this post was submitted on 12 Nov 2023
447 points (92.2% liked)
Showerthoughts
29786 readers
383 users here now
A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. A showerthought should offer a unique perspective on an ordinary part of life.
Rules
- All posts must be showerthoughts
- The entire showerthought must be in the title
- Avoid politics
- 3.1) NEW RULE as of 5 Nov 2024, trying it out
- 3.2) Political posts often end up being circle jerks (not offering unique perspective) or enflaming (too much work for mods).
- 3.3) Try c/politicaldiscussion, volunteer as a mod here, or start your own community.
- Posts must be original/unique
- Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Can we just restate this as: "A lot of society's problems could be avoided if parents actually put in effort to parent their children" ?
It's a cycle of madness though, how can they teach you something they've never been taught?
Through easy access to education, societal support, and a safety net.
There are many parents out there who were able to break the cycle of trauma and raise children in positive environments. But almost every single one of them talks about how they had the privilege of the support of friends, therapists, teachers, obs/gyn doctors, whatever, to help break the patterns
There’s a reason “It takes a village to raise a child” is an idea that is prevalent across so many cultures. The concept of the nuclear family was a tool to sell more real estate, and we are seeing the consequences of that societal shift today.
I’m pretty sure nuclear families predate concepts in history.
While there is evidence of nuclear families existing as far as 5 000 years ago, they were only really for wealthy/high status people. The concept of the nuclear family as it’s own autonomous unit wasn’t really widely financially viable until post-Industrial revolution.
There is even current academic arguments that the previously believed idea that Europe had moved to nuclear families as early as the 17th century may be flawed, as the surviving literature was once again biased towards the merchant/upper classes.
Wikipedia has a good summary, actually, even though some of the claims are conjecture.
I’d say the evidence is in the fact you can find nuclear families in animal species other than humans. Birds and possums didn’t learn that from their wealthy human neighbors. It’s normal for two parents to take care of their young and create a home together. It’s been going on way longer than whatever capitalist marketing campaign you think it came from.
I don’t think you understand what the term “nuclear family” means in a sociological manner. In humans it’s not just “two parents taking care of their offspring”, there is also a caveat that they are doing that WITHOUT the reliance of an extended social group. Then those offspring are expected to do the same once they reach adulthood. The only social support they are expected to have is their own unit.
Furthermore, comparing human behaviours to other species such as birds (who flock together in habitats for survival and for migration) and possums (who are a solitary, nocturnal species) doesn’t really mean anything.
The comparisons should be to species who share similar evolutionary patterns and social habits to humans ie. primates. And across every primate species, whether it be lemurs, gorillas, baboons, simians, etc. they are all connected to a LARGER SOCIAL GROUP irrespective of their family structure (pairs, group family, homogeneous male or female) well into adulthood.
Possibly. How about the reality that people are simply not interacting in person but online. I can't believe this is not the first post.
Seriously go out to a bar, a music festival, volunteer, hell get drunk a few times and loosen up. In the 70, 80, 90 right up till 2000 this was every weekend. Hell it is not some work drone thing. That is an excuse. Work later in life is where you actually might meet some friends and from there have drinks after work and maybe that results in a random meeting with some ladies or men in your life.
School won't teach this. Life skills need practice not exams.
While true, only one of those things you listed don’t require money, and tbh even volunteering is hard when you have to work 2-3 jobs to get by.
Kids and adults these days don’t have 3rd places to just relax and hang out anymore. The internet is arguably the cheapest way to hang out.
Sorry but our parents worked more than us and their parents worked more then them. Few people I know work weekends or don't get two days a week off. Your parents worked normal 8 hours day then they went home and worked on their cars and houses and basically did another 4 hours a day doing of jobs. Their parents went one step further and built their own houses often or helped build them and grew alot of their own food.
We might work similar or more formal hours but we work far less informal hours that at any period in history. So that does not hold much water to me.
This is only true of certain segments of the working class, mainly the white collar workers located in Western countries. As we see wealth inequality increase globally, I don’t think it’s fair to say every single person is working less.
Also legality aside, kids generally don’t have money to go to bars, restaurants, or music festivals.
If course not every single person is working less but overall we are all working less. Quite a bit less.
This is not true actually. There was a miss-interpreted study that calculated a lower average in working hours but that was because they didn't consider that many women work part-time. Which lowered the average working hours.
When you look at households, though, the number of working hours is much higher. And that does have an influence.
I am an older person and I can still remember that my mother organised all social occasions of our family. We had big family gatherings regularly, coffee and cake every Sunday, activities in the local community and at schools, etc. This was all organised by the women who did not have jobs. Who is supposed to do all this today?
Rewrite it for someone who doesn't drink.
You don't drink? Just eat food. I joke a bit but I know many people that go to bars just for the music and social and a coke.
As a non-drinker I find it interesting that 2 out of these 3 things require the use of a drug. (Yes I know, you can order water at bars, but I doubt that was the point of that statement.)
Okay first of all, how many activities am I holding up?
You have to have alcohol to go to a bar?
Technically not, but it would feel a bit like a 'socially taboo' to not drink
Idk I'd at least put it as slightly awkward, like going to a bowling alley and not bowl, sure you can be social, but it's weird to not join in
Think you need to get out more. Few people bat an eye if you don't drink alcohol in a bar. Lots go for the music alone is it is a live band. It just some wings after work.
Never said anyone would confront you about it. I'm also with you, live music is different, but that's not something I have seen much at bars where I'm from
No amount of reasonable legislation can force parents to teach this stuff. Doing it through schools is infinitely easier.
It also helps provide a social standard that anyone can relate to. Seems weird to demand that parents should be the ones solely responsible to make sure their children are able to socialize properly. That just means they're main reference for socializing is just their parents.
Not everything has to be legislation
What alternative do you suggest that will be effective enough to not alienate children with parents who refuse to listen or think rationally?
Considering the sheer amount of time people spend in schools during essentially all of their formative years, it'd be a terrible idea not to implement legislation that could prevent maladaptive behaviors in our populace. Schools are already affected by legislation via the Mindless Drone Initiative established by our industrial forefathers. We might as well update things to make it a Healthy Human Endeavor instead. Finger-wagging at imaginary parents is going to do fuck all by comparison.
I think it’s not just that. I think part of it is overparenting. Part of these skills can only come from trying to practice these skills
Bad parents exist. Should their kids just be doomed then?
No, their kids should not be doomed. However they are unless those bad parents get better.
Fwiw we are learning more and more that most of what makes an adult isn't nurture at all. It's almost all nature.
https://www.npr.org/transcripts/1193176710
Also, great parents still end up with perfectly shit children all the time.
People online just love playing the blame game on others for an individuals actions though lmfao. Poor upbringing, neglect, trauma, all of that is only one part of explaining someone's actions. It doesn't remove the responsibility and free will of the person commiting them lol.
https://www.npr.org/2010/07/15/128542130/sometimes-good-parents-produce-bad-kids
The influence of parenting is extremely overestimated. I think that is also a symptom of a society where people are reluctant to take on responsibility for themselves. Which is also a reason why people lack community because both (responsibility for oneself and functioning relationships) rely on introspection.