The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Moral relativity is too much of a subjective issue for me to know what's right to preach about and what's wrong without venturing into the realm of hypocrisy. I could stay up for hours lecturing about this issue and what I think of it.
I can't believe we're having to debate why keeping an entire group of children isolated from the outside world and shoe-horning them into specific roles, to the extent that literacy is considered a luxury, is a fucked up thing to do.
Having the debate is what keeps us from being the quiverfull folks.
Dear sweet Jebus, I can't believe we're having to debate why keeping an entire group of children isolated from the outside world and shoe-horning them into specific roles, to the extent that literacy is considered a luxury, is a fucked up thing to do.
I noted it's all about the daughters - where are the sons in this little experiment?
Usually? Pseudomilitary summer camps where they're learning that they shouldn't express emotion unless they're hitting something, their job options are a) builder b) farmer c) preacher and that they can only possibly feel good about themselves by putting other classes of people down (women, darkies, foreigners, fags, college graduates, and people who openly like art or any physical object softer than timber). The resultant emotional crippling will leave them more vulnerable to depression and substance abuse than even the general male population, and ironically hamper their ability to achieve the 'biblical'* ideal of manhood set out for them.
This way of life is bad for people, because it tries to stop them from being people in favour of being robots.
*pro-tip: there really isn't anything biblical about what these people are doing.
I can't believe we're having to debate why keeping an entire group of children isolated from the outside world and shoe-horning them into specific roles, to the extent that literacy is considered a luxury, is a fucked up thing to do.
Having the debate is what keeps us from being the quiverfull folks.
No, knowing about the Quiverfull folks, and having the freedom to, is what stops us from being them. Condemning a school of thought is in no way similar to preventing others from finding out about it. There are many things in life I wouldn't wish upon others or my future children, but I'm still going to give them access to that knowledge, and in some cases actively expose them to it. That way, they can make their own decisions.
Rhesus Positive on
[Muffled sounds of gorilla violence]
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
it just seems to me you're trying to set up a situation where you dare us to tell you why this is wrong and then babble on against any reason we come up with saying it's all social construct. then you pretend this is somehow different than moral relativity
You hit the nail pretty squarely on the head.
_J_, we can pick pretty much any ethical system (Utilitarian, Kantian, Virtue, even divine command) and argue that what they're doing is wrong. Is that what you want us to do? Or do you instead what us to justify why Utilitarianism, for instance, is a better ethical system than whatever evaluational system they're using? Because if it's the latter, then we could try doing that too. However, I suspect that you will immediately and categorically reject any attempt to do so--since, after all, morality is subjective m i rite? So all you're doing is setting up a trap: inviting us to prove to you something you think is unprovable and which you will never accept as having been proved.
And, of course, this whole bit here highlights how fucking useless moral relativism is. If you can't even pass judgment on the Quiverfulls as doing something wrong, then you're basically are just rejecting the concept of ethical judgment entirely.
MrMister on
0
HonkHonk is this poster.Registered User, __BANNED USERSregular
edited March 2009
I really liked your post Cat, I think you're absolutely right.
_J_ clearly doesn't even believe his own bullshit, Mr, since he's mildly condemning his sister for doing what she wanted to do with her life instead of carefully harnessing her resources into one and only one possible life path. If that's not a groundless ideology I don't know what is.
_J_ clearly doesn't even believe his own bullshit, Mr, since he's mildly condemning his sister for doing what she wanted to do with her life instead of carefully harnessing her resources into one and only one possible life path. If that's not a groundless ideology I don't know what is.
I think it would be fair to assume that he's playing Devil's Advocate. I think that is a reasonable thing to do usually... but in this case I think its a fool's errand to defend the indefensible, ironically by appealing to moral relativism - a type of ideology which would be pure anathema to Quiverfull...
Slavery is something of a loaded term. So I'll say that your value statement is based upon indoctrination and limitation of individual's actions. It's conforming individuals to live within a certain limited set of social standards. Also, within slavery is the notion of property. So, in a way, these women are treated as property.
Now the question becomes whether or not it is possible to fathom a life of that nature (as a piece of property whose options and actions are limited) which is good, enjoyable, beneficial, healthy, etc.
I'll say there is nothing inherently wrong with being treated as property insofar as this treatment is based upon a desire to sustain. etc...
I appreciate what you are trying to do, but the problem with this statement is that assumes choice, when there is none - the women cannot elect to lead a different life.
Insofar as you appeal to moral relativism, I will suggest that if you go down that track then it it would be instructive to look at Hobbes and Locke and social contract theory - neither would subscribe to the view that slavery is a legitimate form of social construct. It doesn't "work toward a common good", nor does it reflect the Social Contract of Western Society.
Then if you look way back to the foundations of law, you get this idea of natural justice (still obviously a concept which is much used in the modern law), something that is reflected in that rather important document dealing with "truths that are self-evident" etc...
I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't feel as though Moral Relativism can be used as a shield to protect those who perpetrate oppression. It's not a catch all "escape clause", it is meant to be used to rationalise cultural differences, but not to the extent that individuals can be sacrificed upon its alter for no other reason than being born in the wrong place at the wrong time...
As Jennie Chancey tells the Botkin sisters in their book, So Much More: The Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God, children of the movement should have “little to no association with peers outside of family and relatives” as insulation from a corrupting society. Daughters shouldn’t forgo education but should consider to what ends their education is intended and should place their efforts in “advanced homemaking” skills.
I don't always read entire articles linked in an OP, and sometimes AngelHedgie has a tendency to get outraged over not-so-serious things, but this is truly fucked up.
This is brainwashing in the most serious and harmful sense. I am at a loss for words.
yes...truly fucked up. I thought that purity balls thing was pretty bad when i read it just a min ago (especially funny to me since i JUST watched the episode of South Park about the Jonas brothers and their "purity rings" you can watch it here: NSFW!!! if yer interested) but this is...i dunno. I feel like i shouldn't be surprised by the absolute stupidity that permeates the human race, but they just keep finding new ways to be even fucking dumber.
Do they not realize that isolating someone completely from the real world doesn't protect them from it? It just makes them unable to deal with said real world adequately once it breaks through, and it will.
the_Willard on
The Neverhood is what TRULY started my gaming addiction, therefore respect is due.
As Jennie Chancey tells the Botkin sisters in their book, So Much More: The Remarkable Influence of Visionary Daughters on the Kingdom of God, children of the movement should have “little to no association with peers outside of family and relatives” as insulation from a corrupting society. Daughters shouldn’t forgo education but should consider to what ends their education is intended and should place their efforts in “advanced homemaking” skills.
I don't always read entire articles linked in an OP, and sometimes AngelHedgie has a tendency to get outraged over not-so-serious things, but this is truly fucked up.
This is brainwashing in the most serious and harmful sense. I am at a loss for words.
In general I find the fact that such insulating measures are necessary to get your offspring to continue under your social norms telling. Which is to imply that given exposure to other social norms they will reject those that are, though this insulation, being "forced" upon them.
But the parents' goal here is to indoctrinate as long as possible, so that no exposure to other social norms will make a difference.
I think it is possible to take brainwashing to an extent that it will be impossible for some people to change. I mean going to church for years and then finding your own contrary beliefs happens often. Going to a private religious school and then branching out when you get to college is also common.
But this sounds like raising a child in a fucking cult at least until the age of 18, possibly longer because they won't have much knowledge on their own independence at that point. It seems much worse than other common scenarios where a kid can later on form his/her own ideals.
How would you react if you found out your coworker's wife was illiterate and never left the home? On one hand, it's fucked up and she isn't treated as a person. On the other hand, she might be so brainwashed that she is happy the way she is and finding out about other possibilities might shatter that world.
How would you react if you found out your coworker's wife was illiterate and never left the home? On one hand, it's fucked up and she isn't treated as a person. On the other hand, she might be so brainwashed that she is happy the way she is and finding out about other possibilities might shatter that world.
Sounds like some bullshit reasoning you might say about slavery. Bad analogy, because the living conditions are a quite a bit different. But the point is that you are denying her the basic right of the opportunity to live up to her potential. Even if she was happy in what little she knew, her entire life would be a fucking lie.
How would you react if you found out your coworker's wife was illiterate and never left the home? On one hand, it's fucked up and she isn't treated as a person. On the other hand, she might be so brainwashed that she is happy the way she is and finding out about other possibilities might shatter that world.
You know what, I've read a lot of stories about people who escaped being kept in pseudo-confinement and ignorance the way these people are aiming for, and never once have I seen one of them wish they'd stayed on the compound. Or, as nocturne points out, the cotton field. Ignorance, despite the saying, is not actually bliss.
What really pisses me off about these people is that their existence makes it very difficult to choose a similar lifestyle, even a secular take on it. People who legitimately want to spend most of their time on their homes and families, who want to focus on things like gardening and small domestic businesses, are lumped in with the fetishist kooks who are only doing it because they think a big beard in the sky will hurt them if they don't.
There's also a few other layers of weird in there that I think need attention. The focus on notions of aristocracy, of agrarian benevolent rule over the land hark back clearly to the social class arrangements that were around prior to the civil war. Who's going to work the mucky jobs while these women are swanning around selling 'essential oils' and ugly clothing to each other and these men are all busy sitting on the front porch waiting for [strike]the help[/strike] their daughters to fetch their fucking shoes?
Moral relativism was already brought up, but I can safely say that I think moral relativism is a load of crap to a large degree.
It's a lot harder when I try and think of in what way legislators could make good arguments for creating laws to change child-rearing like this.
They need to take a good hard look at home schooling.
ugh. I kind of want to home school my kids, but the thought of being lumped in with dangerous wackos like this leads me to take pause.
Let me be clear, I don't mean to say that homeschooling should be banned or severely limited or anything like that. Draw from that that I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with homeschooling.
That said, I'm not sure that fear of association would be too good a reason to not home school your children. I wonder how judgmental people really are regarding the notion of home schooling.
I wonder how judgmental people really are regarding the notion of home schooling.
If someone says that they homeschool their kids then I am automatically suspicious of their motives. Sometimes it can be a good decision, but the number of parents who are capable of providing a better education than even the public school system is very low.
Bama on
0
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
I wonder how judgmental people really are regarding the notion of home schooling.
If someone says that they homeschool their kids then I am automatically suspicious of their motives. Sometimes it can be a good decision, but the number of parents who are capable of providing a better education than even the public school system is very low.
Also, it's not like you can't supplement your children's education with more at home. In fact, it's a very good idea.
I wonder how judgmental people really are regarding the notion of home schooling.
If someone says that they homeschool their kids then I am automatically suspicious of their motives. Sometimes it can be a good decision, but the number of parents who are capable of providing a better education than even the public school system is very low.
But notice that your suspicion is not in itself a judgment. You are skeptical of something and you'd probably seek further information before making an actual judgment. In this regard I'm the same way.
I'm just wondering how often people would form judgments that have no basis in actual knowledge of the homeschooling the child is undergoing, but instead only on their preconceived notion of home schooling which is what Wally seems to be fearing.
The situation in the OP reminds me quite a bit of my Hasidic step-cousins.
There are ten kids (maybe 11 now). If I recall, the girls did not have anything past a 6th grade education, even the fully grown ones. Quite literally, they have zero career options. Their only hope is to marry Hasidic rabbis and be homemakers.
(To be fair, the boys did not have it much better—they were only educated in Hebrew and rabbinical studies. They now basically have little choice except "become a rabbi.")
They lived in a relatively cloistered Hasidic community. They all smelled bad and wore ridiculous clothing that looked like a cross between Amish and Orthodox. One time, the younger kids all came to visit my family, and we took them to see Forest Gump. We had to walk out of the movie theater 30 minutes into it. Now, I think they live in an even more cloistered community in New York.
Really, they were some of the most pathetic people I've known, and I feel so terrible for those kids. The mother (my stepdad's sister), to her credit, recently divorced the father. Apparently he was incredibly abusive to her and the children. I think they all basically live on inheritance and Jewish community largesse now.
Anyway, the evangelical Christians aren't the only ones doing this. The Amish have been doing it for years as well, and then you have groups like the fundamentalist Mormons. I imagine many Muslims in Western countries raise their children this way as well. Like most cults, this kind of brainwashing, social control, and demographic warfare goes with the territory. I certainly sympathize with the position, popularized by Dawkins, that this is "child abuse."
I wonder how judgmental people really are regarding the notion of home schooling.
If someone says that they homeschool their kids then I am automatically suspicious of their motives. Sometimes it can be a good decision, but the number of parents who are capable of providing a better education than even the public school system is very low.
And just a little bit of extra info can clarify a lot. I knew a kid my age who was homeschooled for most of his life, but he lived on a ranch in west texas, and basically the only feasible place he could go to regularly was the school in the teeny tiny town 15 minutes away which I think wasn't a very good school. They also supplemented their education with programs through satellite and the internets.
I feel like if your ideological systems immediately collapse on contact with the outside world, then they weren't any good in the first place. Said another way: If your beliefs can't compete in the marketplace of ideas--i.e. you need to insulate your children from the corrupting influences of other belief systems by denying them access to any ideas but your own, your ideals are likely logically bankrupt.
Then again producing that closed-mindedness is probably the most important trait of any self-propogating belief system. Thou shalt have no other gods before me--as the moral relativists have pointed out--isn't an edict limited to the Abrahamic religions--our own secular cultural practices are also followed mindlessly and are propagated by suppressing critical thought.
I noted it's all about the daughters - where are the sons in this little experiment?
If we use the most popular example, The Duggar family, then the sons have college already paid for, and are educated - the oldest I do believe is already through college. The girls are not educated, at least past a certain level.
3lwap0 on
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
In general I find the fact that such insulating measures are necessary to get your offspring to continue under your social norms telling. Which is to imply that given exposure to other social norms they will reject those that are, though this insulation, being "forced" upon them.
At the same time, plenty of reasonable people want to insulate their children from harmful social influences. There are plenty of liberal parents who would never dream of letting their daughter have a Barbie, for instance.
In general I find the fact that such insulating measures are necessary to get your offspring to continue under your social norms telling. Which is to imply that given exposure to other social norms they will reject those that are, though this insulation, being "forced" upon them.
At the same time, plenty of reasonable people want to insulate their children from harmful social influences. There are plenty of liberal parents who would never dream of letting their daughter have a Barbie, for instance.
Are you seriously comparing withholding a certain toy to withholding literacy?
That's not apples to oranges, that's apples to moons.
In general I find the fact that such insulating measures are necessary to get your offspring to continue under your social norms telling. Which is to imply that given exposure to other social norms they will reject those that are, though this insulation, being "forced" upon them.
At the same time, plenty of reasonable people want to insulate their children from harmful social influences. There are plenty of liberal parents who would never dream of letting their daughter have a Barbie, for instance.
I think there's a pretty big difference between
"not buying shit you don't think is healthy for your kids"
and
"not educating your kids because they don't need it and education is a gateway to outside thought."
In general I find the fact that such insulating measures are necessary to get your offspring to continue under your social norms telling. Which is to imply that given exposure to other social norms they will reject those that are, though this insulation, being "forced" upon them.
At the same time, plenty of reasonable people want to insulate their children from harmful social influences. There are plenty of liberal parents who would never dream of letting their daughter have a Barbie, for instance.
Are you seriously comparing withholding a certain toy to withholding literacy?
That's not apples to oranges, that's apples to moons.
No, he's not doing that at all.
He's saying that homeschooling and, more specifically, the notion that protecting your child from corruption by certain societal influences is in some cases warranted
wazilla on
Psn:wazukki
0
MrMisterJesus dying on the cross in pain? Morally better than us. One has to go "all in".Registered Userregular
He's saying that homeschooling and, more specifically, the notion that protecting your child from corruption by certain societal influences is in some cases warranted
Also, I would imagine that this liberal parent would be able to handle her child being exposed to a Barbie and willing to explain why it's harmful, rather than toss on the blinders and earplugs.
I wonder how judgmental people really are regarding the notion of home schooling.
If someone says that they homeschool their kids then I am automatically suspicious of their motives. Sometimes it can be a good decision, but the number of parents who are capable of providing a better education than even the public school system is very low.
But notice that your suspicion is not in itself a judgment. You are skeptical of something and you'd probably seek further information before making an actual judgment. In this regard I'm the same way.
I'm just wondering how often people would form judgments that have no basis in actual knowledge of the homeschooling the child is undergoing, but instead only on their preconceived notion of home schooling which is what Wally seems to be fearing.
That is exactly what I'm fearing. I've met many well educated, intelligent home schooled people, but all I ever seem to hear about is the religious nuts. While I got a pretty good education from my public school, I also learned that I could half-ass my way through life. I think that sort of thing could be avoidable with some homeschooling at a young age, I think some personalized education, tailored to meet the child's abilities could help.
I think part of the problem comes down to motive. I'm sure the leaders of cults (or fathers within the cults) know that this is not in the best interest of the children/wives, they are teaching the children in this manner for entirely selfish reasons.
Let us not judge them by our values if you feel that is unfair, judge their actions by their own values and they will still be found corrupt and morally bankrupt.
That is exactly what I'm fearing. I've met many well educated, intelligent home schooled people, but all I ever seem to hear about is the religious nuts..
Growing up in the deep south, there are quite a few kids I knew who were homeschooled in that ultra conservative christian lifestyle. Later on in life, when they went into 'the world', there seemed to be a pretty sharp divide between those who stayed in that insular lifestyle and those who were unprepared to deal with socialization with their peers and either retreated back into that orthodox comfort zone, and/or went batshit hedonist crazy.
He's saying that homeschooling and, more specifically, the notion that protecting your child from corruption by certain societal influences is in some cases warranted
I think part of the problem comes down to motive. I'm sure the leaders of cults (or fathers within the cults) know that this is not in the best interest of the children/wives, they are teaching the children in this manner for entirely selfish reasons.
I disagree. I doubt that it's often selfish. These people genuinely believe in the ideology of their cults and see it as their highest duty on earth to do whatever they can to safeguard and propagate that ideology.
Religions have long understood the idea of "memes" and much of their social organization and doctrine is basically dedicated to memetic warfare. The fathers aren't doing it for themselves, they're doing it for fidelity to their governing meme.
Posts
Having the debate is what keeps us from being the quiverfull folks.
Usually? Pseudomilitary summer camps where they're learning that they shouldn't express emotion unless they're hitting something, their job options are a) builder b) farmer c) preacher and that they can only possibly feel good about themselves by putting other classes of people down (women, darkies, foreigners, fags, college graduates, and people who openly like art or any physical object softer than timber). The resultant emotional crippling will leave them more vulnerable to depression and substance abuse than even the general male population, and ironically hamper their ability to achieve the 'biblical'* ideal of manhood set out for them.
This way of life is bad for people, because it tries to stop them from being people in favour of being robots.
*pro-tip: there really isn't anything biblical about what these people are doing.
No, knowing about the Quiverfull folks, and having the freedom to, is what stops us from being them. Condemning a school of thought is in no way similar to preventing others from finding out about it. There are many things in life I wouldn't wish upon others or my future children, but I'm still going to give them access to that knowledge, and in some cases actively expose them to it. That way, they can make their own decisions.
You hit the nail pretty squarely on the head.
_J_, we can pick pretty much any ethical system (Utilitarian, Kantian, Virtue, even divine command) and argue that what they're doing is wrong. Is that what you want us to do? Or do you instead what us to justify why Utilitarianism, for instance, is a better ethical system than whatever evaluational system they're using? Because if it's the latter, then we could try doing that too. However, I suspect that you will immediately and categorically reject any attempt to do so--since, after all, morality is subjective m i rite? So all you're doing is setting up a trap: inviting us to prove to you something you think is unprovable and which you will never accept as having been proved.
And, of course, this whole bit here highlights how fucking useless moral relativism is. If you can't even pass judgment on the Quiverfulls as doing something wrong, then you're basically are just rejecting the concept of ethical judgment entirely.
I think it would be fair to assume that he's playing Devil's Advocate. I think that is a reasonable thing to do usually... but in this case I think its a fool's errand to defend the indefensible, ironically by appealing to moral relativism - a type of ideology which would be pure anathema to Quiverfull...
I appreciate what you are trying to do, but the problem with this statement is that assumes choice, when there is none - the women cannot elect to lead a different life.
Insofar as you appeal to moral relativism, I will suggest that if you go down that track then it it would be instructive to look at Hobbes and Locke and social contract theory - neither would subscribe to the view that slavery is a legitimate form of social construct. It doesn't "work toward a common good", nor does it reflect the Social Contract of Western Society.
Then if you look way back to the foundations of law, you get this idea of natural justice (still obviously a concept which is much used in the modern law), something that is reflected in that rather important document dealing with "truths that are self-evident" etc...
I guess what I am trying to say is that I don't feel as though Moral Relativism can be used as a shield to protect those who perpetrate oppression. It's not a catch all "escape clause", it is meant to be used to rationalise cultural differences, but not to the extent that individuals can be sacrificed upon its alter for no other reason than being born in the wrong place at the wrong time...
I don't always read entire articles linked in an OP, and sometimes AngelHedgie has a tendency to get outraged over not-so-serious things, but this is truly fucked up.
This is brainwashing in the most serious and harmful sense. I am at a loss for words.
Do they not realize that isolating someone completely from the real world doesn't protect them from it? It just makes them unable to deal with said real world adequately once it breaks through, and it will.
But the parents' goal here is to indoctrinate as long as possible, so that no exposure to other social norms will make a difference.
I think it is possible to take brainwashing to an extent that it will be impossible for some people to change. I mean going to church for years and then finding your own contrary beliefs happens often. Going to a private religious school and then branching out when you get to college is also common.
But this sounds like raising a child in a fucking cult at least until the age of 18, possibly longer because they won't have much knowledge on their own independence at that point. It seems much worse than other common scenarios where a kid can later on form his/her own ideals.
Sounds like some bullshit reasoning you might say about slavery. Bad analogy, because the living conditions are a quite a bit different. But the point is that you are denying her the basic right of the opportunity to live up to her potential. Even if she was happy in what little she knew, her entire life would be a fucking lie.
What really pisses me off about these people is that their existence makes it very difficult to choose a similar lifestyle, even a secular take on it. People who legitimately want to spend most of their time on their homes and families, who want to focus on things like gardening and small domestic businesses, are lumped in with the fetishist kooks who are only doing it because they think a big beard in the sky will hurt them if they don't.
There's also a few other layers of weird in there that I think need attention. The focus on notions of aristocracy, of agrarian benevolent rule over the land hark back clearly to the social class arrangements that were around prior to the civil war. Who's going to work the mucky jobs while these women are swanning around selling 'essential oils' and ugly clothing to each other and these men are all busy sitting on the front porch waiting for [strike]the help[/strike] their daughters to fetch their fucking shoes?
It's a lot harder when I try and think of in what way legislators could make good arguments for creating laws to change child-rearing like this.
They need to take a good hard look at home schooling.
ugh. I kind of want to home school my kids, but the thought of being lumped in with dangerous wackos like this leads me to take pause.
Let me be clear, I don't mean to say that homeschooling should be banned or severely limited or anything like that. Draw from that that I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with homeschooling.
That said, I'm not sure that fear of association would be too good a reason to not home school your children. I wonder how judgmental people really are regarding the notion of home schooling.
I'm just wondering how often people would form judgments that have no basis in actual knowledge of the homeschooling the child is undergoing, but instead only on their preconceived notion of home schooling which is what Wally seems to be fearing.
There are ten kids (maybe 11 now). If I recall, the girls did not have anything past a 6th grade education, even the fully grown ones. Quite literally, they have zero career options. Their only hope is to marry Hasidic rabbis and be homemakers.
(To be fair, the boys did not have it much better—they were only educated in Hebrew and rabbinical studies. They now basically have little choice except "become a rabbi.")
They lived in a relatively cloistered Hasidic community. They all smelled bad and wore ridiculous clothing that looked like a cross between Amish and Orthodox. One time, the younger kids all came to visit my family, and we took them to see Forest Gump. We had to walk out of the movie theater 30 minutes into it. Now, I think they live in an even more cloistered community in New York.
Really, they were some of the most pathetic people I've known, and I feel so terrible for those kids. The mother (my stepdad's sister), to her credit, recently divorced the father. Apparently he was incredibly abusive to her and the children. I think they all basically live on inheritance and Jewish community largesse now.
Anyway, the evangelical Christians aren't the only ones doing this. The Amish have been doing it for years as well, and then you have groups like the fundamentalist Mormons. I imagine many Muslims in Western countries raise their children this way as well. Like most cults, this kind of brainwashing, social control, and demographic warfare goes with the territory. I certainly sympathize with the position, popularized by Dawkins, that this is "child abuse."
And just a little bit of extra info can clarify a lot. I knew a kid my age who was homeschooled for most of his life, but he lived on a ranch in west texas, and basically the only feasible place he could go to regularly was the school in the teeny tiny town 15 minutes away which I think wasn't a very good school. They also supplemented their education with programs through satellite and the internets.
Well said sir, well fucking said.
If we use the most popular example, The Duggar family, then the sons have college already paid for, and are educated - the oldest I do believe is already through college. The girls are not educated, at least past a certain level.
At the same time, plenty of reasonable people want to insulate their children from harmful social influences. There are plenty of liberal parents who would never dream of letting their daughter have a Barbie, for instance.
Are you seriously comparing withholding a certain toy to withholding literacy?
That's not apples to oranges, that's apples to moons.
"not buying shit you don't think is healthy for your kids"
and
"not educating your kids because they don't need it and education is a gateway to outside thought."
No, he's not doing that at all.
He's saying that homeschooling and, more specifically, the notion that protecting your child from corruption by certain societal influences is in some cases warranted
That one.
That is exactly what I'm fearing. I've met many well educated, intelligent home schooled people, but all I ever seem to hear about is the religious nuts. While I got a pretty good education from my public school, I also learned that I could half-ass my way through life. I think that sort of thing could be avoidable with some homeschooling at a young age, I think some personalized education, tailored to meet the child's abilities could help.
I think part of the problem comes down to motive. I'm sure the leaders of cults (or fathers within the cults) know that this is not in the best interest of the children/wives, they are teaching the children in this manner for entirely selfish reasons.
Let us not judge them by our values if you feel that is unfair, judge their actions by their own values and they will still be found corrupt and morally bankrupt.
Growing up in the deep south, there are quite a few kids I knew who were homeschooled in that ultra conservative christian lifestyle. Later on in life, when they went into 'the world', there seemed to be a pretty sharp divide between those who stayed in that insular lifestyle and those who were unprepared to deal with socialization with their peers and either retreated back into that orthodox comfort zone, and/or went batshit hedonist crazy.
My bad, sorry.
Religions have long understood the idea of "memes" and much of their social organization and doctrine is basically dedicated to memetic warfare. The fathers aren't doing it for themselves, they're doing it for fidelity to their governing meme.