God and Daddies. No internet. No TV. Lots of fresh air, bikes, swing set and creek time. Parents who are present. Consistent expectations and discipline. Church. In small town, rural Alabama you don’t have to worry about the schools. Put in the hard days when you’ve said “no” a million times and disciplined till you feel like a heel and one day you’ll look up and realize you’ve done it: you’ve raised respectful, respected children.
Orthodox Jewish families that prioritize the transmission of their values to the next generation minimize internet and social media exposure, make sure that dad and mom act as religious role models send their kids to an extensive educational network that combines religious studies and secular studies and camp in the summer where what a student studies is translated into reality together with older children helping and serving as role models for younger siblings That, and a lot of prayer for spiritual success as parents, is the roadmap
The orthodox Jewish family values is so strong. I live it with my sons in Israel who have adopted the lifestyle. The men in Yeshivas have taught my sons how to be exemplary fathers and family men ( something I believe their father did not do) and their orthodox wives have a joyful home. They fill their homes with children, spirality, certain strictness, weekly Shabbat. As always, children are our greatest teachers.
The Orthodox Jews need to learn how to preserve their culture, and not succumb to the liberalism which is prevalent in the State of Israel and other western countries. Tel Aviv is basically a carbon copy of Los Angeles.
Fascinating. Correct. Hence my isolation from some Jewish American relatives ( support BDS, free Palestinian) yet sent children on Birthright. Wish I can continue all these conversations in person.
There is a fierce resistance because the UK and NYS educational authorities have zero respect for Orthodox Jewish cultural autonomy. This is an issue that will play itself out in the courts if necessary. The Modern Orthodox world is mistaken in thinking that this issue does not affect their schools
Yes-But YU is appealing and the case may wind up being decided by SCOTUS -the conservative majority may view what happens on the ground as being far more important than the terms of YU's charter
True, there’s nary a child that can grow up properly in a household without a strong, involved father figure. Are there occasional aberrations where a single mom raises a superhero? Sure….but a whole helluva lotta other stuff had to fall into place just perfectly to compensate for that missing Dad!
I raised two kids as s single mother -- and it was a tough slog. The first one, I tried to keep my journalism career going the other, I stayed home for a few years and wrote a book while he was sleeping. Guess which one struggles less? Number 2.
On the flip side - I grew up with a violent father and wish my mother had had the courage to leave.
Time, attention, living in service of your family and yes, well-adjusted fathers are the answer.
I agree with you Stanley, but as actively practicing Christians, you and I are at most a 30% minority in America today. So what do we say to the other 70% (for all I know, perhaps Abigail herself) who do not believe the truth claims of the Church?
RR Reno a few years ago wrote an essay on First Things calls Strong Gods and Weak Gods. He believes secular liberalism is a weak god. It defines a set of rules for efficiently managing society, but offers nothing about how we ought to live. But humans want rules and structure. Most men NEED rules and structure to function well, and if the dominant ideology of the day won't provide them, they will look for a new ideology that will. Enter wokeness (of which trans is a part), which is a strong god with a clearly defined value system and set of behavioral norms. The fact that those norms and values are truly warped (from a Judeo-Christian / Enlightenment perspective) is beside the point. They are hard values, and secular liberalism's answer to any value system ("do what you want until someone else's nose intervenes") can't stand up to them.
So what can those of us who are Christian offer to help those who are not to escape from this trap? Is there anything available that could be a rival Strong God? (Other than ethno-nationalism, which is just another form of wokeness.) Can we pull people back to a liberal-Enlightenment understanding of the world without the Judeo-Christian philosophy (natural law, etc...) on which the Enlightenment was originally based? I really don't know the answer and would love to hear what others think.
Well, I'm a secular humanist, atheist, and probably you would call me liberal, although I'm not American so it's a bit more complicated. It's a great article, but really, I don't need God to tell me that kids need a father figure, discipline and boundaries. I'm not sure why you think that's incompatible with "secular liberalism".
This will teach you never to ask a HS philosophy and civics teacher why he believes something. :-)
Enlightenment liberalism is based on a theistic architecture. Hence, Locke and Jefferson can say "humans are endowed with rights". Who endowed them? God did. (Like good theists, they left aside the exact definition of "God" for another day.) All those things I'm sure you would defend as secular, liberal, human rights require a creator. If you're just a smart ape (which is the only philosophical alternative to divine creation of some kind) why shouldn't you be governed by the law of the jungle?
Many secular humanists are quite ardent in their promotion of human rights (mostly to their credit, I say), but their beliefs on these subjects are built on sand. Steven Pinker desperately wants this not to be true, but absolute ethical standards require a transcendental source of some kind. Any moral standard defined by man, can be redefined by man, which means it can't be universally true. Human rights are only universal if they have a divine source of some kind.
You're absolutely right; you don't need God to realize that kids need a father figure, discipline or boundaries. But you do need him to defend your choices in those areas against the criticism of others. And if your answer is, "I shouldn't have to defend my choices because in a liberal society, people should be free to make different choices from each other" you have simply fallen back on the "my rights stop at your nose" argument, which just punts the ball to a different ethical question without solving anything.
To take a simple example: I can defend spanking children Biblically. I can also object to spanking children using the Bible (theologically, not as a paddle.) A theistic society would debate spanking that way: as an argument over the proper meaning of a divine rule or text. (Muslims societies debate wife beating exactly this way today.) However, how would a secular liberal argue for or against spanking in a way that might convince another secular liberal? JS Mill's "harm principle"? It doesn't work well in this case (is it more harmful to spank or allow bad behavior?) Utilitarianism? "I spank because it works" seems pretty illiberal to me. The secular liberal must fall back on either "I have a right to spank my kids because they're MY kids" or "you don't have a right to spank because society has decided it's wrong to hurt children." This again punts the ball, since it relies on defining who "owns" the kids, which is a whole other ethical question. This is why our modern political discussions go in circles; we're arguing within a secular liberal philosophy that is built on sand. And that's just 1 small example!
To be clear, I am NOT saying that atheists can't be good people or be kind or believe in the golden rule or donate to charity. But for an atheist, I believe all of those actions are simply a residual of 1700 years of Judeo-Christian Western cultural inertia. Wait another 100 years and many of those may well be discarded just like "sex should be within marriage". If you're just a smart ape, the golden rule is no more self evident than monogamy. And apes don't have charities.
Sorry for the long post and for delving into the weeds of philosophy, but you did ask. :-)
I've heard and read versions of this argument since I was a teenager (and a lifelong atheist). It's never convinced me, because as an atheist, I don't believe there actually IS a divine creator ... consequently, in my view, any rights or rules that a god-believing person believes to have been created, bestowed, or imposed on human beings by such a creator are *actually* rights or rules that have been created, bestowed, and imposed on human beings by other human beings (and only attributed to a human-constructed idea of "god"). Such rights and rules are therefore no functionally different from any other human-created and -dictated right or law.
It's always struck me that a great deal of religious law -- for example, the 6 of the 10 Commandments that don't focus on acknowledging the supremacy of the Christian God -- are simply basic "social contract"-type requirements that make it possible for human beings to live together in a civilized society without destroying one another. They are, simply put, necessary for a civilized society to exist.
This is presumably why variations on such laws tend to exist in ANY stable human society, whatever its underlying religion (if any at all).
I don't agree that any functional society somehow values such requirements less because its members believe themselves to be "smart apes" rather than "divinely created." In either case, the "true believers" (whether in the laws of their chosen religion or the laws of the society they were born into) submit to those rules for the same reasons: because they would rather adhere than risk punishment (by their creator or their rulers) and/or because they recognize that doing so helps to keep their community safer for themselves and everyone else. And in either case, the behavior of "rule breakers" (and "rule benders") is not constrained to any greater degree than the individual's fear of ultimately being held to account.
Pikay, I'll give you the same question I give my students: Is it wrong to beat up a 90 year old lady and steal her purse because it's illegal, or is it illegal because it's wrong? I'm sure you can see that this is a logical trap. If it's illegal because it's wrong, what makes it wrong? If it's wrong because it's illegal, then making it legal would also make it ethically right, which to most people (especially liberals) is an abhorrent conclusion.
If you have time, I would love to know how you personally would define "right" and "wrong" ethically? Can you define these universally? If so, how? If not, does the implied situational ethics bother you? Again, if you have the time. I'm not asking to try and convince you that I'm right, but to improve my ability to teach. I won't argue with you; I promise. :-)
No worries: I don’t mind being argued with. I have even (gasp!) been known to change my mind, from time to time, if I find an argument persuasive enough. :-)
I could attempt, as you have asked, to stumble my way into a definition of “right” and “wrong” -- but I know from many years of trying that I would not succeed in defining these words in any kind of universal, incontrovertible, agreeable-to-everyone-else sort of way (i.e., in a way that can be agreed to by all people across all cultures, religions, time periods, economic classes, education levels, types of brain chemistry, etc.). Whatever moral theory I might use to try justify my personal moral choices (e.g., “What’s wrong is whatever God says is wrong” or “What’s wrong is whatever feels wrong to me”) would immediately be rejected by someone else (e.g., “Why should *I* be bound by what YOUR God says is wrong? I don’t subscribe to your religion!” or “Why should *I* be constrained by YOUR feeling [for example, that eating animals is wrong]? I’m not a vegetarian!” and so on).
Leaving for the moment the question of whether something’s being “illegal” is the same as it being “wrong” (which I’ll address in a separate post), I wish I COULD say that I have stumbled onto the infallible, universal moral theory that has somehow eluded philosophers and ethicists over the whole of human history. But alas, no: I’m stuck with the same flawed, limited, and inherently self-contradictory moral theories everyone else is. With that in mind, let me frame my response to your scenario as best I can using some of the moral theories philosophers much smarter than me have articulated (and bear with me: College was a while ago).
First and foremost, yes: Beating up the 90-year-old lady and stealing her purse does indeed SEEM to me to be morally “wrong.”
But thinking that something is “wrong” is only the first, tiniest step to building a code of ethics. The much longer (and harder) step is to be able to articulate the answer to the question, why do I think this? Let me examine this through the lens of some of the better-known moral theories:
Cultural relativism: It’s not permissible FOR ME to beat the lady up and steal her purse because MY culture says it’s not permissible.
Religious authoritarianism: It’s not permissible because my God commands that I not beat people up and steal their purses. (For the sake of this exercise, let’s just ignore my being an atheist.)
Sentimentalism: It’s not permissible because the idea of beating and stealing from anyone fills me with an innate feeling of disapproval (i.e., it’s an act that I believe merits disapproval).
Utilitarianism: It’s not permissible because when I add up the total pain and pleasure that would result from the act to everyone involved, I conclude it would cause more pain than pleasure overall.
Kantianism: It’s not permissible because when I consider the act of beating people and stealing their purses, I realize I wouldn’t be willing, if I had the power to do so, to declare such an act a “universal law of nature” (i.e., a duty).
Natural rights theory: It’s not permissible because beating and stealing from the lady would violate her natural rights.
Ethics of care: It’s not permissible because beating and stealing are acts that damage rather than promoting relationships between people.
Virtue ethics: It’s not permissible because a virtuous person wouldn’t do it.
Biology/evolution-based morality: It’s not permissible because my genes have predisposed my brain to BELIEVE that it isn’t (my brain having evolved over millions of years of human history to favor and promote empathy for other people and a desire to cooperate with them, even at the expense of my own instantaneous gratification, because such behavior increases my tribe’s -- and my own -- chances of survival, procreation, and the further expression of the very genes that favor and promote such altruistic beliefs and behavior).
Egoism/objectivism: It’s not permissible because beating and stealing from this lady would be directly detrimental to my own best interests (which include not getting sent to prison for assault, battery, and theft).
Ethical reductionism/The Golden Rule: It’s not permissible to beat and steal from this lady because I wouldn’t want anyone to beat or steal from me.
And so on.
I’ve no doubt forgotten / left out some important theory or theories, but I believe any such omission to be essentially irrelevant. My point is that I can use any of the moral theories I’m at least vaguely familiar with to get myself to the same place in this instance (i.e., deciding that beating and stealing from the lady is morally wrong, entirely apart from whether or not it is also illegal).
The fact is, because human beings are WAY more adept at rationalizing their behavior than at behaving rationally, I may not myself, in spite of my best attempts and a genuine desire to know, actually UNDERSTAND why I believe that beating and stealing from the lady is morally wrong.
In fact, I could probably use some of the very same moral theories itemized above to reach exactly the opposite conclusion (i.e., that beating and stealing from this woman would be morally “right”). For example:
Cultural relativism: The act of beating this lady up and stealing her purse is permissible because, for the sake of argument in this scenario, I am a man … she and I live in a country that deems women property rather than human beings with rights equal to those of men … and that has declared it immoral AND illegal for women to walk about on the street or handle money as if they had just as much right to freedom of movement or financial autonomy as men … and that has encapsulated into both civil and religious law the right (or even obligation) of a man to “punish” or “correct” any woman who breaks this law by beating her and taking her money away from her.
Religious authoritarianism: The act of assaulting and stealing from this lady is permissible because, for the sake of argument in this scenario, this particular woman is an apostate of my specific religion, which commands that I am not only permitted but OBLIGATED to harm (perhaps even to kill) non-believers.
Utilitarianism: The act of assaulting and stealing from this lady is permissible because, for the sake of argument in this scenario, I must do exactly that in order to save the lives of 100,000 other people. I am an law enforcement agent and an explosive expert, and I have learned that a terrorist has slipped a vial of some really lethal and fast-spreading biological agent into this unsuspecting lady’s purse, and that it is connected to an explosive device that will cause the vial to break open and release its fast-acting, far-reaching poison in 2 minutes and result in the agonizing death of everyone within a 50-mile radius. Of course, I’d prefer just to explain the dire situation to the lady so that she releases her purse voluntarily, precluding any need on my part to violently rip her purse from her grasp to achieve the same end. But this particular 90-year-old lady is hard of hearing, or she doesn’t speak English, or she has some incipient dementia or other cognitive issue that will make it impossible to reason with her or to make her understand the dire urgency of the situation in time to prevent mass death. (Or perhaps I know that she herself IS the terrorist!) In this trolley-problem scenario, utilitarianism justifies my stealing her purse (and beating her if necessary to get her to let go of it) in order to try to ensure an outcome that results in the least amount of pain for the largest number of people.
Egoism: In the above scenario, egoism also justifies the act (since I am myself within a 50-mile radius of the woman and will die myself if I do not take her purse and diffuse the explosive device).
And so on.
Perhaps my instantaneous conclusion that beating and stealing from this woman would be “immoral” (or my subsequent imagined alternative justification of it as “moral”) stems from some poorly understood combination of these moral theories and facts, or from none of them. Perhaps all of the reasoning I’ve offered above is nothing more than my looking for an external way to justify an overwhelming personal moral certainty that actually derives from some other, not-yet-understood or -articulated moral theory or decision-making process.
Ironically, you just confirmed Euthyphro's Dilemma per Plato/Socrates: is it right/wrong because God says so, or does God say so because it is right/wrong? The former cannot be correct, as that would simply make God the biggest bully on the block (granted, it is a very big block, covering the entire universe). So if God really is omnibenevolent, the latter must be correct. But that would of course undercut your whole argument. Thus, as to define right and wrong ethically, one need not appeal to a divine command theory. The late ethicist James Rachels does an excellent job of defining the many alternative schools of thought to that, from egoism to relativism to utilitarianism to deontology to virtue ethics to care ethics to natural law theory and so on, and all the gray areas in between, and ultimately settles on what he calls "multiple strategies utilitarianism", as distinct from pure utilitarianism.
As for your example of beating up a 90 year old lady and stealing her purse, I would note that all of the aforementioned alternative schools of thought (except maybe pure egoism and pure relativism, and even then there is likely some debate) all agree that doing so is objectively very wrong indeed. And any attempt to rationalize doing so with situation ethics or whatever is disingenuous at best.
Religious moral standards also change over time. As an atheist, I would argue that this is because they are ALSO standards that are actually "defined" and "redefined" by man.
What do you say to the other 70%? Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. We can't used Christian bandaids on people who reject Christ. They will always rip them off.
I think that Confucianism is a "Strong God". The basic teachings of Confucianism do not contradict the teachings of Christianity. I believe that we should gain knowledge from multiple sources, mix and match to find the correct balance. If you just stick with one source of knowledge only, such as the Bible, it becomes stagnant and stale, which is what is happening with mainstream Judeo-Christian values.
Interesting points. I have no answers either. Church/synagogue attendance ebbs and flows. Covid has hurt the church. What will bring people back like 9/11/2001 did? Hopefully not a tragedy. As for those worshiping at the alter of woke? They won’t get what they’re searching for and will be canceled at some point.
I disagree about the no internet part. You can learn a lot of useful skills on the internet, such as programming, mathematics, and even DIY lifehacks, gardening, and philosophy. You just need to know where to look. YouTube is the best resource. Just search for "calculus full course" or "homesteading tips and tricks". Sometimes even Top Ten Universities publish their lectures on YouTube for free. My favorite is Physics by Walter Levin.
We were extremely strict about Internet usage prior to about 12. We've think we've lightened up as the girls have gotten older, but others might not see it.
I highly recommend a product called Kaspersky Kids for filtering. The kids computer is publicly located in the laundry room. (1 girl has a laptop for writing but it's air gapped, no Internet.) The kids know that we (in addition to Google) can see every search they make via Kaspersky. No social media accounts prior to 18. No even visiting soc media pages without permission. Youtube is now permitted for everyone though, but again, we need to know what you're doing. Oh, and no computer login between 8 PM and 7 AM. (So how does that compare with other people? You guys tell me, are we Internet fascists?)
I see so many 8 year olds with smartphones though, probably with raw, unfiltered connections on them. What are people thinking?
I use the internet all the time to learn something or to figure out how to do something.
The problem is that the vast majority of people use it less for that than for porn, Tik Tok, Twitter etc.
Had you asked me 20 yrs ago, I never would have said this, but I am at a point where I think we need real regulation of the internet. We really need to get the porn industry under control. Too many kids are getting exposed to evil stuff. There should be an age limit for social media, only 18 plus should be able to access it and we need to eliminate anonymity which is really bogus anyway, you are only anonymous to most people, the IP and the websites and government all know who you are. Be good to instill social accountability.
There is no technological hurdle to regulating porn -- 10 years as an IT consultant and distributed applications designer, I know of what I speak. The hurdle is entirely political. We CHOOSE not to regulate it.
I believe that has something to do with the wholesale embrace of "consequence free sex" by the 60's generation. Fundamentally, the same package that gets you no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, and gay marriage also contains unregulated pornography. They don't have to be a package deal, but the way they've been sold to Americans, they are.
To my comment above about smartphones. What age should you get your kid a smartphone? When you're ready for him to have access to unlimited pornography in his pocket.
You have to be very careful-one wrong search and you can and will go down the wrong rabbit hole into what is morally decadent, to use the least graphic adjectives available. You should never bring garbage into your house that belongs in a garbage can
Good article and I can't wait to read your book on the mental health crisis and how to fix it. Your book The Transgender Craze was a literal life saver for me. My daughter gave us her "coming out" letter in early Dec 2020 and within a day I had read the Kindle version, then later got the hard copy too. She had all the signs of being a radicalized ROGD kid. Your book, Lisa Littman's work, Gender, a wider lens podcast, all the detrans stories, have all helped me to function and given me a decent understanding of this phenomenon, guidance, and the confidence to trust my instincts as a parent. She has sort of desisted. Anything trans is still a touchy subject, but she does say that while she still identifies as trans, she has outgrown the "unhealthy mindset" that she had to conform to any standard of masculinity to be trans. Maybe in time I will understand more, but I have to take it easy on the topic. It has a left lasting impact on her, a malaise.... I get that she's a teenager, but she just still seems to have a very hopeless outlook on life. She's stopped saying "I'll be dead before I graduate anyway", I think that was from the irresponsible way suicide is used as a tool to scare gender questioning kid and their parents. We covered how there are ways to discuss suicide bc the wrong ways can actually increase the risks of it, it was in a different context, but hopefully she extrapolated. So that's good, but she has very little passion in life. I miss her spark. I'm not rich, I can't send her to another country, or even another county! Lol I try to get her to engage with any activity that keeps her grounded IRL and when that happens, it helps her outlook and demeanor, temporarily. I want to find her a good therapist to talk to for REAL exploratory talk therapy and support, but that's risky in the current affirmative climate. I have felt so alone and powerless... but having good ppl like you bringing these topics into the light helps so many - I know I'm not really alone. I love your mind! Hurry and help me figure out how to fix this lingering malaise!!
I am! You are absolutely 💯 spot on with that. 4th Wave too
I complain about Twitter, but I've come across many resources there, including some great substacks and YouTube content. And seen for myself the absolute ugliness of TRAs towards women and become more informed about the ramifications of the ideology to our rights.. When my daughter's out of the woods, as much as possible anyway, I still have a stake in this for the welfare of other children & young ppl and women's rights... I'm not going to concern myself with anonymity any longer though ;-)
It sounds like you are doing a phenomenal job in such a difficult situation. You write so lovingly and your daughter seems to be listening (even if, like most teenagers, she probably doesn’t want to give you credit for “outgrowing” certain ideas:). And fyi, my daughter is a licensed clinical child psychotherapist who does not do gender affirming work. I’m sure there are more like her out there - I’m wondering if it’s possible to find one?
Interesting. I'd never think to articulate it in this way, because I'm proud to be American and trying to raise my kids to feel the same. But I'm definitely one of the people Abigail describes here - newly homeschooling since Covid, focused on classical curriculum (teaching Latin, which I never learned). And trying my best to insulate my kids from poor outside influences. I worry a lot about the peers they will meet in their lives, who are growing up without respect for others, any critical thinking skills, and a lifetime of harmful "education" focused on pulling kids away from their families. I've been inspired by John Taylor Gatto's, though I can't say I really follow his approach, but his arguments about how abysmal the school systems have become hit home 100%. As well as his call to build independence in kids when they are quite young, vs infantilize them. Back to Abigail's main point here - I don't think of it as making my children less American, but knowing that our society truly hosts all types I've felt the split from those trying to make America into something else. Like so many things in America now, it's too difficult to land on one characterization of what it is to be American.
Do you watch The Reason We Learn on Youtube? You might like her channel. One of my favorites of hers is her reading of Gatto's book (it is in a few parts and not the entire thing and she adds her own commentary.
My son was in online school for years and I just started full homeschooling last year. I am also teaching him to be a proud American. Proud of what we were meant to be and the ideas that created it. Not so much the culture we have right now. Lol I think the idea of the US will return though. I have hope. My son is nothing like the kids with no manners, bad behavior, no respect, etc. He is smart, well behaved and well spoken, he thinks for himself, is not a follower, and is very respectful. I think having him doing school at home all these years and me knowing who the kids are that are influencing him plays a big part of that. Homeschooling will be the best decision you've ever made for your kids. Good for you for taking his education and well being so importantly. 👏🏻
Classics major here-went to public school and by the time I entered college I had years of Latin and 2 years of Greek. Did go to medical school yes, but I use my Greek/Latin and classical education every day.
English has borrowed a lot from Latin, but English is a Germanic language. Say unlike French, Spanish, Italian, and Romanian, which are the direct descendants of Latin.
Influence for sure. French speaking people conquered England in 1066, and England was a Roman colony after all. French was the language of the elite in England for a long time after 1066.
Vocabulary wise sure, English borrows from those languages.
Grammatically it's quite different. For example in Romance languages noun-adjective ordering is opposite from English, and nouns are gendered.
Oh, lol! Do love the gendered nouns though and how easily they are learned in childhood without confusing the actual gender of child. Wonder when people will break legs of tables and chairs when they are misgendered by foreign speakers.
This is no longer the case, but my kids were in a classical school for 10 years, and the focus on Latin I found to be largely very helpful. They go to a more traditional (yet roughly equal in rigor) private school now and all have excel in English and Latin there, and will likely find it helps any of them who go into healthcare.
Gosh Darn it the Truth Fairy has done it again. She doesn’t leave dimes for teeth, she tells us where the festering abscesses lie waiting. We have two sons, and while my wife was born in a different country and culture, I was a refugee from the Aquarian age of the 60s and the Summer of Love. I was like an Alex P. Keaton. I was determined to be square, and I also studied other cultures and languages. We did try to inject other languages into our family life. My grown sons can understand their mother’s dialect but they can barely speak it. We decided not to force them, but we tried hard to filter out most of American culture. No cable TV. Lots of books and art and music. Some sport, but I consider American sports to be corrupted by greed and other unhealthy things like ?envy? Anyway, they do have some anxiety but they both have a good work ethic, and the single consistent reflection we get is that they are the most polite young men that people meet. We did insist on respect. I am profoundly disappointed in the public schools. If I could do it over again I would have either worked another job to pay for private school or home schooled. I did have to home school one son in high school until we figured out that he could get a GED. What do I not like in public schools? 1. The curricula by committee 2. Training cubicle drones who are compliant and complacent 3. The racist and sexist special emphasis rainbow system of extra points for all but white males 4. The lack of caring about what the child is curious about and interested in 5. The intense pressure to be “gifted and talented” else you shall be a poor loser 6. The teacher has little authority to control the classroom, especially if the child is “underserved”…I could go on and on. I would leave if I could manage it or think of a place to go. There is no where to go. We have to reform this place.
Yes. However the internet and phone technology and culture has exacerbated the anxiety problem for all of us but especially our kids. I mentioned it because I still regret some of my decisions vis a vis my sons. Actually they both have a very healthy barrier to much of the negative. I have gradually learned to keep my cultural fomenting away from them. I talked at them way too much. I have toned it down. I also don’t share many links with them anymore. I am available to them but I have to wait for them to ask. We struggled not to hover. We often did. I know now I should have focused on hiking and fishing with them.
Absolutely! And I know this but was already an introvert before the inter webs!!! So It’s hard for me to set a good example. I struggle with small talk but I try to help my neighbors when I can. I am also learning Spanish, not that it’s relevant to your observation, but I want to know them better and I want to do volunteer work with them. I have had a few experiences with poor Latins and I enjoyed them but knew I can do more with a poquito mas lingo.
The problem in a nutshell is that our “leaders” in higher education as well as our cultural icons from the sports and entertainment worlds have been riding the wave of America-bashing because it plays well among the pseudo-intellectual liberal class. Think of Obama’s erstwhile spiritual mentor, a minister, who announced loudly, “Not God bless America, God damn America!”
The mind set from grade school to university and in most print and electronic media outlets is that America is passé, it’s racist, misogynist and worse.
They have un-learned history. They have been taught a revisionist, Marxist view of society. They will continue to destroy, for this is all they know how to do. There is a baby & bath water analogy here.
The only remedy is to focus on genuine learning, tossing the touchy-feely efforts to create “safe spaces” and tolerance for everyone and everything, which leads to chaos.
Rational thought must trump “diversity”, particularly when diversity has taken on an Orwellian tone, where all animals are diverse, but some are more diverse than others. There are in fact “good ideas” and “bad ideas”. Praising diversity in ethnicity, provenance, skin color, sexual-orientation, gender-identity, religious affiliation, etc., while squelching debate on certain topics or viewpoints [as these are considered “triggers”) is one such example of a very bad idea.
Democracy and the marketplace (including free speech!) help us filter the good from the bad. Most ideas are mediocre, some are really good. And some are really bad. And if we can’t (or are afraid to) debate some “hot-iron” subjects, we will all be worse off for it. Shame on the cowards who know better, but don’t want to stand out in the crowd as “non-compliant”. Instead, they’ve become complicit.
Until the US Citizenry re-discovers what made America unique (de-Tocqueville’s 19th C observations) and returns to its roots regarding freedom of speech, accountability of public leaders and critical thought, the downward spiral will continue. This is an existential crisis.
The natural law philosophy that forms the basis of Enlightenment liberalism relies on a Judeo-Christian philosophy: "Man created by god with rights" = natural law liberalism; "Smart ape" = law of the jungle. If this rubs someone the wrong way, you're in good company. I teach HS civics and it rubs my students the wrong way too. In fact, they hate it and argue against it relentlessly. But it's 100% true. You can't get to "all men are created equal" if man is defined as "just a smart ape".
So how are Americans supposed to rediscover "what made America unique" when 70% of our citizens reject the religious underpinnings of that uniqueness?
It's very hard to argue with people that think that Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" is an unbiased telling of the "real" history of the US.
Zinn's most noted work is presented often amongst educated liberal circles as an eminent work on the failure of the American experiment and in his writing of it Zinn has stated he desired to "start a quiet revolution."
So, concisely, I was agreeing with you and pointing out that it is difficult, and nearly impossible, to "debate some “hot-iron” subjects" because there exists in our Nation a group of highly educated, highly devout, and uproariously hostile adults who cling to comforting but egregiously biased information as sacred fact.
Well put. 👏🏻👏🏻 Yes, history has a revisionist Marxist view. It has a Zinnified view. Howard Zinn created a lot of the false narrative that has been used to indoctrinate people into hating their own country. For decades, his books have polluted our schools and minds. Read Debunking Zinn by Mary Grabar.
Classical Education is American Education. Learning Latin and Greek gives you an amazing understanding of English and is the way the founders learned. Teaching Latin and Greek as part of a classical education is Very different than sending your kids to Spanish or Japanese Immersion school.
I would argue Classical Education is the MOST American way to educate your Children. The Public school model we employ and championed by Horace Mann is designed on the Prussian model which is a very serious issue for our childrens capacity for free thought
Interesting observations. While I see this as a continuation of the trend away from the public school system (to more private-, or charter-schools, to home-schooling, to smaller classes, focused on the needs of the students (as opposed to the desires of the teachers)), I see a separate aspect here as well: the apparent ascribing of importance to other cultures (even ‘exotic’ ones), despite the parents themselves having little or no connection to the same.
This is different than sending your children to take violin or tennis lessons, even if the parents only played the recorder or baseball. The provocative suggestion in the highlight, a desire to ‘distance’ one’s family from the rest of their countrymen, may explain part of it. But I think there’s more to it: a growing realization that the American education “system” (including the ex-curricula ‘social life’) is not bringing children to a point where they are prepared for the “real world”, nor it is conducive to their offspring achieving their personal potential in a broad holistic sense: academic, cultural, spiritual, emotional, social.
Perhaps some of the Chinese or Japanese immersion, absent any cultural or personal connection is akin to sending one’s three year old to ballet, polo or fencing classes (I.e., aspiration by the parents to elevate their social standing vicariously through their offspring), but equally possible is the realization by more and more individuals that their non-American counterparts are, broadly speaking, better educated, better equipped and less susceptible to clichés & group think.
In short, the American education system is failing its students. And people are realizing it.
My wife is the child of Filipino 1st gen immigrants. We came to the conclusion that American culture was increasingly rotten (actually an anti-culture, since it actively seeks to tear down instead of build) and it was not possible to be counter-cultural within the public school. And my wife is a public school teacher!
We have 3 kids, and private was financially out of reach. So we started home educating 9 years ago. There are real pluses and minuses -- the "socialization" thing mostly a red herring, but not completely and HS lab science is tough. However the relationships that have come out of that have been the greatest joy. Would have happened with private school? I'm uncertain.
When I give talks about home education, I tell people, "You will start homeschooling for lots of reasons: academic, religious, cultural, linguistic, special needs, etc... but you won't keep homeschooling for those reasons.. If you stick it out through high school, it will be because of the relationship that comes out of it. You will reach a point that you can't imagine turning over the best 7 hours of the day to someone you barely know."
The only way out is a homeschooling, and not just any homeschooling, but one founded on conservative "Old World" values, such as the traditional Asian culture, and also focused on subjects that would be practically useful in life, such as DIY lifehacks, hunting and fishing, homesteading, GMOs and pesticides, STEM curriculum such as programming and mathematics, and personal finance. Childhood and adolescence is for learning all the skills that you'll need in your life, not for having fun. The more you can teach your kids, the better they can get ahead and go around others in life.
In my adolescence I learned programming and mathematics using Khan Academy on the internet. I now work as a web developer, and make way more money than the average American resident in my area. Believe me, practically useful skills are worth more than money in the bank.
Absolutely spot-on! It’s truly a sad, desperate state of affairs when American parents feel so overwhelmingly compelled, so disaffected by the powers that be in US schooling and overall zeitgeist writ large here that they have to send their child to a foreign language immersion school on the slim chance that in so doing it will somehow bring back the traditional role of parental respect and authority present 30 years ago!
Buckle up kiddos and for the love of everything that’s holy, righteous, true and honorable VOTE straight Conservative Republican across the board in EVERY dadgum election going forward! I don’t care how much you hate this or that about Conservatives! These are OUR children that these evil parasites on the Left are championing hacking sexual body parts off on a whim, sterilizing with puberty blockers, chemically castrating with Lupron the drug given to serial rapists, convincing our kids they can just randomly change their gender and brainwashing the children to ignore their parents’ authority! I could go on and on but you’ll NEVER see any of this sick, twisted madness happening from the Right....EVER!
Women will NEVER get pregnant and a boy will always have XY chromosomes and a girl XX. Period!
This dark black cloud of ‘woke’ gender theory, pro-BLM, anti-police, Marxist ESG(environmental, social, governance) crazed DA’s making criminals the victims, SEL(social emotional learning) are all evil existential threats to both us now but the entire lineage of our families for the rest of time! The most effective way you can exorcise this rapidly growing cancer from our society is to vote like hell in every election from local school board to sheriffs to DA’s to Congress to President - EVERY position matters starting at the bottom most importantly!
Again, vote in EVERY election from bottom to top like your, your children’s and your grandchildren’s lives depend on it.......CAUSE THEY DO!
I am a mom to 9 year old twins. I can't tell you how hard it is to find families to socialize with who hold our same values. Our children go to a parochial school, and have for the last 6 years of their life. The disengagement we see in parents is extraordinary. My husband and I are first generation Americans, and we are raising our children in an old school fashion. They do not get an allowance for chores, they are expected to help around the house, they are bilingual (as are we), they don't have phones or tablets, we make them play outside and instill in them a high value for education, not just in the academic sense but also in the common. We eat dinners as a family to discuss our day and talk all the time. We have not put a heavy emphasis on extra carriculars to this point because we feel that cultivating their souls and moral code is much more important. We feel alone in many ways but have found one family that is similar to us. The rest have decided that phones, tablets and games are a much easier way to raise their children. Seeing the effects of this is very sad for us but the reality is, there is very little one can do modify this behavior. A friend recently stopped taking to me after I told her that giving her 10 year old a phone with social media had been a bad decision on her part.
I agree it was a bad decision on her part, but did she ask your opinion on it? Parents, especially mothers, frequently deal with so much criticism from the people around them, and people feel comfortable giving them unsolicited advice in a way that can make parents feel perpetually scrutinized and judged. If she didn't ask for your opinion, and if her child's phone use hadn't directly affected your child, I don't blame her for stepping back from the friendship.
It did initially since she was attempting to have my kids create a Facebook kids messenger account. We were having a discussion about phones and kids mental health and while I may have stepped out of line, I care a lot about her child having taken care of her consistently for the first three years of her life. I understand what you're saying but there are serious consequences to these actions and sometimes the hardest truths are the most necessary to hear. While I lament the loss of our friendship, I do not regret giving the advice.
As a recent immigrant (late 20s) now working overseas my kids are in dual language household where I speak foreign language most of the time while my husband (American born) sticks to English. We sent our 7 year old to my parents in Europe for seven weeks six of which he spent in the local school/summer camp (stem, crafts, golf, horseback riding, hiking, museum and other cultural visits). Grandparents’ English is basic so he quickly switched to local and made lots of friends at camp in addition to the ones he made when we spent three years working in the country (local Montessori had instruction in English, German, and local language).
Sorry to say but a nation that permits itself to be ruled by a palpably senile and corrupt imbecile is no longer a serious nation. A nation that permits a sitting US senator to warn “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” is no longer a nation that values or cares about truth or liberty. A nation that permits its youth to be inundated with filth and depravity is not a nation that values its children. Isn't it long past time we all grew up and started acting like adults? And smiting the left that is composed of nothing but churlish, big and ugly children who never grew up.
I'm a first gen American, my wife is from a lower income family. Since I'm in the military our kids started school in Japan and the international schools there. Once we got back to the states we looked forward to putting our kids into the public school system, as we're both successful products of the turn of the century public schools in Texas. I went to one School Board meeting at our new duty station in Fairfax county, VA and we are no longer a public school family.
This is fascinating. My husband and I are both immigrants and fear generational decline in our children. I can’t emulate the home I grew up in as my parents wanted me to integrate fully into American society. Lately I’ve noticed so many of my friends trying to get citizenship in Europe or their grandparents’ countries in case they need to leave, digging up old birth certificates and hoping it will be enough. I always loved this country but even we have been discussing where else we might need to go. It breaks my heart but what you say about American kids (and the adults they grow into) is very true.
Such an interesting article. My son recently graduated from an all boys boarding school where upwards of 40% of the students are foreign born. My husband and I pulled him out of the local highly-regarded public high school which was providing a poor education before COVID and no education after, hoping to give him a better education (i.e., one where he actually learned something and where he wasn’t penalized for having opinions). We got that and more. Our son was happy, engaged, made friends quickly and maintained A averages in all of his classes. We found ourselves hosting many of his friends at our house over long weekends. These boys came from all over the world - Kenya, Spain, Germany, Israel, Guatemala, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, China, Mexico, England - and most were from poor or modest backgrounds but they all shared the common trait of being decent people. Unlike the students at our local public high school, the students at the private school were kind, friendly and driven. Our son thrived in this environment. In our private discussions, my husband and I concluded that the influence of the foreign students at this school took the negative culture of American schools out of this school. It was refreshing!!! I put this out there for anyone reading this article who may be looking for education alternatives for their children - you don’t have to send your children to a foreign country to get the benefits of removing them from an American culture gone awry. There are options in the US.
Time to get back to basics with children…the leftist ideology has infiltrated every aspect of society- which includes undermining the authority of family and trying to destroy it. They want the children. That is why there is such a push against men in society, they are traditionally the protectors of society and family, leftist don’t want any man standing up to all of nonsense. Susan
Bizarre mention of Aliyah in this article without mention of the Hebrew language. Most American Jews teach their children the Hebrew language at least up until and including their Bar or Bat Mitzvah where they can read out of the Torah directly. As far as Aliyah, don’t know why you inserted it here, but many Jews who make Aliyah have some knowledge of Hebrew when thy become Israeli citizens so this is an a GOOD example of Americans teaching children a foreign language connected to their heritage.
On a personal note, my daughter learned Latin. I thought it would serve her well to know the roots of the English language.
Learning another language is good for the brain. Even learning to read music at a young age. Try learning French at 40.
If you read today's article on Bari Weiss's Common Sense substack, the reason for mentioning Aliyah will be clear. Abigail and Bari tend to collaborate.
God and Daddies. No internet. No TV. Lots of fresh air, bikes, swing set and creek time. Parents who are present. Consistent expectations and discipline. Church. In small town, rural Alabama you don’t have to worry about the schools. Put in the hard days when you’ve said “no” a million times and disciplined till you feel like a heel and one day you’ll look up and realize you’ve done it: you’ve raised respectful, respected children.
Orthodox Jewish families that prioritize the transmission of their values to the next generation minimize internet and social media exposure, make sure that dad and mom act as religious role models send their kids to an extensive educational network that combines religious studies and secular studies and camp in the summer where what a student studies is translated into reality together with older children helping and serving as role models for younger siblings That, and a lot of prayer for spiritual success as parents, is the roadmap
The orthodox Jewish family values is so strong. I live it with my sons in Israel who have adopted the lifestyle. The men in Yeshivas have taught my sons how to be exemplary fathers and family men ( something I believe their father did not do) and their orthodox wives have a joyful home. They fill their homes with children, spirality, certain strictness, weekly Shabbat. As always, children are our greatest teachers.
The Orthodox Jews need to learn how to preserve their culture, and not succumb to the liberalism which is prevalent in the State of Israel and other western countries. Tel Aviv is basically a carbon copy of Los Angeles.
In Israel it is said that in Tel Aviv they play Jerusalem they pray and in Haifa they work
Jersusalem is not
Fascinating. Correct. Hence my isolation from some Jewish American relatives ( support BDS, free Palestinian) yet sent children on Birthright. Wish I can continue all these conversations in person.
anyone can send their kid to Birthright. And why not? It is free.
I know of a case where a Jewish father sent his non-Jewish child on a BR trip.
There is a fierce resistance because the UK and NYS educational authorities have zero respect for Orthodox Jewish cultural autonomy. This is an issue that will play itself out in the courts if necessary. The Modern Orthodox world is mistaken in thinking that this issue does not affect their schools
Wasn’t YU forced to have an LGBTQ lounge or club?
Yes-But YU is appealing and the case may wind up being decided by SCOTUS -the conservative majority may view what happens on the ground as being far more important than the terms of YU's charter
Good to hear.
Bh
Excellent!
"The road to victory is through debunking the ideology we are fighting."
I very much agree with this, "Not-even-Jewish LM"
The silence of the MO establishment on this issue is deafening
they will vote for whoever promises the most freebies
I shouldn't have brought it up. Sorry
If there is no father, find stand in. A man who will be a role model.
True, there’s nary a child that can grow up properly in a household without a strong, involved father figure. Are there occasional aberrations where a single mom raises a superhero? Sure….but a whole helluva lotta other stuff had to fall into place just perfectly to compensate for that missing Dad!
I raised two kids as s single mother -- and it was a tough slog. The first one, I tried to keep my journalism career going the other, I stayed home for a few years and wrote a book while he was sleeping. Guess which one struggles less? Number 2.
On the flip side - I grew up with a violent father and wish my mother had had the courage to leave.
Time, attention, living in service of your family and yes, well-adjusted fathers are the answer.
I agree with you Stanley, but as actively practicing Christians, you and I are at most a 30% minority in America today. So what do we say to the other 70% (for all I know, perhaps Abigail herself) who do not believe the truth claims of the Church?
RR Reno a few years ago wrote an essay on First Things calls Strong Gods and Weak Gods. He believes secular liberalism is a weak god. It defines a set of rules for efficiently managing society, but offers nothing about how we ought to live. But humans want rules and structure. Most men NEED rules and structure to function well, and if the dominant ideology of the day won't provide them, they will look for a new ideology that will. Enter wokeness (of which trans is a part), which is a strong god with a clearly defined value system and set of behavioral norms. The fact that those norms and values are truly warped (from a Judeo-Christian / Enlightenment perspective) is beside the point. They are hard values, and secular liberalism's answer to any value system ("do what you want until someone else's nose intervenes") can't stand up to them.
So what can those of us who are Christian offer to help those who are not to escape from this trap? Is there anything available that could be a rival Strong God? (Other than ethno-nationalism, which is just another form of wokeness.) Can we pull people back to a liberal-Enlightenment understanding of the world without the Judeo-Christian philosophy (natural law, etc...) on which the Enlightenment was originally based? I really don't know the answer and would love to hear what others think.
Well, I'm a secular humanist, atheist, and probably you would call me liberal, although I'm not American so it's a bit more complicated. It's a great article, but really, I don't need God to tell me that kids need a father figure, discipline and boundaries. I'm not sure why you think that's incompatible with "secular liberalism".
This will teach you never to ask a HS philosophy and civics teacher why he believes something. :-)
Enlightenment liberalism is based on a theistic architecture. Hence, Locke and Jefferson can say "humans are endowed with rights". Who endowed them? God did. (Like good theists, they left aside the exact definition of "God" for another day.) All those things I'm sure you would defend as secular, liberal, human rights require a creator. If you're just a smart ape (which is the only philosophical alternative to divine creation of some kind) why shouldn't you be governed by the law of the jungle?
Many secular humanists are quite ardent in their promotion of human rights (mostly to their credit, I say), but their beliefs on these subjects are built on sand. Steven Pinker desperately wants this not to be true, but absolute ethical standards require a transcendental source of some kind. Any moral standard defined by man, can be redefined by man, which means it can't be universally true. Human rights are only universal if they have a divine source of some kind.
You're absolutely right; you don't need God to realize that kids need a father figure, discipline or boundaries. But you do need him to defend your choices in those areas against the criticism of others. And if your answer is, "I shouldn't have to defend my choices because in a liberal society, people should be free to make different choices from each other" you have simply fallen back on the "my rights stop at your nose" argument, which just punts the ball to a different ethical question without solving anything.
To take a simple example: I can defend spanking children Biblically. I can also object to spanking children using the Bible (theologically, not as a paddle.) A theistic society would debate spanking that way: as an argument over the proper meaning of a divine rule or text. (Muslims societies debate wife beating exactly this way today.) However, how would a secular liberal argue for or against spanking in a way that might convince another secular liberal? JS Mill's "harm principle"? It doesn't work well in this case (is it more harmful to spank or allow bad behavior?) Utilitarianism? "I spank because it works" seems pretty illiberal to me. The secular liberal must fall back on either "I have a right to spank my kids because they're MY kids" or "you don't have a right to spank because society has decided it's wrong to hurt children." This again punts the ball, since it relies on defining who "owns" the kids, which is a whole other ethical question. This is why our modern political discussions go in circles; we're arguing within a secular liberal philosophy that is built on sand. And that's just 1 small example!
To be clear, I am NOT saying that atheists can't be good people or be kind or believe in the golden rule or donate to charity. But for an atheist, I believe all of those actions are simply a residual of 1700 years of Judeo-Christian Western cultural inertia. Wait another 100 years and many of those may well be discarded just like "sex should be within marriage". If you're just a smart ape, the golden rule is no more self evident than monogamy. And apes don't have charities.
Sorry for the long post and for delving into the weeds of philosophy, but you did ask. :-)
I've heard and read versions of this argument since I was a teenager (and a lifelong atheist). It's never convinced me, because as an atheist, I don't believe there actually IS a divine creator ... consequently, in my view, any rights or rules that a god-believing person believes to have been created, bestowed, or imposed on human beings by such a creator are *actually* rights or rules that have been created, bestowed, and imposed on human beings by other human beings (and only attributed to a human-constructed idea of "god"). Such rights and rules are therefore no functionally different from any other human-created and -dictated right or law.
It's always struck me that a great deal of religious law -- for example, the 6 of the 10 Commandments that don't focus on acknowledging the supremacy of the Christian God -- are simply basic "social contract"-type requirements that make it possible for human beings to live together in a civilized society without destroying one another. They are, simply put, necessary for a civilized society to exist.
This is presumably why variations on such laws tend to exist in ANY stable human society, whatever its underlying religion (if any at all).
I don't agree that any functional society somehow values such requirements less because its members believe themselves to be "smart apes" rather than "divinely created." In either case, the "true believers" (whether in the laws of their chosen religion or the laws of the society they were born into) submit to those rules for the same reasons: because they would rather adhere than risk punishment (by their creator or their rulers) and/or because they recognize that doing so helps to keep their community safer for themselves and everyone else. And in either case, the behavior of "rule breakers" (and "rule benders") is not constrained to any greater degree than the individual's fear of ultimately being held to account.
Pikay, I'll give you the same question I give my students: Is it wrong to beat up a 90 year old lady and steal her purse because it's illegal, or is it illegal because it's wrong? I'm sure you can see that this is a logical trap. If it's illegal because it's wrong, what makes it wrong? If it's wrong because it's illegal, then making it legal would also make it ethically right, which to most people (especially liberals) is an abhorrent conclusion.
If you have time, I would love to know how you personally would define "right" and "wrong" ethically? Can you define these universally? If so, how? If not, does the implied situational ethics bother you? Again, if you have the time. I'm not asking to try and convince you that I'm right, but to improve my ability to teach. I won't argue with you; I promise. :-)
No worries: I don’t mind being argued with. I have even (gasp!) been known to change my mind, from time to time, if I find an argument persuasive enough. :-)
I could attempt, as you have asked, to stumble my way into a definition of “right” and “wrong” -- but I know from many years of trying that I would not succeed in defining these words in any kind of universal, incontrovertible, agreeable-to-everyone-else sort of way (i.e., in a way that can be agreed to by all people across all cultures, religions, time periods, economic classes, education levels, types of brain chemistry, etc.). Whatever moral theory I might use to try justify my personal moral choices (e.g., “What’s wrong is whatever God says is wrong” or “What’s wrong is whatever feels wrong to me”) would immediately be rejected by someone else (e.g., “Why should *I* be bound by what YOUR God says is wrong? I don’t subscribe to your religion!” or “Why should *I* be constrained by YOUR feeling [for example, that eating animals is wrong]? I’m not a vegetarian!” and so on).
Leaving for the moment the question of whether something’s being “illegal” is the same as it being “wrong” (which I’ll address in a separate post), I wish I COULD say that I have stumbled onto the infallible, universal moral theory that has somehow eluded philosophers and ethicists over the whole of human history. But alas, no: I’m stuck with the same flawed, limited, and inherently self-contradictory moral theories everyone else is. With that in mind, let me frame my response to your scenario as best I can using some of the moral theories philosophers much smarter than me have articulated (and bear with me: College was a while ago).
First and foremost, yes: Beating up the 90-year-old lady and stealing her purse does indeed SEEM to me to be morally “wrong.”
But thinking that something is “wrong” is only the first, tiniest step to building a code of ethics. The much longer (and harder) step is to be able to articulate the answer to the question, why do I think this? Let me examine this through the lens of some of the better-known moral theories:
Cultural relativism: It’s not permissible FOR ME to beat the lady up and steal her purse because MY culture says it’s not permissible.
Religious authoritarianism: It’s not permissible because my God commands that I not beat people up and steal their purses. (For the sake of this exercise, let’s just ignore my being an atheist.)
Sentimentalism: It’s not permissible because the idea of beating and stealing from anyone fills me with an innate feeling of disapproval (i.e., it’s an act that I believe merits disapproval).
Utilitarianism: It’s not permissible because when I add up the total pain and pleasure that would result from the act to everyone involved, I conclude it would cause more pain than pleasure overall.
Kantianism: It’s not permissible because when I consider the act of beating people and stealing their purses, I realize I wouldn’t be willing, if I had the power to do so, to declare such an act a “universal law of nature” (i.e., a duty).
Natural rights theory: It’s not permissible because beating and stealing from the lady would violate her natural rights.
Ethics of care: It’s not permissible because beating and stealing are acts that damage rather than promoting relationships between people.
Virtue ethics: It’s not permissible because a virtuous person wouldn’t do it.
Biology/evolution-based morality: It’s not permissible because my genes have predisposed my brain to BELIEVE that it isn’t (my brain having evolved over millions of years of human history to favor and promote empathy for other people and a desire to cooperate with them, even at the expense of my own instantaneous gratification, because such behavior increases my tribe’s -- and my own -- chances of survival, procreation, and the further expression of the very genes that favor and promote such altruistic beliefs and behavior).
Egoism/objectivism: It’s not permissible because beating and stealing from this lady would be directly detrimental to my own best interests (which include not getting sent to prison for assault, battery, and theft).
Ethical reductionism/The Golden Rule: It’s not permissible to beat and steal from this lady because I wouldn’t want anyone to beat or steal from me.
And so on.
I’ve no doubt forgotten / left out some important theory or theories, but I believe any such omission to be essentially irrelevant. My point is that I can use any of the moral theories I’m at least vaguely familiar with to get myself to the same place in this instance (i.e., deciding that beating and stealing from the lady is morally wrong, entirely apart from whether or not it is also illegal).
The fact is, because human beings are WAY more adept at rationalizing their behavior than at behaving rationally, I may not myself, in spite of my best attempts and a genuine desire to know, actually UNDERSTAND why I believe that beating and stealing from the lady is morally wrong.
In fact, I could probably use some of the very same moral theories itemized above to reach exactly the opposite conclusion (i.e., that beating and stealing from this woman would be morally “right”). For example:
Cultural relativism: The act of beating this lady up and stealing her purse is permissible because, for the sake of argument in this scenario, I am a man … she and I live in a country that deems women property rather than human beings with rights equal to those of men … and that has declared it immoral AND illegal for women to walk about on the street or handle money as if they had just as much right to freedom of movement or financial autonomy as men … and that has encapsulated into both civil and religious law the right (or even obligation) of a man to “punish” or “correct” any woman who breaks this law by beating her and taking her money away from her.
Religious authoritarianism: The act of assaulting and stealing from this lady is permissible because, for the sake of argument in this scenario, this particular woman is an apostate of my specific religion, which commands that I am not only permitted but OBLIGATED to harm (perhaps even to kill) non-believers.
Utilitarianism: The act of assaulting and stealing from this lady is permissible because, for the sake of argument in this scenario, I must do exactly that in order to save the lives of 100,000 other people. I am an law enforcement agent and an explosive expert, and I have learned that a terrorist has slipped a vial of some really lethal and fast-spreading biological agent into this unsuspecting lady’s purse, and that it is connected to an explosive device that will cause the vial to break open and release its fast-acting, far-reaching poison in 2 minutes and result in the agonizing death of everyone within a 50-mile radius. Of course, I’d prefer just to explain the dire situation to the lady so that she releases her purse voluntarily, precluding any need on my part to violently rip her purse from her grasp to achieve the same end. But this particular 90-year-old lady is hard of hearing, or she doesn’t speak English, or she has some incipient dementia or other cognitive issue that will make it impossible to reason with her or to make her understand the dire urgency of the situation in time to prevent mass death. (Or perhaps I know that she herself IS the terrorist!) In this trolley-problem scenario, utilitarianism justifies my stealing her purse (and beating her if necessary to get her to let go of it) in order to try to ensure an outcome that results in the least amount of pain for the largest number of people.
Egoism: In the above scenario, egoism also justifies the act (since I am myself within a 50-mile radius of the woman and will die myself if I do not take her purse and diffuse the explosive device).
And so on.
Perhaps my instantaneous conclusion that beating and stealing from this woman would be “immoral” (or my subsequent imagined alternative justification of it as “moral”) stems from some poorly understood combination of these moral theories and facts, or from none of them. Perhaps all of the reasoning I’ve offered above is nothing more than my looking for an external way to justify an overwhelming personal moral certainty that actually derives from some other, not-yet-understood or -articulated moral theory or decision-making process.
Ironically, you just confirmed Euthyphro's Dilemma per Plato/Socrates: is it right/wrong because God says so, or does God say so because it is right/wrong? The former cannot be correct, as that would simply make God the biggest bully on the block (granted, it is a very big block, covering the entire universe). So if God really is omnibenevolent, the latter must be correct. But that would of course undercut your whole argument. Thus, as to define right and wrong ethically, one need not appeal to a divine command theory. The late ethicist James Rachels does an excellent job of defining the many alternative schools of thought to that, from egoism to relativism to utilitarianism to deontology to virtue ethics to care ethics to natural law theory and so on, and all the gray areas in between, and ultimately settles on what he calls "multiple strategies utilitarianism", as distinct from pure utilitarianism.
As for your example of beating up a 90 year old lady and stealing her purse, I would note that all of the aforementioned alternative schools of thought (except maybe pure egoism and pure relativism, and even then there is likely some debate) all agree that doing so is objectively very wrong indeed. And any attempt to rationalize doing so with situation ethics or whatever is disingenuous at best.
(Mic drop)
Any moral standard defined by man, can be redefined by man, which means it can't be universally true. - Wholeheartedly agree.
Religious moral standards also change over time. As an atheist, I would argue that this is because they are ALSO standards that are actually "defined" and "redefined" by man.
What do you say to the other 70%? Repent and believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved. We can't used Christian bandaids on people who reject Christ. They will always rip them off.
I think that Confucianism is a "Strong God". The basic teachings of Confucianism do not contradict the teachings of Christianity. I believe that we should gain knowledge from multiple sources, mix and match to find the correct balance. If you just stick with one source of knowledge only, such as the Bible, it becomes stagnant and stale, which is what is happening with mainstream Judeo-Christian values.
Interesting points. I have no answers either. Church/synagogue attendance ebbs and flows. Covid has hurt the church. What will bring people back like 9/11/2001 did? Hopefully not a tragedy. As for those worshiping at the alter of woke? They won’t get what they’re searching for and will be canceled at some point.
You’re DADGUM right!
I disagree about the no internet part. You can learn a lot of useful skills on the internet, such as programming, mathematics, and even DIY lifehacks, gardening, and philosophy. You just need to know where to look. YouTube is the best resource. Just search for "calculus full course" or "homesteading tips and tricks". Sometimes even Top Ten Universities publish their lectures on YouTube for free. My favorite is Physics by Walter Levin.
We were extremely strict about Internet usage prior to about 12. We've think we've lightened up as the girls have gotten older, but others might not see it.
I highly recommend a product called Kaspersky Kids for filtering. The kids computer is publicly located in the laundry room. (1 girl has a laptop for writing but it's air gapped, no Internet.) The kids know that we (in addition to Google) can see every search they make via Kaspersky. No social media accounts prior to 18. No even visiting soc media pages without permission. Youtube is now permitted for everyone though, but again, we need to know what you're doing. Oh, and no computer login between 8 PM and 7 AM. (So how does that compare with other people? You guys tell me, are we Internet fascists?)
I see so many 8 year olds with smartphones though, probably with raw, unfiltered connections on them. What are people thinking?
I do not disagree in principle.
I use the internet all the time to learn something or to figure out how to do something.
The problem is that the vast majority of people use it less for that than for porn, Tik Tok, Twitter etc.
Had you asked me 20 yrs ago, I never would have said this, but I am at a point where I think we need real regulation of the internet. We really need to get the porn industry under control. Too many kids are getting exposed to evil stuff. There should be an age limit for social media, only 18 plus should be able to access it and we need to eliminate anonymity which is really bogus anyway, you are only anonymous to most people, the IP and the websites and government all know who you are. Be good to instill social accountability.
There is no technological hurdle to regulating porn -- 10 years as an IT consultant and distributed applications designer, I know of what I speak. The hurdle is entirely political. We CHOOSE not to regulate it.
I believe that has something to do with the wholesale embrace of "consequence free sex" by the 60's generation. Fundamentally, the same package that gets you no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, and gay marriage also contains unregulated pornography. They don't have to be a package deal, but the way they've been sold to Americans, they are.
To my comment above about smartphones. What age should you get your kid a smartphone? When you're ready for him to have access to unlimited pornography in his pocket.
You have to be very careful-one wrong search and you can and will go down the wrong rabbit hole into what is morally decadent, to use the least graphic adjectives available. You should never bring garbage into your house that belongs in a garbage can
Good article and I can't wait to read your book on the mental health crisis and how to fix it. Your book The Transgender Craze was a literal life saver for me. My daughter gave us her "coming out" letter in early Dec 2020 and within a day I had read the Kindle version, then later got the hard copy too. She had all the signs of being a radicalized ROGD kid. Your book, Lisa Littman's work, Gender, a wider lens podcast, all the detrans stories, have all helped me to function and given me a decent understanding of this phenomenon, guidance, and the confidence to trust my instincts as a parent. She has sort of desisted. Anything trans is still a touchy subject, but she does say that while she still identifies as trans, she has outgrown the "unhealthy mindset" that she had to conform to any standard of masculinity to be trans. Maybe in time I will understand more, but I have to take it easy on the topic. It has a left lasting impact on her, a malaise.... I get that she's a teenager, but she just still seems to have a very hopeless outlook on life. She's stopped saying "I'll be dead before I graduate anyway", I think that was from the irresponsible way suicide is used as a tool to scare gender questioning kid and their parents. We covered how there are ways to discuss suicide bc the wrong ways can actually increase the risks of it, it was in a different context, but hopefully she extrapolated. So that's good, but she has very little passion in life. I miss her spark. I'm not rich, I can't send her to another country, or even another county! Lol I try to get her to engage with any activity that keeps her grounded IRL and when that happens, it helps her outlook and demeanor, temporarily. I want to find her a good therapist to talk to for REAL exploratory talk therapy and support, but that's risky in the current affirmative climate. I have felt so alone and powerless... but having good ppl like you bringing these topics into the light helps so many - I know I'm not really alone. I love your mind! Hurry and help me figure out how to fix this lingering malaise!!
Oh, Shannon, you are so not alone! There are so many of us, desperate parents looking for support. Let me give you a hug..
Are you on PITT? It is a good resource. pitt.substack.com
I am! You are absolutely 💯 spot on with that. 4th Wave too
I complain about Twitter, but I've come across many resources there, including some great substacks and YouTube content. And seen for myself the absolute ugliness of TRAs towards women and become more informed about the ramifications of the ideology to our rights.. When my daughter's out of the woods, as much as possible anyway, I still have a stake in this for the welfare of other children & young ppl and women's rights... I'm not going to concern myself with anonymity any longer though ;-)
It sounds like you are doing a phenomenal job in such a difficult situation. You write so lovingly and your daughter seems to be listening (even if, like most teenagers, she probably doesn’t want to give you credit for “outgrowing” certain ideas:). And fyi, my daughter is a licensed clinical child psychotherapist who does not do gender affirming work. I’m sure there are more like her out there - I’m wondering if it’s possible to find one?
Interesting. I'd never think to articulate it in this way, because I'm proud to be American and trying to raise my kids to feel the same. But I'm definitely one of the people Abigail describes here - newly homeschooling since Covid, focused on classical curriculum (teaching Latin, which I never learned). And trying my best to insulate my kids from poor outside influences. I worry a lot about the peers they will meet in their lives, who are growing up without respect for others, any critical thinking skills, and a lifetime of harmful "education" focused on pulling kids away from their families. I've been inspired by John Taylor Gatto's, though I can't say I really follow his approach, but his arguments about how abysmal the school systems have become hit home 100%. As well as his call to build independence in kids when they are quite young, vs infantilize them. Back to Abigail's main point here - I don't think of it as making my children less American, but knowing that our society truly hosts all types I've felt the split from those trying to make America into something else. Like so many things in America now, it's too difficult to land on one characterization of what it is to be American.
Do you watch The Reason We Learn on Youtube? You might like her channel. One of my favorites of hers is her reading of Gatto's book (it is in a few parts and not the entire thing and she adds her own commentary.
My son was in online school for years and I just started full homeschooling last year. I am also teaching him to be a proud American. Proud of what we were meant to be and the ideas that created it. Not so much the culture we have right now. Lol I think the idea of the US will return though. I have hope. My son is nothing like the kids with no manners, bad behavior, no respect, etc. He is smart, well behaved and well spoken, he thinks for himself, is not a follower, and is very respectful. I think having him doing school at home all these years and me knowing who the kids are that are influencing him plays a big part of that. Homeschooling will be the best decision you've ever made for your kids. Good for you for taking his education and well being so importantly. 👏🏻
Latin is a root language for English. Fantastic choice, especially for medicine in future.
Classics major here-went to public school and by the time I entered college I had years of Latin and 2 years of Greek. Did go to medical school yes, but I use my Greek/Latin and classical education every day.
English has borrowed a lot from Latin, but English is a Germanic language. Say unlike French, Spanish, Italian, and Romanian, which are the direct descendants of Latin.
We all must be older:). No talk of pronouns. How refreshing 💦 Signed, an original woman.
See comment above about gendered nouns. LoL
Influence for sure. French speaking people conquered England in 1066, and England was a Roman colony after all. French was the language of the elite in England for a long time after 1066.
Vocabulary wise sure, English borrows from those languages.
Grammatically it's quite different. For example in Romance languages noun-adjective ordering is opposite from English, and nouns are gendered.
Oh, lol! Do love the gendered nouns though and how easily they are learned in childhood without confusing the actual gender of child. Wonder when people will break legs of tables and chairs when they are misgendered by foreign speakers.
This is no longer the case, but my kids were in a classical school for 10 years, and the focus on Latin I found to be largely very helpful. They go to a more traditional (yet roughly equal in rigor) private school now and all have excel in English and Latin there, and will likely find it helps any of them who go into healthcare.
Gosh Darn it the Truth Fairy has done it again. She doesn’t leave dimes for teeth, she tells us where the festering abscesses lie waiting. We have two sons, and while my wife was born in a different country and culture, I was a refugee from the Aquarian age of the 60s and the Summer of Love. I was like an Alex P. Keaton. I was determined to be square, and I also studied other cultures and languages. We did try to inject other languages into our family life. My grown sons can understand their mother’s dialect but they can barely speak it. We decided not to force them, but we tried hard to filter out most of American culture. No cable TV. Lots of books and art and music. Some sport, but I consider American sports to be corrupted by greed and other unhealthy things like ?envy? Anyway, they do have some anxiety but they both have a good work ethic, and the single consistent reflection we get is that they are the most polite young men that people meet. We did insist on respect. I am profoundly disappointed in the public schools. If I could do it over again I would have either worked another job to pay for private school or home schooled. I did have to home school one son in high school until we figured out that he could get a GED. What do I not like in public schools? 1. The curricula by committee 2. Training cubicle drones who are compliant and complacent 3. The racist and sexist special emphasis rainbow system of extra points for all but white males 4. The lack of caring about what the child is curious about and interested in 5. The intense pressure to be “gifted and talented” else you shall be a poor loser 6. The teacher has little authority to control the classroom, especially if the child is “underserved”…I could go on and on. I would leave if I could manage it or think of a place to go. There is no where to go. We have to reform this place.
There are many music schools that can give her lessons and you can pay on sliding scale. Also the best private schools ( smaller classes).
Yes. However the internet and phone technology and culture has exacerbated the anxiety problem for all of us but especially our kids. I mentioned it because I still regret some of my decisions vis a vis my sons. Actually they both have a very healthy barrier to much of the negative. I have gradually learned to keep my cultural fomenting away from them. I talked at them way too much. I have toned it down. I also don’t share many links with them anymore. I am available to them but I have to wait for them to ask. We struggled not to hover. We often did. I know now I should have focused on hiking and fishing with them.
Also, one of my sons had crippling social anxiety in high school. He is thriving now. In charge of his own Education.
Absolutely! And I know this but was already an introvert before the inter webs!!! So It’s hard for me to set a good example. I struggle with small talk but I try to help my neighbors when I can. I am also learning Spanish, not that it’s relevant to your observation, but I want to know them better and I want to do volunteer work with them. I have had a few experiences with poor Latins and I enjoyed them but knew I can do more with a poquito mas lingo.
One more thought:
The problem in a nutshell is that our “leaders” in higher education as well as our cultural icons from the sports and entertainment worlds have been riding the wave of America-bashing because it plays well among the pseudo-intellectual liberal class. Think of Obama’s erstwhile spiritual mentor, a minister, who announced loudly, “Not God bless America, God damn America!”
The mind set from grade school to university and in most print and electronic media outlets is that America is passé, it’s racist, misogynist and worse.
They have un-learned history. They have been taught a revisionist, Marxist view of society. They will continue to destroy, for this is all they know how to do. There is a baby & bath water analogy here.
The only remedy is to focus on genuine learning, tossing the touchy-feely efforts to create “safe spaces” and tolerance for everyone and everything, which leads to chaos.
Rational thought must trump “diversity”, particularly when diversity has taken on an Orwellian tone, where all animals are diverse, but some are more diverse than others. There are in fact “good ideas” and “bad ideas”. Praising diversity in ethnicity, provenance, skin color, sexual-orientation, gender-identity, religious affiliation, etc., while squelching debate on certain topics or viewpoints [as these are considered “triggers”) is one such example of a very bad idea.
Democracy and the marketplace (including free speech!) help us filter the good from the bad. Most ideas are mediocre, some are really good. And some are really bad. And if we can’t (or are afraid to) debate some “hot-iron” subjects, we will all be worse off for it. Shame on the cowards who know better, but don’t want to stand out in the crowd as “non-compliant”. Instead, they’ve become complicit.
Until the US Citizenry re-discovers what made America unique (de-Tocqueville’s 19th C observations) and returns to its roots regarding freedom of speech, accountability of public leaders and critical thought, the downward spiral will continue. This is an existential crisis.
The natural law philosophy that forms the basis of Enlightenment liberalism relies on a Judeo-Christian philosophy: "Man created by god with rights" = natural law liberalism; "Smart ape" = law of the jungle. If this rubs someone the wrong way, you're in good company. I teach HS civics and it rubs my students the wrong way too. In fact, they hate it and argue against it relentlessly. But it's 100% true. You can't get to "all men are created equal" if man is defined as "just a smart ape".
So how are Americans supposed to rediscover "what made America unique" when 70% of our citizens reject the religious underpinnings of that uniqueness?
It's very hard to argue with people that think that Howard Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" is an unbiased telling of the "real" history of the US.
😂 I just mentioned him too. Glad to see others who know. Lol
@ Dan,
Not being aware of, nor having read Howard Zinn, it’s difficult for me to make sense of your comment.
Are you suggesting that describes me or my thinking? Isn’t that a bit of a stretch?
Are you Marek’s alter ego, or are you just trolling for fun?
Zinn's most noted work is presented often amongst educated liberal circles as an eminent work on the failure of the American experiment and in his writing of it Zinn has stated he desired to "start a quiet revolution."
So, concisely, I was agreeing with you and pointing out that it is difficult, and nearly impossible, to "debate some “hot-iron” subjects" because there exists in our Nation a group of highly educated, highly devout, and uproariously hostile adults who cling to comforting but egregiously biased information as sacred fact.
OK, thank you. I misinterpreted your comment. Apologies. 😎
Well put. 👏🏻👏🏻 Yes, history has a revisionist Marxist view. It has a Zinnified view. Howard Zinn created a lot of the false narrative that has been used to indoctrinate people into hating their own country. For decades, his books have polluted our schools and minds. Read Debunking Zinn by Mary Grabar.
Or just read "A Patriot's History of the United States" by Schweikart and Allen.
@ Marek:
Please expound.
Sorry, I don’t follow you.
Classical Education is American Education. Learning Latin and Greek gives you an amazing understanding of English and is the way the founders learned. Teaching Latin and Greek as part of a classical education is Very different than sending your kids to Spanish or Japanese Immersion school.
I would argue Classical Education is the MOST American way to educate your Children. The Public school model we employ and championed by Horace Mann is designed on the Prussian model which is a very serious issue for our childrens capacity for free thought
Correct. 👏🏻
Interesting observations. While I see this as a continuation of the trend away from the public school system (to more private-, or charter-schools, to home-schooling, to smaller classes, focused on the needs of the students (as opposed to the desires of the teachers)), I see a separate aspect here as well: the apparent ascribing of importance to other cultures (even ‘exotic’ ones), despite the parents themselves having little or no connection to the same.
This is different than sending your children to take violin or tennis lessons, even if the parents only played the recorder or baseball. The provocative suggestion in the highlight, a desire to ‘distance’ one’s family from the rest of their countrymen, may explain part of it. But I think there’s more to it: a growing realization that the American education “system” (including the ex-curricula ‘social life’) is not bringing children to a point where they are prepared for the “real world”, nor it is conducive to their offspring achieving their personal potential in a broad holistic sense: academic, cultural, spiritual, emotional, social.
Perhaps some of the Chinese or Japanese immersion, absent any cultural or personal connection is akin to sending one’s three year old to ballet, polo or fencing classes (I.e., aspiration by the parents to elevate their social standing vicariously through their offspring), but equally possible is the realization by more and more individuals that their non-American counterparts are, broadly speaking, better educated, better equipped and less susceptible to clichés & group think.
In short, the American education system is failing its students. And people are realizing it.
My wife is the child of Filipino 1st gen immigrants. We came to the conclusion that American culture was increasingly rotten (actually an anti-culture, since it actively seeks to tear down instead of build) and it was not possible to be counter-cultural within the public school. And my wife is a public school teacher!
We have 3 kids, and private was financially out of reach. So we started home educating 9 years ago. There are real pluses and minuses -- the "socialization" thing mostly a red herring, but not completely and HS lab science is tough. However the relationships that have come out of that have been the greatest joy. Would have happened with private school? I'm uncertain.
When I give talks about home education, I tell people, "You will start homeschooling for lots of reasons: academic, religious, cultural, linguistic, special needs, etc... but you won't keep homeschooling for those reasons.. If you stick it out through high school, it will be because of the relationship that comes out of it. You will reach a point that you can't imagine turning over the best 7 hours of the day to someone you barely know."
The only way out is a homeschooling, and not just any homeschooling, but one founded on conservative "Old World" values, such as the traditional Asian culture, and also focused on subjects that would be practically useful in life, such as DIY lifehacks, hunting and fishing, homesteading, GMOs and pesticides, STEM curriculum such as programming and mathematics, and personal finance. Childhood and adolescence is for learning all the skills that you'll need in your life, not for having fun. The more you can teach your kids, the better they can get ahead and go around others in life.
In my adolescence I learned programming and mathematics using Khan Academy on the internet. I now work as a web developer, and make way more money than the average American resident in my area. Believe me, practically useful skills are worth more than money in the bank.
Absolutely spot-on! It’s truly a sad, desperate state of affairs when American parents feel so overwhelmingly compelled, so disaffected by the powers that be in US schooling and overall zeitgeist writ large here that they have to send their child to a foreign language immersion school on the slim chance that in so doing it will somehow bring back the traditional role of parental respect and authority present 30 years ago!
Buckle up kiddos and for the love of everything that’s holy, righteous, true and honorable VOTE straight Conservative Republican across the board in EVERY dadgum election going forward! I don’t care how much you hate this or that about Conservatives! These are OUR children that these evil parasites on the Left are championing hacking sexual body parts off on a whim, sterilizing with puberty blockers, chemically castrating with Lupron the drug given to serial rapists, convincing our kids they can just randomly change their gender and brainwashing the children to ignore their parents’ authority! I could go on and on but you’ll NEVER see any of this sick, twisted madness happening from the Right....EVER!
Women will NEVER get pregnant and a boy will always have XY chromosomes and a girl XX. Period!
This dark black cloud of ‘woke’ gender theory, pro-BLM, anti-police, Marxist ESG(environmental, social, governance) crazed DA’s making criminals the victims, SEL(social emotional learning) are all evil existential threats to both us now but the entire lineage of our families for the rest of time! The most effective way you can exorcise this rapidly growing cancer from our society is to vote like hell in every election from local school board to sheriffs to DA’s to Congress to President - EVERY position matters starting at the bottom most importantly!
Again, vote in EVERY election from bottom to top like your, your children’s and your grandchildren’s lives depend on it.......CAUSE THEY DO!
👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 Exactly.
I am a mom to 9 year old twins. I can't tell you how hard it is to find families to socialize with who hold our same values. Our children go to a parochial school, and have for the last 6 years of their life. The disengagement we see in parents is extraordinary. My husband and I are first generation Americans, and we are raising our children in an old school fashion. They do not get an allowance for chores, they are expected to help around the house, they are bilingual (as are we), they don't have phones or tablets, we make them play outside and instill in them a high value for education, not just in the academic sense but also in the common. We eat dinners as a family to discuss our day and talk all the time. We have not put a heavy emphasis on extra carriculars to this point because we feel that cultivating their souls and moral code is much more important. We feel alone in many ways but have found one family that is similar to us. The rest have decided that phones, tablets and games are a much easier way to raise their children. Seeing the effects of this is very sad for us but the reality is, there is very little one can do modify this behavior. A friend recently stopped taking to me after I told her that giving her 10 year old a phone with social media had been a bad decision on her part.
“ A friend recently stopped taking to me after I told her that giving her 10 year old a phone with social media had been a bad decision on her part.”
Do you bring your children to a Christian church?
Yes.
I agree it was a bad decision on her part, but did she ask your opinion on it? Parents, especially mothers, frequently deal with so much criticism from the people around them, and people feel comfortable giving them unsolicited advice in a way that can make parents feel perpetually scrutinized and judged. If she didn't ask for your opinion, and if her child's phone use hadn't directly affected your child, I don't blame her for stepping back from the friendship.
It did initially since she was attempting to have my kids create a Facebook kids messenger account. We were having a discussion about phones and kids mental health and while I may have stepped out of line, I care a lot about her child having taken care of her consistently for the first three years of her life. I understand what you're saying but there are serious consequences to these actions and sometimes the hardest truths are the most necessary to hear. While I lament the loss of our friendship, I do not regret giving the advice.
As a recent immigrant (late 20s) now working overseas my kids are in dual language household where I speak foreign language most of the time while my husband (American born) sticks to English. We sent our 7 year old to my parents in Europe for seven weeks six of which he spent in the local school/summer camp (stem, crafts, golf, horseback riding, hiking, museum and other cultural visits). Grandparents’ English is basic so he quickly switched to local and made lots of friends at camp in addition to the ones he made when we spent three years working in the country (local Montessori had instruction in English, German, and local language).
Honestly, this sounds like an amazing way to spend your childhood! :)
Sorry to say but a nation that permits itself to be ruled by a palpably senile and corrupt imbecile is no longer a serious nation. A nation that permits a sitting US senator to warn “Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you,” is no longer a nation that values or cares about truth or liberty. A nation that permits its youth to be inundated with filth and depravity is not a nation that values its children. Isn't it long past time we all grew up and started acting like adults? And smiting the left that is composed of nothing but churlish, big and ugly children who never grew up.
And a nation where an intelligence agency has done just that....
I'm a first gen American, my wife is from a lower income family. Since I'm in the military our kids started school in Japan and the international schools there. Once we got back to the states we looked forward to putting our kids into the public school system, as we're both successful products of the turn of the century public schools in Texas. I went to one School Board meeting at our new duty station in Fairfax county, VA and we are no longer a public school family.
This is fascinating. My husband and I are both immigrants and fear generational decline in our children. I can’t emulate the home I grew up in as my parents wanted me to integrate fully into American society. Lately I’ve noticed so many of my friends trying to get citizenship in Europe or their grandparents’ countries in case they need to leave, digging up old birth certificates and hoping it will be enough. I always loved this country but even we have been discussing where else we might need to go. It breaks my heart but what you say about American kids (and the adults they grow into) is very true.
I left 12 years ago primarily got educational reasons. I miss home but this is better for the kids.
Such an interesting article. My son recently graduated from an all boys boarding school where upwards of 40% of the students are foreign born. My husband and I pulled him out of the local highly-regarded public high school which was providing a poor education before COVID and no education after, hoping to give him a better education (i.e., one where he actually learned something and where he wasn’t penalized for having opinions). We got that and more. Our son was happy, engaged, made friends quickly and maintained A averages in all of his classes. We found ourselves hosting many of his friends at our house over long weekends. These boys came from all over the world - Kenya, Spain, Germany, Israel, Guatemala, Canada, the Dominican Republic, Costa Rica, China, Mexico, England - and most were from poor or modest backgrounds but they all shared the common trait of being decent people. Unlike the students at our local public high school, the students at the private school were kind, friendly and driven. Our son thrived in this environment. In our private discussions, my husband and I concluded that the influence of the foreign students at this school took the negative culture of American schools out of this school. It was refreshing!!! I put this out there for anyone reading this article who may be looking for education alternatives for their children - you don’t have to send your children to a foreign country to get the benefits of removing them from an American culture gone awry. There are options in the US.
Time to get back to basics with children…the leftist ideology has infiltrated every aspect of society- which includes undermining the authority of family and trying to destroy it. They want the children. That is why there is such a push against men in society, they are traditionally the protectors of society and family, leftist don’t want any man standing up to all of nonsense. Susan
Bizarre mention of Aliyah in this article without mention of the Hebrew language. Most American Jews teach their children the Hebrew language at least up until and including their Bar or Bat Mitzvah where they can read out of the Torah directly. As far as Aliyah, don’t know why you inserted it here, but many Jews who make Aliyah have some knowledge of Hebrew when thy become Israeli citizens so this is an a GOOD example of Americans teaching children a foreign language connected to their heritage.
On a personal note, my daughter learned Latin. I thought it would serve her well to know the roots of the English language.
Learning another language is good for the brain. Even learning to read music at a young age. Try learning French at 40.
If you read today's article on Bari Weiss's Common Sense substack, the reason for mentioning Aliyah will be clear. Abigail and Bari tend to collaborate.