GaiasRevenge said:
It's true that this is how things USED to be. It also used to be that if anyone in the village had a problem with unruly, brattish or disrespectful behaviour, any villager could clout the brat round the ear, drag it home to the parent, where it'd get another clout from Mum and then yet another from Dad later.
You can't ask the village to help you out if you won't help the village.
Stop your brats throwing stones at folk's windows.
Tell your brats that old peoples bungalows are NOT play areas.
__________________________
Check this out.
From 1996:
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/1996/nov/18/village-does-have-a-role-in-childrearing/
(Dr. John Rosemond)
Q. Do you believe, as many people are saying these days, that it takes a village to raise a child?
A. Yes, and absolutely not.
There are two meanings to this African proverb: the original meaning and the slippery meaning. The former refers to the undeniable fact that children are best off when every adult member of the community is of one mind concerning their upbringing and are willing to pitch in concerning their best interests - when parents, teachers, neighbors, shopkeepers, law-enforcement officials, clergy, service-providers and so on and so forth share the same basic attitude toward children, model the same values to children properly.
As I write these words, I feel nostalgic because that describes the way things were when I was a child. If, for example, I misbehaved at the neighborhood grocery, the grocer would reprimand me, then he would call my mother and let her know what I’d done and how he had handled it. She would accept his word without question, apologize for my behavior, thank him for his actions and follow through on them when I arrived home. For reasons such as this, the children of my generation knew the eyes of the “village†were upon them, and this knowledge kept us in check.
Unfortunately, all too many of today’s parents have a “fortress†attitude toward the rearing of kids. Their children are THEIR CHILDREN and accursed be anyone who “interferes,†no matter their motive. Today, if the neighborhood shopkeeper disciplines a child, he’s not thanked for his trouble, he’s sued. The “village†contributed immeasurably to children’s respect for adults. The “fortress†accomplishes exactly the opposite. And when children are prevented from developing respect for adults, they are also prevented from developing respect for anyone else, including themselves. So, yes, I think we need to restore the “village†where the upbringing of children is concerned.
The slippery meaning of “it takes a village’ refers to the idea that government should take a more active role in “helping†parents rear children. Accordingly, government should provide “assistance†to families in the form of programs and services, thus absorbing much of the responsibility of childbearing and making parents’ jobs that much easier. The programs and serivces in question include subsidized day care, parent education programs, professional in-home support, and so on.
Sound good? It’s supposed to. I fear, however, that this idea - however, well-motivated its proponents - will lead to government interference in childrearing matters, the undermining of parental authority over children and discretion when it comes to their upbringing, and the eventual destruction of family autonomy.
Over the course of the last 30 years, the American family has been significantly weakened by television, divorce, drugs and “progressive†child-rearing practices that have turned the parent-child relationship upside-down.
It does not need to be further weakened, in this case by the benevolence of the state.
Ironically, however, the more American parents feel themselves to be at wits’ end, the more amenable they will likely be to “progressive†legislation that promises to lighten their loads but holds the potential of creating not the village, but a brave new world.