Unbelievable Quote

[mirkwood]

We have never invested as much in public education as we should have because we've always had kind of a private notion of children. Your kid is yours and totally your responsibility. We haven't had a very collective notion of these are our children. So part of it is we have to break through our kind of private idea that kids belong to their parents or kids belong to their families and recognize that kids belong to whole communities. ~Melissa Harris-Perry MSNBC anchor

Edited April 9, 2013 by mirkwood
spelling

[beefche]

Isn't that the same thing as saying it takes a whole village to raise kids?

[Jenamarie]

Isn't that the same thing as saying it takes a whole village to raise kids?

That's how I took it. That we all bear some responsibility for the well-being of the kids in our communities, instead of expecting the parents to carry 100% of the load. (the main responsibility? yes. But without community support a parent can only do so much)

[Just_A_Guy]

Taken to its logical conclusion, you're looking at the philosophical basis for removing children from their homes at birth and placing them with whomever The State deems appropriate.

But that could never happen here.

[beefche]

Taken to its logical conclusion, you're looking at the philosophical basis for removing children from their homes at birth and placing them with whomever The State deems appropriate.

Oooo! That sounds like Ender's Game!

[NeuroTypical]

~Melissa Harris-Perry

Who?

MSNBC anchor

Anchor of what?

Isn't this that 'peacock meets windows' thing they tried back in the '90's?

[Anddenex]

Taken to its logical conclusion, you're looking at the philosophical basis for removing children from their homes at birth and placing them with whomever The State deems appropriate.

But that could never happen here.

Nope, it never happens, and it would never happen. The article is false.

[applepansy]

The next step is "YOU can't raise your children"

It doesn't take a village to raise a child. A village can be helpful IF and only IF they have the same values as the parents. But when societies values stop reflecting the parents values then... well, I wish the "village" has less say in what my children learned.

Edited April 8, 2013 by applepansy

[Wingnut]

A village can be helpful IF and only IF they have the same values as the parents. But when societies values stop reflecting the parents values then... well, I wish the "village" has less say in what my children learned.

I disagree. I think the village needs to respect the parents' values, but not everyone needs to have the same values. (Maybe it depends on how we're each thinking of "values," though.)

[applepansy]

I disagree. I think the village needs to respect the parents' values, but not everyone needs to have the same values. (Maybe it depends on how we're each thinking of "values," though.)

My youngest is now 25 and I wish that there was less they learned from the "village." Unless you have the right village.

In today's world we are constantly cautioned about what we let in our homes. Just turning on the TV lets the "village" in and what is shown on TV has little to do with the values and standards I wanted my children to learn. Sex before marriage is a rampant part of our world. In the high schools here in Utah there was such a mis-connect with teenagers about chastity that the Stake Presidents in our area did several firesides on Chastity and got very specific, not just with teens but with parents too.

My grandson is 5. The village he's being raised in has the same values ... for the most part. But in preschool this year, most of the kids come from families where the parents are parenting. They are letting TV parent. I am seeing a difference in my grandson's attitude towards the word and its not for the better. I"m considering home schooling because I don't like what he'll learn from the village.

[carlimac]

What was the context of her statement?

I DO believe that ALL of us should be concerned for the welfare (safety and education) of children, especially when we choose our leaders, knowing how they will legislate the use of tax money. Maybe she meant that education should be higher on the priority list and that when we invest in children, whether we gave birth to them or not, we are investing in our own future and theirs. It really is every adults' responsibility to be concerned for children.

Obviously, (does this really need saying?) children aren't possessions of the community. I don't think she meant that. They never will be unless they become orphans and don't have any family that can take care of them, or in cases of severe neglect or abuse. Parents have, or should have final say in how the child is brought up. Many families prefer to homeschool and don't want the community's help. That's their perogative. I don't really think this lady means parents' rights should be stripped of them. Glenn Beck (who I usually like and think has something important to say) and the Tea Party are making something of nothing here. Slow news day?

Edited April 9, 2013 by carlimac

[selek]

What was the context of her statement?

Judge for yourself.

Lean Forward... Collectively: Melissa Harris-Perry's MSNBC Ad Says All Of Your Children Belong To Us - YouTube

Obviously, (does this really need saying?) children aren't possessions of the community. I don't think she meant that. They never will be unless they become orphans and don't have any family that can take care of them, or in cases of severe neglect or abuse.

On the contrary, that's precisely what she was arguing.

It is only when children become the property of the collective- and subject to the wisdom and judgement of the collective- that we can truly begin making "wise investments".

In this case, "wise investments" is not limited merely to money- it also means protecting children from backward and antiquated notions such as "parental rights" and "radical" religious beliefs- such as thoughs espoused by evangelicals and Catholics.

The entire premise for banning cigarettes, high-calorie drinks, salt, and a myriad of other personal liberties is the notion that the public will wind up paying for them through their taxes.

The nanny-staters are already trying to control what you eat, drink, and think.

How much worse will it be when your children suddenly become their stewardship?

I don't really think this lady means parents' rights should be stripped of them.

Then you're not paying attention.

Her entire premise is that children are the property of the State (rather than the responsibility of their parents) and that the STATE needs to be looking out for them.

[Wingnut]

My youngest is now 25 and I wish that there was less they learned from the "village." Unless you have the right village.

In today's world we are constantly cautioned about what we let in our homes. Just turning on the TV lets the "village" in and what is shown on TV has little to do with the values and standards I wanted my children to learn. Sex before marriage is a rampant part of our world. In the high schools here in Utah there was such a mis-connect with teenagers about chastity that the Stake Presidents in our area did several firesides on Chastity and got very specific, not just with teens but with parents too.

My grandson is 5. The village he's being raised in has the same values ... for the most part. But in preschool this year, most of the kids come from families where the parents are parenting. They are letting TV parent. I am seeing a difference in my grandson's attitude towards the word and its not for the better. I"m considering home schooling because I don't like what he'll learn from the village.

I can completely understand this. I guess my thought was more along the lines of teaching them correct values and principles, while not sheltering them completely away from things so much that when they go into the world on their own, they're not prepared for it. I think there needs to be careful knowledge of less-than-virtuous things, in order to help teach one's own children and properly navigate the dark and spacious world.

Does that make sense?

[prisonchaplain]

I saw the clip of her speaking. Her word choice was fodder for conservatives, and easy to interpret as socialistic (collectivist?). Her immediate and broad point is not without merit though...our schools systems should be better funded. The kids do deserve better. And, let's be honest, should we not help our neighbors' kids when the parents are too irresponsible to take care of them? I'm not suggesting anything more than by at least providing them with top-notch schooling.

[NeuroTypical]

So, I homeschool, and I follow homeschool legislation a little bit. The international stuff is sort of scary. There is a case or two out of Germany where police have siezed children because their parents were not schooling them the right way (i.e. tried to homeschool them instead of sending them to school). Another case where a German family came to America and applied for asylum under religious persecution grounds because the authorities wouldn't let them have a christian-based homeschool program.

It is true that America is not Germany. But no, we don't get to say such things don't happen.

[MorningStar]

Rather than expect more responsibility from parents, the answer is to make everyone else responsible? Lame.

[MorningStar]

I saw the clip of her speaking. Her word choice was fodder for conservatives, and easy to interpret as socialistic (collectivist?). Her immediate and broad point is not without merit though...our schools systems should be better funded. The kids do deserve better. And, let's be honest, should we not help our neighbors' kids when the parents are too irresponsible to take care of them? I'm not suggesting anything more than by at least providing them with top-notch schooling.

But the schooling isn't effective without an involved parent unless the child has the drive to excel on their own.

[Guest]

The statement is a complete convolution of the "village" concept.

"It takes a village to raise a child" is not an endorsement of the village as the child's keeper. Instead, "It takes a village to raise a child" is an endorsement of the ideals of societal mores (conservatism) having power over individual liberty (liberalism). This means that for a child to grow in a healthy envrionment, the society should reflect the mores of the family, therefore, social issues follow the conservative ideal where the law reflects the moral code of the family. So, it is quite hilarious for Hilary Clinton - one of the icons of liberalism - to use that concept to try to support her views.

A good example of this type of societal structure is in a society such as the Jewish (referring the the culture, not the religion) nation where the moral code is imbedded in the culture that is then reflected in the laws of the nation. Another example is the predominantly Catholic Philippines where the Catholic moral code is imbedded in the culture as well as the laws. Although, the Philippines is slowly losing its grip on these mores due to the influx of western influence.

In the United States where the "village" is too diverse as it is a melting pot of differing cultures, the "It takes a village to raise a child" cannot apply unless you redefine "village" as "church" or some form of a small morally homogenous organization because, in a country, or even one State of a country, such as the United States, the judeo-Christian value system that was the foundation of the Constitution does not reflect the mores of the people.

The MSNBC anchor convolutes the concept even more by applying the "village" concept to an investment in education. No, in that case, the "village" is completely NOT your solution to vested interests in education. Instead, the opposite is what you need. Investment in education is served by bringing the family - the parents - back into complete involvement and immersion in their children's education instead of just handing over the responsibility to the state. Parental involvement is how you get a child to excel in education when the lessons taught by the teacher in the 6 hours of the day that the child is in school is applied and re-enforced at home. This requires the parent and the teacher to be partners in the child's educational achievement. You see proof of the success of this all over the place. When you talk about failing schools, you are usually talking about schools with absentee parents. Therefore, in my opinion, she is wrong on her principles. You want the parents and guardians to grab the reigns with both hands and feet and take ownership of the scholastic achievements of their children. Yes, this requires that children have responsible parents - something that is starting to become a minority in American society.

Edited April 9, 2013 by anatess

[prisonchaplain]

But the schooling isn't effective without an involved parent unless the child has the drive to excel on their own.

It's not as effective. The children of the irresponsible will always be at a huge disadvantage. However, I'm enough of a "brother's keeper"--or even a keeper of my 'brother's' son--that I'm willing to try to temper the odds by providing for good schools with good sports/arts/activities programs (minus the current fees that keep some low-income kids out).

If we cannot change the kid's home, we can try to make his life outside the home better.

[Jenamarie]

If we cannot change the kid's home, we can try to make his life outside the home better.

My Bishop said something very similar to me when he extended me my current calling of teaching the 14-15 year olds. He said that while it is hoped for that most youth in the church are receiving gospel instruction in the home, the fact is that many aren't, and so he wanted to me to try to give these teens the best opportunity for gospel instruction it was within my little 50 minute window to give them so that they could hopefully go out into the world as young adults with strong testimonies.

It is every parents' responsibility to raise children that will be a benefit to society, but not every parent will live up to their responsibilities, and so we need to do what is within our power to do to help them as closely reach their full potential, rather than allowing them to grow up knowing only neglect and ignorance, and potentially going down destructive paths that could end up harming more than just themselves.

[mirkwood]

That is fine until your 50 minute window oversteps the parents decisions in what to teach or not teach their children. We can probably safely assume in a church setting that the parents are okay with the lessons since they sent thier children to the church. In the public educational system that is not necessarily the case. I do not have much control over what the teacher is saying or doing in the classroom and unless I choose to homeschool I do not have the option of not sending my kids. If the state adopts the "village" mentality, I will have no recourse against their indoctrinations. That is the left's agenda. That is what Melissa is pushing. That is a violation of my rights as a parent. That is also a violation of my free agency.

That is one of the greatest dangers of the leftist philosophy. They have embraced socialism to varying degrees. Socialism = communism without the violence. Socialism/communism = satan's plan that we fought the war in heaven over.

Satan is doing everything in his power to destroy families. You (general you, not specific to Jenamarie) think pornography and immorality is the only tool he uses to destroy familiies?

[bytor2112]

I thought the comment was taken out of context and was really not an expression of...well, until I saw MSNBC

Edited April 9, 2013 by bytor2112

[bytor2112]

Speaking of MSNBC...If you think that quote makes you angry...you better grab some duct tape for this one.

[Guest]

My Bishop said something very similar to me when he extended me my current calling of teaching the 14-15 year olds. He said that while it is hoped for that most youth in the church are receiving gospel instruction in the home, the fact is that many aren't, and so he wanted to me to try to give these teens the best opportunity for gospel instruction it was within my little 50 minute window to give them so that they could hopefully go out into the world as young adults with strong testimonies.

It is every parents' responsibility to raise children that will be a benefit to society, but not every parent will live up to their responsibilities, and so we need to do what is within our power to do to help them as closely reach their full potential, rather than allowing them to grow up knowing only neglect and ignorance, and potentially going down destructive paths that could end up harming more than just themselves.

Sure, this is a good "ideal". Of course, you are assuming that your defintion of "neglect and ignorance" is correct. (In a church, this is easy to determine). In a macro societal concept, it doesn't work. Because, what you perceive to be "neglect and ignorance" may be completely different from somebody else's viewpoint.

For example, my mother thinks that I am putting my children in grave danger by having 6 ball pythons in my house. In her world view, I am a child abuser. I respectfully disagree.

[bytor2112]

t is every parents' responsibility to raise children that will be a benefit to society, but not every parent will live up to their responsibilities, and so we need to do what is within our power to do to help them as closely reach their full potential, rather than allowing them to grow up knowing only neglect and ignorance, and potentially going down destructive paths that could end up harming more than just themselves.

I agree as long as "we" is extended family, church, charity, neighbors and only very, very limited intervention from government in cases of abuse or extreme poverty.

Edited April 9, 2013 by bytor2112