Stepford Children 2000

Great Debates
1

No, not a Hollywood remake of the (in)famous movie. (^:

The cover article of the New York Times Magazine this last weekend was a profile of a evangelical Christian family that is raising their kids as isolated from the “evil” influences of the world as possible. As a conservative who votes Republican at every election, I found this to be about the most frightening thing I’ve read in the last year or so. Liberal readers of the Times probably fainted outright. (^:

The kids are totally home schooled, can watch no television (they are allowed selected pre-1960s movies on video) or listen to popular music, cannot play competitive sports, and the parents have set a different religious theme for each day of the week to structure the children’s activities. When they become teenagers, they will not be allowed to date, but they can “court” in their parent’s home under the supervision of their parents when they are fairly sure they’ve found the right person. (But how do they meet people to find the right person?)

The parents are ever-vigilant to insulate their kids from any outside (non-Christian) influences that may stray into their path. Therefore, one or both of the parents are with the kids most all of the waking hours of the day and share in all their activities. When the reporter asked the parents if the children have ever asked questions or expressed opinions that were unexpected or surprising, the reply was basically “That doesn’t really happen around here.” The parents avowed goal is to have the children follow directly in their moral footsteps. As the article puts it (paraphrasing), the social and emotional separateness of child from parent (children being “their own person” and “on their own” personality-wise if not literally living elsewhere), which all parents expect to happen and consider to be normal maturation (though they approach it with varying degrees of wistfullness for the days when the child thought the parent was always right), would be considered by the profiled parents to be the deepest sort of disloyalty and betrayal.

Though many parents fantasize about being able to control all influence on their children so that they become “perfect,” most parents realize that it is not only not possible, it wouldn’t be desireable if it could be done:

  1. The “outside” world has many good things and positive influences. Yes, even television and movies. (^: Strictly controlling what comes into a child’s life keeps out the good surprises as well as the bad: to paraphrase the article, preventing a child from inadvertantly picking up curse words or meeting bad kids aso prevents the child from picking up a word in a foreign language or making a new friend.
  2. Even if the world were mostly bad influences, it’s better for kids to encounter them in a controlled manner than to totally isolate the child from them. Most normal people have a reasonable ability, in viewing, reading, and listening to their environment (the media, etc.), to distinguish what is real from what is fake, or what is a biased “pitch” from what is well-intended and well-informed advice, because they have been exposed to both as they grew up. But when these children go out in the world – and no matter what the parents intend, they will have to go out in the world at some point – they will have no exposure and no points of reference or comparison. To analogize, the average person is exposed to the helpful, harmless, and harmful germs of the environment, and does not fall gravely ill from common germs because their body has become used to their presence. But the person raised in a totally sterile environment, or whose immune system is otherwise rendered impotent, is quickly infected and becomes very sick when exposed to bacteria that are mere nuisances to the rest of us.

The reason I put this in Great Debates is that the article poses a dilemma of sorts. The children are not being abused or neglected by their parents in a legal sense: they are being clothed, fed, educated, not physically abused, etc., and the parents are within their legal rights to raise their children in the manner above described. How would a legislature or a court draw the line between legitimately sheltering a small child from certain harmful influence until their understanding is better and raising children in a separate and isolated world? That said, I have no doubt that if I were All-Powerful Emperor of the World™, I would take the kids away from the parents and send them off to some sort of therapy in the hopes that it isn’t too late for them.

Thoughts? Reactions? Criticisms?

2

Thats scary as hell. I really really pity those kids, if they’re lucky then they’ll get taken away from those parents as soon as possible. Theres no way I can see that they will ever become able to adequately deal with society/the-world-at-large with parents like that.

And what are these parents going to do when the kids reach college age, just set them loose out in the world, or were they planning on keeping them secluded all their lives?
Now I don’t necessarily approve of parents being restrictive and teaching their children their bigotries or religions(not saying the two are the same) but I don’t think it’s wrong either. Parents raise children, usually they try to have children with the same world view as them(and usually it happens) but whats happening here is completely and utterly different. What the parents are doing in this case is essentially abuse. It is similar to tying the children down to the potty and leaving them there for years. These children are being abused, and should be removed from their parents custody as soon as possible.

3

I too read the article, and whas shocked at what I read but I don’t, however, think that the way these parents are shaping their kid’s lives is tantamount to abuse.
While not religous personally, I do feel that religion can enrich a person’s life, if that is the sort of enrichment that they deem valuable. To some parents, especially this Christian fundamentalist type, raising my kids without religion (The Word of God, accepting The Lord Jesus Christ as my personal Savior, or whatever specifics you choose) is abuseful. I wouldn’t presume to say that these parents are endangering their kids.
That said however, I do think they are doing a shockingly poor job of preparing these kids for the world we all, you and I, live in. When the youngest girl asked the interviewer “What is Play-Doh” I shuddered.
However I think the parents would argue that they aren’t raising the kids to live in the world you and I occupy: instead they are raising them to live in the insulated, cloistered world of the extreme Christian right, a movement (if the reporter is to be believed) that is gaining ground every day. Thes kids will be very prepared to live in that society.
I’d never do this to my kids, because I expect they will grow up to play, learn, love, and live in the larger society. I will raise them to be as best prepared as possible with the skills needed to be a successful member of our society. I think these parents are doing the same: raising their kids to be successful members of their own society.

Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to
pound in the correct screw.

4

I’d love to read the article. Anyone have a link handy? Otherwise I’m sure I can scrounge it tonight . . .

-andros-

5

I don’t think this is going to come out as a link, but here is the url…you might have to register at the NYT, but it is free.
http://www.nytimes.com/library/magazine/home/20000227mag-christian.html

Applying computer technology is simply finding the right wrench to
pound in the correct screw.

6

Thanks

7

You shudder that a child doesn’t know what PlayDoh is, I shudder when a 6 year old shoots another 6 year old on the playground.

I know quite a few people who raise kids the way you describe, so the kids should all be taken away from their parents and raised by “professional therapists” huh?

I wouldn’t raise kids that way, but I also wouldn’t presume to know the “right” way to raise kids.

8

I read the article as well. I found it fascinating. To me the most interesting point in the article was that the Christian separatist family was part of a developing “reverse counterculture” where people separate themselves to impose restrictive rules in opposition to general society’s liberality, rather than the traditional counterculture’s looking for liberalization of the rules of a conservative society.

Both of the parents came from more mainstream Christian traditions, and had some personal and family problems in the past. They both turned to conservative Christianity as young adults, and found it addressed some of their personal concerns.

The family seemed relatively normal and well-adjusted. The father is an pilot for a major airline and naval reserve officer. The mother stays at home and home-schools the children, though she previously worked in naval base child care centers when her husband was on active duty. The children range from a toddler to a 13 year old daughter. They seem to have friends that they visit with (including friends the childrens’ ages), though their friends appear to be limited to their church group.

Despite the fact that my religious views and practices are entirely different from theirs, I didn’t think it was too bad. They all seemed happy and largely well-adjusted within their voluntarily restricted world. They have not divorced themselves from society or gone “off the grid,” but chosen to limit their associations.

What I worry about is when the children get to the ages at which they will begin to be able to make their own choices. I suspect that some of the children will choose to continue in the path set out by their parents, though there will be others who will rebel from the restrictions. I fear that they will not be able to deal with close family members who do not choose to share their focused world view.

9

Sorry, John, but I’m with the “so what?” crowd.

AFAIC, if they aren’t hurting the kids physically, or teaching them to hurt others, they’re fine by me. I disagree with their theology and their childrearing methods, but so what? They seem to be raising kids that will contribute to society and not harm me in the future. I’m all for it.

-andros-

10

Billdo:

It’s not a “voluntarily restricted world” on the part of the children. Ignorance is not bliss. Ignorance is opression.

My first cousin is raising his kids in this manner. We see them occasionally during extended family reunions and these kids are dizfunkshunel. They don’t know where to stand or sit. They NEVER talk to anyone but their brothers and sisters. Additionally, their parents aren’t particularly bright and are certainly not going to be able to teach the kids anything more than basic job skills. This is not to mention the available vocabulary. I think it’s safe to say that we’ll never have them on this board, they are a lost cause.

11

I have a question, since I know approximately squat about home schooling.

When you home school, are their certain things you are required to teach? For instance, I’m certain that the word “evolution” will never be uttered to these children. Could I teach my kids that the world is flat, and that the sun revolves around it?

Dr. J

“Seriously, baby, I can prescribe anything I want!” -Dr. Nick Riviera

12

For the people who think that this is perfectly alright or that I’m equating trying to raise a child with morals and values with child abuse, here are some quotes from the parents, straight from the article, and my comments thereon.

[Speaking of when they sent one of their daughters to kindergarten, before they decided to rely on home schooling.]
“But what we noticed was that she got more interested in what her peers were doing than
in what her family was doing! We felt like our family-centered little girl was being pulled away from us.”

Duh! This is NORMAL! Kids are supposed to have an interest in their peers. Most kids go through the mommy-and-daddy-are-perfect stage, but most also grow out of it to have ideas and interests of their own. And MOST parents consider this bittersweet: they miss the unquestioning trust of early childhood but they are also proud that the child is growing up to be their own person.

When an older child focuses only on their parents, to the exclusion of the rest of the world, don’t you start thinking that the kid has or will have an unhealthy fixation? Oedipus and Electra to the white courtesy phone, your counselor is calling.
“We didn’t want to lose our children to other people’s ideas and ideologies,”

“We wanted our children’s hearts, and we really feel we have them.”
Don’t these two quotes speak for themselves? THIS is the aspect that reminds me of the “Stepford Children”. NOT giving them Bible readings and religious lessons. NOT keeping them from watching television. Not preventing them from playing competitive sports. Not even the home schooling, by itself. No, it’s having all those actions, and others, focused coherently toward the central and EXPRESS purpose of having the children be unquestioningly obedient to their parents and not having them harbor any independent ideas or personality. If that isn’t the very definition of “Stepford-ish,” I don’t know what on this Earth is!

13

Doc, you can teach your kids anything you want to.

If you want them to have credit from the state for completing high school, you need to certify that they have met the minimum state requirements (varies, of course), and often several state-determined exams are required.

But apart from the basic requirements (literacy, often state history, basic math, blah blah), you can go to town. Teach your kids revisionist history, teach them Creationism, teach them about the Invisible Purple Unicorn, whatever.

-andros-

14

No offense intended, John, but

Oh? Sez you. Who am I to determine what kids are “supposed” to have?

The parents obviously aren’t sociopaths–they have friends and are polite to those who don’t share their beliefs. They’re raising their kids the same way, no? According to the article, the kids have friends.

Now, I agree with you completely that I would sooner eat a bowlful of lye than raise my kids that way. I also believe that exposure to any and all aspects of our varied cultures is absolutely essential. I think that it’s a shame these kids will never be able to see beyond their own Better Homes and Gardens white picket fence.

But they’re doing no damage to me or to society as a whole. And while they might not be raising well-rounded kids, they’re not harming the kids either.

-andros-

15

John,

Do you believe the Amish or similar groups are committing child abuse? If not, how are they different than the parents you describe above?

16

I see the question I asked was already raised and discussed on the other Stepford Children thread her. Sorry for the duplication.

17

My personal opinion is that these parents have gone a little too far. Having said that, I am moved to defend them amid all the people calling them unfit parents. I think the following article gives just about all the justification these parents need to explain why they are raising their children the way they are:

**Mich boy shooter “didn’t understand what he’d done” **
Updated 1:25 PM ET March 1, 2000
By Michael Ellis
MT. MORRIS TOWNSHIP, Mich. (Reuters) - The 6-year-old Michigan boy who shot and killed a 6-year-old girl in their classroom had severe problems at home and appeared not to understand the seriousness of what he had done, investigators said Wednesday.

He seemed to regard it as a television-style killing, they said. When police stopped quizzing him about the shooting – which horrified Americans because the shooter and his victim were so young – he turned to drawing pictures.

Full Article