Government led parenting: a good or bad thing?

Uwila · 2004-11-22T13:33:57+00:00

Jusst saw this article in the Guardian (The Myth of Billy Eliot ), but I think it is a recurring topic in the news these days. I know what I think, but wondered what other MNers think? Is it the government's place to legislate parenting? If so, to what level of detail (i.e. the recent smacking debate)? Is it government's role to teach parenting skills? Is the government more qualified than parents are to know what is right/wrong parenting? I could go on and on, but you get the idea.

teabelly · 22/11/2004 14:16

So what do you think Uwila?

I know what I think too, but fear that to type it up will have some P.C. lynch mobs after me, he he he

yingers74 · 22/11/2004 14:21

Tough one and my views on this change on a daily basis . I think that parenting classes do have a role as not everyone has parents who can offer their advice and expertise, and sometimes as a parent you want to hear about different theories and methods. However, I don't think anyone should be penalised if they did not want to attend one, and I do think it could all be a bit patronising.

MummyToSteven · 22/11/2004 14:28

yes, I agree it's a tough one. on the one hand, i don't like the idea of "social control" by pressurising mums and kids to attend classes etc.

on the other hand i have been to SureStart baby massage classes, and used the SureStart toy library and light/sound room, and think SureStart is a brilliant resource. I think that SureStart type classes/resources should be available to all, rather than discriminating by postcode.

Original poster

Uwila · 22/11/2004 15:15

Well, I think that some of the things they teach are valuable, but they should be offered and never required of parents. Ultimately, I think choices do belong to parents, and not the government. This, in my view, goes for everything from smacking to the MMR. Obviously I as a parent don't have the right to abuse my child. And I don't have the right to not send my kid to school at all. But, if I choose to take him to the Bahamas on ajoy ride just 'cause we think it would be fun, then I have the right to yank him from his state school for two weeks...

Some things can't be legislated. Some things shouldn't be. Whilst obviously some extremes should be (and are).

OP posts:

Original poster

Uwila · 22/11/2004 15:16

Well, I think that some of the things they teach are valuable, but they should be offered and never required of parents. Ultimately, I think choices do belong to parents, and not the government. This, in my view, goes for everything from smacking to the MMR. Obviously I as a parent don't have the right to abuse my child. And I don't have the right to not send my kid to school at all. But, if I choose to take him to the Bahamas on ajoy ride just 'cause we think it would be fun, then I have the right to yank him from his state school for two weeks...

Some things can't be legislated. Some things shouldn't be. Whilst obviously some extremes should be (and are).

OP posts:

Original poster

Uwila · 22/11/2004 15:16

Well, I think that some of the things they teach are valuable, but they should be offered and never required of parents. Ultimately, I think choices do belong to parents, and not the government. This, in my view, goes for everything from smacking to the MMR. Obviously I as a parent don't have the right to abuse my child. And I don't have the right to not send my kid to school at all. But, if I choose to take him to the Bahamas on ajoy ride just 'cause we think it would be fun, then I have the right to yank him from his state school for two weeks...

Some things can't be legislated. Some things shouldn't be. Whilst obviously some extremes should be (and are).

OP posts:

Original poster

Uwila · 22/11/2004 15:16

Well, I think that some of the things they teach are valuable, but they should be offered and never required of parents. Ultimately, I think choices do belong to parents, and not the government. This, in my view, goes for everything from smacking to the MMR. Obviously I as a parent don't have the right to abuse my child. And I don't have the right to not send my kid to school at all. But, if I choose to take him to the Bahamas on ajoy ride just 'cause we think it would be fun, then I have the right to yank him from his state school for two weeks...

Some things can't be legislated. Some things shouldn't be. Whilst obviously some extremes should be (and are).

OP posts:

spacemonkey · 22/11/2004 15:18

Actually in the UK parents do have the right not to send their children to school uwila.

Original poster

Uwila · 22/11/2004 15:36

I wasn't aying they don't. Just voicing my opinion on what I think parents should be able to do -- and that isn't necessarily to say that they aren't currently in that position.

However, I know I have heard several parent complain about the stick they get from their kids school when they want to keep them out for holidays and such. Although I am not expert since my child is only 20 months so I have not yet had first hand experience with the school system.

OP posts:

Original poster

Uwila · 22/11/2004 15:38

Sorry about the multiple post. Bloody slow server (and impatient user).

OP posts:

spacemonkey · 22/11/2004 15:45

I wouldn't have any qualms at all about taking my children out of school to go the Bahamas. The school system is getting more and more dictatorial it seems to me. And I hope I never see the day that the law allowing parents to educate their children themselves is changed and school becomes compulsory for all children.

Original poster

Uwila · 22/11/2004 15:55

I would totally agree, Spacemonkey.

OP posts:

spacemonkey · 22/11/2004 15:58

Original poster

Uwila · 22/11/2004 17:06

Anyone else?

OP posts:

Caligula · 22/11/2004 21:51

I thought it was an excellent article as usual from Madeleine Bunting. I'm all in favour of parenting classes (in fact, I'm doing a parenting course atm) and good programmes like Little Angels, but the idea of forcing people to sit down in front of them and watch them is absurd. It should only be in extreme circumstances that compulsion is used.

And she makes the point that government pretends it can't do anything about the external factors which pre-dispose the "problem" families to criminality and nuisance, while being perfectly capable of interfering with the minutiae of family life. If there was an effort to do a little bit more about the former, rather than pretending everything can be solved by the latter, I'd be a bit more enthusiastic about being nannied by Blair and co.

It's not a new phenomenon though; the evacuation programme in the war was very much about confiscating the children of the poor and moving them out to environments where more "worthy" people could take charge of them and ensure that they became the sort of subjects the Empire needed. Governments will always want to interfere in family life, and tbh I don't see how we can avoid that. Nobody would seriously argue that government doesn't have a role to play - the fact that we're all not allowed to beat our children black and blue is not something I've every heard anyone (normal) complain about.