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

Underground > Head Shop >

Won't Somebody Think Of The Children?

12:42 / 09.03.03

There's an old joke that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged. Maybe. or maybe a conservative is a liberal who's had a couple of kids.

The most predictable howl of outrage from the conservative Daily Mail set is "Think of the children!" And it's usually easy to dismiss those cries as hysterical hogwash—unless, of course, you've got kids of your own.

F'rinstance: Knowing that you're never more than five clicks away from internet porn is smirkworthy: knowing that your child is never more than five clicks away from internet porn can be terrifying. My stances on a host of civil liberties hot-button issues—free speech, pornography, registration and sentencing of sex offenders, age of consent—are no longer so clear as once they were. And I find this worrisome: I'm frightened that I might betray my principals in my zeal to protect my kids, and even more frightened that somehow my kids might suffer because I failed to protect them because I was following my principles.

Civil-liberties conservatism is an atavistic, reptile-brain thought process: protect, defend, fight, flee. But it's just those ferocious, primitive instincts that are at the heart of parenting.

So I'm addressing this thread particularaly at 'lithers who have kids, either by birth or by marriage/adoption, et cetera: has being responsible for the care and safty of small humans caused any noticeable shift in your political stances? If so, how do you feel about it?

16:54 / 10.03.03

I've noticed I'm more apt to leap to heuristics and easy answers when assessing risk, just because I need the certainty. Especially when assessing neighborhoods for living in.
However, I've also noticed myself more keenly aware of (and interested in) social programs and any initiative that cuts time out of the work week - more time spent at home with the kids, you see. Not fiscally conservative at all.

On the deeper level that I think you're getting at, though, I don't think my core values have changed much - but I also have very few core values. One of them is to evaluate all beliefs constantly. Is that a liberal value? I suppose it is. In that case, being responsible for children has forced me to evaluate my beliefs in unexpected ways. It may awaken primal instincts (conservatism) but also initiates a lot of questioning & analysis (liberalism). Even just to answer their questions, y'know. The filthy little wretches.

All Acting Regiment

18:10 / 04.06.03

As we develop from children into adults we become interested in these adult things.

At the end of the day i think porn is bad. But a child accessing porn is less bad than a dictator putting you before a firing squad (physical or legal) for writing something bad about him.

My parents were no less liberal after my birth: they just wanted me to be safe.

20:08 / 04.06.03

yes it has changed my beliefs - and perhapsit has made me more conventional. my values? I don't know, maybe these safetyguidelines have been there always, just waiting for me to enter motherhood?
I do know one thing though - that fear has hit me - for real - fear for death, pain, agony, loneliness - for my children - and wherever I go - it is there - even when I am not aware. and it is impossible that it doesn't colour (or decolour) my beliefs and political views.

ONLY NICE THINGS

21:41 / 20.06.04

I've noticed I'm more apt to leap to heuristics and easy answers when assessing risk, just because I need the certainty. Especially when assessing neighborhoods for living in.

I've been reminded of this thread, which never really took off, and off that phrase - "heuristics". I don't know what it means, but I think I understand what it was meant to say - not that risk is decided through trial and error, or that it is determined through the heuristic method, but that generalisations are accepted as valid in order to create a greater margin for safety. So, for example, a poor, largely black or Latino neighbourhood might be ruled out due to the generalisable characteristics of poor, largely black or Latino neighbourhoods.

In effect, this means that having a child would give the parent a right to make prejudicial judgements in a way that they would not be entitled to before he or she became a parent, with the justification being that the safety of the child is paramount - that is, whereas one might be prepared to endanger *oneself* by living in an undesirable neighbourhood, one should not endanger a child. But where does this come into jumping to conclusions about whether a neighbourhood is undesirable or not? These seem to me to be two separate issues.

So, question one - what does parenthood entitle one not to feel bad about any more? And perhaps also what power does parenthood give you? There were occasions in this very forum where the primacy of the child was held out as pretty much the full stop at the end of the argument - that is, that to disagree would be in effect to condone the murder or molestation of the child, or, worse by far, to question the parenting skills of the adult. This always struck me as a difficult position to maintain, but maintained it was with vigour.

Then there is the broader question of the lessons this holds. If we avoid, for example, poor neighbourhoods because we believe the danger to our child to be too great, then are we teaching our child that poor neighbourhoods are to be avoided without further investigation? And, for that matter, what are we saying about those who choose to raise children within those neighbourhoods? Is good parenting primarily a question of financial flexibility?

17:24 / 21.06.04

That last question is exactly what I was getting at with the word "heuristics." I was using it to mean a rule-of-thumb, an easy, mechanical answer that doesn't take into account any of the complexities of the situation. The opposite of a well-reasoned response.

Because once the stakes start getting uncomfortably high (this is not just me getting mugged, but my fragile two-year-old), then probabilities themselves become a source of fear; pursuit of certainty (or, more precisely, a sense of certainty) is an almost primal drive.

So one finds oneself falling back on these easy answers -- even if they're incorrect -- because the alternative causes not just (temporary) indecision, but actual anxiety.

And political/social conservatism is definitely aligned with certainty (the phrase "moral clarity" has been popping up lately), with the clear, "sensible," simple answer.

02:09 / 22.06.04

I no longer feel I can die my hair strange colors because now that I am a father I actually have to CARE about my job. Sigh. Beyond that, my girlfriend and I are the same people we were, sans free time. We've discussed how to deal with our daughter's inevitable exposure to sex-drugs-and-rock-and-roll and how to approach it with as little hypocrisy as possible, as well as how to explain to her that, yes, Mom and Dad did stupid things when they were younger.

Would I live in a poor area? An "ethnic" area? Of course. But would I live in an area known for its violent criminal element? No, and I wouldn't have lived in such an area before, either.

ONLY NICE THINGS

09:46 / 22.06.04

Thanks, Grant - I think you've clarified my thinking on this. Key phrase:

And political/social conservatism is definitely aligned with certainty (the phrase "moral clarity" has been popping up lately), with the clear, "sensible," simple answer.

Also, the idea of certainty rather than certainty itself... we're basically saying that you cannot actually protect our children - because we have created, for our convenience as consumers, a society in which porn is delivered straight to our screens, people ride around in HumVees and SUVs too high off the ground even to see children at speeds that make it imnpossible to stop anyway, the vast inequalities in wealth that keep labour cheap and prices down also mean that our children may be jumped for their shoes, the only response is to do something that seems to be effectual in securing the safety of our child, and conservatism might provide that.

Note "our child" rather than "our children". I think there is a distinction to be drawn between the two. Putting metal detectors in schools, for example, might seem to protect our child but are not necessarily doing a lot for our children, since some of our children are going to be growing up among lekvar's "criminal element". In that formulation, conservative drift has the ring of pulling up the ladder... but I am, of course, prejudiced by my own attitude *towards* conservatism, and my own ideas about the moral entitlement often claimed by the childed.

sdv (non-human)

17:45 / 22.06.04

as i have a little time again...

This seems to be more related to questions of identity than of class but which is understandably haunted by notions of class. Given that it is implicitly asking those of us who are parents whether the fact of 'who you are' has changed, as a result of having lived through the event of having a child. But doesn't the 'who you are' question only make sense if you can believe that you may become 'someone different' than you are ? In other words it assumes that you have a choice in the matter, and consequently then it only makes sense if you can choose, if the choice is in fact a 'real' choice.

So in this case to touch on the 'class' issue raised in the last couple of notes - most parents simply do not have the possibility of their not becoming a different person as a consequence of having a child. Indeed most people do not have the possibility of inventing even for a short time an identity that we can recognise as not be suitable if you are to supply the containment, the safety that a child needs...

as for whether we became more conservative after having children... only in the sense of being less active, which is probably more to do with the neo-liberal counter-reformation than anything else...

19:18 / 22.06.04

Could you define "neo-liberal counter-reformation" please?

19:46 / 22.06.04

Also "less active." The new parents I know got about four hours' sleep a night for a while and they are still up with the lark.

21:07 / 22.06.04

I am glad to see this thread, as it is a reminder to me to avoid falling into those same traps. I can't help but notice how much more conservative I've become since my kids. I mean, I hardly ever go on 3 day drug benders anymore, financed by the resale of blackmarket goods, plotting the downfall of civilization. And I own a gun. I'm practicly a Republican already, God help me!

But seriously, it is cause to be more aware of issues, and to desire to protect your kids. But I still think its wrong to punish adults for the sake of kids. Its my responsibility to keep my kids away from necrobestiality.com until they're ready to deal with that sort of thing, and to educate them on drugs and booze so they are prepared to deal with an inherently dangerous and preditory world rather than shelter them from it.

But it would be easier by far to cry out that the world has to be made safe for the children! rather than take responsibility myself. So, I can see the dangerous temptation there. It is the easy route to become more conservative. You get to put your parental responsibilities on society rather than uphold them yourself. And you can blame the queers for your own failings rather than own up to neglect.

Its quite tempting, and easy to slip into. I hope I never lose my grip so far as to let that happen.

23:52 / 22.06.04

cusm, you raise good points, the propensity of parents to insist that society change itself so the parents won't have to. There are, however, instances where the squeeky wheel treatment is necessary. I am thinking specifically of schools as an example of this. I don't feel that schools should take the place of daycare or teachers the place of parents, but I do feel that parents need to stand up and make sure that the administrators are working towards the best interests of the children. My girlfriend and I find ourselves in this situation since the local schools are pathetic. There is a difference between the two courses of action, and I'm not foolish enough to attribute either behavior to either political wing.

Upon reflection, I have to admit that I've recently deleted all the warez off my harddrive. I'm not sure if this counts as conservative, but the example I set for my daughter will not include approval of piracy, implied or otherwise.

Oh, and money matters a lot more these days. Is that so wrong?

Our Lady Has Left the Building

10:09 / 23.06.04

No, but you'll find all those immigrants are coming in and taking the money before you can get it.

What about Megan's Law, valid and sensible aid to the protection or conservative scaremongering overinflating the danger of your child being nonced?

sdv (non-human)

18:07 / 23.06.04

Grant

'neo-liberal counter-reformation' - the hour of counter-reformation struck around 1978/9. At this time the ideological counter-offensive against all things socialist became intellectually ascendent. Which prepared the way for the economic, social, political and moral counter-reformation, in the form of neo-liberal policies which came into power in Europe and then the rest of the world. The two terms are joined because it doesn't seem possible to understand what happened, the damage caused looking at something like 'neo-liberalism' on it's own, the counter-reformation aspect is required because how else can one understand and recognise the sheer scale of the ideological counter-offensive that took place ? Is this sufficient ?

'less active' - is a reference to personal political involvement - militancy has always tended to be a young unattached persons game, having children does require a different relationship to the world.

Our Lady - there are 16 Million immigrent workers without full citizenship in the 12 older states that make up the EC. There would be no economy without them.

18:51 / 23.06.04

militancy has always tended to be a young unattached persons game, having children does require a different relationship to the world.

Well, Marx had a family, but he didn't look after them very well at all, so perhaps you're right.

I'm not sure about the "pulling up the ladder" concept. Sure, communities might gate themselves and parents may lock themselves and their families up inside SUVs when travelling outside the walls, but I don't think it's fair to unequivocally criticise them for this. I'm thinking if we're making 'our child' and 'our children' distinct, perhaps we should also make a distinction between selfish and self-ish (sic). While it might be the right thing, largely, to work towards the betterment of all children before the welfare of one's own, by the time little Johnny is able to benefit from societal reform he may be dead from smack, gang-fighting or old age. Parents can't wait that long. They don't buy SUVs to deprive other people's kids from riding in them, they buy them because they believe they offer protection for their own, here and now. Their intent is self-ish rather than selfish. Parental conservatism is in fact pragmatism.

Of course that pragmatism can often be misplaced. But given that we hold such store in 'being a good parent' and actually jail parents for failing to achieve goodness, it's hardly fair if we blame them for being protective of their charges. And if parents believe that little Johnny is safer within the SUV than without (he's not) then it is Rebekkah Wade etc. we should blame, not mum and dad.

sdv (non-human)

15:17 / 24.06.04

Linus

Marx lived in the 19th Century and questions of personal identity were completely different then. For us because our identities are more fluid than the typical 19th C man (gender used deliberately) the issue is different, notions of relationships and commitments are very different. Most married or partnered radicals do eventually become more politically quiet (there may be other factors than merely having children) - but that is not I think the same thing as saying that they are more 'conservative'. { whether we are using the term in a small c conservative or large C Conservative fashion}.

As for blaming people for being politically conservative - there are two different senses in which the everyday action of living in this society can be understood in re;ation to this: firstly in the sense of socially and politically supporting this specific society and positively enjoying the exploiting of others. And secondly people who in a sense merely live here - and work to ensure that they and the people they live with are reasonably ok existing in this society.

I am inclined to believe the former is always unacceptable but the latter is how we inevitably exist. This second statement is, of course mildly self-justificatory and really you'd have to ask my daughter and son whether they thought I was being completely hypocritical or not. (But then let's avoid the pitiful idea that people on the left - can't live reasonably well... we should all be prepared to accept the contradictions being after all...)

11:44 / 25.06.04

To spin things in a slightly different direction, I found that after the birth of my son my "politics" took a serious turn for the radical -- the stakes are much higher, and issues that were arms-length abstractions before are now the world my baby is growing up in. The same protective impulse described above in this thread has turned on the state and capitalist society. E.g. It was all too easy for a long time to let myself slip into a wake-work-crash survival cycle without much more than the occasional gripe about the lack of free time, but now that I'm a parent every minute I spend at my job is a minute away from my son, and by the time I get home I'm exhausted and it's his bedtime - that really throws into sharp relief so much of what's wrong (read: anti-life) with a work-based society (which I don't mean to start a discussion on - I'm just offering it as an example), and I've found myself really questioning for the first time many of the basic assumptions upon which this society is based.

I do agree with what others have said about being more politically quiet, though - I may be a raving anarchist, but I have a major incentive to be careful and keep myself out of prison.

~L

19:22 / 25.06.04

Having children has, as with L., also radicalized me in many ways. My children, who were adopted at ages 7 & 8 are now getting ready to leave home, and they are continuing to expand my boundaries. One's an out lesbian and, beyond that, she's just much more at home in her body than I am in mine. They are both thinkers who ask me hard questions about how I'm living my life. We deliberately chose to live in a mixed-race area and they have thus had a richer life than I had when I was their age, growing up as I did in a white, rural region of the U.S.

I do think that middle-class parents have been conned into trying to micromanage their children's growing up experience, to take all the 'risks' out of it. While this is understandable at some level, it's also deadly.