On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 6:58 AM, Dana wrote: > They may well affect my perception of the situation. I suspect that > what youare saying also stems from some family observation about > absent parents. But it matters whether the child is abandoned or > simply not always in one single person's care. I think that's an > artificial Hollywood expectation and possibly harmful.
What I'm saying comes from years of observing parents and children in general. I've seen great outcomes with kids raised by absent parents, or I should say, extended family. I've seen the feral side of child rearing, on the mean streets of 'burque. I've seen the single mother or father, struggling to get by. I've had direct experience with all of the above, over a period of years. I think there is a difference between say, being *unable* to give your kids the attention they need, and being *unwiling* (Nietzsche's thoughts about willpower/ability aside ;]). I know how the "real world" works, I've consistently said "optimal", ya know? If the world were perfect-- both parents, as well as extended family, and the community/world, could and would be learning them kids. I think you've experienced some sorta similar type stuff, things "average" people haven't and whatnot. It's interesting to get your take, not on the stone throwing, but on being around. > But what I am saying here also comes from time on the ground, you know > what I mean? I understand what you are saying, that parents are > important, and for what it is worth I agree. However, it also occurs > to me that the people who are casting the stones here each have just > one, very young, child. At that stage of parenthood I thought there > was one optimal way to do this stuff too. It's not that it's one way, I just think it's the "best" way(s). Time proven, even. Casting stones is lame, but I don't feel as bad judging people who judge-- Which is still pretty lame, if you ask me. The Republicans seem to want to push their ways on the rest of the population, and by ways I mean beliefs. Teaching "abstinence only" is dangerous, bottom line, and based not on facts, but belief. Pushing creationism as an alternative, while saying it's a fight for everyone's freedom? "The Right" has let evangelical, X brand Christian's co-opt them, and it shows, not just in statements to the media, but actual law, and programs offered. And always seem to be judging. Doesn't make it right for me to do it, though. I'm no expert parent! Nor a perfect one. I want the best for the kiddos, bottom line, and "optimal" is, I guess you're right, relative. And although I'm a relatively new parent, I'm not new to raising "children". Everyone is unique (just like everyone else). I love that it takes different strokes for different folks. I have spent a lot of time thinking about it. Mom's a teacher, and somehow education figures into what I'm saying... involvement, sorta. I've been working in childcare for 10+ years, doing what I can to raise standards here in The State. Cutting down on paperwork, fleshing out process/mission-- to give the caregivers more time to give care, mostly-- I'm decent at it, and I like it. Doesn't pay very well though... and I got to start thinking about my scions... ;-) The crux is-- I really don't like this social thing that gives work more importance than spending time with the children. It's a USA thing, that my friends from Spain have commented on a few times. A stereo-type, sorta. Not I, but still. Like, I was dissapointed that the chicks at work get X amount of family leave when a kid is born, but the dudes don't get squat. Some places are more "forward thinking", and have paternal leave and whatnot, but I think it's the minority. I love having workplaces where you can take the kids. I said "you go girl" when I saw Palin with the babe at the tit, working it. Maybe she's got the other kids around all the time too. I shouldn't have jumped to conclusions, but Beth with her is sorta like us with Richardson-- proximity gives accuracy, to a certain point. Diminishing returns and all that, no one can know what all goes on in a family, not even the family. It was a good springboard for discussion tho, sorta. Stones aside. > As Tim says, you do what you have to do. Yep, I've said it too. (although "have to" is interesting, philosophically) .... > least some success (I think). It's worth noting that there are studies > showing that resilient children tend to occur in families where they > are occasionally left the hell alone. Resilient is good; I will take > resilient. I'm not advocating smothering! Some of this has to do with independence. Feeling safe, sorta. Avoiding negative attention being as good as positive, or whatever, and whatnot. > So I guess what I would like to say to both you and to Beth is that I > hear you but I think you both need to lighten up and realize that in > ten years you will probably disagree with yourself :) I will never disagree with the generalities that I've stated. LOL. I've been studying this stuff a long time, and while I've revised my stances along the way, it's pretty clear what's pretty good, you know? And, conversely, what's not so good (Doable, sure, but we're talking bests here). Whether X parent is good or bad (or is even constructive), is debatable, of course. Do your best, and that's good enough for me. :Denny -- Best... man, there's another one of those words. ~ The purpose of learning is growth, and our minds, unlike our bodies, can continue growing as we continue to live. Mortimer Adler ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;203748912;27390454;j Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:268287 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
