"The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world", (pros and cons)

[grahamg]

The statement "The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world" has the following definition:

"The person who raises a child determines the character of that child and so influences the type of society that the next generation will create."

There are some very benign aspects to the phrase, (should I say obviously?).

Firstly it stresses the importance of the role of raising children, at a time when a career of some kind is perhaps thought more important by many people, so that is a positive thing most of us would probably agree.

Then raising a child well, and to be successful in the world is maybe inferred, so this is a positive we'd maybe agree upon(?).

However, at a time when divorce or separation of parents is as prevalent as it is today, who exactly "rocks the cradle" is a question, and whether they are the parents in the old fashioned sense (i.e. biological, child born into a marriage or long term relationship between the parents or not).

If someone is excluded from raising their child or prevented from having any input, (to raise my now familiar hobby horse), then could it be argued those "trying to rule the world", or at least rule everything they can about the upbringing of a child to the exclusion of others, may be inspired by the thought their view of the future of our world, and no one else's, is the view to be followed or reinforced.

In my view a child having parents who support one another is good, but also parents who can at the same time as they might support one another in most things, may allow the child to see where the more dominant parent may not have all the answers, is also a good thing. In this way, and I'd suggest maybe only this way, can the child come to make up their own minds eventually about important things in their life.

 

[grahamg]

THE HAND THAT ROCKS THE CRADLE IS
THE HAND THAT RULES THE WORLD.

BLESSINGS on the hand of women!
Angels guard its strength and grace.
In the palace, cottage, hovel,
Oh, no matter where the place;
Would that never storms assailed it,
Rainbows ever gently curled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Infancy's the tender fountain,
Power may with beauty flow,
Mothers first to guide the streamlets,
From them souls unresting grow—
Grow on for the good or evil,
Sunshine streamed or evil hurled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Woman, how divine your mission,
Here upon our natal sod;
Keep—oh, keep the young heart open
Always to the breath of God!
All true trophies of the ages
Are from mother-love impearled,
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

Blessings on the hand of women!
Fathers, sons, and daughters cry,
And the sacred song is mingled
With the worship in the sky—
Mingles where no tempest darkens,
Rainbows evermore are hurled;
For the hand that rocks the cradle
Is the hand that rules the world.

William Ross Wallace (1819-1881)

 

[Rainee]

Was an old poem by William Ross Wallace c 1890 or near about goes like this , its a really good post and thanks Grahamg for posting ..
see you have posted it so I deleted mine .. thanks again..

 

[grahamg]

An odd thought occurs to me, (another one, I know!).

In a world full of trickery, is it the responsibility of "the hand that rocks the cradle" to tutor, (or inculcate), skills such as deceiving others into the repertoire of the child?

It would be hard to argue against the fact many very successful people are adept at deceiving people, why then deprive the child this skill so they can do likewise, (cynical as this might sound)?

BTW an English law book from the 1930s, (Gibsons divorce law), talks puts forward whether an adulterous parent/mother, might be able to fairly educate the child in relation to moral values, and deception is often an element in adultery.

 

[cdestroyer]

my parents were piss poor at raising me (and my bro) they were not the loving nurturing type instead using the old adage spare the rod spoil the child. my gram had more influence

 

[win231]

HAHA - I thought this was a movie review.......

 

[Irwin]

Parents have a big influence on how their children develop, but I don't buy into the "tabula rasa" theory that all children have the same abilities at birth and what they become is determined entirely by how they're raised. It's the nature/nurture debate. Some children can grow up in a seemingly perfect environment yet not excel in life while others grow up in horrific conditions and achieve great things. Some of that can be genetic. Some may be the result of influences outside the immediate family, such as a relative or friend making up for some of the parents' deficiencies.

 

[grahamg]

Parents have a big influence on how their children develop, but I don't buy into the "tabula rasa" theory that all children have the same abilities at birth and what they become is determined entirely by how they're raised. It's the nature/nurture debate. Some children can grow up in a seemingly perfect environment yet not excel in life while others grow up in horrific conditions and achieve great things. Some of that can be genetic. Some may be the result of influences outside the immediate family, such as a relative or friend making up for some of the parents' deficiencies.

I think you have "hit a lot of nails on the head" there!

I wanted to just throw in another strange comment and question now, "Who do you think might have progressed or succeeded best in life, Bart or Lisa Simpson"?

Obviously "I know they're cartoon characters", but I mention them to try to illustrate or draw out the arguments I covered in my last post, "Who does best in life, the person well versed in deceiving others, or the goodie goodie Lisa Simpson types"?

I once heard a so called expert Dr. Mirium Stoppard argue on BBC radio that women are genetically programmed to seek a new mate every seven years because this is what is best for their children", (this woman has been a fairly high profile expert here for many years, so should know what she's saying, but I'd suggest her views remain controversial).

When a new partner/wife/husband is introduced to a child, or your child, all kinds of thoughts enter your head, the child being " lead astray" being a big one, (along with the inherent risk someone might abuse them in some way).

However, if we just stick with the thought a "child might be lead astray", or in Dr. Stoppard's view "helped to progress", we're back on the thread topic!

 

[Irwin]

I wanted to just throw in another strange comment and question now, "Who do you think might have progressed or succeeded best in life, Bart or Lisa Simpson"?

Obviously "I know they're cartoon characters", but I mention them to try to illustrate or draw out the arguments I covered in my last post, "Who does best in life, the person well versed in deceiving others, or the goodie goodie Lisa Simpson types"?

Lisa will probably be more successful because she's more likely to go to college and move up into the professional class—probably even become a professor of marine biology, or something along those lines.

Bart, on the other hand, has the personality of a standup comic and probably couldn't sit still long enough to get through college. Maybe he has ADHD or something. He might get into drugs when he gets older and maybe crime. But he might be successful in something where he could benefit from his personality and have it work to his advantage in some field, maybe show business, but that's rare for someone to be successful like that—especially in this day and age.

People change a lot during childhood so there's no telling what he would be like when he's older. He might settle down enough to get a degree in business, and then make his way up the corporate ladder by stepping on other people.

I actually haven't watched the Simpsons in decades. I put the Simpsons movie in my Netflix DVD queue.

 

[grahamg]

Lisa will probably be more successful because she's more likely to go to college and move up into the professional class—probably even become a professor of marine biology, or something along those lines.
Bart, on the other hand, has the personality of a standup comic and probably couldn't sit still long enough to get through college. Maybe he has ADHD or something. He might get into drugs when he gets older and maybe crime. But he might be successful in something where he could benefit from his personality and have it work to his advantage in some field, maybe show business, but that's rare for someone to be successful like that—especially in this day and age.
People change a lot during childhood so there's no telling what he would be like when he's older. He might settle down enough to get a degree in business, and then make his way up the corporate ladder by stepping on other people.
I actually haven't watched the Simpsons in decades. I put the Simpsons movie in my Netflix DVD queue.

I have quite a few friends who left school aged sixteen with little or no qualifications, fairly intelligent guys, able enough in Maths and English but not much else, and they've far outperformed myself in terms of business sense, interpersonal skills, drive etc., (who had more Lisa Simpson characteristics).
One is a very successful auctioneer, who now has his own business, and never even got a professional qualification or any letters after his name, but his quick brain, wonderful and powerful voice, and humour has seen him become a great, popular, reliable, shrewd businessman and employer, (and I was out drinking with him and his very good friends again in a bar tonight).