Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Head Shop >

Should Parents Be Tested?

11:23 / 13.01.02

spike milligan (british comedian) once seriously said that potential parents should be made to take a test to see if they are fit to do so. this comment came back to me recently when discussing how many parents genuinely do not seem to comprehend how fragile a baby/child's emotional development/well being is, and how it can be shaped by whatever they say or do to that child.

should parents be made to take a test? undergo counselling to smooth out their fuck ups so they don't force them on their children? be asked - in all seriousness - if they really want children and to be told exactly what their responsibilites are to that child? just about everyone i know has horror stories of stuff done to them by their parents, either deliberately or accidently.

obviously whoever set the criteria or administered such a test would be crucial and it could/would be open to gross abuse, but what do you feel about the general question: if a potential parent was obviously seriously fucked up and any child of theirs would be in danger of serious damage, should they then be allowed to reproduce?

pointless and uncalled for

12:22 / 13.01.02

On the face of it, it's a great concept. Kids raised properly by parents that have been taught how to do it.

However, the practical applications get a little difficult. Who get's to decide on what is a good way to raise a kid? The government? Absolutely not, it would be contrary to the plan and an issue of totalitarianism intertwined with political bias. In independant group? Who decides on who's part of the independant group?

In addition to that, different children require differnt up bringing styles. Would you teach a parent all up bringing styles and risk the chance that they'll forget something or get mixed up or would you wait until the child is born and carry out testing on disorders and personality type (assuming personality is partially genetic).

I like the idea of a nice neat and concise book that includes well described details of a parents repsonsibilities, if only from a legal standpoint.

The sad thing is that most of the fucked up parents that I've come across, didn't have planned pregnancies. This leads to another grey area. How do you determine if a potential parent will be a fuck up? Can you enforce contraception on these people without infringing on personal and religious rights?

Should anyne be interested in having a go at me for whatever I post, please read the following disclaimer.

This is a very light grazing on the serface of this topic and not intended to be, be all and end all facts. Also, no stereotypes regarding parents or children are implied or intended.

Now you may proceed to tear me up.

14:56 / 13.01.02

If you're talking potential parents, then my answer is a simple "Hell, no." How do you decide who has the right to procreate and who doesn't? What gives you the right to make that decision in the first place?

Unless we set up some kind of psychic court...

If you're asking whether people who are currently parents should be monitored to ensure that they're treating their children well, isn't that what social services are supposed to do now (emphasis on 'supposed')?

As for Spike Milligan, he's also well known for complaining about interacial relationships, as (paraphrasing), "You get little brown children called things like 'Alan Smith', which is just ridiculous. I mean, you can't tell where anyone comes from anymore."

[ 13-01-2002: Message edited by: E. Randy Dupre ]

15:10 / 13.01.02

a couple of points: when i went to my local rspca to get a cat, i was asked all sorts of questions about myself and caring for the animal before i was allowed to take one. and quite right, too.

i asked the question because i can see both sides. as someone who suffered rather badly from my parents' ignorance and prejudice (always, always second best to my brother because he was a boy, wanting help from my parents when i was being bullied at school and finding that they agreed with what the bullies were saying about me) i would say, 'fuck, yes!'; if someone could've sat my parents down when they were thinking of having another child and said to them, 'if you do blah blah blah' then you will damage your child, then i may well have had a far less damaged and miserable childhood, the effects of which i still feel to this day.

what i have against the theory is, of course, who gets to decide what's a good state to be in in order to be a parent. spike milligan was well intentioned, i think, [in that he was talking in relation to the work of the national society for the prevention of cruelty to children] and i must say i agree with the theory - trying to ensure a parents doesn't stamp their fucked upness on a child is no bad thing.

potus: i agree that more support is needed. 'good parenting' classes/a handbook could help everyone if done properly (yes i know, who is to say what's proper?). and while it is right to talk about the personal liberty of being able to procreate, creating potential monsters impinges on all our freedoms. and some parents give the impression that they intensely dislike their children.

[edited to add clarity]

[ 13-01-2002: Message edited by: shortfatdyke ]

15:21 / 13.01.02

I agree with the idea of educating potential parents, but not with testing them to see if they meet some kind of set criteria and then disallowing them from becoming parents because they 'fail'.

[ 13-01-2002: Message edited by: Q. Randy Dupre ]

16:11 / 13.01.02

I agree, educate yes; test and licence no.

The problem is that it is such a seductive idea, all parents are tested and only those who would make good parents are allowed to and so we won't have screwed up kids.

How naive and dangerous.

What is the criteria for a good parent? Aside from they care for their child and try and do their best for them. I can't think of any other criteria to which I can't find an exception.

My other problem is that we are all different, someone may be good parent to one child but a bad parent to another. We aren't talking about knowing how to operate a vehicle where the mechanics of what is a good way to operate it and what is a bad way to operate it are pretty clear cut. We are talking about raising and teaching another human being. Pretty grey area if you ask me, and letting people say what is right and wrong in general terms in a grey area is one of the most dangerous things you can do.

Take responsibilty for your own actions. Don't look for someone else to do it for you.

As a final point, anyone not convinced should follow the testing idea to it's logical conclusion. Can you say "Brave New World?"

17:52 / 13.01.02

Of course, adoptive parents are "tested" (at least in the US). They often express frustration at the process, particularly if they are adopting because they are physically unable to have children rather than because of an ethical or moral decision: it feels like a double standard to them. And who passes the adoptive parenting 'test' is often strongly affected by orientation, marital status, economic status, racial questions, ethnic practices, etc.

I research adoption/foster care, and came across a text that argued that, at some level, all children have to be "adopted": i.e., each must be accepted and "owned" (not meant in a property sense--more like "owning" an idea you've expressed) as children by some adult--whether it is the adult who gave birth to hir or another adult.

I sometimes wonder if it would be logical, in our current legalcentric society, for there to be some sort of socio-legal contract which would have to be signed and cosigned by all the persons who were agreeing to have a lifelong commitment to a child at birth; a contract stipulating what their commitment means, and entitling them to sufficient social AND FINANCIAL support from the rest of the culture for doing their best to raise a future citizen with adequate love, attention. And I think a minimum of 2 people should be willing to sign the form for each child--the more the better. In my little utopia, the "parents" could work out whatever custodial arrangements they wanted. (I'm for expanding the concept of 'marriage' and/or 'parents': if, say, two women and three men want to call themselves "married" for the purposes of raising a child, or just want to all coparent a child that will live with one of the people, that's cool with me.)

Obviously this could be a complete bureaucratic nightmare, and I certainly don't have all the logistics worked out in my head, but I'm rather intrigued by the idea and would like to see what other 'lithers think...

[ 13-01-2002: Message edited by: alas ]

09:25 / 14.01.02

alas - the contract things sounds good. as i have stated, a 'test' of any kind would in reality be frightening. but i really think parents need to be made aware that what they say and do to their child could have a profound effect on them.

i believe in taking responsibility for one's actions, which is why i've had years of counselling to deal with the shit my parents gave me. but if damage can possibly be avoided, isn't that the better option?

[ 14-01-2002: Message edited by: shortfatdyke ]

Situationism Made Queasy

09:25 / 14.01.02

Some more thoughts to add to the mix:

What about communal parenting? I understand it was quite a big thing on the Israeli kibbutz for a while, but now seems to have gone out of style. See also Margaret Meade's 'Coming of Age in Samoa', which is widely regarded these days as being something around 90% total B.S., but still, the descriptions of communal parenting seem quite nice. IE, if you aren't getting along with your regular parents (not on a permanent basis, but you're just having a bad day with them or something) you go to your extended family and hang out there until you feel ready to come back.

Or the kibbutz system, wherein kids were all raised together in a children's house by professionals, not like they were seperated from their parents or anything, but they weren't particularly raised by them.

It just strikes me that there's too great a risk of fucking up with any prospect of regulating parenthood-- we have to ask ourselves, as always, is the prospect of a bad parent worse than the prospect of a potential loving parent being denied the right to have kids for no good reason?

Okay, I admit, these were a bunch of questions really with out answers. So be it.

09:53 / 18.01.02

This old chestnut

As mentioned, most people have horror stories about their parents. Me included. But you can't test people for suitability. It just wouldnt work (and is just slight sick) Whole generations went thru the 1st & 2nd world wars. You think that left no lasting mental problems? For millions of people? Where would you draw the line there? There's just no way it could work. Any government that managed to get a bill thru parliment would be out the next time round anyway!

Sure I think the education idea is good and should be mandatory for all parents from the beginning of pregnancy till birth (at least) but I can't see it happening. I can see lots of fucked up people growning up... but not much changes eh?

Sleeper

00:45 / 21.01.02

Communal parenting seems to make a great deal of sense. Always seemed that the more people allowed to have impact on your life as you grow, the better. This is a major reason why I take the role of godfather seriously. Even though I don't see the "little guy" as often as I like, I try to allow "other" ideas and resources to be available. Those strange influences (at least to the standard environment) have always had a enduring effect in my life.

But at the same time, not knowing how to handle children is common. I think my parents did a decent job and despite a few things that still stay with me today, some of the unhealthy things I became subject to didn't necessarily impact me in a negative way. Supervision is good, but I strongly disagree with too much control. You have to allow the process to define itself sometimes...