Today, I am here to recommend the entire column of John Rosemond from 8/17/2010 (see at www.rosemond.com). It concerns America's fixation with preschooling, "getting a head start," and other general nonsense. Here's a sample, but the entire column should be mandatory reading for all Americans, not just parents:
"In the 1950s, prior to the onset of one failed education 'reform' initiative after
another, America's literacy rate was at an all-time high. It's interesting to note
that with rare exception we early Boomers were not taught to read until first grade.
Typically, our mothers made no effort whatsoever to teach us any literacy skills
during our preschool years. Rather, they taught us to pay attention to women and
do what women told us to do-the two skills most essential to early academic achievement."
Now, while it is important to teach respect for women, I might have some other things to say about his last statement there, but the overall thought seems golden to me.
Monday, August 30, 2010
Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Lack of Historical Sexual Perspective
In our quest to "save" our children (see another post here), we have lost perspective. A woman in CA is facing criminal charges for sex with two teenage boys. Historically, boys often "came of age" with older women.
Historically, it came down to puberty. When puberty arrived, it was no longer molestation, and certainly not a crime, for marriage, sex, childbirth, etc. to occur. Ever read the book Founding Mothers? Many of them were 14-16 years old, and often married to much older men to boot. And of course, one doesn't have to reach far in the Bible to find a 14 year old married to a much older man.
The age of the older one is not so much the issue, it is our fixation on "protecting" the younger one. We need all the protection in the world for those who have not entered puberty. We need less for those who have. Our laws and our system make little distinction.
This continues the pattern of how we do so many things that retard true maturity. It is almost like we are afraid for our children to grow up, or to transition to adults. Is it the desire for control? Wanting to have OUR form of love, to satisfy OUR form of the extended parental-child dependency? We are doing them no favors by being that way. Yes, it IS understandable to feel heartache that they grow up and transition out of their dependency and heavily interlinked stage, because we love them and want to spend precious time with them (which, in our time-maniacal culture, we probably do too little of, and so we are heavily laden with guilt and remorse). But it is selfish and harming to keep them in that stage too long.
People often say the words "they may be physically maturing, but they aren't mentally/emotionally ready." Nope, they probably aren't. Maturity responds to what is asked of it. In most respects, we aren't asking much. People of the 1700s matured fast because it was expected. They weren't babied, overprotected, or sheltered in some parental/societal artificial cocoon that disconnected them from reality.
Historically, it came down to puberty. When puberty arrived, it was no longer molestation, and certainly not a crime, for marriage, sex, childbirth, etc. to occur. Ever read the book Founding Mothers? Many of them were 14-16 years old, and often married to much older men to boot. And of course, one doesn't have to reach far in the Bible to find a 14 year old married to a much older man.
The age of the older one is not so much the issue, it is our fixation on "protecting" the younger one. We need all the protection in the world for those who have not entered puberty. We need less for those who have. Our laws and our system make little distinction.
This continues the pattern of how we do so many things that retard true maturity. It is almost like we are afraid for our children to grow up, or to transition to adults. Is it the desire for control? Wanting to have OUR form of love, to satisfy OUR form of the extended parental-child dependency? We are doing them no favors by being that way. Yes, it IS understandable to feel heartache that they grow up and transition out of their dependency and heavily interlinked stage, because we love them and want to spend precious time with them (which, in our time-maniacal culture, we probably do too little of, and so we are heavily laden with guilt and remorse). But it is selfish and harming to keep them in that stage too long.
People often say the words "they may be physically maturing, but they aren't mentally/emotionally ready." Nope, they probably aren't. Maturity responds to what is asked of it. In most respects, we aren't asking much. People of the 1700s matured fast because it was expected. They weren't babied, overprotected, or sheltered in some parental/societal artificial cocoon that disconnected them from reality.
Sunday, August 1, 2010
Disorganized Religion
Anne Rice, the famous author of the wildly popular “Interview With A Vampire,” and other novels, says she is done with Christianity. "For those who care, and I understand if you don't: Today I quit being a Christian. I'm out," she said on her Facebook page this week. “I remain committed to Christ as always, but not to being 'Christian' or to being part of Christianity. It's simply impossible for me to 'belong' to this quarrelsome, hostile, disputatious, and deservedly infamous group. For ten years, I've tried. I've failed. I'm an outsider. My conscience will allow nothing else."
Her comments reminded me a bit of Edward Gibbon’s comments on the nature of early Christians, which has been romanticized by many, but who held (at least in the latter stages of the Roman Empire) many of the same qualities that Rice cites above.
With Christianity as organized religion facing stiff challenges from, among other things, materialism, time-mania, entertainment obsession, jadedness, disconnection, and apathy, not to mention questions about Biblical accuracy/applicability and a surging Islam, what is its likely future? Will its central tenets of the written example of Jesus remain, and the rest be modified or even discarded? Will it transform into something the present day would not recognize? Will it itself resurge? What is its likely progression through history? And what of the central monotheistic nature and connectedness of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which to an alien from another world would seem like one religion with 3 main divisions and many sub-divisions?
I’m not sure which, if any, of those questions can be addressed and in what fashion. They are just my musings for today! :)
Her comments reminded me a bit of Edward Gibbon’s comments on the nature of early Christians, which has been romanticized by many, but who held (at least in the latter stages of the Roman Empire) many of the same qualities that Rice cites above.
With Christianity as organized religion facing stiff challenges from, among other things, materialism, time-mania, entertainment obsession, jadedness, disconnection, and apathy, not to mention questions about Biblical accuracy/applicability and a surging Islam, what is its likely future? Will its central tenets of the written example of Jesus remain, and the rest be modified or even discarded? Will it transform into something the present day would not recognize? Will it itself resurge? What is its likely progression through history? And what of the central monotheistic nature and connectedness of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which to an alien from another world would seem like one religion with 3 main divisions and many sub-divisions?
I’m not sure which, if any, of those questions can be addressed and in what fashion. They are just my musings for today! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)