No, because there is something to be said for a person making choices of their own accord, and arriving at their ideologies through a lifetime of reasoning, thought, and experiences. I didn't have political or religious viewpoints pushed onto me in any sort of concentrated effort, and I feel all the better for it.
There's also something to be said for exposing your kids to the lifetime of reasoning, thought, and experience that you've already accumulated. It seems a bit cruel to me to wish ignorance on your kids when you have the opportunity to teach them what you've learned.
Can you give me an example of this cruel ignorance I'm supposedly going to be wishing on my children? Because I think giving my kid a yes or no answer to 'Is there a God?' is more cruel and ignorant than explaining that I believe one thing, but may not know for certain.
I'm talking about indoctrination as it is related to some sort of ideology or viewpoint. Religion and politics keep coming up because those tend to be the things that people have systems of ideologies about. And things of that nature are the things that, as I've said, I wouldn't deliberately and specifically teach to my children necessarily as truth because I think that's dishonest and manipulative.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think you might be overly sensitive to the idea of "indoctrination".
Short of homeschooling, I don't think parents really have that much control over what their kids think after a certain age.
0
Options
JuliusCaptain of Serenityon my shipRegistered Userregular
in·doc·tri·nate
[in-dok-truh-neyt] Show IPA
verb (used with object), in·doc·tri·nat·ed, in·doc·tri·nat·ing.
1.
to instruct in a doctrine, principle, ideology, etc., especially to imbue with a specific partisan or biased belief or point of view.
2.
to teach or inculcate.
3.
to imbue with learning.
I don't see anything negative in there. Telling your kids to drop loose change into a Salvation Army tin is indoctrinating them in that activity. Just because in the American political milieu it's often used pejoratively doesn't mean it's just something Evil Hood-Wearing Cults™ do.
Well the thing about a doctrine is that it's not up for discussion. At least not when you instruct it.
Of course, you have to indoctrinate your children from early on. You teach them that stealing is bad before they can grasp the intricate justifications for it. But it is a question of where you stop.
I agree with MrMister that there's a difference between discussing these things with an honest expression of your belief as you would with another rational human being, versus using punishment or manipulation or censorship. There's a time and place for the latter, but once your kid gets to the age where they're becoming curious on their own about abstract ideas, I think they're old enough to have polite conversations (most of the time).
Well yeah. But how much of your beliefs should you impart through indoctrination? I'll tell my kids that harm to others is bad from the start, but what about my views on religion or politics? Should I push them onto them, or just wait for them to come to me and have a polite formal debate about it?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
You are literally responsbile for your children's actions until a certain age, so ideals asside, if you don't teach your children to act in a manner that you are comfortable owning the consequences of, then you are just setting yourself up to be punished based on actions your children may not have taken if you taught them how you think they should behave.
Personally, I will definitely send my kids to hebrew school, even though I am not observant and am not sure what I believe, because I think it is a shared cultural experience all Jews should have. If they grow up to be more religious than me, that's fine, but I really want them to go just to feel some connection to our culture and history. And importantly, even if they don't like it, I will still make them go, because if you let very young children make decisions about what activities they pursue and which they quit, they will never stick with anything once it gets difficult. My parents made me stick with lots of things I did not really like, like base ball and boy scouts, and I am glad they did. I ultimately quit both when I was old enough to decide, but I also stuck with other things like soccer for a really long time, and definitely benefitted from it.
No, because there is something to be said for a person making choices of their own accord, and arriving at their ideologies through a lifetime of reasoning, thought, and experiences. I didn't have political or religious viewpoints pushed onto me in any sort of concentrated effort, and I feel all the better for it.
There's also something to be said for exposing your kids to the lifetime of reasoning, thought, and experience that you've already accumulated. It seems a bit cruel to me to wish ignorance on your kids when you have the opportunity to teach them what you've learned.
Can you give me an example of this cruel ignorance I'm supposedly going to be wishing on my children? Because I think giving my kid a yes or no answer to 'Is there a God?' is more cruel and ignorant than explaining that I believe one thing, but may not know for certain.
I'm talking about indoctrination as it is related to some sort of ideology or viewpoint. Religion and politics keep coming up because those tend to be the things that people have systems of ideologies about. And things of that nature are the things that, as I've said, I wouldn't deliberately and specifically teach to my children necessarily as truth because I think that's dishonest and manipulative.
Any time you make a choice between right and wrong, you are appealing to an ideology. Any time you make a choice about a major life goal, you are appealing to an ideology.
It's tempting to limit our concept of "what is an ideology?" simply to the ideologies that are most controversial in public discourse - atheist vs. Christian, Democrat vs. Republican. But every significant choice you make is guided by an ideology. Your choice to send your child to public school is guided by the ideology that public schools are good. This happens to be the dominant mainstream ideology, but it is an ideology. Your choice to support your child's heterosexuality or homosexuality is guided by an ideology that these things are good; or at least harmless. If your child started using cocaine at age 15, I doubt you'd be supportive. At least, I hope you wouldn't. That's based on an ideology that drugs (at least, the hard addictive ones) are bad.
If you only see controversial ideologies as ideologies, then your choice to avoid teaching your kids an ideology is tantamount to saying, "I'm going to teach my children in accord with the dominant mainstream ideology as I understand it, and avoid any particularly controversial topics."
I don't think that's a horrible thing. It doesn't make you Hitler or anything. But eventually your child is going to start asking questions that you can't answer within the confines of that doctrine. There are going to be questions on life goals ("Should I join the army?") or relationships ("My boyfriend wants to have sex and I'm not sure if I do or not.") or religion ("My friend at school is a Mormon and he says that evolution is just a theory, and my teacher doesn't want to respond to him.") and I don't think that there's anything particularly admirable in sidestepping the tough questions.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
I think you might be overly sensitive to the idea of "indoctrination".
Short of homeschooling, I don't think parents really have that much control over what their kids think after a certain age.
I wish it were only that I was being overly-sensitive to the term, yeah. Except it absolutely happens, all the damn time.
Someone, somewhere, is telling their kid that Obama is a Muslim and that anything otherwise is a liberal conspiracy. Or that homosexuals are abominations in the eyes of God. Or that they shouldn't marry a black person because the white blood must remain pure.
Instead, the crazy idea that I'm putting out there and am getting dogpiled for, is that instead of telling your kid that God exists so he'll shut up about it, you tell him what you think and say that you don't know for certain, and maybe that it can't be known for certain. You can do this! Try it, I promise your kid won't explode.
I think it's quite likely that at some point, my (hypothetical future) kids will start to talk about politics, or religion, or occupations, or charity. At that point, I'm not going to withhold my opinions - I think that physician is a better occupation than priest, for instance, because I think that physicians do more good, because I think that objective medicine is important, because I think that a life based on empirical observation and logical critical thought are better than a life based on religious faith. I don't think that it is unreasonable to predict that these topics would naturally out of an adolescent's curiosity about abstract ideas. I'm not going to sit and say that, "Oh, anything you want to do with your life is fine, dear," because that is, IMO, skipping out on my responsibility as a parent.
I agree with MrMister that there's a difference between discussing these things with an honest expression of your belief as you would with another rational human being, versus using punishment or manipulation or censorship. There's a time and place for the latter, but once your kid gets to the age where they're becoming curious on their own about abstract ideas, I think they're old enough to have polite conversations (most of the time).
Ditto the agreement. I refrain from talking about politics around my kids in all but the vaguest sense, because even though I think the current crop of Republicans are a bunch of goddamn atrocities, I don't want my kids growing up with a value that says "Republicans are bad." That said, if my kids ask me a direct question, I give them an honest answer. Mostly they're too young to really engage me on that specific front, but I strongly suspect that, based on discussions we've had, my daughter would support something like single-payer or socialized medicine, even though I've never used the words or specifically endorsed anything like that. Then again, my daughter would probably support free unicorns for all, so whatever.
ElJeffe on
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I try very hard to teach my kid the axioms I start with, but not to teach them my conclusions. If that makes sense. I teach them that empathy is good, that helping people is right, that courtesy and respect are paramount, that they must work for the things they want, that knowledge is its own reward, that proper adherence to education will ensure that they have plenty of options when they grow up, that balancing fun and hard work is important. I never tell them to vote Democrat, to accept Jesus, to become teachers, to give their money to charity, or whatnot.
If my kids grow up to become Mormon business executives or Buddhist astronauts or atheist banana farmers, that's their prerogative, so long as they chose the lives they felt were right for them. Admittedly I think the core values I instill in them are more likely to lead to certain outcomes than to others, but the idea that you can raise your children as completely blank slates is pretty silly.
This is basically how I view the ideal situation. Give your kids the best tools you can, but let them build what they will out of it. They may well change your mind later in life with what they discover on their own. Children will be inclined to think like their parents, but it can go both ways after they mature a bit. I've seen this happen in a large portion of my extended family, now that the kids are mostly working adults.
--
Regarding censorship, it's kind of the same thing. Ideally a parent will acquiesce to a child's curiosity, but in a steady manner that keeps the child from being shocked too sharply or introduced to the least extreme version of something. If Jr. wants to learn about ladybits, there's respectful fine art to introduce them to that doesn't leave their first impression of sexuality a ball gag gangbang. If little Jill wants to learn about combat, you can introduce her to fencing rather than starting her off with Mortal Kombat. They can still explore that if they want to, eventually, but you've at least given them access to something that is, to the best of your knowledge, the better aspects of those things.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think you might be overly sensitive to the idea of "indoctrination".
Short of homeschooling, I don't think parents really have that much control over what their kids think after a certain age.
I wish it were only that I was being overly-sensitive to the term, yeah. Except it absolutely happens, all the damn time.
Someone, somewhere, is telling their kid that Obama is a Muslim and that anything otherwise is a liberal conspiracy. Or that homosexuals are abominations in the eyes of God. Or that they shouldn't marry a black person because the white blood must remain pure.
Instead, the crazy idea that I'm putting out there and am getting dogpiled for, is that instead of telling your kid that God exists so he'll shut up about it, you tell him what you think and say that you don't know for certain, and maybe that it can't be known for certain. You can do this! Try it, I promise your kid won't explode.
But like, what's the solution to that? You literally can do nothing to stop that kind of thing outside of creating and maintaining a responsible media (ha) and a solid education system (double ha). Anything else would infringe on good parent's rights as well.
No, because there is something to be said for a person making choices of their own accord, and arriving at their ideologies through a lifetime of reasoning, thought, and experiences. I didn't have political or religious viewpoints pushed onto me in any sort of concentrated effort, and I feel all the better for it.
There's also something to be said for exposing your kids to the lifetime of reasoning, thought, and experience that you've already accumulated. It seems a bit cruel to me to wish ignorance on your kids when you have the opportunity to teach them what you've learned.
Can you give me an example of this cruel ignorance I'm supposedly going to be wishing on my children? Because I think giving my kid a yes or no answer to 'Is there a God?' is more cruel and ignorant than explaining that I believe one thing, but may not know for certain.
I'm talking about indoctrination as it is related to some sort of ideology or viewpoint. Religion and politics keep coming up because those tend to be the things that people have systems of ideologies about. And things of that nature are the things that, as I've said, I wouldn't deliberately and specifically teach to my children necessarily as truth because I think that's dishonest and manipulative.
Any time you make a choice between right and wrong, you are appealing to an ideology. Any time you make a choice about a major life goal, you are appealing to an ideology.
It's tempting to limit our concept of "what is an ideology?" simply to the ideologies that are most controversial in public discourse - atheist vs. Christian, Democrat vs. Republican. But every significant choice you make is guided by an ideology. Your choice to send your child to public school is guided by the ideology that public schools are good. This happens to be the dominant mainstream ideology, but it is an ideology. Your choice to support your child's heterosexuality or homosexuality is guided by an ideology that these things are good; or at least harmless. If your child started using cocaine at age 15, I doubt you'd be supportive. At least, I hope you wouldn't. That's based on an ideology that drugs (at least, the hard addictive ones) are bad.
If you only see controversial ideologies as ideologies, then your choice to avoid teaching your kids an ideology is tantamount to saying, "I'm going to teach my children in accord with the dominant mainstream ideology as I understand it, and avoid any particularly controversial topics."
I don't think that's a horrible thing. It doesn't make you Hitler or anything. But eventually your child is going to start asking questions that you can't answer within the confines of that doctrine. There are going to be questions on life goals ("Should I join the army?") or relationships ("My boyfriend wants to have sex and I'm not sure if I do or not.") or religion ("My friend at school is a Mormon and he says that evolution is just a theory, and my teacher doesn't want to respond to him.") and I don't think that there's anything particularly admirable in sidestepping the tough questions.
Where in my view do I have to sidestep those questions? If my child is asking me about joining the army, they can probably understand the concept of something working for someone but not working for everyone. Or they can understand that when I say "No, that's a stupid idea." or "Yes, that's a great idea." that I may be wrong, or that my opinion isn't the beginning and end of it.
If I can't back up my own advice or commands to my children with something resembling logic (which is accessible to anyone, in theory) or experience or good sense, then what even are the sources of these imperatives?
You're using a sense of the term ideology that is so overly broad (but not necessarily untrue) it makes discussion of this rather difficult. If you want to say that pissing in the toilet or not marrying your sister is an ideology, then sure, I can't really say that you're wrong to do so. But you're just leaning on the language to try to attack a point that I'm not making with terms we're not even sharing.
Instead, the crazy idea that I'm putting out there and am getting dogpiled for, is that instead of telling your kid that God exists so he'll shut up about it, you tell him what you think and say that you don't know for certain, and maybe that it can't be known for certain. You can do this! Try it, I promise your kid won't explode.
At what point do you discern between what you think is true, and what you know is true? Especially given that certain ideologies are dependent upon the false assumption that every fact is subject to debate. Evolution? Just an opinion. We landed on the moon? Well, some people disagree. The sky is blue? Hey man, keep your rigid chromodynamics to yourself!
At a certain point, the simple existence of subjectivity becomes its own form of ideology.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think you might be overly sensitive to the idea of "indoctrination".
Short of homeschooling, I don't think parents really have that much control over what their kids think after a certain age.
I wish it were only that I was being overly-sensitive to the term, yeah. Except it absolutely happens, all the damn time.
Someone, somewhere, is telling their kid that Obama is a Muslim and that anything otherwise is a liberal conspiracy. Or that homosexuals are abominations in the eyes of God. Or that they shouldn't marry a black person because the white blood must remain pure.
Instead, the crazy idea that I'm putting out there and am getting dogpiled for, is that instead of telling your kid that God exists so he'll shut up about it, you tell him what you think and say that you don't know for certain, and maybe that it can't be known for certain. You can do this! Try it, I promise your kid won't explode.
But like, what's the solution to that? You literally can do nothing to stop that kind of thing outside of creating and maintaining a responsible media (ha) and a solid education system (double ha). Anything else would infringe on good parent's rights as well.
It is certainly possible (definitely not easy) to foster the faculties of critical thinking in a person, so that when they see things that are plainly false or manipulative or egregiously wrong, they can see that for themselves.
Oh, you mean the solution to that for everyone anywhere? There uh, isn't one. And shouldn't be.
Where in my view do I have to sidestep those questions? If my child is asking me about joining the army, they can probably understand the concept of something working for someone but not working for everyone. Or they can understand that when I say "No, that's a stupid idea." or "Yes, that's a great idea." that I may be wrong, or that my opinion isn't the beginning and end of it.
I don't see how you can meaningfully and helpfully address a question like "should I join the army?" without at least being willing to broach questions of patriotism, authority, the appropriate use of violence, and your country's foreign policy. These are ideological topics, by any definition. Simply answering "yes" or "no" without talking it over - without at least asking your kid's reasons and discussing those reasons - doesn't strike me as particularly guiding.
Feral on
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
I think you might be overly sensitive to the idea of "indoctrination".
Short of homeschooling, I don't think parents really have that much control over what their kids think after a certain age.
I wish it were only that I was being overly-sensitive to the term, yeah. Except it absolutely happens, all the damn time.
Someone, somewhere, is telling their kid that Obama is a Muslim and that anything otherwise is a liberal conspiracy. Or that homosexuals are abominations in the eyes of God. Or that they shouldn't marry a black person because the white blood must remain pure.
Instead, the crazy idea that I'm putting out there and am getting dogpiled for, is that instead of telling your kid that God exists so he'll shut up about it, you tell him what you think and say that you don't know for certain, and maybe that it can't be known for certain. You can do this! Try it, I promise your kid won't explode.
But like, what's the solution to that? You literally can do nothing to stop that kind of thing outside of creating and maintaining a responsible media (ha) and a solid education system (double ha). Anything else would infringe on good parent's rights as well.
It is certainly possible (definitely not easy) to foster the faculties of critical thinking in a person, so that when they see things that are plainly false or manipulative or egregiously wrong, they can see that for themselves.
Oh, you mean the solution to that for everyone anywhere? There uh, isn't one. And shouldn't be.
Indeed. I think we're in agreement here, actually.
Teach kids to think, right?
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
I think it's quite likely that at some point, my (hypothetical future) kids will start to talk about politics, or religion, or occupations, or charity. At that point, I'm not going to withhold my opinions - I think that physician is a better occupation than priest, for instance, because I think that physicians do more good, because I think that objective medicine is important, because I think that a life based on empirical observation and logical critical thought are better than a life based on religious faith. I don't think that it is unreasonable to predict that these topics would naturally out of an adolescent's curiosity about abstract ideas. I'm not going to sit and say that, "Oh, anything you want to do with your life is fine, dear," because that is, IMO, skipping out on my responsibility as a parent.
I agree with MrMister that there's a difference between discussing these things with an honest expression of your belief as you would with another rational human being, versus using punishment or manipulation or censorship. There's a time and place for the latter, but once your kid gets to the age where they're becoming curious on their own about abstract ideas, I think they're old enough to have polite conversations (most of the time).
Ditto the agreement. I refrain from talking about politics around my kids in all but the vaguest sense, because even though I think the current crop of Republicans are a bunch of goddamn atrocities, I don't want my kids growing up with a value that says "Republicans are bad." That said, if my kids ask me a direct question, I give them an honest answer. Mostly they're too young to really engage me on that specific front, but I strongly suspect that, based on discussions we've had, my daughter would support something like single-payer or socialized medicine, even though I've never used the words or specifically endorsed anything like that. Then again, my daughter would probably support free unicorns for all, so whatever.
How do you feel about letting kids pick activities and choose when to quit? I feel like if you don't choose activities then they may not do things that can be really enriching like team sports, and if you don't make them stick with things, then they may not get the benefits, or learn the value of working hard at something (both ideologies, I suppose), but I also think you need to recognize when they really just don't like something and get them out of it.
Instead, the crazy idea that I'm putting out there and am getting dogpiled for, is that instead of telling your kid that God exists so he'll shut up about it, you tell him what you think and say that you don't know for certain, and maybe that it can't be known for certain. You can do this! Try it, I promise your kid won't explode.
At what point do you discern between what you think is true, and what you know is true? Especially given that certain ideologies are dependent upon the false assumption that every fact is subject to debate. Evolution? Just an opinion. We landed on the moon? Well, some people disagree. The sky is blue? Hey man, keep your rigid chromodynamics to yourself!
At a certain point, the simple existence of subjectivity becomes its own form of ideology.
Because there is a difference between what I think is true and what I know is true. We're all imperfect minds and the two things are conflated often, but I'm sure you could consider some things that you know to be true, and some things that you merely believe to be true.
Like I said earlier, if you want to label any view on anything an ideology, go nuts. That's not contradictory and I can't really refute it. But just because the definition of the word is expansive enough to accommodate such manipulation doesn't mean that there aren't degrees to be appreciated when it comes to how all of this applies to indoctrination and raising children. The only people that would be paralyzed into intellectual stasis by the kind of subjectivity you're talking about are the solipsists, and nobody gives a shit about those guys. Instead we operate in a world where there are facts and there are opinions, things we know and things we think, and the lines between everything are blurred. That's just the best we have right now, and it's in that world that I think indoctrination (not necessarily in the loosest sense of the word) is undesirable.
What I keep hearing out of this thread is that because everything can be called an ideology, trying to avoid indoctrination is futile. Except I've already distinguished between different senses of indoctrination, and am making the point that I find one of those senses to be chillingly dishonest and irresponsible, yet many people continue pressing on with the other sense to try to respond to what I'm saying. Doesn't make sense.
I think you might be overly sensitive to the idea of "indoctrination".
Short of homeschooling, I don't think parents really have that much control over what their kids think after a certain age.
I wish it were only that I was being overly-sensitive to the term, yeah. Except it absolutely happens, all the damn time.
Someone, somewhere, is telling their kid that Obama is a Muslim and that anything otherwise is a liberal conspiracy. Or that homosexuals are abominations in the eyes of God. Or that they shouldn't marry a black person because the white blood must remain pure.
Instead, the crazy idea that I'm putting out there and am getting dogpiled for, is that instead of telling your kid that God exists so he'll shut up about it, you tell him what you think and say that you don't know for certain, and maybe that it can't be known for certain. You can do this! Try it, I promise your kid won't explode.
But like, what's the solution to that? You literally can do nothing to stop that kind of thing outside of creating and maintaining a responsible media (ha) and a solid education system (double ha). Anything else would infringe on good parent's rights as well.
It is certainly possible (definitely not easy) to foster the faculties of critical thinking in a person, so that when they see things that are plainly false or manipulative or egregiously wrong, they can see that for themselves.
Oh, you mean the solution to that for everyone anywhere? There uh, isn't one. And shouldn't be.
Indeed. I think we're in agreement here, actually.
Where in my view do I have to sidestep those questions? If my child is asking me about joining the army, they can probably understand the concept of something working for someone but not working for everyone. Or they can understand that when I say "No, that's a stupid idea." or "Yes, that's a great idea." that I may be wrong, or that my opinion isn't the beginning and end of it.
I don't see how you can meaningfully and helpfully address a question like "should I join the army?" without at least being willing to broach questions of patriotism, authority, the appropriate use of violence, and your country's foreign policy. These are ideological topics, by any definition. Simply answering "yes" or "no" without talking it over - without at least asking your kid's reasons and discussing those reasons - doesn't strike me as particularly guiding.
Of course you have to approach some ideological topics. When you use the broadest definition of ideology, every single human interaction crosses over into ideological territory.
What you and I are disagreeing over is what to call indoctrination. Like I've recently explained, you're using your definition of indoctrination (one I view as uselessly broad but not necessarily incorrect) to apply to what I say the proper courses of action should be, when I'm using a different sense of the term.
If you want to call any sort of ideological stuff 'indoctrination', then sure, you can't help but to indoctrinate your kids when you're responsibly answering certain questions or discussion certain things. But I don't think of literally any conversation ever when I think about indoctrination, and neither should you.
Those conflicting definitions of indoctrination are going to dog this thread forever unless we agree on some definitions. Appeals to dictionaries don't work when using contested terms, only when an individual or small minority is using the word in the 'wrong' way. Here we have lots of different definitions of 'indoctrinate' that are in common usage.
How about this: 'indoctrination' meaning teaching your child in a way that is painful and damaging and admits for no disagreement ever.
'teaching' meaning explaining stuff to your child about what you think is important, without emotional abuse, specially limiting their freedom or disowning them should they never accept your worldview.
As for the OP - we will all teach our kids what we believe. All of us. And part of that ideology, for me and for anyone I don't despise, is that we should be free to think for ourselves within certain limits. So I would be teaching my kid both that God doesn't exist and that some people do think so and if she wants to join them she can and I will always love her no matter what. So I will be teaching her complex concepts, sure, but that is still teaching.
So I doubt anyone here supports emotional abuse of their children to get them to agree. But we definitely have ideologies that brook no dispute - rape is wrong, etc etc.
So maybe a good question is - What things could your kid do or believe that you couldn't accept? What things would you find it hard to allow them freedom of belief over?
Personally mine would be the military. I believe that my child should be free to join the military if they want, but it would be hard, really hard, if she actually did want to.
I think it's quite likely that at some point, my (hypothetical future) kids will start to talk about politics, or religion, or occupations, or charity. At that point, I'm not going to withhold my opinions - I think that physician is a better occupation than priest, for instance, because I think that physicians do more good, because I think that objective medicine is important, because I think that a life based on empirical observation and logical critical thought are better than a life based on religious faith. I don't think that it is unreasonable to predict that these topics would naturally out of an adolescent's curiosity about abstract ideas. I'm not going to sit and say that, "Oh, anything you want to do with your life is fine, dear," because that is, IMO, skipping out on my responsibility as a parent.
I agree with MrMister that there's a difference between discussing these things with an honest expression of your belief as you would with another rational human being, versus using punishment or manipulation or censorship. There's a time and place for the latter, but once your kid gets to the age where they're becoming curious on their own about abstract ideas, I think they're old enough to have polite conversations (most of the time).
Ditto the agreement. I refrain from talking about politics around my kids in all but the vaguest sense, because even though I think the current crop of Republicans are a bunch of goddamn atrocities, I don't want my kids growing up with a value that says "Republicans are bad." That said, if my kids ask me a direct question, I give them an honest answer. Mostly they're too young to really engage me on that specific front, but I strongly suspect that, based on discussions we've had, my daughter would support something like single-payer or socialized medicine, even though I've never used the words or specifically endorsed anything like that. Then again, my daughter would probably support free unicorns for all, so whatever.
How do you feel about letting kids pick activities and choose when to quit? I feel like if you don't choose activities then they may not do things that can be really enriching like team sports, and if you don't make them stick with things, then they may not get the benefits, or learn the value of working hard at something (both ideologies, I suppose), but I also think you need to recognize when they really just don't like something and get them out of it.
Being able to stick with things is a good thing to learn. However, people change over time. Sometimes they even want to experience many differrent things to find activities they do like. Having them stay with all activities they choose indifinitely can backfire into them not ever liking anything if they're primarily stuck doing things they no longer want to do. Another downside is that they can be hesitant to try anything or what you order them to do because they'd realize no matter what they choose they'd be stuck with it. They may even want a break to avoid being burnt out. That's why such activities must be done carefully, with moderation and allowing them the option to do something else when they don't want to anymore IMO. Whoever bought up doing activities for x time is a good idea.
Harry Dresden on
0
Options
lonelyahavaCall me Ahava ~~She/Her~~Move to New ZealandRegistered Userregular
Mom and dad wanted to keep me away from violent children's cartoons. They only wanted me to watch 'good' tv when i was little. so the tv stayed on PBS with sesame Street and reading rainbow and the like.
That lasted until I was 3 or 4 and started going to preschool, where all the other kids were playing Thundercats and He-Man and She-Ra. When I came home and started playing the characters from these shows that my parents had never let me watch, that was about the time they stopped trying to protect me from 'bad influences.'
Now, I was raised in a Conservative Jewish household and community. I was brought up going to hebrew school and public school like almost all of my other classmates went to public school and sunday school. My mom's family was Christian, so I knew about the jesus thing and Christmas and Easter. Heck, I even helped my grandmother teach sunday school a few times!
And while now, many years later, I hold onto some of the core spiritual ideals that I was raised with, and the generic moral compass that hopefully everybody gets eventually, I've spent a while educating myself.
I believe in God. My partner is indifferent. If we have kids, I am hoping to raise them with the jewish Traditions that I was raised with (the holidays mostly), and also to be rational human beings. The two things are not mutually exclusive. We'll go to other people's homes for christmas, We'll light the Menorah at our home for Hannukah. And if my kids have a question, I'll do my best to answer it. The sky is blue because of science, we don't have pork chops because Mommy thinks they're gross and also Kosher laws. But mostly because mommy thinks they're gross.
I realized a little while ago that one of the subconscious reasons I never got a tattoo is because it's technically against my religion. I never consciously thought that, but something always held me back from the tattoo parlor. I remembered while talking about it that permanently marking my body was against one of the random prescripts in the Bible. Not that I had the same subconscious resistance to smoking, but i'm a weak person. It wasn't a position that was drilled into me, or even something that was mentioned more than once or twice I think by my father.
You can tell your kids whatever you want to tell them, if you do it right, they'll still grow up asking questions. What you do when they ask is what's important. My parents used to hand me the encyclopedia.
I think it's quite likely that at some point, my (hypothetical future) kids will start to talk about politics, or religion, or occupations, or charity. At that point, I'm not going to withhold my opinions - I think that physician is a better occupation than priest, for instance, because I think that physicians do more good, because I think that objective medicine is important, because I think that a life based on empirical observation and logical critical thought are better than a life based on religious faith. I don't think that it is unreasonable to predict that these topics would naturally out of an adolescent's curiosity about abstract ideas. I'm not going to sit and say that, "Oh, anything you want to do with your life is fine, dear," because that is, IMO, skipping out on my responsibility as a parent.
I agree with MrMister that there's a difference between discussing these things with an honest expression of your belief as you would with another rational human being, versus using punishment or manipulation or censorship. There's a time and place for the latter, but once your kid gets to the age where they're becoming curious on their own about abstract ideas, I think they're old enough to have polite conversations (most of the time).
Ditto the agreement. I refrain from talking about politics around my kids in all but the vaguest sense, because even though I think the current crop of Republicans are a bunch of goddamn atrocities, I don't want my kids growing up with a value that says "Republicans are bad." That said, if my kids ask me a direct question, I give them an honest answer. Mostly they're too young to really engage me on that specific front, but I strongly suspect that, based on discussions we've had, my daughter would support something like single-payer or socialized medicine, even though I've never used the words or specifically endorsed anything like that. Then again, my daughter would probably support free unicorns for all, so whatever.
How do you feel about letting kids pick activities and choose when to quit? I feel like if you don't choose activities then they may not do things that can be really enriching like team sports, and if you don't make them stick with things, then they may not get the benefits, or learn the value of working hard at something (both ideologies, I suppose), but I also think you need to recognize when they really just don't like something and get them out of it.
Being able to stick with things is a good thing to learn. However, people change over time. Sometimes they even want to experience many differrent things to find activities they do like. Having them stay with all activities they choose indifinitely can backfire into them not ever liking anything if they're primarily stuck doing things they no longer want to do. Another downside is that they can be hesitant to try anything or what you order them to do because they'd realize no matter what they choose they'd be stuck with it. They may even want a break to avoid being burnt out. That's why such activities must be done carefully, with moderation and allowing them the option to do something else when they don't want to anymore IMO. Whoever bought up doing activities for x time is a good idea.
I agree. I think that the best approach is to push kids to try lots of things, and to make sure they stick with things long enough to know if they like them. One season for a sport seems right, for example, since that way they aren't quitting.
Being able to stick with things is a good thing to learn. However, people change over time. Sometimes they even want to experience many differrent things to find activities they do like. Having them stay with all activities they choose indifinitely can backfire into them not ever liking anything if they're primarily stuck doing things they no longer want to do. Another downside is that they can be hesitant to try anything or what you order them to do because they'd realize no matter what they choose they'd be stuck with it. They may even want a break to avoid being burnt out. That's why such activities must be done carefully, with moderation and allowing them the option to do something else when they don't want to anymore IMO. Whoever bought up doing activities for x time is a good idea.
I agree. I think that the best approach is to push kids to try lots of things, and to make sure they stick with things long enough to know if they like them. One season for a sport seems right, for example, since that way they aren't quitting.
Yes, this. It's helpful that most such activities come in easily-digestible chunks. My daughter is in a theater class that runs 8 weeks, then has a performance. If she doesn't want to run another stint, that's cool. Thus far she's taken ballet, tap, soccer, and theater classes, some once, some more than once. We also encourage non-group activities, or less-organized things. She loves crafts, art, writing, her scooter, and playing games at the bowling alley, as well as reading (sometimes) and this insipid zoo-themed MMO game. We're not picky about what she does at any given moment, though we encourage her to change activities if she's been doing something for a long time.
I dunno, seems to work.
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
I think it's quite likely that at some point, my (hypothetical future) kids will start to talk about politics, or religion, or occupations, or charity. At that point, I'm not going to withhold my opinions - I think that physician is a better occupation than priest, for instance, because I think that physicians do more good, because I think that objective medicine is important, because I think that a life based on empirical observation and logical critical thought are better than a life based on religious faith. I don't think that it is unreasonable to predict that these topics would naturally out of an adolescent's curiosity about abstract ideas. I'm not going to sit and say that, "Oh, anything you want to do with your life is fine, dear," because that is, IMO, skipping out on my responsibility as a parent.
I agree with MrMister that there's a difference between discussing these things with an honest expression of your belief as you would with another rational human being, versus using punishment or manipulation or censorship. There's a time and place for the latter, but once your kid gets to the age where they're becoming curious on their own about abstract ideas, I think they're old enough to have polite conversations (most of the time).
Ditto the agreement. I refrain from talking about politics around my kids in all but the vaguest sense, because even though I think the current crop of Republicans are a bunch of goddamn atrocities, I don't want my kids growing up with a value that says "Republicans are bad." That said, if my kids ask me a direct question, I give them an honest answer. Mostly they're too young to really engage me on that specific front, but I strongly suspect that, based on discussions we've had, my daughter would support something like single-payer or socialized medicine, even though I've never used the words or specifically endorsed anything like that. Then again, my daughter would probably support free unicorns for all, so whatever.
How do you feel about letting kids pick activities and choose when to quit? I feel like if you don't choose activities then they may not do things that can be really enriching like team sports, and if you don't make them stick with things, then they may not get the benefits, or learn the value of working hard at something (both ideologies, I suppose), but I also think you need to recognize when they really just don't like something and get them out of it.
Being able to stick with things is a good thing to learn. However, people change over time. Sometimes they even want to experience many differrent things to find activities they do like. Having them stay with all activities they choose indifinitely can backfire into them not ever liking anything if they're primarily stuck doing things they no longer want to do. Another downside is that they can be hesitant to try anything or what you order them to do because they'd realize no matter what they choose they'd be stuck with it. They may even want a break to avoid being burnt out. That's why such activities must be done carefully, with moderation and allowing them the option to do something else when they don't want to anymore IMO. Whoever bought up doing activities for x time is a good idea.
I agree. I think that the best approach is to push kids to try lots of things, and to make sure they stick with things long enough to know if they like them. One season for a sport seems right, for example, since that way they aren't quitting.
:^:
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
Should a parent teach their kid right from wrong? Absolutely they should.
Unfortunately, the concepts of right and wrong in certain contexts become arguable issues in society, and if parents or teachers are passing on to children something you don't agree with, it becomes "indoctrination." Frankly I think the use of the word when it comes to parenting is really harsh, even if you don't agree with examples such as parents raising their kids Christian. It's not indoctrination, it's just the way of raising kids.
When it reaches extreme points of "never listen to anyone who tries to tell you otherwise, shut out all opposition," etc, then you can start to make the claim of it being indoctrination. But as we know, most people who identify as Christian, just to use an example, don't actually go to church a whole hell of a lot, and also don't raise their kids Christian to the extreme ways of your Rick Santorums or whatever.
What you and I are disagreeing over is what to call indoctrination. Like I've recently explained, you're using your definition of indoctrination (one I view as uselessly broad but not necessarily incorrect) to apply to what I say the proper courses of action should be, when I'm using a different sense of the term.
If you want to call any sort of ideological stuff 'indoctrination', then sure, you can't help but to indoctrinate your kids when you're responsibly answering certain questions or discussion certain things. But I don't think of literally any conversation ever when I think about indoctrination, and neither should you.
Honestly, I've mostly avoided the word "indoctrination" because I agree that it is an unclear term. Largely, I'm not really clear on what you consider the difference between "indoctrination" and "teaching" to be. You've given some examples, but some of your other comments seem to be levied against any deliberate attempt to convince a child of a religious or political idea. For example, "Of course there are values and habits and viewpoints of your own that are going to be exposed to your children, whether or not you deliberately choose to do so. I didn't say it because it's obvious enough that I thought it goes without saying. But this specific topic entertains the idea of consciously and deliberately pulling your children to your views on, which is a far fucking cry from what everyone is rushing to point out as a response to my post." Or, alternatively, "I'm talking about indoctrination as it is related to some sort of ideology or viewpoint. Religion and politics keep coming up because those tend to be the things that people have systems of ideologies about."
I really can't tell if you consider "indoctrination" to be a method (like brainwashing), or "indoctrination" is a motive (I want somebody to believe XYZ idea), or "indoctrination" is dependent upon the content of the lesson (religion and politics involves indoctrination; math and science do not). I'm not trying to be difficult, I honestly can't quite figure out where you're coming from.
And it's not really about what the definition of "indoctrination" is anyway, but more about what child-parent interactions you consider to be acceptable.
every person who doesn't like an acquired taste always seems to think everyone who likes it is faking it. it should be an official fallacy.
This is something I don't really struggle with. I'm 29 and I still actively evaluate what I believe and how I feel on all sorts of issues. It doesn't typically result in any groundshaking changes but we are constantly growing and learning so things shift over time as new experiences occur, this probably happens for lots of people here, but it's worth stating because here in the south it's more the exception than the rule around here.
So as for my 3 year old daughter I will be pushing my "beliefs" on her that you need to be ever critical of your beliefs. You shouldn't be static. I'll definitely push on her my feelings about civic duty and morality, but as far as religion is concerned I'll expose her to christianity in general, probably take her to a more liberal/progressive church even though I've never reutinely gone since I was a wee lad, expose her to it with very little pressure and try to teach her to come to her own conclusions about her faith and then just hope she ends up like me, which is to say, not religious.
rockmonkey on
0
Options
spacekungfumanPoor and minority-filledRegistered User, __BANNED USERSregular
This is something I don't really struggle with. I'm 29 and I still actively evaluate what I believe and how I feel on all sorts of issues. It doesn't typically result in any groundshaking changes but we are constantly growing and learning so things shift over time as new experiences occur, this probably happens for lots of people here, but it's worth stating because here in the south it's more the exception than the rule around here.
So as for my 3 year old daughter I will be pushing my "beliefs" on her that you need to be ever critical of your beliefs. You shouldn't be static. I'll definitely push on her my feelings about civic duty and morality, but as far as religion is concerned I'll expose her to christianity in general, probably take her to a more liberal/progressive church even though I've never reutinely gone since I was a wee lad, expose her to it with very little pressure and try to teach her to come to her own conclusions about her faith and then just hope she ends up like me, which is to say, not religious.
I agree with this approach 100%, but I am a little curious about why you would bring her to the church at all if you don't want her to be religious. Is it because you went as a kid? I plan on doing the same thing with hebrew school, but that's more for the cultural connections (I definitely think a Jewish kid deserves to have a bar mitzvah) than religious reasons.
This is something I don't really struggle with. I'm 29 and I still actively evaluate what I believe and how I feel on all sorts of issues. It doesn't typically result in any groundshaking changes but we are constantly growing and learning so things shift over time as new experiences occur, this probably happens for lots of people here, but it's worth stating because here in the south it's more the exception than the rule around here.
So as for my 3 year old daughter I will be pushing my "beliefs" on her that you need to be ever critical of your beliefs. You shouldn't be static. I'll definitely push on her my feelings about civic duty and morality, but as far as religion is concerned I'll expose her to christianity in general, probably take her to a more liberal/progressive church even though I've never reutinely gone since I was a wee lad, expose her to it with very little pressure and try to teach her to come to her own conclusions about her faith and then just hope she ends up like me, which is to say, not religious.
I agree with this approach 100%, but I am a little curious about why you would bring her to the church at all if you don't want her to be religious. Is it because you went as a kid? I plan on doing the same thing with hebrew school, but that's more for the cultural connections (I definitely think a Jewish kid deserves to have a bar mitzvah) than religious reasons.
Short answer: It's complicated and partially how my wife wants it.
Long answer:
Oddly enough my parents never took us to church. I've never even broached the subject of regilion with my dad, but my mom self identifies as christian and and we observed all the christian holidays at home and christian values were taught to us growing up. As a kid I went to church with a friend occassionally, but mainly it was with my grandfather on my mom's side who lived across town and would always take us if we asked him. My mom encouraged it but never went herself, and I went mainly because it was Texas and it was a peer pressure sort of thing. If you didn't go to church other kids noticed/cared. I was a kid and that sort of thing matter to me then. Not now.
Now fast forward I've been married for 6 years and we've need together a total of 11 years. We were senior/junior in high school when we started dating. We went to college together, lived together and had sex all before marriage, we never went to church except when visitng with her father (who she didn't live with growing up). Despite him condemning our choices, pressuring her, and even trying to bribe her to go to church she didn't ever push it, we never went to a service on our own.
So we graduate, get married, start our careers, and decide to have a kid, and so we do. This is when it really kicks in that she thinks we should raise her by attending church. My wife enjoys the idea of the community, and thinks it's "right". She IS christian, and from time to time it surfaces, but 98% of the time religion never plays a part in our lives. Our daughter is 3 and we've just now (this week actually) started to read a "my first bible" to her a bedtime and my wife is really pushing to find a church and as the man and head of the household she wants me to do this with them.
I don't WANT to go to church, or particularly think my child NEEDS to, but I also don't have a problem with it and part of me wants to be involved so that I know better what she is being exposed to. I'm very much into the whole scientific explanations, and don't take the bible as truth. I do think there are good lessons and values that can be gained from them. I think Jesus was probably a real guy and had some really good ideas, I just take things figuratively and as analogy or just plain made-up.
Basically I won't hide how I feel. I won't try to actively undermine the religious stuff. When she gets older I'll try to actively explain to her how I feel along with what other religions believe.
Do I hope that society in general at that point will have continued to move to a more and more secular stance as it has been? Yes.
Do I hope she has a grasp and science and logical thought similar to mine that leads her to share my ideas. Yeah.
Even if she doesn't I'll be fine with it, just as I'm ok with how my wife feels. If she decides to remain religious when she is an adult I look forward to having educated and civil discussions with someone like me on the topic of creation, life, and the universe, opposed to narrow minded discourse that I get from people (both religious and politically) around these parts.
@rockmonkey - That's pretty much exactly the dynamic between my wife and I. She's Christian, wants our kids to be Christians, and meanwhile I don't much care as long as they turn into good people. I do, though, take pains to not use terms like "Christian values," because I don't want the kids growing up to believe that treating others well is what Christians do, but rather it's what good people do. All of the good stuff in the Bible is just things that any decent person should do as a matter of course. So when you start talking about specifically Christian values, you're left with things that, depending on the specific church, range from neutral (accept Jesus as your savior, go to church, get baptized) to kinda bad (never explore your sexuality until you've already stuck yourself in a marriage, and if you find out you're completely incompatible, tough shit because divorce is a sin) to outright terrible (homosexuality is an abomination, evolution is a lie, women need to be subservient).
I submitted an entry to Lego Ideas, and if 10,000 people support me, it'll be turned into an actual Lego set!If you'd like to see and support my submission, follow this link.
0
Options
AtomikaLive fast and get fucked or whateverRegistered Userregular
@rockmonkey - That's pretty much exactly the dynamic between my wife and I. She's Christian, wants our kids to be Christians, and meanwhile I don't much care as long as they turn into good people. I do, though, take pains to not use terms like "Christian values," because I don't want the kids growing up to believe that treating others well is what Christians do, but rather it's what good people do. All of the good stuff in the Bible is just things that any decent person should do as a matter of course. So when you start talking about specifically Christian values, you're left with things that, depending on the specific church, range from neutral (accept Jesus as your savior, go to church, get baptized) to kinda bad (never explore your sexuality until you've already stuck yourself in a marriage, and if you find out you're completely incompatible, tough shit because divorce is a sin) to outright terrible (homosexuality is an abomination, evolution is a lie, women need to be subservient).
Yeah, best case scenario, the only things that are specifically "Christian" is a belief that a man in the sky became his own son to die for your sins because you are a bad person from the day you are born and need to be good to others out of fear of supernatural reprisal.
The thing is you can teach kids anything you want. But unless you keep them in their rooms and home school them, they will start thinking their own thoughts.
This is also why I hate homeschooling.
I would like to comment that this is a bullshit strawman. Not all homeschooling is run by crazy fundies whose only books are the bible.
Additionally if you are going to argue this route you should also be hating on private religious schools who do the exact same thing.
The thing is you can teach kids anything you want. But unless you keep them in their rooms and home school them, they will start thinking their own thoughts.
This is also why I hate homeschooling.
I would like to comment that this is a bullshit strawman. Not all homeschooling is run by crazy fundies whose only books are the bible.
Additionally if you are going to argue this route you should also be hating on private religious schools who do the exact same thing.
EDITED for accuracy
I've been very clear all across these forums about my stringent requirements for education. I don't like private religious schools who teach kids that evolution is a lie any more than I like homeschooling. There are very few situations where I can see the benefit of homeschooling, and those are all medically related and should be very closely looked after by the state.
Society depends on a well educated next generation.
The thing is you can teach kids anything you want. But unless you keep them in their rooms and home school them, they will start thinking their own thoughts.
This is also why I hate homeschooling.
I would like to comment that this is a bullshit strawman. Not all homeschooling is run by crazy fundies whose only books are the bible.
Additionally if you are going to argue this route you should also be hating on private religious schools who do the exact same thing.
EDITED for accuracy
I've been very clear all across these forums about my stringent requirements for education. I don't like private religious schools who teach kids that evolution is a lie any more than I like homeschooling. There are very few situations where I can see the benefit of homeschooling, and those are all medically related and should be very closely looked after by the state.
Society depends on a well educated next generation.
None of your posts in this thread reflect that though! You are criticizing homeschooling not based on a desire for stringent education requirements, but rather on the fact that they allow parents to control their children's thoughts.
There is a subtle, but extremely important, distinction between these two things. They are certainly linked, but one of these is a valid concern and while the other can follow out of it, it is not always the case. In fact, in 2003 the most reported "reason" for homeschooling children was the ability of parents to give their children a better education than public schools. Furthermore in 2003 most parents who homeschooled their children had at least a bachelor's degree, and many had post-graduate degrees as well.
While I do agree that society depends on a well educated next generation, and I agree that homeschooling curricula should be overviewed by the state, I disagree with your disingenuous insinuations in this thread that homeschooling your children makes them some sort of indoctrinated mind slave.
Short of homeschooling, I don't think parents really have that much control over what their kids think after a certain age.
This doesn't happen as frequently as you seem to think, which is my point here.
Also there is evidence that homeschooled children do better than their peers on tests and are more satisfied with life!
Not that this thread is about homeschooling.
So I don't derail completely let me make my point- claiming that homeschooling is a method of overpowering indoctrination is a strawman, and is a separate criticism from your root complaint about lack of education standards in the homeschool curricula.
As for kids and "indoctrination" in general, I tend to fall somewhere in between ElJeffe and Feral's views on this.
I just wanted to add a funny story to this thread since I think the original topic has already been beaten up sufficiently.
My wife has recently gotten back into watching the Knicks play since the whole Linsanity thing came about and she watches the games with our children (4 and 7 year old boys) in the room.
Of course, she is rooting for the Knicks, so my oldest is also rooting for the Knicks. At one point during the game he says "I don't like the black guys. The black guys are the bad guys."
We were shocked and started to correct him until we realized he was referring to the opposing team, who were dressed in black uniforms.
. In fact, in 2003 the most reported "reason" for homeschooling children was the ability of parents to give their children a better education than public schools. Furthermore in 2003 most parents who homeschooled their children had at least a bachelor's degree, and many had post-graduate degrees as well.
Arch, don't about 80% of homeschoolers (parents) cite religious or moral instruction as a reason for homeschooling?
I don't think that all homeschooled children end up like religious nuts (I went to a catholic school, after all, so I've seen how the people educated in that sort of an institution actually end up) but, yeah, in my experience MOST homeschooling is about fundies pushing their shit on their kids. Anecdotal etc etc. But http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf seems to agree that it's sure part of it (that 83% thing.)
Ego on
Erik
0
Options
AManFromEarthLet's get to twerk!The King in the SwampRegistered Userregular
The thing is you can teach kids anything you want. But unless you keep them in their rooms and home school them, they will start thinking their own thoughts.
This is also why I hate homeschooling.
I would like to comment that this is a bullshit strawman. Not all homeschooling is run by crazy fundies whose only books are the bible.
Additionally if you are going to argue this route you should also be hating on private religious schools who do the exact same thing.
EDITED for accuracy
I've been very clear all across these forums about my stringent requirements for education. I don't like private religious schools who teach kids that evolution is a lie any more than I like homeschooling. There are very few situations where I can see the benefit of homeschooling, and those are all medically related and should be very closely looked after by the state.
Society depends on a well educated next generation.
None of your posts in this thread reflect that though! You are criticizing homeschooling not based on a desire for stringent education requirements, but rather on the fact that they allow parents to control their children's thoughts.
There is a subtle, but extremely important, distinction between these two things. They are certainly linked, but one of these is a valid concern and while the other can follow out of it, it is not always the case. In fact, in 2003 the most reported "reason" for homeschooling children was the ability of parents to give their children a better education than public schools. Furthermore in 2003 most parents who homeschooled their children had at least a bachelor's degree, and many had post-graduate degrees as well.
While I do agree that society depends on a well educated next generation, and I agree that homeschooling curricula should be overviewed by the state, I disagree with your disingenuous insinuations in this thread that homeschooling your children makes them some sort of indoctrinated mind slave.
Short of homeschooling, I don't think parents really have that much control over what their kids think after a certain age.
This doesn't happen as frequently as you seem to think, which is my point here.
Also there is evidence that homeschooled children do better than their peers on tests and are more satisfied with life!
Not that this thread is about homeschooling.
So I don't derail completely let me make my point- claiming that homeschooling is a method of overpowering indoctrination is a strawman, and is a separate criticism from your root complaint about lack of education standards in the homeschool curricula.
As for kids and "indoctrination" in general, I tend to fall somewhere in between ElJeffe and Feral's views on this.
Okay, that's fair. I didn't want to go into the details preciscely because it's NOT a homeschooling thread
Though it is far easier to "indoctrinate," whatever that actually means, through homeschooling. I don't really think that's its very possible to indoctrinate your kids because they will always find ways to testing the fences and finding new things out. Especially now with this fancy series of tubes.
My running assumption on how I'll raise my kids is that I'll teach them about the things I believe, but always push them to think for themselves and do their own research.
Anecdotal, but everyone I've known who was homeschooled has social issues ranging from general uncomfortable awkwardness to completely dickish antisocial behavior. It was stated earlier by someone that if you send your children to public school, it's because you think it's good; I don't, in fact I think it's a horrible place filled with meaningless bureaucracy and convoluted teaching methods (at least in this NCLB world of today), and I find that most children are horrible sociopaths that some of history's worst have to give a nod of professional respect to. Which makes it the perfect environment for my children to learn how to deal with a world filled with these same people, most of whom are still sociopaths who convolute everything and wrap it in meaningless bureaucracy, but simply get more subtle about it.
When my children ask me about matters of behavior, I tell them what I would do, and how I consider the long term effects my actions have on myself and others.
When my children ask me about Religion or God, I tell them that some people believe in X, but I (stress on "I") believe in Y, and I give them whatever reason I think they're mature enough to understand at the moment.
I have determined that 90% of the time, I can talk to my children about any topic as if they were adults, but flavor it so that it's digestible to them up to their level of life experiences. 10% of the time I command their obedience and respect with regards to their choices and behavior because certain things are not and cannot be a matter of discussion until they have attained enough life experiences to understand the consequences of their actions, and it falls to me as a parent to provide an immediate and understandable consequence to aid in learning.
My job is to teach my children to observe the world around them, observe the people around them, and make decisions with a clear understanding of and respect for their consequences for all parties involved, and the courage and personal responsibility to live with those consequences. Everything else they may choose to believe is just filler details; if I can instill in them a level of respect and empathy for the power they wield on the people around them, then I will die happy in the knowledge that I have succeeded in teaching the only lesson I feel is important for my children to learn.
Posts
Can you give me an example of this cruel ignorance I'm supposedly going to be wishing on my children? Because I think giving my kid a yes or no answer to 'Is there a God?' is more cruel and ignorant than explaining that I believe one thing, but may not know for certain.
I'm talking about indoctrination as it is related to some sort of ideology or viewpoint. Religion and politics keep coming up because those tend to be the things that people have systems of ideologies about. And things of that nature are the things that, as I've said, I wouldn't deliberately and specifically teach to my children necessarily as truth because I think that's dishonest and manipulative.
Short of homeschooling, I don't think parents really have that much control over what their kids think after a certain age.
Well the thing about a doctrine is that it's not up for discussion. At least not when you instruct it.
Of course, you have to indoctrinate your children from early on. You teach them that stealing is bad before they can grasp the intricate justifications for it. But it is a question of where you stop.
Well yeah. But how much of your beliefs should you impart through indoctrination? I'll tell my kids that harm to others is bad from the start, but what about my views on religion or politics? Should I push them onto them, or just wait for them to come to me and have a polite formal debate about it?
Personally, I will definitely send my kids to hebrew school, even though I am not observant and am not sure what I believe, because I think it is a shared cultural experience all Jews should have. If they grow up to be more religious than me, that's fine, but I really want them to go just to feel some connection to our culture and history. And importantly, even if they don't like it, I will still make them go, because if you let very young children make decisions about what activities they pursue and which they quit, they will never stick with anything once it gets difficult. My parents made me stick with lots of things I did not really like, like base ball and boy scouts, and I am glad they did. I ultimately quit both when I was old enough to decide, but I also stuck with other things like soccer for a really long time, and definitely benefitted from it.
Any time you make a choice between right and wrong, you are appealing to an ideology. Any time you make a choice about a major life goal, you are appealing to an ideology.
It's tempting to limit our concept of "what is an ideology?" simply to the ideologies that are most controversial in public discourse - atheist vs. Christian, Democrat vs. Republican. But every significant choice you make is guided by an ideology. Your choice to send your child to public school is guided by the ideology that public schools are good. This happens to be the dominant mainstream ideology, but it is an ideology. Your choice to support your child's heterosexuality or homosexuality is guided by an ideology that these things are good; or at least harmless. If your child started using cocaine at age 15, I doubt you'd be supportive. At least, I hope you wouldn't. That's based on an ideology that drugs (at least, the hard addictive ones) are bad.
If you only see controversial ideologies as ideologies, then your choice to avoid teaching your kids an ideology is tantamount to saying, "I'm going to teach my children in accord with the dominant mainstream ideology as I understand it, and avoid any particularly controversial topics."
I don't think that's a horrible thing. It doesn't make you Hitler or anything. But eventually your child is going to start asking questions that you can't answer within the confines of that doctrine. There are going to be questions on life goals ("Should I join the army?") or relationships ("My boyfriend wants to have sex and I'm not sure if I do or not.") or religion ("My friend at school is a Mormon and he says that evolution is just a theory, and my teacher doesn't want to respond to him.") and I don't think that there's anything particularly admirable in sidestepping the tough questions.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
I wish it were only that I was being overly-sensitive to the term, yeah. Except it absolutely happens, all the damn time.
Someone, somewhere, is telling their kid that Obama is a Muslim and that anything otherwise is a liberal conspiracy. Or that homosexuals are abominations in the eyes of God. Or that they shouldn't marry a black person because the white blood must remain pure.
Instead, the crazy idea that I'm putting out there and am getting dogpiled for, is that instead of telling your kid that God exists so he'll shut up about it, you tell him what you think and say that you don't know for certain, and maybe that it can't be known for certain. You can do this! Try it, I promise your kid won't explode.
Ditto the agreement. I refrain from talking about politics around my kids in all but the vaguest sense, because even though I think the current crop of Republicans are a bunch of goddamn atrocities, I don't want my kids growing up with a value that says "Republicans are bad." That said, if my kids ask me a direct question, I give them an honest answer. Mostly they're too young to really engage me on that specific front, but I strongly suspect that, based on discussions we've had, my daughter would support something like single-payer or socialized medicine, even though I've never used the words or specifically endorsed anything like that. Then again, my daughter would probably support free unicorns for all, so whatever.
This is basically how I view the ideal situation. Give your kids the best tools you can, but let them build what they will out of it. They may well change your mind later in life with what they discover on their own. Children will be inclined to think like their parents, but it can go both ways after they mature a bit. I've seen this happen in a large portion of my extended family, now that the kids are mostly working adults.
--
Regarding censorship, it's kind of the same thing. Ideally a parent will acquiesce to a child's curiosity, but in a steady manner that keeps the child from being shocked too sharply or introduced to the least extreme version of something. If Jr. wants to learn about ladybits, there's respectful fine art to introduce them to that doesn't leave their first impression of sexuality a ball gag gangbang. If little Jill wants to learn about combat, you can introduce her to fencing rather than starting her off with Mortal Kombat. They can still explore that if they want to, eventually, but you've at least given them access to something that is, to the best of your knowledge, the better aspects of those things.
But like, what's the solution to that? You literally can do nothing to stop that kind of thing outside of creating and maintaining a responsible media (ha) and a solid education system (double ha). Anything else would infringe on good parent's rights as well.
Where in my view do I have to sidestep those questions? If my child is asking me about joining the army, they can probably understand the concept of something working for someone but not working for everyone. Or they can understand that when I say "No, that's a stupid idea." or "Yes, that's a great idea." that I may be wrong, or that my opinion isn't the beginning and end of it.
If I can't back up my own advice or commands to my children with something resembling logic (which is accessible to anyone, in theory) or experience or good sense, then what even are the sources of these imperatives?
You're using a sense of the term ideology that is so overly broad (but not necessarily untrue) it makes discussion of this rather difficult. If you want to say that pissing in the toilet or not marrying your sister is an ideology, then sure, I can't really say that you're wrong to do so. But you're just leaning on the language to try to attack a point that I'm not making with terms we're not even sharing.
At what point do you discern between what you think is true, and what you know is true? Especially given that certain ideologies are dependent upon the false assumption that every fact is subject to debate. Evolution? Just an opinion. We landed on the moon? Well, some people disagree. The sky is blue? Hey man, keep your rigid chromodynamics to yourself!
At a certain point, the simple existence of subjectivity becomes its own form of ideology.
It is certainly possible (definitely not easy) to foster the faculties of critical thinking in a person, so that when they see things that are plainly false or manipulative or egregiously wrong, they can see that for themselves.
Oh, you mean the solution to that for everyone anywhere? There uh, isn't one. And shouldn't be.
I don't see how you can meaningfully and helpfully address a question like "should I join the army?" without at least being willing to broach questions of patriotism, authority, the appropriate use of violence, and your country's foreign policy. These are ideological topics, by any definition. Simply answering "yes" or "no" without talking it over - without at least asking your kid's reasons and discussing those reasons - doesn't strike me as particularly guiding.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Indeed. I think we're in agreement here, actually.
Teach kids to think, right?
How do you feel about letting kids pick activities and choose when to quit? I feel like if you don't choose activities then they may not do things that can be really enriching like team sports, and if you don't make them stick with things, then they may not get the benefits, or learn the value of working hard at something (both ideologies, I suppose), but I also think you need to recognize when they really just don't like something and get them out of it.
Though I often didn't get to keep doing things I really enjoyed. I was only in little league for one season for instance. We were undefeated!
Because there is a difference between what I think is true and what I know is true. We're all imperfect minds and the two things are conflated often, but I'm sure you could consider some things that you know to be true, and some things that you merely believe to be true.
Like I said earlier, if you want to label any view on anything an ideology, go nuts. That's not contradictory and I can't really refute it. But just because the definition of the word is expansive enough to accommodate such manipulation doesn't mean that there aren't degrees to be appreciated when it comes to how all of this applies to indoctrination and raising children. The only people that would be paralyzed into intellectual stasis by the kind of subjectivity you're talking about are the solipsists, and nobody gives a shit about those guys. Instead we operate in a world where there are facts and there are opinions, things we know and things we think, and the lines between everything are blurred. That's just the best we have right now, and it's in that world that I think indoctrination (not necessarily in the loosest sense of the word) is undesirable.
What I keep hearing out of this thread is that because everything can be called an ideology, trying to avoid indoctrination is futile. Except I've already distinguished between different senses of indoctrination, and am making the point that I find one of those senses to be chillingly dishonest and irresponsible, yet many people continue pressing on with the other sense to try to respond to what I'm saying. Doesn't make sense.
Yes! Fancy that.
Of course you have to approach some ideological topics. When you use the broadest definition of ideology, every single human interaction crosses over into ideological territory.
What you and I are disagreeing over is what to call indoctrination. Like I've recently explained, you're using your definition of indoctrination (one I view as uselessly broad but not necessarily incorrect) to apply to what I say the proper courses of action should be, when I'm using a different sense of the term.
If you want to call any sort of ideological stuff 'indoctrination', then sure, you can't help but to indoctrinate your kids when you're responsibly answering certain questions or discussion certain things. But I don't think of literally any conversation ever when I think about indoctrination, and neither should you.
How about this: 'indoctrination' meaning teaching your child in a way that is painful and damaging and admits for no disagreement ever.
'teaching' meaning explaining stuff to your child about what you think is important, without emotional abuse, specially limiting their freedom or disowning them should they never accept your worldview.
As for the OP - we will all teach our kids what we believe. All of us. And part of that ideology, for me and for anyone I don't despise, is that we should be free to think for ourselves within certain limits. So I would be teaching my kid both that God doesn't exist and that some people do think so and if she wants to join them she can and I will always love her no matter what. So I will be teaching her complex concepts, sure, but that is still teaching.
So I doubt anyone here supports emotional abuse of their children to get them to agree. But we definitely have ideologies that brook no dispute - rape is wrong, etc etc.
So maybe a good question is - What things could your kid do or believe that you couldn't accept? What things would you find it hard to allow them freedom of belief over?
Personally mine would be the military. I believe that my child should be free to join the military if they want, but it would be hard, really hard, if she actually did want to.
Being able to stick with things is a good thing to learn. However, people change over time. Sometimes they even want to experience many differrent things to find activities they do like. Having them stay with all activities they choose indifinitely can backfire into them not ever liking anything if they're primarily stuck doing things they no longer want to do. Another downside is that they can be hesitant to try anything or what you order them to do because they'd realize no matter what they choose they'd be stuck with it. They may even want a break to avoid being burnt out. That's why such activities must be done carefully, with moderation and allowing them the option to do something else when they don't want to anymore IMO. Whoever bought up doing activities for x time is a good idea.
That lasted until I was 3 or 4 and started going to preschool, where all the other kids were playing Thundercats and He-Man and She-Ra. When I came home and started playing the characters from these shows that my parents had never let me watch, that was about the time they stopped trying to protect me from 'bad influences.'
Now, I was raised in a Conservative Jewish household and community. I was brought up going to hebrew school and public school like almost all of my other classmates went to public school and sunday school. My mom's family was Christian, so I knew about the jesus thing and Christmas and Easter. Heck, I even helped my grandmother teach sunday school a few times!
And while now, many years later, I hold onto some of the core spiritual ideals that I was raised with, and the generic moral compass that hopefully everybody gets eventually, I've spent a while educating myself.
I believe in God. My partner is indifferent. If we have kids, I am hoping to raise them with the jewish Traditions that I was raised with (the holidays mostly), and also to be rational human beings. The two things are not mutually exclusive. We'll go to other people's homes for christmas, We'll light the Menorah at our home for Hannukah. And if my kids have a question, I'll do my best to answer it. The sky is blue because of science, we don't have pork chops because Mommy thinks they're gross and also Kosher laws. But mostly because mommy thinks they're gross.
I realized a little while ago that one of the subconscious reasons I never got a tattoo is because it's technically against my religion. I never consciously thought that, but something always held me back from the tattoo parlor. I remembered while talking about it that permanently marking my body was against one of the random prescripts in the Bible. Not that I had the same subconscious resistance to smoking, but i'm a weak person. It wasn't a position that was drilled into me, or even something that was mentioned more than once or twice I think by my father.
You can tell your kids whatever you want to tell them, if you do it right, they'll still grow up asking questions. What you do when they ask is what's important. My parents used to hand me the encyclopedia.
Democrats Abroad! || Vote From Abroad
I agree. I think that the best approach is to push kids to try lots of things, and to make sure they stick with things long enough to know if they like them. One season for a sport seems right, for example, since that way they aren't quitting.
Yes, this. It's helpful that most such activities come in easily-digestible chunks. My daughter is in a theater class that runs 8 weeks, then has a performance. If she doesn't want to run another stint, that's cool. Thus far she's taken ballet, tap, soccer, and theater classes, some once, some more than once. We also encourage non-group activities, or less-organized things. She loves crafts, art, writing, her scooter, and playing games at the bowling alley, as well as reading (sometimes) and this insipid zoo-themed MMO game. We're not picky about what she does at any given moment, though we encourage her to change activities if she's been doing something for a long time.
I dunno, seems to work.
:^:
Unfortunately, the concepts of right and wrong in certain contexts become arguable issues in society, and if parents or teachers are passing on to children something you don't agree with, it becomes "indoctrination." Frankly I think the use of the word when it comes to parenting is really harsh, even if you don't agree with examples such as parents raising their kids Christian. It's not indoctrination, it's just the way of raising kids.
When it reaches extreme points of "never listen to anyone who tries to tell you otherwise, shut out all opposition," etc, then you can start to make the claim of it being indoctrination. But as we know, most people who identify as Christian, just to use an example, don't actually go to church a whole hell of a lot, and also don't raise their kids Christian to the extreme ways of your Rick Santorums or whatever.
Honestly, I've mostly avoided the word "indoctrination" because I agree that it is an unclear term. Largely, I'm not really clear on what you consider the difference between "indoctrination" and "teaching" to be. You've given some examples, but some of your other comments seem to be levied against any deliberate attempt to convince a child of a religious or political idea. For example, "Of course there are values and habits and viewpoints of your own that are going to be exposed to your children, whether or not you deliberately choose to do so. I didn't say it because it's obvious enough that I thought it goes without saying. But this specific topic entertains the idea of consciously and deliberately pulling your children to your views on, which is a far fucking cry from what everyone is rushing to point out as a response to my post." Or, alternatively, "I'm talking about indoctrination as it is related to some sort of ideology or viewpoint. Religion and politics keep coming up because those tend to be the things that people have systems of ideologies about."
I really can't tell if you consider "indoctrination" to be a method (like brainwashing), or "indoctrination" is a motive (I want somebody to believe XYZ idea), or "indoctrination" is dependent upon the content of the lesson (religion and politics involves indoctrination; math and science do not). I'm not trying to be difficult, I honestly can't quite figure out where you're coming from.
And it's not really about what the definition of "indoctrination" is anyway, but more about what child-parent interactions you consider to be acceptable.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So as for my 3 year old daughter I will be pushing my "beliefs" on her that you need to be ever critical of your beliefs. You shouldn't be static. I'll definitely push on her my feelings about civic duty and morality, but as far as religion is concerned I'll expose her to christianity in general, probably take her to a more liberal/progressive church even though I've never reutinely gone since I was a wee lad, expose her to it with very little pressure and try to teach her to come to her own conclusions about her faith and then just hope she ends up like me, which is to say, not religious.
I agree with this approach 100%, but I am a little curious about why you would bring her to the church at all if you don't want her to be religious. Is it because you went as a kid? I plan on doing the same thing with hebrew school, but that's more for the cultural connections (I definitely think a Jewish kid deserves to have a bar mitzvah) than religious reasons.
Short answer: It's complicated and partially how my wife wants it.
Long answer:
Now fast forward I've been married for 6 years and we've need together a total of 11 years. We were senior/junior in high school when we started dating. We went to college together, lived together and had sex all before marriage, we never went to church except when visitng with her father (who she didn't live with growing up). Despite him condemning our choices, pressuring her, and even trying to bribe her to go to church she didn't ever push it, we never went to a service on our own.
So we graduate, get married, start our careers, and decide to have a kid, and so we do. This is when it really kicks in that she thinks we should raise her by attending church. My wife enjoys the idea of the community, and thinks it's "right". She IS christian, and from time to time it surfaces, but 98% of the time religion never plays a part in our lives. Our daughter is 3 and we've just now (this week actually) started to read a "my first bible" to her a bedtime and my wife is really pushing to find a church and as the man and head of the household she wants me to do this with them.
I don't WANT to go to church, or particularly think my child NEEDS to, but I also don't have a problem with it and part of me wants to be involved so that I know better what she is being exposed to. I'm very much into the whole scientific explanations, and don't take the bible as truth. I do think there are good lessons and values that can be gained from them. I think Jesus was probably a real guy and had some really good ideas, I just take things figuratively and as analogy or just plain made-up.
Basically I won't hide how I feel. I won't try to actively undermine the religious stuff. When she gets older I'll try to actively explain to her how I feel along with what other religions believe.
Do I hope that society in general at that point will have continued to move to a more and more secular stance as it has been? Yes.
Do I hope she has a grasp and science and logical thought similar to mine that leads her to share my ideas. Yeah.
Even if she doesn't I'll be fine with it, just as I'm ok with how my wife feels. If she decides to remain religious when she is an adult I look forward to having educated and civil discussions with someone like me on the topic of creation, life, and the universe, opposed to narrow minded discourse that I get from people (both religious and politically) around these parts.
Yeah, best case scenario, the only things that are specifically "Christian" is a belief that a man in the sky became his own son to die for your sins because you are a bad person from the day you are born and need to be good to others out of fear of supernatural reprisal.
I would like to comment that this is a bullshit strawman. Not all homeschooling is run by crazy fundies whose only books are the bible.
Additionally if you are going to argue this route you should also be hating on private religious schools who do the exact same thing.
EDITED for accuracy
I've been very clear all across these forums about my stringent requirements for education. I don't like private religious schools who teach kids that evolution is a lie any more than I like homeschooling. There are very few situations where I can see the benefit of homeschooling, and those are all medically related and should be very closely looked after by the state.
Society depends on a well educated next generation.
None of your posts in this thread reflect that though! You are criticizing homeschooling not based on a desire for stringent education requirements, but rather on the fact that they allow parents to control their children's thoughts.
There is a subtle, but extremely important, distinction between these two things. They are certainly linked, but one of these is a valid concern and while the other can follow out of it, it is not always the case. In fact, in 2003 the most reported "reason" for homeschooling children was the ability of parents to give their children a better education than public schools. Furthermore in 2003 most parents who homeschooled their children had at least a bachelor's degree, and many had post-graduate degrees as well.
While I do agree that society depends on a well educated next generation, and I agree that homeschooling curricula should be overviewed by the state, I disagree with your disingenuous insinuations in this thread that homeschooling your children makes them some sort of indoctrinated mind slave.
This doesn't happen as frequently as you seem to think, which is my point here.
Also there is evidence that homeschooled children do better than their peers on tests and are more satisfied with life!
Not that this thread is about homeschooling.
So I don't derail completely let me make my point- claiming that homeschooling is a method of overpowering indoctrination is a strawman, and is a separate criticism from your root complaint about lack of education standards in the homeschool curricula.
As for kids and "indoctrination" in general, I tend to fall somewhere in between ElJeffe and Feral's views on this.
My wife has recently gotten back into watching the Knicks play since the whole Linsanity thing came about and she watches the games with our children (4 and 7 year old boys) in the room.
Of course, she is rooting for the Knicks, so my oldest is also rooting for the Knicks. At one point during the game he says "I don't like the black guys. The black guys are the bad guys."
We were shocked and started to correct him until we realized he was referring to the opposing team, who were dressed in black uniforms.
Whew!
Arch, don't about 80% of homeschoolers (parents) cite religious or moral instruction as a reason for homeschooling?
I don't think that all homeschooled children end up like religious nuts (I went to a catholic school, after all, so I've seen how the people educated in that sort of an institution actually end up) but, yeah, in my experience MOST homeschooling is about fundies pushing their shit on their kids. Anecdotal etc etc. But http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2009/2009030.pdf seems to agree that it's sure part of it (that 83% thing.)
Okay, that's fair. I didn't want to go into the details preciscely because it's NOT a homeschooling thread
Though it is far easier to "indoctrinate," whatever that actually means, through homeschooling. I don't really think that's its very possible to indoctrinate your kids because they will always find ways to testing the fences and finding new things out. Especially now with this fancy series of tubes.
My running assumption on how I'll raise my kids is that I'll teach them about the things I believe, but always push them to think for themselves and do their own research.
When my children ask me about matters of behavior, I tell them what I would do, and how I consider the long term effects my actions have on myself and others.
When my children ask me about Religion or God, I tell them that some people believe in X, but I (stress on "I") believe in Y, and I give them whatever reason I think they're mature enough to understand at the moment.
I have determined that 90% of the time, I can talk to my children about any topic as if they were adults, but flavor it so that it's digestible to them up to their level of life experiences. 10% of the time I command their obedience and respect with regards to their choices and behavior because certain things are not and cannot be a matter of discussion until they have attained enough life experiences to understand the consequences of their actions, and it falls to me as a parent to provide an immediate and understandable consequence to aid in learning.
My job is to teach my children to observe the world around them, observe the people around them, and make decisions with a clear understanding of and respect for their consequences for all parties involved, and the courage and personal responsibility to live with those consequences. Everything else they may choose to believe is just filler details; if I can instill in them a level of respect and empathy for the power they wield on the people around them, then I will die happy in the knowledge that I have succeeded in teaching the only lesson I feel is important for my children to learn.