[Closed] Children do not belong to their parents, they belong to society...

Does that mean society can smack them when they don't behave?

I've seen quite a few who could use a clip round the ear....

Is society prepared to come round at about seven on Friday and I’ll take my wife out for dinner. ?

If society could also bring a few pairs of new trainers that would be grand.

Yeah, social policing..

Sounds good.

Overheard my neighbour a few weeks back shouting at his partner “he’s My kid, not yours” despite the child being the born to the mother.

So in that scenario, neither are the owners but I become part of thier ownership type model.

Frankly I want nothing to do with the pikys.

Is society prepared to come round at about seven on Friday and I’ll take my wife out for dinner. ?

I'll happily come round at seven and take your wife out for dinner, that work?

then they become members of society

There are multiple studies showign that members of very restrictive religious groups find it almost impossible to integrate with or even enter wider society. Particularly women. They are often ill/uneducated, indoctrinated and married very young. The social and physical controls on them effectively make them possessions of their families and religious community with no opportunity to learn or see any views beyond those seen as fitting with their sect.

I’ll happily come round at seven and take your wife out for dinner, that work?

Not unless you’re bringing Matt Baker with you, it doesn’t.

It is a really interesting point and I agree with what your saying to a large extent, but the problem here is that no one 'owns' a child and nor does a child 'belong' to anyone, parent or socierty.

The key word here is 'responsible'; ultimate responsibility for parenting children falls to the parents (or guardians) but parents must parent in the context of society, which means they have to parent within the laws and, perhaps to some degree the natural boundaries that are distinct from law, of society.

It's every parents right to teach a child that same sex relationships are wrong just as it's every citizens right to disagree with that, including the child's. It is however society's responsibility to try and find a way where that doesn't happen.

What is more troubling for me though is your use of the word 'control' with regards to parenting your children. I am firmly of the belief that you cannot possible 'control' a child, or indeed anyone; you can only ever exert influence and guidance over them.

My wife and I have this debate and it's a big bone of contention between us to be honest. She subscribes to the notion that our kids should do as we say because we say it, to which I say good luck. No one in the history of ever has ever done something just because someone said so.

I believe that kids will do as you ask for one of three reasons: 1) they fear the consequence if they don't, 2) they want the reward on offer if they do and 3) they have an inbuilt motivation of their own to do the thing you ask.

I'm not a parent so don't pay too much attention to this, but I have seen some scary reports over the past few years about kids being taken away from their parents by social services for some dubious reasons. With more and more parents having to work and use third parties for day care rather than look after their kids themselves, I can see this leading longterm to more of a feeling that they belong to society rather than the parents. I think some of the critical opinion around the Scottish governments named person proposals was relating to this as well. It's an interesting subject and yes society obviously needs to have a say, but in the UK at least it's not like you can really opt out of society so for some people there is going to be conflict.

Will society teach them that the Japanese defend the allies during WWI?

Not unless you’re bringing Matt Baker with you, it doesn’t.

If I did, I think neither you or I would get a look in from MrsPanther

Overheard my neighbour a few weeks back shouting at his partner “he’s My kid, not yours” despite the child being the born to the mother.

I often use the phrase "She's definitely your daughter, there's no proof she's mine".

If I did, I think neither you or I would get a look in from MrsPanther

I wasn’t going to tell her about Matt.

I was going to the pub with Matt whilst you two were at dinner and society was looking after the kids.

I like that scotroutes, I'll save that up for when my feral beasts are running wild somewhere 😉

I’m with Perchy on this. If society can pop around to mine and sleep in a racing car for me or comfort the littlest one at 03:30 that’d be grand.

Makes sense as a concept, my OH moans about people on benefits having kids they can't afford, and I argue that you can't stop people having kids and the benefits are there for the kids not the parents so the kids don't grow up too disadvantaged (unfortunately there's no way to stop them being spent elsewhere but that's a further argument).

I am firmly of the belief that you cannot possible ‘control’ a child

Me too, surely this was clear in my post?

I believe that kids will do as you ask for one of three reasons: 1) they fear the consequence if they don’t, 2) they want the reward on offer if they do and 3) they have an inbuilt motivation of their own to do the thing you ask.

You missed the hugely important (probably the most important) point 4) which is that they do something you ask because they want to be good because they want to please you.

I was told that under communism in Eastern Europe each town and villiage had minders who would patrol the streets making sure the kids were not missbehaving while their parents were at work / working on the fields they had power to discipline them as they saw fit. But they were ultimately respected and would play football and other games with the kids.

The child belongs to themselves. They will have to have responsibility to the wider society at some point and the reverse is also true. Claiming they belong to society though is just as wrong as claiming they belong to their parents.

Parents will normally bear most responsibility (when they arent palming off on the schools) but there will be occasions when the child needs defending against their own parents and I think there is a need to ensure the kid is capable of understanding the society they will be living in. So not teaching about subject x (which after all is not saying it should be done) is dubious.

To use the simplist example. I dont think even the biggest advocates of parents right to decide for their kid would extend that to physical child abuse.

The question though is where do you draw the line. At which point does a parents decisions infringe on the kids right to be able to grow up to be a member of the broader society as opposed to, for example, a religious cult.

Personally I dont think it really benefits the kids to try and hide from them the changes in society and technology over the last few decades.

I was told that under communism in Eastern Europe each town and villiage had minders who would patrol the streets making sure the kids were not missbehaving

Did they send bad kids to the naughty steppe?

Geetee...

...the point >.<

Interesting PoV @molgrips thanks for sharing: at some point we must "release" our children into society my view is that your job as a parent is to equip them as best you can to try and understand and integrate successfully whilst pointing out the harm that some people can do. The people of the strict regimes such as you mention probably think they are doing exactly the same with less of the integration bit. It's that old -"stick with what you know" principle which I was subjected to whilst growing up in Glasgow, fortunately for me my Dad was something of a rebel against religionists despite sending us to Roman Catholic Schools... oh the ironing!

I don't think it makes sense to say that either parents or society "own" a child.  Ultimately ownership of a child confers to the child themselves, but until they're able to safely manage that ownership they need others to care for them and take responsibility for them.

I'd suggest that both parents and society have responsibility for a child, but the level of responsibility varies.  Primary responsibility is with the parents.  Then there are strata of society which are in some way responsible.  Wider family, school / pre-school / nursery; friendship groups; church or local community; the state.  The nature of that responsibility varies.

So (sadly) I'm responsible for my children at 7pm on Friday when I could be on a date with Matt Baker.  Next weekend when Matt and I *are* going out, my Mother In Law is babysitting.  I'm mostly relying on the school system for formalised education.  And I'm relying on the state to ensure there are job opportunities and a lack of wars to conscript the kids into when they come of age.

An article popped up on my FB shared by the Humanist society, about the Charedi Jewish community lobbying the goverment to stop them being forced to teach their kids about same sex relationships.  Their position is that RSE is the responsibility of parents not schools.  In discussing this with a friend, he voiced the opinion that children do not belong to their parents, they belong to society.

If they object to the school curriculum, then why don't they home-school?

So (sadly) I’m responsible for my children at 7pm on Friday when I could be on a date with Matt Baker

You couldn’t. He’s down the pub with me this Friday.

Do keep up. 😉

Obviously I'm talking about a universe of infinite possibilities, perchy, for the purposes of illustration.

Speaking of which, perhaps you, Matt, and I could *all* go to the pub on Friday?

Only if society plays it’s part.

You both seem to be under the impression that I'll be letting Mr Baker out of my Gimp Cellar this Friday, when in fact I'll be in there with him. And MrsPanther.

can we get them to stop teaching pointless crap about Shakespeare as well.

Did they send bad kids to the naughty steppe?

Gulag 1, Parents 0

You both seem to be under the impression that I’ll be letting Mr Baker out of my Gimp Cellar this Friday, when in fact I’ll be in there with him. And MrsPanther.

There will only be one survivor.

She’ll be making me breakfast on Saturday morning.

Did they send bad kids to the naughty steppe?

Bravo, bravo

So in that scenario, neither are the owners but I become part of thier ownership type model.

I suppose the term "belong to" is at fault here, as it is a bit ambiguous. You can belong to in the sense of being part of without being owned by. Both parents and society have powers over a child, but not unlimited powers, obvs.

can we get them to stop teaching pointless crap about Shakespeare as well.

To be fair I think English Literature is a valid part of the curriculum, and if it wasn't Shakespeare it would have to be something else, I remember having to read Mice and Men, To Kill a Mockingbird, War of the Worlds and Day of the Triffids. Adding Macbeth and Romeo and Juliet to that list isn't the end of the world. Carol Ann Duffy can get lost though.

The alternative would be something modern, so you'd end up having to do the Twilight books or somesuch. Then get sued by the author for teaching kids that they're just american right wing abstinence propaganda. Good thing about dead authors is they can interpret the books however they like and not upset anyone!

Having responsibility rather than "ownership" would be a better word, and while the parents have primary responsibility, there is also a greater responsibility on society. It all depends on where you draw the line where you think society should step in. Personally I do not think that parents should be able to block important social lessons being taught, and society as a whole should overrule their wishes in that situation, it is of course quite a difficult thing to implement and get right, and it is also something that when the balance is right will probably please no one.

The harsh reality of being a parent is that quite often, rather than trying to ensure that your kids are getting a decent education in wider societal issues, you just want them to put their shoes on and hurry up before you’re late for work again.

I’m happy to discuss the merits of same sex marriage with my kids, but ideally not until they’ve picked up their dirty socks and put them in the washing basket.

Did they send bad kids to the naughty steppe?

Well done that man! 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻

can we get them to stop teaching pointless crap about Shakespeare as well.

Nothing pointless about Shakespeare, he contributed a lot of new words to English that you and I use every day, quite apart from plays that have contributed greatly to the global human condition, Akira Kurosawa’s film Throne of Blood transposes Macbeth directly into feudal Japan, for example.

To be fair I think English Literature is a valid part of the curriculum,

I didn't mean get rid of it just something more up to date.  I had to do an English higher equivalency recently as I've applied for teacher training I'm glad we didn't have to do any of his crap.

We did do a Carol Ann Duffy poem called Valentine that I quite enjoyed.

Poor choice of words in terms of ownership as it were but society has a role to provide the balance that parents may withhold. Education is an extension of that.

Sorry to keep going with the same idea but another example of why religion should not be running schools.

I was told that under communism in Eastern Europe each town and villiage had minders who would patrol the streets making sure the kids were not missbehaving

To be fair, we used to have a similar thing in this country.  They were called the police and the used to roam the streets, keeping things in order.

Think of the puppies.

I’m happy to discuss the merits of same sex marriage with my kids, but ideally not until they’ve picked up their dirty socks and put them in the washing basket.

Very much my approach too... currently locked in a battle over "societal ownership" of pants and socks that my teenage daughter thinks belong to the bedroom floor. My view is they either belong to her bed or the washing basket...