[lbo-talk] Re: children and socialism

Michael Dawson -PSU mdawson at pdx.edu
Fri Dec 12 11:39:26 PST 2003



> I disagree. Children, up to an age where they start to be brainwashed by
TV, are far more sensitive to the emotional relationships of the adults around them, than to the amount of stuff they own. Provided they have food to eat, shelter, (and medical care when needed), and the love of their parents -- they are quite, quite allright. I grant that a huge percentage of the world's children do not have the basics and that many cannot get the emotional care they need because their parents are overworked and exhausted: but what the children need is love, not money. In this regard more "primitive" societies do better by their kids because at least the parents are around.

You seem to have almost argued yourself over to my position here: Economic realities rob U.S. parents of time with their kids. Of course, high quality emotional connection is what it's all about. The question is what blocks so many people from having that? Answer: Long work week + women's poverty from divorce + mass TV addiction. All economically-driven factors.


> It's not really a dual family system. It's a family system in which any
parent (and there can be more than two parents) can have a close friend/lover out of the family orbit. This kind of arrangement was not that unusual in Europe in my parents' generation. In fact, my parents had a marriage more or less like that. And, you _can_ have happiness at both levels, just not usually with the same person. You know the saying: "Lovers come and go, but friends stay." Believe me, if it were socially accepted, it would not seem that weird.
>
> Children don't really care about their parents' sexual lives. So far as
they're concerned, their parents should have sex each time they want a child and no more.
>
> "Imagine the split system: "Goodnight, Jenny and Johnny! I'm off to my
> adult lover now! Don't worry about mommy. She's not really that sad.
> She'll cry herself to sleep.""
>
> I found this very amusing. Why would the parents tell the kids they were
off to see their adult lover? Do normal parents tell their kids that they're going to have sex? Why assume that it's the man who is going to go off to his tryst while mommy stays home crying? Why should she cry? Presumably, if this union is about the kids, she has her own lover and her own night out. True, this is not the greatest thing in terms of spontaneity, but judging from all the married childful couples I know, frequent, spontaneous sex is more a fantasy than a reality for them anyway.
>

Of course, kids don't care about adult sex lives. They do, however, care very deeply about both parents' emotional happiness. If you believe in open relationships and find them preferable, I support your right to live that way. Personally, I find that idea repulsive and contrary to basic Freudian needs between lovers. Maybe I'm a pervert, but I think open relationships are repulsive to the vast majority, and for pretty practical reasons. People aren't as dumb in this area as you family reformers think they are.

The four good trends of the 20th century: 1. consolidation of democracy as the only proper basis for political power; 2. reduction in racism; 3. reduction in sexism; 4. democratization of family life. See Anthony Giddens: http://www.lse.ac.uk/Giddens/reith_99/week4/week4.htm



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list