Do you believe the saying, "It takes a village to raise a child?"

Aunt Marg said:
Fuzzy, we're all in suspense here, what more can you tell us? Your opening has me sitting on pins-and-needles! 🧷 📌 📍
Click to expand...

Could it be:"I believe for every drop of rain that falls, a star is born, a star is born , I believe, I believe, I believe...."(sorry can't remember words very well!).
 

Some more of the thinking from the Dr. Pupavac article:

The acceptance of human rights as part of international law does not just represent a paradigm shift in international law, but in the conceptualisation of law and rights in general. Traditionally under modern law the possession of rights has been premised on the individual’s capacity for self-determination: the extension of rights to different groups in society, working men, women, blacks and so on, was effectively
de jure recognition of de facto (political) capacity to exercise rights. Critics have pointed out how making capacity a prerequisite for rights has excluded marginalised and weak groups in society, notably children — the very sorts of groups most in need of protection. For example, Kate Federle makes this point against classical rights theorists in her championing of rights for children:

"Having a right means having the power to command respect, to make claims and to have them heard. But if having a right is contingent upon some characteristic,like capacity, then holding the right becomes exclusive and exclusionary; thus,only claims made by a particular group of (competent) being will be recognized.… Children, however, have been unable to redefine themselves as competent beings; thus, powerful elites decide which, if any, of the claims made by children they will recognize (1994: 343–4)."

The notion of human rights is attractive for its inclusion of those lacking capacity. In contrast to the traditional understanding of rights, human rights is based simply on the inherent (moral) personality of humans. This inclusive basis of human rights as membership of the human family can be seen in the preamble to the Convention on the Rights of the Child which speaks of, ‘the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family’. In essence, as David Chandler has outlined (forthcoming), human rights have an ethical, pre-political grounding whose imperative is derived from human incapacity, frailty and vulnerability (Booth, 1999; Federle, 1994; Ignatieff, 1998: 5; Turner, 1993: 501; Wolfson, 1992).Furthermore, the contemporary ethical ideal is the childlike instinctual id as opposed to the mature autonomous rational ego.
 
It depends on who makes this statement. Political views usually skew the answer--sadly.

If stated by one person, some folks automatically answer "no". The same words spoken by another will bring an emphatic "yes".

Sad that we have become such automatons in regards to so much of life today, at least here in the U.S.
 

I've seen adults fall in with and/or be influenced by peer groups not for the good with their decades of life experiences apparently meaningless. After a certain point many wind up following a certain path and/or peers. Parents and neighborhood can lay down some basics but other than that there are too many other influences other than family. That's why a parent must be very careful to chose their battles in that they can't be nit picky or act like a prison warden everytime something happens.
 
In as much as it means that parents, teachers, ministers, aunt and uncles, and neighbors are involved with the child, then yes, it's true. BUT when it means a Nanny state and the politicians and government becomes involved, then Hell, no. I don't think government knows what's best for me or mine.
 
CarolfromTX said:
In as much as it means that parents, teachers, ministers, aunt and uncles, and neighbors are involved with the child, then yes, it's true. BUT when it means a Nanny state and the politicians and government becomes involved, then Hell, no. I don't think government knows what's best for me or mine.
Click to expand...

This is of course the nub of it, and of course all the issues surrounding it become more complex once there is division to be exploited between the parents, (be it benign in the sense the state has to intervene to bring some resolution, or "social engineering", if you can believe them capable of such behaviour?).

In my case, over my own daughter I'm prepared to believe in cock up, rather than design to explain the behaviour of the government employees who failed to support me, but they did cover up deliberate lying by my ex. They made their minds up as to my worth to my child in five minutes, when they had her confront me with untruths like, " I never took her anywhere interesting", (and refused to look at photographs showing the opposite to be true).

I regress though to my own situation, and although I'm guilty of doing this too often, and this thread is not about me, it obviously sticks in your mind, not least when you've met so many parents and grandparents similarly treated. :( .
 
grahamg said:
There are complexities, and if there were not professors wouldn't get paid for writing about them. 🤔 .
Click to expand...
I must address this post before moving ahead to your most recent post.
Re: what you said here- not necessarily.
Simply because a subject "refuses to die" doesn't necessarily mean it's valid or right. As long as the public can continue to be conned, there'll be an audience and consumers. Along that line, it's basically the same as the so-called "self-help" industry, and Pharma.
 
grahamg said:
This is of course the nub of it, and of course all the issues surrounding it become more complex once there is division to be exploited between the parents, (be it benign in the sense the state has to intervene to bring some resolution, or "social engineering", if you can believe them capable of such behaviour?).

In my case, over my own daughter I'm prepared to believe in cock up, rather than design to explain the behaviour of the government employees who failed to support me, but they did cover up deliberate lying by my ex. They made their minds up as to my worth to my child in five minutes, when they had her confront me with untruths like, " I never took her anywhere interesting", (and refused to look at photographs showing the opposite to be true).

I regress though to my own situation, and although I'm guilty of doing this too often, and this thread is not about me, it obviously sticks in your mind, not least when you've met so many parents and grandparents similarly treated. :( .
Click to expand...
So much has to do with the definition of a "good" parent. From what I heard, it started getting messy when divorces started to include custody disputes- parent with the most money to hire a good lawyer "wins." Next, it wasn't difficult to manipulate children when kids' input came into the picture- 'look at how much I can give to you, buy for you, etc. that your other parent cannot.' And more recently, joint custody has been almost automatic, regardless of the situation. I don't think "children's best interests" have been part of it since around the 1960s.
 
JaniceM said:
So much has to do with the definition of a "good" parent. From what I heard, it started getting messy when divorces started to include custody disputes- parent with the most money to hire a good lawyer "wins." Next, it wasn't difficult to manipulate children when kids' input came into the picture- 'look at how much I can give to you, buy for you, etc. that your other parent cannot.' And more recently, joint custody has been almost automatic, regardless of the situation. I don't think "children's best interests" have been part of it since around the 1960s.
Click to expand...

I have to say you're incorrect on your last point, at least so far as UK law is concerned, and according to "Gibsons Divorce law" 1935, "the best interests of the child", was the paramount consideration then (although at the time the definition of BIC meant women especially, leaving unhappy marriages, certainly those commiting adultery, were unlikely to be granted custody of their children). 🌝 .
 
grahamg said:
I have to say you're incorrect on your last point, at least so far as UK law is concerned, and according to "Gibsons Divorce law" 1935, "the best interests of the child", was the paramount consideration then (although at the time the definition of BIC meant women especially, leaving unhappy marriages, certainly those commiting adultery, were unlikely to be granted custody of their children). 🌝 .
Click to expand...
Actually, what I said was correct for the U.S., and I wasn't referring to the UK.
From what I knew in the U.S., before the modern approaches came into effect, mothers were almost always granted custody. And, unless there are extreme circumstances, that is 'the best interests of the children.'
However, if you know where it is and can find it, perhaps you can post that link you had on one of your threads a long time ago- the one to the 'fathers' rights' website that can only be fully accessed by registered, logged-in members..
 
JaniceM said:
Actually, what I said was correct for the U.S., and I wasn't referring to the UK.
From what I knew in the U.S., before the modern approaches came into effect, mothers were almost always granted custody. And, unless there are extreme circumstances, that is 'the best interests of the children.'
However, if you know where it is and can find it, perhaps you can post that link you had on one of your threads a long time ago- the one to the 'fathers' rights' website that can only be fully accessed by registered, logged-in members..
Click to expand...

A bit of a stretch for me that one, but if I can find one of the many fathers rights sites I've used over the years I'll try to come back to you, (can't do it on this tablet computer though).

The UN convention on the rights of the child, states that the best interests of the child shall be "A" paramount consideration, (NB not "THE" paramount consideration as stipulated in UK law, and this makes a huge difference believe you me).

The USA refuses to ratify the UN convention on rights of the child, but its complex as to why this is so I think, and as far as at least some US States goes, the fact some of your states allow consideration of the love a child receives, or uses the word love in their documentation seems a bit of a positive to me, compared to the UK.
 
The village has changed from what it used to be when this was 1st. considered. Kids off to school so no adult supervision except by school personal. Kids get home & it's computer or phone street play & interaction not as before.

So if there is a village IMO it would now be social media.
 
The phrase is leftist twaddle propagated originally by Hillary Clinton. The idea is that parents don't know what is best for their children; they should be raised instead by the State.

Of course the community/village should keep an eye out for children and make sure no harm comes to them. But in the modern US "It takes a village" is shorthand for "Government knows best."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top