Family values on The Philosopher's Zone post- "reading to your kids creates a unfair advantage".

[cab21]

http://www.abc.net.au/radio/programitem/peylQMjmaL?play=true

 

so here is a interview with Adam Swift. apparently the big news headline was about "reading to your kids creates a unfair advantage".

 

i thought it would be interesting to hear thoughts of people that heard the whole interview, and not just the sensational headline of reading to children creating a unfair advantage.

[Richard_III]

I think the fundamental mistake that he makes is that he mistakes lowering a disadvantages child's comparative advantage with actually disadvantaging them. His argument is that certain parental behaviors, including reading bedtime stories, give those parents children a developmental advantage, and that because not all parents behave in this way there will be an inequality of outcomes where some children have a greater developmental boost simply because of their parent's actions.Where he makes a crucial error is in claiming that these beneficial behaviors disadvantage children who do not get them. That is not true, they advantage the children that get them, and this widens the gap between the children, but it does not harm the worse off children. Obviously a child that is loved and nurtured will have an unfair advantage over a child who is abused and neglected, but the fault does not lie with the good parent but with the bad parent. All parents have an obligation to provide for their children and if they fail to do so then the  blame lies with them, not with the parent that performs their duty. All of his arguments involving class fall prey to the same error. A rich kid going to a elite school or inheriting money does not make a poor kid more ignorant or more poor. Yes it is unfair that the rich kid gets those advantages, but it would also be unfair if that rich kid was born stupid while the poor kid was born smart. The key here is that life is not always a zero sum game. One person's success does not necessarily hurt you. If you and your buddy are working at an office and they get promoted, you are worse off than they are, but that is because they got promoted not because you got demoted. And if y'all stay friends it will most likely be beneficial for you in the long run. 

[Koroviev]

I agree with Richard_III the fundamental mistake with his argument is that doing something advantageous for your child does not mean everyone else's children are disadvantaged. This immediately struck me as what is often propagated by leftest propaganda, everything needs to be fair and everyone needs to be equal. When in reality we all are naturally given advantages and disadvantages and this is good and healthy because that's what makes everyone unique. 
I like the point he makes about parents not "owning" their children and as Stef has said many times it should be a voluntary relationship. However, Smith is making it seem like the state or the community owns the child not the parents. The other thing that really struck me was the idea of what parents "should" or "should not" be able to do. Obviously, having the state step in, which Smith appears to be advocating, would never be a good idea, but at what point does it become the community's responsibility to decide what's best for the child. Things such as physical abuse are obvious and the community should have the ability to educate the parents and ostracize if it comes to that. What about things like private schools, as Smith talked about, or parents who don't read to their children. What if the parents think they're doing the absolute best thing for their child, while the community says they aren't. Also, what if a situation arises similar to global warming where the community holds a certain opinion that is backed up by popular science but the parents have other opinions, or evidence that shows the opposite?

 

-TYFYC

[Matt D]

Vile crud of the first order. I have no patience for this kind of pissforbrain, pretendingtocareaboutthechildren pomposity. 

 

If this so-called philosopher is really worried about the gap in advantages between good parenting and bad parenting why is it that he only criticizes the good parents? Why do we always have to bring down the high achievers to some lowest common denominator? What's wrong with saying:

"Billy's parents are reading to him and giving him lots of attention and care and don't want him corrupted by state education so they've chosen to homeschool or hire a tutor. Suzy's parents are divorced and she's being raised by a single mom who is constantly working all the time and wasting her life away through drugs and alcohol and letting dangerous people around Suzy. Good job Billy's parents, you're providing opportunity and love for your kids. Suzy's parents.... shame on you!"

 

Is it because Suzy's parents might be offended? WHO FUCKING CARES IF BAD PEOPLE ARE OFFENDED! They had a chance to make things right, or at least to suck it up and admit that they screwed up. But instead they expect every goddamn person to bow down before them any time they get upset. Hogwash.

 

There's one tiny bit of truth hidden deep in this article. And that's that society is of the opinion that parents own their children. Let me admit, it's better than thinking that the state owns the children. But here's an idea: how about we set our children free! Until we change this slave-like mind set around -- if ownership has to be involved, then the child should own the parents -- we're going to keep dividing the upper and lower class families. As a rule of thumb, the ones at the bottom always have the most potential for mobility. If you put unilateral downward pressure, they will fall faster than those at the top, who will also fall. If you get the state out of the raising of children, they will rise faster than those at the top, who will also rise. Which is more "fair"?