Being a caring, competent, loving and knowledgeable parent [about factual child-development science] should matter most when deciding to procreate. Therefore, parental failure seems to occur as soon as the solid decision is made to have a child even though the parent-in-waiting cannot be truly caring, competent, loving and knowledgeable.
In Childhood Disrupted the author writes that even “well-meaning and loving parents can unintentionally do harm to a child if they are not well informed about human development” (pg.24). While liberal-democratic society cannot prevent anyone from bearing children, not even the plainly incompetent and reckless procreator, it can educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those intending to remain childless.
If nothing else, such child-development curriculum could offer students an idea/clue as to whether they’re emotionally suited for the immense responsibility and strains of parenthood. Given what is at stake, should they not at least be equipped with such valuable science-based knowledge?
In the meantime, too many people will procreate regardless of not being sufficiently knowledgeable of child development science to parent in a psychologically functional/healthy manner. They seem to perceive thus treat human procreative ‘rights’ as though they (potential parents) will somehow, in blind anticipation, be innately inclined to sufficiently understand and appropriately nurture their children’s naturally developing minds and needs.
A mentally as well as a physically sound future should be every child’s foremost fundamental right — along with air, water, food and shelter — especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter; a world in which National Child Abuse Prevention Month [every April in the U.S.] clearly needs to run 365 days of the year. Instead, some people still hold a misplaced yet strong sense of entitlement when it comes to misperceiving children largely as obedient property.
.
"I remember leaving the hospital thinking, ‘Wait, are they going to let me just walk off with him? I don’t know beans about babies! I don’t have a license to do this. We’re just amateurs’.”
—Anne Tyler, Breathing Lessons
.
“The way a society functions is a reflection of the childrearing practices of that society. Today we reap what we have sown. Despite the well-documented critical nature of early life experiences, we dedicate few resources to this time of life. We do not educate our children about child development, parenting, or the impact of neglect and trauma on children.”
Yet, when I asked a teachers’ union official whether there was any such curriculum taught, he unfortunately immediately replied there was not. And when I asked the reason for its absence and whether it may be due to the subject matter being too controversial, he replied with a simple “Yes”.
This strongly suggests there are philosophical thus political obstacles to teaching students even such crucial life skills as healthy parenting through understanding child development. But what troubles me is, how teaching this would be considered more controversial thus a non-starter than teaching sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) curriculum, as is already taught here?
Although society cannot prevent anyone from bearing children, it can educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those intending to remain childless.
... In the movie K-PAX, the visiting extraterrestrial Prot says to the clinical psychiatrist interviewing him: “On K-PAX, everyone’s children’s wellbeing matters to everyone, as everyone takes part in rearing everyone else’s offspring.”
I’ve always found this concept appealing: Unlike with humans, every K-PAX-ian child’s good health seems to be every adult’s interest and in everyone’s best interest. It reminded me of the African proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child.”
At the risk of being deemed Godless thus evil (or, far worse, a socialist), I strongly feel that the wellbeing and health of all children needs to be of genuine importance to us all. And healthy, properly functioning moms and/or dads are typically a requisite for this.
But I'm not holding my breath, as I've found that most people are pessimistic and/or hostile towards such concepts. For many people, such ideas, if ever implemented, would be too much like communism and therefor somehow the end of the world.
Being a caring, competent, loving and knowledgeable parent [about factual child-development science] should matter most when deciding to procreate. Therefore, parental failure seems to occur as soon as the solid decision is made to have a child even though the parent-in-waiting cannot be truly caring, competent, loving and knowledgeable.
In Childhood Disrupted the author writes that even “well-meaning and loving parents can unintentionally do harm to a child if they are not well informed about human development” (pg.24). While liberal-democratic society cannot prevent anyone from bearing children, not even the plainly incompetent and reckless procreator, it can educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those intending to remain childless.
If nothing else, such child-development curriculum could offer students an idea/clue as to whether they’re emotionally suited for the immense responsibility and strains of parenthood. Given what is at stake, should they not at least be equipped with such valuable science-based knowledge?
In the meantime, too many people will procreate regardless of not being sufficiently knowledgeable of child development science to parent in a psychologically functional/healthy manner. They seem to perceive thus treat human procreative ‘rights’ as though they (potential parents) will somehow, in blind anticipation, be innately inclined to sufficiently understand and appropriately nurture their children’s naturally developing minds and needs.
A mentally as well as a physically sound future should be every child’s foremost fundamental right — along with air, water, food and shelter — especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter; a world in which National Child Abuse Prevention Month [every April in the U.S.] clearly needs to run 365 days of the year. Instead, some people still hold a misplaced yet strong sense of entitlement when it comes to misperceiving children largely as obedient property.
.
"I remember leaving the hospital thinking, ‘Wait, are they going to let me just walk off with him? I don’t know beans about babies! I don’t have a license to do this. We’re just amateurs’.”
—Anne Tyler, Breathing Lessons
.
“The way a society functions is a reflection of the childrearing practices of that society. Today we reap what we have sown. Despite the well-documented critical nature of early life experiences, we dedicate few resources to this time of life. We do not educate our children about child development, parenting, or the impact of neglect and trauma on children.”
—Dr. Bruce D. Perry, Ph.D. & Dr. John Marcellus
Educating parents about child development and the powerful influence they have on their child’s healthy development is so important.
Yet, when I asked a teachers’ union official whether there was any such curriculum taught, he unfortunately immediately replied there was not. And when I asked the reason for its absence and whether it may be due to the subject matter being too controversial, he replied with a simple “Yes”.
This strongly suggests there are philosophical thus political obstacles to teaching students even such crucial life skills as healthy parenting through understanding child development. But what troubles me is, how teaching this would be considered more controversial thus a non-starter than teaching sexual orientation and gender identity (SOGI) curriculum, as is already taught here?
Although society cannot prevent anyone from bearing children, it can educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those intending to remain childless.
... In the movie K-PAX, the visiting extraterrestrial Prot says to the clinical psychiatrist interviewing him: “On K-PAX, everyone’s children’s wellbeing matters to everyone, as everyone takes part in rearing everyone else’s offspring.”
I’ve always found this concept appealing: Unlike with humans, every K-PAX-ian child’s good health seems to be every adult’s interest and in everyone’s best interest. It reminded me of the African proverb, “It takes a village to raise a child.”
At the risk of being deemed Godless thus evil (or, far worse, a socialist), I strongly feel that the wellbeing and health of all children needs to be of genuine importance to us all. And healthy, properly functioning moms and/or dads are typically a requisite for this.
But I'm not holding my breath, as I've found that most people are pessimistic and/or hostile towards such concepts. For many people, such ideas, if ever implemented, would be too much like communism and therefor somehow the end of the world.