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



## grahamg (Apr 27, 2020)

Its an off repeated phrase isn't it, and I suppose to some extent everyone of us were "brought up", or raised by a combination of people outside our parents, and immediate family, (such as influential teachers we admired and took a particular interest in encouraging our progress).

However, I believe there is an element of the wider community taking ownership of our own children inherent in the topic phrase. Do each one of us try to take ownership of the children we might have something to do with, friends children for example, and go so far as to interfere in their lives, (I'd guess most would say no to that question?)?    .

Does it take a village to raise a child in your opinion?       .


----------



## Warrigal (Apr 27, 2020)

Absolutely I believe this. In a village everybody knows everybody and most will keep an eye on any children who are out on their own and will pull them up if they are being destructive or reckless.

As a former teacher, when I was travelling on public transport and some young kids were doing dangerous things I would put on my voice of authority and intervene. If they were behaving badly and using foul language I would tell them to keep their voices down because the passengers did not want to hear them.  They looked surprised, not knowing where the voice came from. 

IMO it does children good to know that even though their parents are not present, there are other eyes on them. I've never had anything worse from them than some soto voce mutterings. Usually they came to heel and changed their behaviour.

I might add that I am just 5ft 1in tall but I have no fear of children, not matter how much they tower over me. I think my experience as an outward bound leader has helped.

I would be just as ready to help a child needing assistance. The villagers would do no less.


----------



## Rosemarie (Apr 27, 2020)

I think humans are meant to live in small communities, where everyone is responsible for each other. We live very unnatural lives these days and I think this why we have so many problems. People have lost touch with each other.


----------



## Aunt Bea (Apr 27, 2020)

Not really.

I believe that all of the people we encounter help to shape our lives.

I do believe Aristotle when he said, _“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”_


----------



## Em in Ohio (Apr 27, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Its an off repeated phrase isn't it, and I suppose to some extent everyone of us were "brought up", or raised by a combination of people outside our parents, and immediate family, (such as influential teachers we admired and took a particular interest in encouraging our progress).
> 
> However, I believe there is an element of the wider community taking ownership of our own children inherent in the topic phrase. Do each one of us try to take ownership of the children we might have something to do with, friends children for example, and go so far as to interfere in their lives, (I'd guess most would say no to that question?)?    .
> 
> Does it take a village to raise a child in your opinion?       .


I don't believe that it is 'ownership' of others children, so much as partial responsibility.  As a preschool teacher and summer childcare teacher for children up to age 14, I did indeed feel a need to help guide children and protect them.  When a neighbor's children were ordered to play outside in the dead of winter and I saw them without gloves, I quickly gathered up every pair I could find and handed them out.  That winter, I continued to supply them with gloves that I sewed from left-over blanket fleece.   Did the parent(s) resent this?  I have no idea, as I never met the parental unit(s) - but, I didn't care.  If my own children faced danger - or misbehaved in my absence, I would hope that a responsible person would intervene.


----------



## IrisSenior (Apr 27, 2020)

Sadly not in this day and age as most the time it would be looked at as interference. People are more fearful about other people prying into their lives and calling authorities if they think something is wrong. We have lost the trust of neighbours. It's all good to help other children at times but I don't think parents appreciate it as much as they should. I am also sure the school system helps kid more then they should but again, it is not appreciated most of the time.


----------



## Buckeye (Apr 27, 2020)

Nope.  Meaningless prate.


----------



## Ferocious (Apr 27, 2020)

Aunt Bea said:


> Not really.
> 
> I believe that all of the people we encounter help to shape our lives.
> 
> I do believe Aristotle when he said, _“Give me a child until he is 7 and I will show you the man.”_


*Ferocious said, "You look after the girl until she is 18, then I'll show her around town." *


----------



## JaniceM (Apr 27, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Its an off repeated phrase isn't it, and I suppose to some extent everyone of us were "brought up", or raised by a combination of people outside our parents, and immediate family, (such as influential teachers we admired and took a particular interest in encouraging our progress).
> 
> However, I believe there is an element of the wider community taking ownership of our own children inherent in the topic phrase. Do each one of us try to take ownership of the children we might have something to do with, friends children for example, and go so far as to interfere in their lives, (I'd guess most would say no to that question?)?    .
> 
> Does it take a village to raise a child in your opinion?       .


Absolutely not.  I disagree with that approach 100%.  When my kids were children, for example, there were various "others" in their lives-  teachers, pediatricians, etc.-  but those people had specific roles/jobs and stayed within those boundaries, it had nothing to do with "raising" the kids.  

I believe the approach I've been seeing in recent years/decades is destructive to families in general and children specifically-  the approach that all of those others are parents' 'partners' and have equal or even more 'say.'  It's basically reached the point where the only role parents have in kids' lives is to provide financial support.


----------



## Judycat (Apr 27, 2020)

No. It's BS.


----------



## JaniceM (Apr 27, 2020)

Granted, there are some parents who are incompetent or worse-  example:  https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...ad-short-neglected-life-uncle-says/825132001/  because of the approach that "biology" means "rights," but at the same time it's gone past ridiculous when school teachers can throw away children's lunches if they "disapprove" of something, or an incident I read about a couple of years ago where parents were threatened with loss of custody if they insisted their kid attend church when he didn't want to do so.


----------



## Judycat (Apr 27, 2020)

I abide by the saying:  Too many cooks spoil the soup.


----------



## Ruth n Jersey (Apr 27, 2020)

No I don't believe it. Know one raised my kids but me and some help when needed from my Mom and Dad. 
A few times I  was asked by neighbors to watch their kids for a couple of hours.  Those couple of hours turned into several with lunch included.
One time one of them left their daughter with me after dinner. The hours passed and finally at 11 PM she had sent her son to get the kid. I didn't call because I just wanted to see how long she was going to wait before she came for her child.
After that I offered no help and asked for none.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Apr 27, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Its an off repeated phrase isn't it, and I suppose to some extent everyone of us were "brought up", or raised by a combination of people outside our parents, and immediate family, (such as influential teachers we admired and took a particular interest in encouraging our progress).
> 
> However, I believe there is an element of the wider community taking ownership of our own children inherent in the topic phrase. Do each one of us try to take ownership of the children we might have something to do with, friends children for example, and go so far as to interfere in their lives, (I'd guess most would say no to that question?)?    .
> 
> Does it take a village to raise a child in your opinion?       .


A village is not needed.

Reflecting on my own childhood, when I was growing up there wasn't a neighbour in our hood that I would have felt uncomfortable approaching and asking for help if help is what I needed, and in fact I remember my mom telling us kids, if you need something or it's an emergency, you are to knock on so-and-so's door.

To a large degree, everyone watched over everyone, because everybody knew everybody, and in many ways, I believe that helped guide children to better manners and conduct, even providing children with a sense of safety and calm. Also remember when moms stayed at home, there was always someone in the home for a child to go to.

As for taking control of and extending a sense of ownership of a child in your care, that was me. I did a lot of babysitting growing up, and while I was fair, I was strict, and I lived up to the ideal of owning other people's children in my care, right down to administering a spanking when a spanking was due.

I think that's where society today I failing, because most homes I know of, both parents work, so there's no one at home for the children to go to, and unlike yesteryear when everybody knew everybody, it's not like that anymore, and even more troubling to me is the fact that so many parents nowadays don't even know their own children's parents, which was unheard of when I was growing up.

To touch on how my childhood was in relation to ownership, and how important that fundamental was, the mothers of my friends used to make random telephone calls to my mom every now and then to do surprise checkups on their kids, just to make sure my friends were actually where they said they were going to be, and my mom used to do the same with me, unbeknownst to me at the time, so going back to the whole ownership thing, I feel a stronger sense of responsibility existed back in the day compared to nowadays, because had you let your guard down (back in the day when parenting was actually parenting, unlike today), and Mrs., so-and-so decided to call to do one of her check-ups, how embarrassing and undermining it would be to get caught red-handed in allowing so-and-so's daughter or child under your watchful eye to wander off outside of the boundaries that were stated as to their visit (i.e., I'm here to visit Margaret).

Related to my own younger years, single digits, had I stepped out of line bad enough at a friends or neighbours house, I could expect the same punishment/discipline as my friends got, right down to and including a spanking. That's the way it was, and I seen and still see not a thing wrong with it.

So while I don't believe it takes a village to raise a child, I'm a firm-believer in the idea that an extra set of responsible, caring hands, along with a couple extra sets of watchful eyes can't hurt.


----------



## grahamg (Apr 27, 2020)

Enjoyed all the posts....(and did someone sneak in a 170 odd word paragraph in there?     ).

I once watched a programme about children orphaned in Sri Lanka by the tsunami approximately twenty years ago. An elder from the devastated village in question could go through every single child and state the family members they had lost, and their names. I don't think it was stage managed, just an example of the closeness shown there in the aftermath of a tragedy.


----------



## JaniceM (Apr 27, 2020)

Well, it's another rare topic my parents and I agreed on:  parents are in charge, whether they're present or not.

In the past, I only knew one couple (slightly older than me) who had the opposite approach, that whomever is present is in charge, all adults and even older kids have 'authority' over children, etc .  I never allowed that couple to be alone with my kids, because frankly I didn't trust them.  And their approach didn't do their kids any good, either-  I'm sure it's quite confusing to a child when rules, consequences, etc., all depend on where he is and who he's with.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Apr 27, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Enjoyed all the posts....(and did someone sneak in a 170 odd word paragraph in there?     ).
> 
> I once watched a programme about children orphaned in Sri Lanka by the tsunami approximately twenty years ago. An elder from the devastated village in question could go through every single child and state the family members they had lost, and their names. I don't think it was stage managed, just an example of the closeness shown there in the aftermath of a tragedy.


Ah-ha... you're going to teach me yet to be on my toes ! LOL!

It's uplifting to know there are still countries in this world today that retain such a sense of familiarity and care.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Apr 27, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> Well, it's another rare topic my parents and I agreed on:  parents are in charge, whether they're present or not.
> 
> In the past, I only knew one couple (slightly older than me) who had the opposite approach, that whomever is present is in charge, all adults and even older kids have 'authority' over children, etc .  I never allowed that couple to be alone with my kids, because frankly I didn't trust them.  And their approach didn't do their kids any good, either-  I'm sure it's quite confusing to a child when rules, consequences, etc., all depend on where he is and who he's with.


I agree. It's one thing for a caregiver to be in charge, but I don't buy into a few or a group of people being in charge, just because they're older. That's off the wall as far as I'm concerned.


----------



## Judycat (Apr 27, 2020)

Don't forget about the perverse weirdos out there. My daughter-in-law's family are ones to tell the kids to go hug adults whether the kids know them or not. I find this to be odd behavior and tell the kid, it's OK, you don't have to if you don't want to. Why would anyone insist their kid to do that?


----------



## JaniceM (Apr 27, 2020)

Judycat said:


> Don't forget about the perverse weirdos out there. My daughter-in-law's family are ones to tell the kids to go hug adults whether the kids know them or not. I find this to be odd behavior and tell the kid, it's OK, you don't have to if you don't want to. Why would anyone insist their kid to do that?


And it can be even worse.  Quite awhile back, I heard of two or possibly three kids-  pre-teens, not little children-  who were brought up with the "kids must obey all adults" approach, willingly went along with strangers, and ended up murdered.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Apr 27, 2020)

I tread cautiously regarding the whole perv thing. 

Yes, let's be on our toes, but let's not build-up something to a level that isn't there.

My husband used to stop at kids lemonade stands and donate what pocket change he had to the cause, and how sweet it was, but he won't anymore, because of the loose manner in which society paints people, and that's a shame.


----------



## jujube (Apr 27, 2020)

I can remember when any mother in the neighborhood could lean out the window and yell "YOU STOP DOING THAT!" and we obeyed, as well we should because we were usually doing something we shouldn't be doing.

I was grateful for all the help I received from family and friends in raising my daughter.  Children need the love and caring and cultural input from a group of people.


----------



## WhatInThe (Apr 27, 2020)

Yup. Problem is when they become adults many from those villages they become  codependent mooches having gotten used to  so many doing for them.

Should clarify that I believe that concept exists and is practiced but do I agree?-No


----------



## oldman (Apr 27, 2020)

No!


----------



## Llynn (Apr 27, 2020)

I did grow up in a village. A remote logging camp of only two hundred or so souls. I certainly did learn some interesting things from some of the 'villagers" (especially the lifelong confirmed bachelor loggers who liked women but not marriage).  Whether or not they ultimately proved a positive or negative influence on my "raising" is open to debate. Those old reprobates certainly gave me a lot of ideas to try out after I left home though.


----------



## AnnieA (Apr 27, 2020)

Depends on what is meant by village. I grew up in a small town with lots of close, extended family so was raised by a village.  Parents knew and socialized with each other and there were only two small churches in town and two schools.  Teen crime was virtually nil unless you count under age drinking and a little recreational pot.  No hard drugs, rape, robberies.  Two of the group got involved in dealing drugs at college and later did prison time, but for the most part, everyone has lived productive lives.


----------



## grahamg (Apr 27, 2020)

A quick search came up with this:
" It *takes a village to raise a child* is an African *proverb that means* that an entire community of people must interact with *children* for those *children* to experience and grow in a safe and healthy environment. ... This does not mean an entire *village* is responsible for *raising a child* or the *children* of a crowd. "


----------



## Aunt Marg (Apr 27, 2020)

grahamg said:


> A quick search came up with this:
> " It *takes a village to raise a child* is an African *proverb that means* that an entire community of people must interact with *children* for those *children* to experience and grow in a safe and healthy environment. ... This does not mean an entire *village* is responsible for *raising a child* or the *children* of a crowd. "


When I first came across this thread this morning, the first thing I thought of was Africa and the villages, and how the village adage (more than likely) related to such countries rather than the West.


----------



## Warrigal (Apr 27, 2020)

grahamg said:


> A quick search came up with this:
> " It *takes a village to raise a child* is an African *proverb that means* that an entire community of people must interact with *children* for those *children* to experience and grow in a safe and healthy environment. ... This does not mean an entire *village* is responsible for *raising a child* or the *children* of a crowd. "


That is how I understand the expression and the nature of a village. It is about family and community and education in life values. In my mind it is about aunties, uncles and cousins, teachers and neighbours. It is about elders. It is about children playing with each other outside and having a measure of freedom to explore their surroundings. It is necessarily about many people watching over them for their own good.


----------



## Gardenlover (Apr 27, 2020)

We all gain wisdom from different paths and places, some good - sad to say, some horrible.

However, IMO society is breaking down because of our isolation. Even isolation within what's left of our families.


----------



## Aunt Marg (Apr 27, 2020)

Gardenlover said:


> We all gain wisdom from different paths and places, some good - sad to say, some horrible.
> 
> However, IMO society is breaking down because of our isolation. Even isolation within what's left of our families.


I can tell you I sure notice a BIG difference today compared to yesteryear, when suppertime meant family time, everyone sat down at the table together. Mealtime actually stood for something.


----------



## grahamg (Apr 27, 2020)

I remember one Christmas going to visit some nephews of mine who were about fourteen or fifteen years old at their mothers house, along with my own mother. When my mother and sister were busy in the kitchen I sat down in the lounge with the lads to watch a comedy video I'd brought along of a popular TV comic called Frank Skinner. I'd chosen Frank's video because I thought the alternative, (Freddie Star), might be too racy

It turned out "Frank Skinner live on stage", was arguably more riske than the other videos I had, but luckily we watched the whole hour show with the mother/grandmother completely unaware, and as they came in the lads quickly switched off the video, and we all his our smirking faces.

My mother certainly wouldnt have approved of its contents, and I hope to this day my nephews might remember our little subversive activity, and the fun gained watching rude jokes not available on mainstream tv .

Does this make me a believer in " It takes a village to raise a child?".   .


----------



## JaniceM (Apr 28, 2020)

grahamg said:


> A quick search came up with this:
> " It *takes a village to raise a child* is an African *proverb that means* that an entire community of people must interact with *children* for those *children* to experience and grow in a safe and healthy environment. ... This does not mean an entire *village* is responsible for *raising a child* or the *children* of a crowd. "


I don't think that's what Hillary you-know-who meant when she started tossing that line around, though.


----------



## grahamg (Apr 28, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> I don't think that's what ******* you-know-who meant when she started tossing that line around, though.



We're moving into the surveillance age aren't we, so its hard to know what's what anymore isn't it.

My issue with the thread topic is that in the UK there are no statutory parental rights, only responsibilities (sorry back on old theme here I know). Its said to be different in the US, and your individual states can frame their own laws in my his area.

Finally I do doubt I have a sense of being in any way responsible for others children, but I have no doubt many others are more public spirited or whatever it is, than I am.


----------



## JaniceM (Apr 28, 2020)

grahamg said:


> We're moving into the surveillance age aren't we, so its hard to know what's what anymore isn't it.
> 
> My issue with the thread topic is that in the UK there are no statutory parental rights, only responsibilities (sorry back on old theme here I know). Its said to be different in the US, and your individual states can frame their own laws in my his area.
> 
> Finally I do doubt I have a sense of being in any way responsible for others children, but I have no doubt many others are more public spirited or whatever it is, than I am.



So in UK people don't have legal _rights_ only responsibilities?


----------



## grahamg (Apr 28, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> So in UK people don't have legal _rights_ only responsibilities?



Only in regard to their own children they have no statutory rights, (that said there is something called "Common law rights", but definitely no statutory rights with Clem Henricson of the National family and parenting institute says may contravene human rights legislation).

Our own government's website on parental rights is worth checking out if you're bored and time, as it lists only the responsibilities parents have along side stuff like "You have the right to send your child to school", (when in fact its an obligation to do so, obviously).

However, as even I admit its too boring, lets stick with thoughts of whether "a village raises a child" shall we, or the extent to with they/we do(?).


----------



## JaniceM (Apr 28, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Only in regard to their own children they have no statutory rights, (that said there is something called "Common law rights", but definitely no statutory rights with Clem Henricson of the National family and parenting institute says may contravene human rights legislation).
> 
> Our own government's website on parental rights is worth checking out if you're bored and time, as it lists only the responsibilities parents have along side stuff like "You have the right to send your child to school", (when in fact its an obligation to do so, obviously).
> 
> However, as even I admit its too boring, lets stick with thoughts of whether "a village raises a child" shall we, or the extent to with they/we do(?).


Well, if you read your previous thread, _you _brought up the topic.


----------



## grahamg (Apr 29, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> Well, if you read your previous thread, _you _brought up the topic.



I accept the criticism, I did didn't I, (unfortunately I have a habit dont you know, as an excluded parent/father).   .

What kind of world will emerge following this pandemic, should its effects eventually be brought under control for a semblance of normal life to resume, where visiting your friends or relatives isn't a crime, and something they'd be afraid of you doing right now.


----------



## grahamg (May 5, 2020)

Some expert views on all this:

Abstract
The article questions the normative universality of children's rights by considering the ideal definition of childhood implicit in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international law documents. It questions whether this definition has any universal purchase in light of different conceptions of childhood held across the world. The article distinguishes between rights that children have as human beings, and rights they are regarded as having by virtue of their age. The latter are regarded as problematic and the article illustrates this with examples that challenge the conception of childhood underlying the CRC. The article presents alternatives that may conflict with the assumptions underlying the CRC, and challenges the universal nature of the rights enshrined.

*Additional information*
*Notes*
This question could of course also be asked about adults, and further raises the question of what it means to be a child or to be an adult _to children_ themselves. In the case of children however, the question is presumed to be answerable, but answers are usually given _for_ children, rather than _by_ children.

V. Pupavac, ‘The Infantilization of the South and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child’ in H.J. Steiner and P. Alston (eds), _International Human Rights in Context, 2_ _nd_ _ed._ (Oxford: Oxford University Press 2000), p.517.

The details of the centuries-old debate between choice and interest theory cannot be addressed in the context of this article, but for a detailed account of the many dimensions of what is at issue between them see M.H. Kramer, N.E. Simmonds, H. Steiner, _A Debate Over Rights_ (Oxford: Clarendon Press 1998).

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/13642980500032370


----------



## Mister E (May 5, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> So in UK people don't have legal _rights_ only responsibilities?


JaniceM that's just about the size of it here


----------



## JaniceM (May 5, 2020)

Mister E said:


> JaniceM that's just about the size of it here


In my opinion, that's as wrong as the U.S. approach-  although they're exact opposites.  
Over here, it's all about "rights," but without "responsibilities."


----------



## JaniceM (May 5, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Some expert views on all this:
> 
> Abstract
> The article questions the normative universality of children's rights by considering the ideal definition of childhood implicit in the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and other international law documents. It questions whether this definition has any universal purchase in light of different conceptions of childhood held across the world. The article distinguishes between rights that children have as human beings, and rights they are regarded as having by virtue of their age. The latter are regarded as problematic and the article illustrates this with examples that challenge the conception of childhood underlying the CRC. The article presents alternatives that may conflict with the assumptions underlying the CRC, and challenges the universal nature of the rights enshrined.
> ...



1.  "Experts."  All anyone needs to do to gain a perspective on _that _term is to read approaches to childcare topics over the decades/generations.  An 'expert' today expressing a viewpoint is not necessarily better-informed than an 'expert' of 50 years ago.  

2.  "Children."  The U.S. has been taking huge steps backward.  While states vary in what's considered the age-of-majority, there's been an increased focus on what constitutes a "child."  However, it's the hypocrisy that's pushing the U.S. back into the past-  I was too young to be affected by the nonsensical "Old enough for THIS, but not old enough for THAT" approach, but it affected my older siblings.  One, for example, was "old enough" to be serving in a war, while not "old enough" to vote.  

When it comes to "children's rights," though, the U.S. is really messing up.  Examples.  As states are enacting laws against underage marriage, underage couples who want to raise their children together can live together, but they cannot enter into a valid marriage.  Second, if you're familiar with this nonsense known as "emancipation," with specifics varying from state to state, kids who are still in high school can move out of their parents' homes and out on their own, without any reason other than "personal choice."  Third, although it's a good idea to discourage kids (and others) from smoking, in some states kids as young as 14 can move out on their own, but cannot buy a pack of cigarettes til they're 21.  

Kids of all ages should have certain rights-  the right to be treated as human beings, their feelings and needs addressed, etc., but the modern approach to children's rights has come to mean kids have rights and parents have none.  One example from a recent news story:  a father who lived with his wife and kids learned he did not have the right to see his 13-year-old's medical records.  An example from another forum:  a "counselor" threatened a couple with possible loss of custody because they were trying to make their 13-year-old attend church when he didn't want to do so.  

So-  all sense of "family" has virtually been destroyed.  There's no longer any sense of structure;  and kids' everyday lives are based on what kids "want," or the "say" of counselors, social workers, schoolteachers, and nearly everybody else kids come in contact with except their own parents.  
I don't know your age or anything about your location, but wasn't life/family/etc. so much more SENSIBLE when households were headed by parents, and parents (whether together or split-up) were expected to iron-out their differences and usually did so without outside interference?!  As I said on one of your old threads, the one topic that should have been addressed in recent decades is actual child abuse-  but from what I've seen in recent years, there's been very little progress on that subject.  Instead, "parenting" has been taken over by kids and outsiders, to the point parents don't even have the say in what their kids can have for lunch.


----------



## grahamg (May 5, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> In my opinion, that's as wrong as the U.S. approach-  although they're exact opposites.
> Over here, it's all about "rights," but without "responsibilities."



Thanks for entering the discussion, (again is it?).

It all gets immensely complicated when you start to look at the work of "experts" examining the details of where "rights" might exist, and to my mind this bug bear of "the best interests of the child", which in the end simply means who gets to determine those interests, the parent or some government agency, and then whether or not your relationship with your child can be truly deemed a right for the child, (as in my view, whilst government agencies can assist those wishing to destroy your relationship, it is beyond the control of any agency to force such a relationship to develop in a loving fashion).

Here is one take on the complicated issues surrounding children's rights etc. - I'm quoting it here, and the link to a large academic article because of the mention of the best interests of the child etc.
Quote
_"The international children’s rights regime assumes that there is a model of childhood development that is universally applicable, that there are universal needs, such as the need for rehabilitation, and that there is a consensus both domestically and internationally on what policies should be in place to realise the best interests of the child (Boyden, 1994: 256). In effect, the convention institutionalises and universalises the predominant Western social risk-management model of childhood development which emphasises individual causations and professional intervention and de-emphasises the influence of the wider social, economic, political and cultural circumstances (Boyden,1990; King, 1997a; Lewis, 1998; Parton, 1985). Human rights lawyers have sought to counter criticisms that the convention was the creation of Western policymakers and‘ dispel the myth that the international law on the rights of the child is exclusively the product of Western states’ (Van Bueren, 1995: xix). However, examining its provisions, itis evident that the universal standards of the convention are based on a particular Western conceptualisation of childhood and the good (Boyden, 1990; McGillivray, 1992; Lewis,1998)."_

https://www.academia.edu/3701281/Mi...ers_The_International_Childrens_Rights_Regime


----------



## JaniceM (May 5, 2020)

grahamg said:


> Thanks for entering the discussion, (again is it?).
> 
> It all gets immensely complicated when you start to look at the work of "experts" examining the details of where "rights" might exist, and to my mind this bug bear of "the best interests of the child", which in the end simply means who gets to determine those interests, the parent or some government agency, and then whether or not your relationship with your child can be truly deemed a right for the child, (as in my view, whilst government agencies can assist those wishing to destroy your relationship, it is beyond the control of any agency to force such a relationship to develop in a loving fashion).
> 
> ...


In my opinion, it doesn't need to be complicated at all-  all it'd take is basic common sense.  
I fully agree with what Dr. Gardner said-  the first and #1 factor that led to "the best interests of the child" to not be considered at all, along with the upswing in PA and many other problems, was when "joint custody" laws started.  And when forced "child support" is added into it, it only gets worse.


----------



## grahamg (May 5, 2020)

JaniceM said:


> In my opinion, it doesn't need to be complicated at all-  all it'd take is basic common sense.
> I fully agree with what Dr. Gardner said-  the first and #1 factor that led to "the best interests of the child" to not be considered at all, along with the upswing in PA and many other problems, was when "joint custody" laws started.  And when forced "child support" is added into it, it only gets worse.



I would not have wanted my daughter diagnosed as "suffering from PAS" (Parental Alienation Syndrome), and simply could not have gone along with any such intrusive intervention by professionals into her life.

I have to say too, looking g at some of my mates behaviour following  divorce, they brought upon themselves many of the troubles they had seeing their kids (they could say the thing about me).

There are complexities, and if there were not professors wouldn't get paid for writing about them.    .


----------



## Duster (May 5, 2020)




----------



## grahamg (May 5, 2020)

If no one minds I'll keep posting snippets to this article, (the last one I cited above):
https://www.academia.edu/3701281/Mi...ers_The_International_Childrens_Rights_Regime

Quote
"The institutionalisation of human rights as higher law trumping national sovereignty does not just signify disillusion with states to secure rights, but with adult agency in general. In the rejection of the previous presumption that they represent their children’s interests, adults are denied their moral agency. Implicit in the international children’s rights regime is not only the institutionalisation of a particular Western conceptualisation of childhood, but a misanthropic view of adulthood. So although the children’s rights advocacy movement is conceived of as an ethical and emancipatory project, it does not represent a humanist turn towards a more equitable world."


----------



## fuzzybuddy (May 7, 2020)

I beli


----------



## JaniceM (May 7, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> I beli


Yooo there Fuzz., you didn't pass out in the middle of posting, did you?


----------



## Aunt Marg (May 7, 2020)

fuzzybuddy said:


> I beli


Fuzzy, we're all in suspense here, what more can you tell us? Your opening has me sitting on pins-and-needles!


----------



## grahamg (May 7, 2020)

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!



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!).


----------



## grahamg (May 7, 2020)

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.


----------



## DaveA (May 8, 2020)

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.


----------



## WhatInThe (May 8, 2020)

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.


----------



## CarolfromTX (May 8, 2020)

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.


----------



## grahamg (May 9, 2020)

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.



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.    .


----------



## JaniceM (May 9, 2020)

grahamg said:


> There are complexities, and if there were not professors wouldn't get paid for writing about them.    .


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.


----------



## JaniceM (May 9, 2020)

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.    .


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.


----------



## grahamg (May 9, 2020)

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.



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).       .


----------



## JaniceM (May 9, 2020)

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).       .


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..


----------



## grahamg (May 9, 2020)

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..



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.


----------



## Gardenlover (May 9, 2020)

I don't buy into the it takes a village mentality - there are too many village idiots running loose.


----------



## Knight (May 10, 2020)

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.


----------



## JimBob1952 (May 11, 2020)

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."


----------



## JimBob1952 (May 11, 2020)

Interestingly, it turns out to be a made up African proverb.  Not that I'm at all surprised.

https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...o-determine-the-origins-of-an-african-proverb


----------



## JaniceM (May 12, 2020)

JimBob1952 said:


> Interestingly, it turns out to be a made up African proverb.  Not that I'm at all surprised.
> 
> https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsa...o-determine-the-origins-of-an-african-proverb


Why is that??


----------



## JaniceM (May 12, 2020)

grahamg said:


> 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!).


The lyrics aren't "a star is born," it's "a flower grows."


----------

