“Without Homeschooling, Christian Patriarchy Would Not Exist”

This great blogger reader el linked to has written more great posts on homeschooling. Here is an excerpt:

Without homeschooling, Christian Patriarchy as we know it could not exist.Why? First, because Christian Patriarchy cannot exist without parents having the ability to isolate their children, especially their daughters, from the outside world, and second, because Christian patriarchy cannot exist without parents having the ability to completely control their children’s educations.

Remember, this is a person who was homeschooled and is discussing her own experiences and things she has witnessed. I think that Christian Patriarchy is such an insidious power structure that it would exist even without homeschooling. It would be weakened considerably without it, but it would not disappear. What drives people into its venomous embrace is fear. Fear of life, fear of responsibility, fear of adulthood, fear of the world, fear of their individuality. Within a community of religious fanatics, the unwelcome necessity to think is removed. Every decision is made for you, so you can achieve bliss by chewing the cud and obeying like a patient sheep.

Homeschooling gives parents the ability to completely control everything about their children’s lives. In contrast, when children go to public school they have interaction with things outside of their parents’ world and have more control over their own educations. Now, I’m not saying that patriarchal abuse can never take place when children goes to public school. It can. But it cannot take place at all to the extent that it can when children are homeschooled.

Of course, the abuse in question is not limited to the patriarchal kind. Children who are not allowed to exist outside their parents’ gaze don’t get to participate in normal socialization processes irrespective of the parents’ religion and ideology.

I’m a little envious of this blogger because in her comment thread there were honest, responsible people who actually confessed that they tried homeschooling and it was a bad idea. The thread is filled with the comments made by people who’d been victimized by homeschooling. These are the testimonials that make the selfish homeschooling parents completely rabid because they know that, one day, their own children will be saying these very things:

Even if they have large groups of friends, if the parents are controlling so much of their children’s lives, what are the odds that the group of friends has differing life experiences? So many of my friends that have left the homeschooling environment struggle meeting people, making new friends, and dealing with the people that are completely different from them.

And another comment:

It’s not “just a few” homeschool families that abuse, it’s many of them. I wish homeschoolers would quit minimizing the abuse that a lot of these kids suffer just because they want to keep abusing, uh, sheltering, their kids.

And the most important comment of all:

They honestly believe. . . that “parents should have the freedom to educate their child in whatever manner they deem best.” BULLSHIT. That is total bullshit. Parents have rights, yes, but so do children, and so does society. It’s in the society’s best interest and the children’s best interest that they become well educated and productive members of society. It is therefore not up to the parents to educate their children in whatever manner they deem best. As long as homeschoolers actually believe that, they are condoning the abuse, because it is that mentality that allows the abuse to take place.

Many people forget that children are not toys or pets. They are human beings, citizens. They have a right to pass through all the normal stages of separation from their parents, no matter how much their parents need a dummy to fill their empty lives and find an excuse for their own professional and social failures.

About these ads

69 comments on ““Without Homeschooling, Christian Patriarchy Would Not Exist”

  1. Should not the government be judged to the same standard? Could a statist ideology survive without making the vast majority of the population attending state run schools? Clarissa you yourself speak about the abuse you went through under the Soviet system. Wouldn’t you have been better off if your parents had been able to home school you?

    • I was kept at home until the age of 7, as I shared before. Today, in psychoanalysis I am still solving the huge problems that created for me. It crippled me socially and personally, stunted my growth, robbed me of many socialization techniques.

      Of course, I would have preferred the worst school in the universe to having my development stunted in this way. Not even a huge crowd of nasty Communist bureaucrats can cause nearly the same damage as one little housewife.

      • The chief issue here is that of government. Yes I grant that parents are perfectly capable of making a mess out of their children and that it is good for people to be exposed to a wide variety of people and ways of thinking. (Socialization in of itself has no empirical value and is only of use in a society that is under the delusion that it does.) Clearly government has an agenda when it educates people. Unlike parents, though, the government has a monopoly on force that makes it much harder to recover from. Getting away from your parents can be as simple as getting out the door. Anyway once you become an adult you are free. Barring emigration, government owns you for life. How can putting a gun to someone’s head, who has caused you no physical harm, ever be an improvement?

      • No, my friend, you are hugely mistaken. You cannot “get away from your parents” even if you emigrate to another galaxy. Being away from the parents physically changes nothing because the internal figures of the parents are always there. No government has such power over an individual’s psyche.

        A profound mistrust of the government is evidence of a fraught relationship with one’s father, not vice versa.

      • I am talking about physical harm here, the only kind relevant in a discussion premised on liberal principles. You cannot compare the psychological harm caused by parents to the physical harm caused by government. For all you know government does cause psychological harm. For all you know trust in government can be the result of a poor relationship with one’s parents. Can you offer any scientific evidence to say otherwise and justify causing physical harm through government force?

      • “I am talking about physical harm here”

        – Most underage people are killed by their relatives, not by the government, and you know it. As for psychological damage, you can pretend that it doesn’t exist, for all the good that will do to anybody.

        “You cannot compare the psychological harm caused by parents to the physical harm caused by government.”

        – How many children in this country have been killed, raped and physically tortured by their parents as opposed to by the government last year?

        “For all you know government does cause psychological harm.”

        – Not like the parents do.

      • As Frederick Bastiat (http://bastiat.org/en/) argued, part of the problem with government harm is that it often cannot be directly observed. In our case the person in therapy talking about their parents can talk about the shortcomings of those parents, taking for granted the fact that it was because of those parents that he is alive. What is not easily seen is the role that government might have played in those shortcomings. Were the parents unable to spend enough time with him because they had to work harder to cover taxes, including the hidden taxes such as minimum wage laws, rent ceilings and college aid? Considering all the millions of children killed by Stalin, Hilter and Mao, I object to your claim that parents kill more children than government. It is easy to see the fact that private citizens, including parents, are killing each other. Most people’s reaction, particularly if they are one of those “free market” conservatives, to crime is to say we need more government in the form of cops and tougher prison sentences, ignoring the fact that the very existence of crime is a failure of government. It was government remember that presumably declared the murdering parent to be the legal guardian of that child and did not allow private child protection services to save it.
        If you believed that government is better qualified to educate children than parents then why not have government simply raise them? Every child would be taken at birth to government run institutions and perhaps we would experiment with some parents being allowed to raise children after taking the “proper courses.”

      • “Considering all the millions of children killed by Stalin, Hilter and Mao”

        – We are not talking about those regimes. We are talking about a very specific society and a very specific period of time. Respecting the terms of discussion is crucial for a success of said discussion. Let’s concentrate on homeschooling today in the US where:

        1) It is incontrovertible that parents kills, rape and abuse more children than the government;
        2) Nobody prevents people from placing children in private schools if they are bothered by public education;
        3) a housewife who is a complete intellectual, social and professional failure cannot raise anybody but intellectual, social and professional failures;
        4) having a parent organize your socialization for you makes for socially inept people (e.g. me);

        “If you believed that government is better qualified to educate children than parents then why not have government simply raise them”

        – I never said anything of the kind. Please do not assign opinion to me and then argue with them. I believe that a child needs to separate from the parents through schooling. Who runs said school is completely unimportant. For the third time: place them in a private schools. But do not deprive them of socialization because of what Mao did in China. That is not extremely reasonable.

        “Every child would be taken at birth to government run institutions and perhaps we would experiment with some parents being allowed to raise children after taking the “proper courses.””

        – Are you going to argue with my ideas or your fantasies? :-)

    • The answer is here

      http://clarissasblog.com/2012/03/28/are-sad-developments-in-public-education-a-reason-to-homeschool/

      Mainly in the paragraph :

      And do you want to know how often this Soviet indoctrination comes up in psychoanalysis as something that impacted me for life? Never. Because it didn’t. As opposed to the fact that I was kept at home by a bunch of adoring relatives until the age of 7. That comes up a lot because this was a very negative factor in my development and socialization that I’m still, 28 years later, working to overcome.

  2. Home schooling is an important antidote to socialist, atheistic schooling in the United States. Corrupted teachers educate children into socialism. As a parent/grandparent I would not hesitate to evade propoganda by home schooling, even at the cost of incarceration. One blow for freedom from the communism of the state!

    Surely you have not forgotten everthing from your past!

    • “Home schooling is an important antidote to socialist, atheistic schooling in the United States. Corrupted teachers educate children into socialism.”

      – They are still a gazillion times better than an unhinged failure of a housewife educating them into how to be failures at everything simply because that is all she is. Socialism is problematic. But housewifery is an irredeemable social evil that scars children for life.

      “Surely you have not forgotten everthing from your past!”

      – As I already said, in my past being kept away from school until age 7 was many many many times worse than any school experiences.

    • Haha, it would be fun to have such schooling, I’d go and learn, but I suspect you mean secular, not atheistic … and where are the socialist curricula?

      • “Haha, it would be fun to have such schooling,”

        – I want the address of those atheist schools, too. :-) Nothing horrifies me more than these rumors that there is public prayer in US schools.

      • Clarissa, there was certainly prayer in public schools while I was a child. A Supreme Court decision outlawed it about the time I graduated high school, fortunately.

        Sadly, there are private Christian schools which regiment what the fundamentalist homeschoolers do and do it far more dangerously, in my opinion. I have had students who were graduated from such tell me that the ending of prayer in public schools was what led to all the trouble in schools today.

        I find this very troubling. I know some people (relatives of mine) who attended such a high school and were told at their graduation that they lived in a dying culture, and that they, the young people from Xtian schools, were its only hope.

      • ” who attended such a high school and were told at their graduation that they lived in a dying culture, and that they, the young people from Xtian schools, were its only hope”

        – Horrible. This is simply abusive. I feel very sorry for people who grow up as part of this subculture. Their journey towards independent thinking will be extremely difficult. :-(

  3. Division of labor within the household may well suggest that a low-earning man or woman should specialize in household activities. There is nothing demeaning about such a division of labor. Many individuals in the work force engage in activites far less productive thajn child-rearer and household maintenance. many two worker families disintegrate into chaos because basic responsibilities are ignored.

    • The problem is not that there is division of labour. Feminists have absolutely no problem with women (or men, for that matter) being homemakers, so long as she freely chooses to do so for herself. And most would argue an environment where women are paid less than men, societally frowned upon for having a career, etc, isn’t really giving her a free choice. In Christian Patriarchy, women are given no choice over what to do their lives.They are raised to be nothing more than doormats and domestic slaves who pump out kids until they keel over and die; nothing more. Indeed, some of them are even against women having the vote. In CP, women are deliberately made and kept dependant on men, which means even if they are (nominally) able to “leave”, the have no practical means to do so.

      • “Feminists have absolutely no problem with women (or men, for that matter) being homemakers, so long as she freely chooses to do so for herself. ”

        – Erm, excuse me??? I’m a feminist and I have a huge problem which this form of exploitation. Even when a moocher decides to mooch of his or her own free will, I still condemn them as lazy, immature and exploitative people.

        “And most would argue an environment where women are paid less than men, societally frowned upon for having a career, etc, isn’t really giving her a free choice.”

        – Are we talking about Saudi Arabia, or something? Nobody frowns upon career women. Housewives bully everybody into accepting their lazy, irresponsible, exploitative “choice” to feed off their miserable families. And I don;t mean “feed off” just in the financial sense. They have no social fulfillment, they are perennially bored, so they consume the lives of others to entertain themselves.

        “.They are raised to be nothing more than doormats and domestic slaves who pump out kids until they keel over and die”

        – Have you met an actual housewife? They are usually the greatest bullies and tyrants anybody has ever met. You know why? Because they can bully completely defenseless children all day long.

        “In CP, women are deliberately made and kept dependant on men”

        – Are they chained and gagged? If not, they can leave. They just don’t want to because being an irresponsible little girl whose only job in life is to do the laundry from time to time is very easy. That’s the big secret about housewifery: lazy people freely choose it because it’s extremely easy.

    • It’s truly debatable, though, how good for anyone having a stay at home spouse is. I actually know one who has money of her own and so has some independence — but were it not for that would be in an utterly dependent position, not good for anyone involved.

      • “It’s truly debatable, though, how good for anyone having a stay at home spouse is”

        – I’ve had one. It’s an enormous burden because his whole life centers on the moment when you come home from work. As you go through your day, spend energy, learn new things, meet people, he just sits there and waits for you to come home and service him emotionally, intellectually, and of course financially.

        I got out of that marriage in 3 years but, gosh, that was tough.

      • I am told they are not required to act like that. But I remember it from being a child — my father, my siblings, and I all rushing to get home to Mother as fast as we could, because she was waiting. Some days my father was late — never unannounced, but a 5-6 PM meeting, something like that, so he wouldn’t be home until 6:15 — and the feeling of stress from one entity during that last hour of waiting was really strong those days.

    • ” There is nothing demeaning about such a division of labor.”

      – No, there isn’t. But there is something horribly damaging in this arrangement for every participant, especially the children. Do I need to provide the huge bibliography that demonstrates that housewives suffer from depression more than any group in society in every country where such studies have been conducted?

      “many two worker families disintegrate into chaos because basic responsibilities are ignored.”

      – The main responsibility of an adult is to have a life and succeed professionally, socially and financially instead of mooching off others. Housewives are incapable of fulfilling such responsibilities. They are, however, very capable of heating up a pizza in a microwave, which, of course, is a hugely important skill.

      • Oh, there’s much more work than that and a lot of it is in fact skilled. It’s just that this division of labor really isn’t the healthiest.

        Possible evidence: note how people who’ve had jobs or careers and fall unemployed, want to work and not just because it pays (and not just to have something to do, either).

      • With today’s technology, it makes absolutely no sense to have a person dedicate their entire time to housework. Unless you are raising 20 children, there is simply not that much housework to occupy an adult successfully.

      • Seriously, by the time I do laundry, shopping, cooking, cleaning, yard and building maintenance, and repair/repair negotiations, it adds up. Add in the kids, especially when small, and you’ve got a full week. I am not sure what technology would replace all of this.

  4. ” who attended such a high school and were told at their graduation that they lived in a dying culture, and that they, the young people from Xtian schools, were its only hope”

    – Horrible. This is simply abusive. I feel very sorry for people who grow up as part of this subculture. Their journey towards independent thinking will be extremely difficult. :-(

    But, as I and at least one of the relatives I mentioned make clear, if they succeed in escaping, they have insights that few people ever do about the nature of mind control.

    • “But, as I and at least one of the relatives I mentioned make clear, if they succeed in escaping, they have insights that few people ever do about the nature of mind control.”

      – That’s true. But I feel so bad for all those people who never escape. You’ve been very fortunate in that you managed to escape.

  5. In any case, people who are so suspicious of public education, can put their children in private schools. I have issues with private schools for a variety of issues, but ANY school is better than being robbed of socialization and stuck at home with a parent or a bunch of relatives. I’m shocked that people fail to see this.

  6. This is mostly in response to Izgad up above…..I am not sure where this idea that physical abuse somehow runs rampant in public schools comes from. Does physcial abuse happen in American public schools? I am sure that somewhere at some point in some school, physical abuse occurs. Abuse unfortunately happens in any system or grouping of people. However, in public schools, abuse is generally discovered and stopped swiftly and publically. The chance of a child being physically harmed at home is FAR greater than the chance of being physically harmed at a public school. And regarding your closing comment that support of public schooling somehow indicates support of “state-run parenting?” I don’t see how that follows at all. The point is that children need a multiplicity of experiences. Parents are obviously important. But so is time AWAY from parents. And THAT is what homeschooling never ever ever allows. All activities, all socialization, indeed, EVERY moment of the child’s life, occurs under the gaze of the parents. Children never get to experiment with their own identities or form opinions apart from their parents. Most places in Europe have either outlawed homeschooling or made it very very difficult to establish and I wish the US would follow suit. (And I suppose I should say that homeschooling has it’s place for children that fall very very ill. But even then, I would advocate that an outsider does the teaching. Never the parent.) On a different note, I also firmly believe that children need experiences that are away from school. Many homeschooling proponents blindly gush about how their children see plays or go on family vacations or have time to play in the park and that somehow homeschooling is the only system that allows children this “down-time.” And that is ridiculous. Public school children have plenty of down time: the school day ends at 3:00 PM, then there are three free months during the summer, 2-3 weeks around the holidays, and generally a week in the spring. The point is that “downtime” is already built in to the public and private school system and children don’t need homeschooling to break free from some all encompassing institutional power. Properly socialized children can go to school, play in the park, and see a play–perhaps all in the same day. There is no reason to homeschool. To me, homeschooling is abuse and the fact that it is even legal astounds and disgusts me.

    • The “physical abuse” in public schools occurs by the very fact that it involves government. Government by definition is physical abuse as it relies on coercion. Every tax dollar used for public education was in essence was stolen at gunpoint from private citizens, who had no choice in the matter. In a sense it is the children who are being robbed themselves because this education is being funded by a government debt that they will have to pay for. I support private schools, but where there is no school providing the sort of education desire by the parent then it is reasonable for the parent to attempt to play a more active role. One way or another good education will provide multiple types of experiences; this we can agree on. I look to parents and free market enterprise to provide that, not highway government robbery.

      • “The “physical abuse” in public schools occurs by the very fact that it involves government. ”

        – OK, for the fourth time: :-) :-) who’s preventing anybody from placing their kids into a private school if public education bothers them so much?

        “where there is no school providing the sort of education desire by the parent then it is reasonable for the parent to attempt to play a more active role”

        – Then that parent moves. Or thinks before procreating. But s/he doesn’t deprive a child of schooling and socialization because s/he decided to procreate irresponsibly.

      • Would you say had a choice in phone service if AT&T came into your house every month, put a gun to your head, took $100 from your wallet and then gave you a month of phone service for “free?” The fact that you already have to pay for public schools means that you do not really have a choice to go to private schools. I am speaking as the child of parents, who sacrificed to send me to private school. Public schools violated their first amendment rights, making them pay for a “Church” they did not support, and interfered with their personal choices.
        I am free to challenge your claims on reductio ad absurdum principles. How do you justify the claim that parents should be the primary caregivers in the first place when they are so “obviously” abusive? Why not demand that parents be licensed to raise children or even give birth to them? Forgive me attempting to draw out a plausible version of the counter argument. I would be willing to play the total government parenting side if you so wish. Keep in mind that this idea was experimented with in the kibbutz system.

      • “Would you say had a choice in phone service if AT&T came into your house every month, put a gun to your head, took $100 from your wallet and then gave you a month of phone service for “free?” The fact that you already have to pay for public schools means that you do not really have a choice to go to private schools. I am speaking as the child of parents, who sacrificed to send me to private school. Public schools violated their first amendment rights, making them pay for a “Church” they did not support, and interfered with their personal choices.”

        – Quite a way to drown the subject in completely irrelevant examples. :-)

        “How do you justify the claim that parents should be the primary caregivers in the first place when they are so “obviously” abusive”

        – Once again, I never said anything of the kind. You can use the quote function to address my utterances. :-) Otherwise, you are arguing with yourself.

        “Why not demand that parents be licensed to raise children or even give birth to them?”

        – These are your strange fantasies.

        “Forgive me attempting to draw out a plausible version of the counter argument. I would be willing to play the total government parenting side if you so wish. Keep in mind that this idea was experimented with in the kibbutz system.”

        – Completely beyond the point. Do you see how you have failed to answer every single question I put to you?

        For the fifth time :-) :-) :-): if people are so terrified of public education, what prevents them from placing their children into a private school?

      • I am talking about real issues as well, life and death. You may not have heard of contract theory at the age of seven, but it kept you from strangled at birth or being worked to death in the mines so that you made it to the age of seven at which point you had to struggle with your lack of social skills.

      • “I am talking about real issues as well, life and death. You may not have heard of contract theory at the age of seven, but it kept you from strangled at birth or being worked to death in the mines so that you made it to the age of seven at which point you had to struggle with your lack of social skills.”

        – Please concentrate on the subject: Homeschooling in the US today. What death in the mines? What strangulation at birth by he government? We are talking about a concrete issue. All of those people today who get educated in public schools are neither killed nor strangled nor sent to work at the mines. They are better off than homeschooled kids in every aspect of psychological health and social adaptation. Please tell me which part of this statement you disagree with and why.

      • I think we are talking past each other. From my perspective. I am answering your question, but you are not answering mine. Not that I am claiming that my perspective is the objective truth.

        I will say again, if I have to pay through taxes for a “free” service, then you cannot say that I have a “choice” to simply pay for a private one.

        Do you believe, as a general rule, that parents, even unlicensed ones, are better suited to handle the day to day needs of their children (feeding them, kissing their booboos and tucking them into bed at night) than government?

      • “Do you believe, as a general rule, that parents, even unlicensed ones, are better suited to handle the day to day needs of their children (feeding them, kissing their booboos and tucking them into bed at night) than government?”

        – I can answer this question but only after calling your attention to the fact that, just like AT&T, Hobbes and kibbutzes, it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion at hand. The answer to your question is: it depends on day to day needs. The ones you listed are not related to formal schooling. What we are discussing here is education and socialization. School-age children who use the word “booboos” already suffer from some form of developmental retardation. They are the ones who urgently need the clucking mothers to let them outside of their eyesight at least for a few hours every day.

      • Part of the difference between us here is that for me Hobbes, AT&T and kibbutzim have everything to do with the question on hand. It is more important to me to avoid a cycle of physical violence than to avoid psychological harm, even though the latter is still “real” in some personal sense. I do not see a difference between a government phone company and government education. I recognize that raising children in group homes, as was done on kibbutzim, is a plausible means of child care. I do not see a difference between kissing booboos (a term which I will use proudly. :p) and teaching history. I believe that I am qualified to kiss my children’s booboos and teach them history so it is rational of me to do these things myself if I am not otherwise occupied. I am not qualified to teach higher mathematics so I will hire a person or institution to do that for me. Similarly I cannot teach social skills, as that requires the practical experience of it so it will make sense for me to place my children in a place where they can get that experience. This can be in a school, on a sports team or in the mailroom of a private business.

      • “Part of the difference between us here is that for me Hobbes, AT&T and kibbutzim have everything to do with the question on hand. It is more important to me to avoid a cycle of physical violence”

        – This physical violence in the US public schools exists only in your head.

        ” I do not see a difference between a government phone company and government education. ”

        – Do you think that a parent is justified in preventing the child from using telephone services because of that parent’s opposition to the way teh phone company is run?

        “I do not see a difference between kissing booboos (a term which I will use proudly. :p) and teaching history. I believe that I am qualified to kiss my children’s booboos and teach them history ”

        – Children do not go to school to be kissed. And the main skills they are taught there have very little to do with history. I’m sure you can kiss and teach history perfectly well. But you can’t do what a school does and what it’s main role is. That is an environment that cannot be recreated. You are an educator yourself. Is it the same to take courses at a university as to take online classes that your Mommy subscribed you to? Do you really not see the difference?

        “Similarly I cannot teach social skills, as that requires the practical experience of it so it will make sense for me to place my children in a place where they can get that experience. This can be in a school, on a sports team or in the mailroom of a private business.”

        – The problem here is “for me to place my children”. You end up with helpless immature creatures who need Daddy to organize social experiences for them. Are you planning to follow them around organizing social occasions for them until they are ready to retire? Or when exactly are they supposed to learn to handle their own social lives?

      • The issue here is not school vs. home schooling. Both of us assume that children will require some form of school. The difference is firstly that I have a wider definition than you do as to what counts as “school.” For example I can see the possibility, at least in theory, that, for some people, working in a mail room could function as school. An even larger difference is that, regardless of what I believe, I am willing to give parents a large measure of the benefit of the doubt when it comes to their children, up to the point that they cause physical harm. I take it as a given that, regardless of whether I may agree with their decisions, parents are better qualified to know what is best for their children and have those interests at heart rather than the government. That goes for gay parents and that goes for Muslim fundamentalist parents. I do not claim any grand theory of child care. Therefore I am willing to let different experiments bloom. You seem to believe that you know what is best for every child on the planet.

      • Contract based law protects us from being strangled at birth. The bounty we see today is the product of this contract and not the government. We are moving more and more to a government not of law, but of personal whim. That will lead to school children being harmed in the long run. At a more practical level, those children will be harmed by the government debt they will have to pay for. Public school education as with everything else in life is not really free. Social skills have value, but do not require the government.

      • “That will lead to school children being harmed in the long run. ”

        – So let’s harm them today to prevent some imaginary harm that might or might not happen in some imaginary universe in some indefinite long run? Why not just lock them up and never let them out to prevent bad mean government officials from putting guns to their heads in the middle of the street?

        “Public school education as with everything else in life is not really free. ”

        – Nothing costs a person more than helicoptering maladjusted parents who consume their children’s lives. NOTHING.

      • “Nothing costs a person more than helicoptering maladjusted parents who consume their children’s lives. NOTHING.”

        My grandmother is a child Holocaust survivor. I suspect that she might disagree with you.

        The harm being done to every person, including children, by government using the power of coercion to tax people is very real.

      • OK, this is now getting bizarre. For the 7th time: WE ARE DISCUSSING HOMESCHOOLING IN THE US TODAY. With all due respect to Holocaust survivors, what on Earth are they doing int the discussion of the US today???

      • You said “NOTHING” can be worse. Being in the Holocaust was worse. In terms of living in 21st century America being the child of migrant laborers working from sun rise to sunset might be worse. Being sexually abused by a rabbi or priest is worse. Should I go on?

      • ” In terms of living in 21st century America being the child of migrant laborers working from sun rise to sunset might be worse”

        – You are very much mistaken. People who work all day long have a lot more to give to their children on every level (except money, of course) than a homeschooling housewife.

        “Being sexually abused by a rabbi or priest is worse.”

        – Children who are sexually abused by strangers are the same children who were first victimized at home. This doesn’t happen out of the blue. Roles are assigned at home.

      • I believe that the population as a whole is much poorer because of government and that this leads to many social and psychological problems. No I do not think that government is the cause of all the evil in the world, just most of it.

      • “I believe that the population as a whole is much poorer because of government and that this leads to many social and psychological problems. ”

        – Lack of money does not create psychological problems. It kind of works the other way round. :-)

        “No I do not think that government is the cause of all the evil in the world, just most of it.”

        – My friend, you manage to prove that there is a single psychological problem a government causes (let alone most of them) and you will have created a scientific breakthrough of huge proportions. Maybe there is even a Nobel Prize awaiting you. :-) :-) :-)

      • I hope that I have figured out how to correctly reply to this thread.

        Somalia gives us a definitive example of what happens when there is no government. I wonder whether there are any data about schools and education there during the past couple of decades. In other ways, it is certainly not a place I would eagerly choose to live.

      • I am afraid that I consider North Korea to be the only totalitarian society on the planet. As I understand it, the former Soviet Union did not even come close to the absolute control over people’s lives that exists there.

      • “I am afraid that I consider North Korea to be the only totalitarian society on the planet. As I understand it, the former Soviet Union did not even come close to the absolute control over people’s lives that exists there.”

        – Of course, it’s all a matter of degree. This reminded me that I have an interesting story about the enforcement of totalitarian control in North Korea.

  7. Your argument seems to hinge on an understanding of the child as parental private property. Which is very very disturbing.

    • “Your argument seems to hinge on an understanding of the child as parental private property”

      – That is the CENTRAL problem of many parent / child relationships. No public school can do nearly as much harm.

    • Better the property of a parent than the property of the government. Children become free of parents by virture of gaining the knowledge to be able to enter into contracts and engage in homesteading. Government can claim power over you for life. A child enters this world without the ability to enter into the social contract, leaving it vulnerable to the horrors of Hobbesian warfare. The parent is simply the person who steps in and places the child under the protection of their personal social contract. Biological parents, particularly mothers, would have first claim based on homesteading rights.

      • “Children become free of parents by virture of gaining the knowledge to be able to enter into contracts and engage in homesteading.”

        – Not psychologically, they don’t. We are discussing the psychological harm caused by homeschooling in this thread.

        “Government can claim power over you for life. A child enters this world without the ability to enter into the social contract, leaving it vulnerable to the horrors of Hobbesian warfare.”

        – I’m talking to you about the very real issues a person who has no or few socialization skills experiences. I’m talking to you about my own person suffering here. Hobbes was of very little help to me when, at the age of 7, I faced the necessity to approach a group of kids and had no idea what to do. It is still of no help to me when I can’t ask anybody over to my apartment, not even close friends and when I lie to people in order to avoid social occasions. A government did not cause that to me. Lack of socialization did.

  8. “Would you say had a choice in phone service if AT&T came into your house every month, put a gun to your head, took $100 from your wallet and then gave you a month of phone service for ‘free'” We do that. Taxes go to pay for phone lines/ cell phone towers. Those things aren’t paid for completely out of our phone fees. Essentially, there is no aspect of our public lives that isn’t supported by taxes in some way: untainted meat, clean vegetables, electricity, water, radio, television–all these things are supported by taxes in some capacity. Even most private schools receive some sort of tax support–in the forms of breaks, exemptions etc. The only way to have a life that is somehow completely unsupported by taxes is to “go off the grid” and live the life of hermit free from any modern niceties. And I would argue that an educated, literate, and socialized populace contributes to the larger social good more than cell phone towers. I challenge you to find a country that has a high standard of living that does not provide an education to its citizens. Publicly supported education mass-education is one the most important products of the “modern age” and one that we shouldn’t take lightly.

    • Up until modern times all basic education in the west was in the hands of the Church. Did we need an established Church in order to avoid mass illiteracy. We live in a world of government were even the “private” businesses are government sponsored cartels. Part of being a liberal is the willingess to use reason to think of alternative ways of living that do not involve physical force.

      • “We live in a world of government were even the “private” businesses are government sponsored cartels. ”

        – Does this belief prevent you from eating? Remember you eat the food heavily sponsored by governmental subsidies and produced by governmental agro cartels. But you still eat it, right?

        In what concerns children, though, it is OK to let the starve for proper education and socialization because you read Hobbes. Yes, makes a ton of sense.

      • Part of the problem with government is that it makes thieves of us all. Yes I eat, but I recognize that this opens me up to being shot by those people harmed by government farming policy. Remove government from as many things as possible and there will be less reason for violence in the world. Children can eat and socialize without government help.

      • So, even if you don’t own a cell phone, your money still goes to support cell phone towers. Vegetarians still pay taxes which go to support meat inspection. Do you find any of these things problematic? Or is it just public secular education? (And the church never educated _every_body–just those who followed their principals: women and non-Catholics had some trouble there.) Going back to that sort of structure would be socially disastrous.)

      • Yes I believe these things are a problem just like public education and the government should get out of all of these things.
        I am not saying that Church run education was good or bad simply that it was the only thing in place. It would have been just as difficult for a premodern to imagine any education happening outside of the Church as it is for people today to think of private schools handling all education. Being a liberal means having that imagination. I am willing to dream the big dream even if I recognize that I likely will see little of it.

  9. Well if you are against food inspection and public education, then you have a very fearful vision of government. Really, the only thing left is to go off the grid. As far as food goes, unless you are raising and slaughtering it yourself, there is no realistic way that an individual can have the capacity to inspect food for microscopic bacteria. And by your conception, you should be against private educatino too since that is also somewhat tax supported. You seem to envision a clan, nearly medieval type of society. And it’s fine. You are entittled to your opinion of course. But I am not sure how your extreme fear of society and taxes qualifies as liberal. You strike me as exceptionally conservative.

    • I have no wish to go off the grid. There is no reason why I should, because not only am I critical of government, but I do not see it as even legitimate either. Since the government has no legal claim to the schools it builds, I can use them as I wish. As a liberal, I support the existence of a complex society full of people from different races and believing different creeds working together. I believe we can do that with government playing a minimal to non-existent role. Rather than going back to medieval feudalism, I support the elimination of tariffs and other laws that get in the way of free trade. As an Orthodox Jew I do not inspect the food that I buy myself to make sure it is kosher rather I rely on imperfect, but non-government entities like the OU to certify food for me. Is there any reason to assume that such a system would not work to certify food to a certain health standard? What is great about the kosher certification system is that people can pick different levels of stringency for themselves.

  10. Pingback: Without homeschooling, Christian Patriarchy wouldn’t exist « A Quiver Full of Information

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s