The lost art of parenting

[pjthompson]

I guess personal responsibility is a dead concept. I guess parents knowing they've got to be the ones to guide and mold their children, not schools and libraries, is also a dead concept. I guess it's easier to try to impose one's narrow worldview on the rest of us then to be an active parent.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050901/ap_en_ot/banned_books_week

Comments

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

Unfortunately, a lot of parents think they are being responsible and active by challenging books. They're worried about what their children might stumble across in a library when they're not able to supervise. Worse is when the child borrows a book and the parent reads what's in a book and is appalled, just appalled that there's a gay character or a curse word. Then their parental righteous indignation takes over and they go on a crusade because they want to save other parents from such shocking experiences before their kids are as traumatized. And yes, I'm being a bit facetious here.

I never had my reading censored by my parents and was readig James Bond by the time I was 11, back in 1964! I've been a public librarian for 24 years and 8 of those years were spent specializing in service for teens.

But it was nice seeing Michael Gorman of ALA actually say something responsible and actually showing some knowledge. His disparaging comments about blogs and blogging earlier this year made him nearly as reviled by a large part of the library profession as Bush is right now over Katrina.

There are too many people in the world who don't get it, and that includes a lot of parents and people in government. Can you tell this is one of my hot button topics? :)

[pjthompson]

Can you tell this is one of my hot button topics? :)

Yep, it's one of mine, too. Like you, I never had my reading censored by my parents and read Stranger In A Strange Land way the hell before I knew what I was reading. I grew up to be a responsibile adult who hasn't murdered anyone. But that's the thing: kids read this stuff, sometimes wide-eyed, but most don't use it as a textbook on how to misbehave. They're going to be far more influenced by the things they see around them in their environment, the involvement (or lack thereof) of their parents.

Reading what I want, I did learn to think for myself. Maybe that's the problem. If you want to churn out kids comfortable with convention and groupthink, good solid sheep, by all means limit their choices of reading material.

[nycshelly.livejournal.com]

Exactly. Parents today, well a lot of them, seem to want to raise adults who think just like them but it doesn't work. There aren't any guarantees. But if you teach them to think for themselves and teach them ethics and morals and strong values, odds are, they'll become really good people.

You can't protect kids from life. What really gets me is when parents worry about books in libraries and what's on TV, but then say or do things in front of their kids that are far worse. Or when they ignore them.

And kids who are curious will find the material on their own. We did. Of course, back in the early '60s, the anatomy section of the encyclopedia was considered hot stuff. :)

[pjthompson]

seem to want to raise adults who think just like them but it doesn't work. There aren't any guarantees.

No, there aren't.

but then say or do things in front of their kids that are far worse.

And what your parents do and say is going to be a far greater influence than any book or TV show.

Of course, back in the early '60s, the anatomy section of the encyclopedia was considered hot stuff. :)

Yeah--I Am Joe's XXX--steamy stuff!

[handworn.livejournal.com]

What this is (apart from being about fear, as the guy quoted early on said) is a belief that controlling influences on children is like needlessly reinventing the wheel. It's not-- or at least it's not needless.

Personal lessons are inherently personal, not learned by rote from parents or teachers. This is yet another attempt to institutionalize good, so-called, and its main effect will be to say to kids, "We don't trust you." That erodes parental (and thus supposedly good) influence on children more than a temporary avoidance of the exposure of children to whatever would prevent bad influence.

[pjthompson]

That erodes parental (and thus supposedly good) influence on children more than a temporary avoidance of the exposure of children to whatever would prevent bad influence.

I think kids *want* to believe their parents, if the parents have spent any time with them and cared about them. Kids want the stability of that world their parents represent and, as you said, if the quality of time spent is there it will stand against any temporary influence.

[kmkibble75.livejournal.com]

This is just plain scary.
Yet, sadly, not surprising.

[pjthompson]

There's a lot of that going around.