themselves in each generation that is exposed, and believe that proper parenting classes could be offered to those parents unable to conquer this mighty task on their own.

no one is an expert, but the old adage regarding a village and a child is not a bad idea, hence the draw for public schools and the socialization/education they can offer (if teachers weren't so damn busy taking care of problem children whose parents think going out @ night is more important than reading with their children, these behavioral issues would likely not be as prevalent, circa any year prior to 1990)

considering how often i see 1) young mothers having abortions, 2) young mothers giving kids up for adoption on account of not wanting a burden while they're attempting to scam @ clubs, 3) children showing up in the er with neglect/malnourishment/etc because parents didn't think enough to feed them, 4) 20 year old with BMIs around 50 because their parents have no fukking clue about the simplest things regarding diet, exercise, etc and 5) a whole host of other problems that bring these kids, young and old, into a hospital setting, has hardened me to the 'plight of the parent'.

those parents who truly value and love their kids, almost never steer them wrong regardless of what measure one places on success. for all other parents, who value themselves over their children, i weep when i think of the damage caused to their kids, and often wish that CPS would work faster to take them away.

So how did your old man get his license, pms?

PMS:

Very good, but are we talking about the same thing here? There are lots of people in the dysfunctional underclass that are lousy at parenting because they are lousy at life. (There are also lots who aren't.) Hope springs eternal and I'm all for the can-do spirit, but do you rally think government courses will influence these people? The state needs to protect chldren from abuse or gross neglect, but the article was about extending state training to all parents on the assumption that they all need it. That can only be done if you assume "right" parenting is a science that one can acquire through training. Bye, bye grandma, hello 24 year old childless expert with a masters in social work.

BTW, "going out" rather than being with your children to read or whatever is perfectly consistent with the modern enlightened theory that parents have the right to fulfill their career/romantic/recreational destinies and can compartmentalize their children. But you have to take the course to learn more.

The father with the cell phone problem should be required to smash his phone with a hammer, not "encouraged" to turn it off. Somehow I don't think that the cellphone is the major distraction for fathers with delinquent children, more likely it is abuse, alcohol & drug use, or more likely total absence from the family.

Voluntary parenting classes is fine, I just don't think that the message that this class is delivering is very valuable. Saying that parents should "discipline children by being authoritative rather than authoritarian" is social science nonsense. Children first need an authority, someone who will make them stay in line for fear of punishment. They don't have the maturity level to learn from an "authoritative" figure. Learning to behave is not an intellectual exercise with children, it is a conditioned reflex. This is the nonsense that we get when we try to elevate children to the level of adults.

Peter, you are right on.