Smrt Lernins

The homeschool community as a whole is hugely obsessed with “parents’ rights.” It’s primarily from the conservative Christian set, but there’s also a group within the Libertarian-leaning community that pretty strongly rejects the notion of children having inherent rights (over those of the parent) that should be legally outlined and protected. The HSLDA has a whole section devoted to parental rights. Any attempt to establish rights for the children are dismissed as “attacks from the left.” As you can imagine, the UNICEF Convention on the Rights of the Child is incredibly threatening to a group of people who believe that their children are, in fact, their property to do with as they will. That concept is at the center of the Pearls’ teachings — children are property, your property, and you can beat them into whatever shape that most pleases you.

Of course, it wasn’t that long ago that majority of people thought of women as property (many, as the above-mentioned Pearls, still do). It wasn’t that long ago in US history that black people were treated as property. Or Chinese people (who built the railroads? wasn’t well-treated, enfranchised workers being paid a living wage). Sharecropping was by and large another form of slavery, aimed at a socioeconomic group rather than a racial group (I come from some hardscrabble folk, myself). Humanity has a pretty ugly history of treating specific subsets of our number as property; part of our upward movement towards education and cultural enlightenment is, theoretically, that we stop doing that. With each group that seeks enfranchisement (or even the simplest and most basic of human rights), however, there is always a group that wants to keep that from happening. How sad that the group most invested in keeping children from having these basic human rights would be comprised almost entirely of parents.

“But s/he is MY child!” That’s the argument parents use for everything from cutting off healthy body parts, to custody/visitation, to “using the rod,” to indoctrinating children into harmful or hateful beliefs. Well, s/he may be your child, but s/he isn’t your property. If a person could ever be called property in good conscience, surely your child is the property of him/herself alone. You have the (very, considering a full lifespan) temporary care and keeping of your child’s body, but you do not own him. Incidentally, that a governing body would outline the rights of a child in law or policy doesn’t mean the government owns your child, either, any more than the Constitution means the government owns you (if anything, it shows how very clearly the government does not own you), so you can drop that particular argument. It just makes you look ignorant.

Last March, blogger DaMomma wrote an incredibly poignant and insightful (and yes, rather inciteful) post on the (non-)rights of parents, which I hope you will all read and take to heart:

DaMomma’s Parents’ Bill of No-Rights

I don’t have the right to see my child.

I have the sacred obligation to be available to her for nurture, comfort, discipline and guidance regardless of whether it is convenient for me.

I don’t have the right to be included in all the decision-making regarding my child.

I have the obligation to make my child’s needs my first priority and to evalute her needs without regard to my own stake. I have the moral duty to be the advocate of her interests, even if they may conflict with my own.

I do not have the right to make my child’s medical choices.

I have the obligation to use my status as an adult to seek out all the professional care my child needs, and to provide it. I am duty-bound to educate myself on health conditions my child has, and to advocate for her until she is able to advocate for herself.

I do not have the guaranteed love of my child.

I voluntarily made an 18-year commitment to be responsible for another person. I am owed nothing in return. My child did not ask to be born, and is not responsible for the decision I made to bring her here.

I am not entitled to respect.

I am obligated to teach my child boundaries, rules and limits — so she can function in the world, so she is tolerable to others. I have a duty to teach her how to behave. I earn my child’s respect.

My child is not an object to which I may claim ownership.

She is a human being with thoughts and feelings. My childhood is over. My time of being the priority has passed. Whatever I did or did not get is something I must address for myself. It is separate from my child. She is entitled to her own time of nurture, protection and joy and I am obligated to provide it.

I am not entitled to a return on my investment.

I am obligated to work hard every day to provide for my child’s material needs (including some of her wants) regardless of whether she sees me, likes me, or behaves in a manner of which I approve.

Your kid isn’t a pair of shoes or a belt.
Your kid isn’t a car or a bicycle.
Your kid isn’t a dog, a car, or a parakeet.
Your kid isn’t a house or a plot of land.
Your kid isn’t a houseplant or a field of wheat.
Your kid is a person and you do not, cannot, own a person. His rights supersede your wants.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it.

What do you think about the “so glad to send the kids back to school” sentiment from people whose children are in public/private school? This topic came up on the Well Trained Mind forums, and opinions were mixed.

Some people felt like it was merely an expression of relief to return to a familiar routine. I’m sure that’s part of it, and is perhaps the actual intent behind some parents’ jubilation over the return to school, though that might be somewhat belied by the sheer exuberance about the children being gone for the day.

Some people felt it was expressive of sometimes we all (even homeschoolers) feel, which is “I’d like ONE FRIGGIN QUIET MINUTE TO MYSELF NOW PLEASE THANK YOU!” Definitely a sentiment with which I can empathize, as I dearly enjoy a brief break from the constant demands of parenting, though I don’t think I’m in any way entitled to a 7-8 hour break, 5 days a week.

Some people felt like it was indicative of an unhealthy mentality about what our “real lives” are or should be and how we must send children away in order to have those “real lives.” I think this is the crux of it and this is far from the only area where this mentality manifests. I also don’t think this is something people are making up in their own heads; there’s serious social pressure to divorce our “real” identities from parenting and to celebrate opportunities to not be beholden to our children’s needs.

When a woman gets pregnant, she’s bombarded with social messages that tell her she is supposed to “want her body back,” and the pressure begins to keep pregnancy as short as possible. When she breastfeeds, she’s not only told she’s supposed to “want her body back,” but to “want her life back,” something that can only be done by weaning the baby, of course, since breastfeeding is clearly not a part of life and “life” seems to be comprised of as many tactics as possible to physically distance yourself from your offspring. Case in point, when her child becomes school age, the woman is supposed to rejoice in sending the child away (to “real” school, of course), so she can finally “have her life back” again.

“Life,” by the way, doesn’t mean the responsible thing you’re living, with a spouse/partner, children, and a job. “Life” actually means that thing you were doing BEFORE kids, BEFORE responsibility, when everything was fun, fun, fun and you were only responsible for yourself. There’s this emphasis on the false notion of “adult life,” which seems to actually be code for “second youth,” a period of late teen/early 20s-like self-indulgence, partying, and forgetting (temporarily, at least) that one even has children. Most of the people I encounter who are longing for this “adult life” aren’t talking about added responsibility or maturity, but time without children in order to act like children. This is adulthood? This is “real” life?

This isn’t a mentality found solely in public school parents. If anything, I think it’s a generational problem. Gen X grew up, with all their extra self esteems and misplaced sense of entitlement (seriously, I’ve read articles written by Gen Xers saying Baby Boomers should retire, because they’re selfishly keeping all the good jobs), and they’ve had a hard time adjusting to the fact that they are no longer the center of the universe or life of the party. I feel perfectly comfortable saying this, since I’m at the tail end of the Gen X generation, and I have seen it in so many of my peers over the years. I think my generation is getting far worse with age, actually, because that self-involvement that was charming in a teen and tolerable in a 20-something has become very tired in a 30-something. Gen X can’t pull its head out of its collective asses long enough to realize that this message of “real” life that they’re buying into so completely isn’t real at all. It’s fabricated by people who are selling something, be it baby formula or school supplies or a mentality about your “real” life.

Why are they so happy their kids are going back to school? They’re told they’re supposed to be.

And they bought it.