radical parenting

72 posts / 0 new
Last post
Steven.'s picture
Joined: 27-06-06
May 8 2007 12:52

Daniel, I can sympathise with a lot of your points. However, statements about the nature of the "inherent" behaviours of males and females are just conjecture.

You can't say what is "natural" or "hard-wired" behaviour in boys or girls, because you are unable to distinguish between genetic determination and cultural/societal conditioning. To do so you would have to be able to observe males and females in completely different cultures (i.e. ones where there was no pre-existing expectation for girls to be passive, boys to be aggressive, etc.).

You haven't done this, and so you have no idea of knowing what is the cause.

One thing which you can say for certain is that our society definitely does condition and reinforce certain attitudes and behaviours in boys and girls, and that despite this there are still large numbers of females who exhibit "masculine" traits like aggression and males who exhibit "feminine" ones like being caring, etc.

communism_the_new_white's picture
Joined: 13-05-07
May 13 2007 06:13

i think most pearents raise their children according to their gender
--sub conciously or intetionally i dont know--

if you have a son- and let him play with toy prams and tea sets, he is probably not going to want to play football or soccer with 'the other boys' which have been raised based on their gender.- he may find himself lost or confused about his role in society.

i am a teenage boy-
growing up with 5 sisters i was surrounded by barbie and polly pocket, ect.
i have never played rugby and i am reluctant to play sports or do 'boy stuff'' and when i started puberty i was very confused, as a child i did not identify with either gender-
and still do not
i have very few guy mates- because i really can't relate to them very well.

i think that it is positive to raise children to fit their gender roles-
but not to raise children so that they are repressed- give some room for them to breathe too

Joined: 24-09-04
Aug 3 2007 04:16

Just come across this thread, and there is sooo much I'd like to add to this but don't have the time.\

So briefly, as an anarchist parent I am generally disturbed by much of the position put forward by 'daniel'. That is I'm upset by the ideas and not the person.

Particular comments such as "I don't really see why raising kids should be seen as political .." are just wrong. I've always felt that one of the strengths of anarchist theory/philosophy was the understanding that the way we live our daily lives is 'political'. Our daily actions and behaviours have an effect on others which either increases or decreases our 'collective' liberties and experiences. This effect is cumulative and if repeated constantly becomes 'dominate culture' and 'institutionalised'.

On of the great contributions of anarcho-feminism is the understandings of how daily family life can entrench exploitative and oppressive institutions, such as patriarchy and the State. It is a complex relationship, but a real one.

I think it is fundamentally important to have a concept of 'anarcho-parenting' so that the family relationship is humanly healthy and positive one, instead of the family relationship that is constructed on multiple forms of abuse, cohesion and domination. This can only be done when a parent is aware of the consequence of their behaviours towards their children, as well as being aware of the consequences of the wage system, capital and Statism on family relationships. Again this is a big and difficult issue not to be brushed off.

Central to this issue is that of schooling, and Queensland did have one of the closest, viable examples of an 'anarchist' school in the 'Booroobin Sudbury School'. Which the Qld gov. did it's best to close. Search it for details.

And yes Daniel I think you are being racist to suggest their are significant biological differences between 'Africans' and 'Europeans'. And I think you are also being sexist in your 'critique' of raising children with gender roles. Gender roles ARE a social concept (as is RACE) used to justify various forms of exploitation. This socialisation begins in the family, through 'normal' daily interactions. An anarchist society should destroy all forms of 'gender roles' and allow all people to freely express themselves as individuals.

Joined: 21-03-06
Aug 21 2007 12:04

Yeah and I'm joing in here too.

If lumpnboy ever checks back to this thread again, I recommend they ammend their intro post to say 'don't bother reading pages 1 and 2'

As a parent of a six month old, I am all too aware of how much harder resisting new world globalisation and creating a new anarchist world is when you have kids. Firstly, your involvement with the movement completely changes because you a) don't find damp dirty squates terribly enticing and b) you're much more interested in creating a new world rather than 'smashing' the old one. Read this post for lots of good discussion on these issues [url=http://radicalcrossstitch.com/2007/01/24/anarcho-breeding/[/url]

I am constantly learning new ways to encourage and foster imagination, creativity and adventure in our house. After all, you can't have anarchy without imagination. Right?

Learning how to be sustainable in all the ways we parent, from the food, to the clothes to the nappies to the toys (no cars, trucks, guns and as little plastic as possible thanks).

There are tons of great anarchist parenting blogs out there, including some super blogs from some anarchist dads. Google them, they're all seriously inspirational.

And I recommend anyone interested in learning more about anarchist parenting checks out the TCS or Taking Children Seriously movement. TCS is all about non-authoritarian parenting (to put it super super simply) and there's a lot of anarchists getting right into it.

And FYI the playgroup movement, which is parents organising childcare in a co-operative style was started by anarchists.

There that's me for another couple of months.


Lazy Riser's picture
Lazy Riser
Joined: 6-05-05
Aug 21 2007 14:17
John. wrote:
You can't say what is "natural" or "hard-wired" behaviour in boys or girls, because you are unable to distinguish between genetic determination and cultural/societal conditioning.

On the contrary, John.. For instance knocking out the VMAT2 gene increases alcoholism in boys but not in girls. It’s not easy to show that some behaviour is genetically determined, but it’s not impossible.

Tojiah's picture
Joined: 2-10-06
Oct 22 2007 21:14
georgestapleton wrote:
tojiah wrote:
Fucking like rutting pigs (or, rather "laissez-faire sexual activities", as you put it before editing): without proper protection encourages the spread of diseases which cement dependence on state apparatus of prevailing order, and causes early pregnancies supplying hostages to prevailing order.

I thought you were into queer politics and you are telling people when and when not to, how and how not to have sex!!!!

Cop yourself on.

I retract my previous defense of this comment. You're right, it was fucking daft. My only excuse is the difficulty of expurgating liberal influences from my psyche. Mea culpa.

Joined: 3-06-07
Jan 1 2008 23:03

To re-rail this thread..

Mate (To his 6-yearold daughter): Are you going to grow up to be an Anarchist like your daddy?

Daughter: NO!

Mate: See? She's rebelling against me already! grin

Anarchia's picture
Joined: 18-03-06
Jan 2 2008 02:09

We asked a friend's 4 year old son a while back: Are you going to grow up to be a punk anarchist animal rights activist when you grow up?

He responded: No, I just want to be ME!

Was fucking cute.

Joined: 4-12-04
Jan 3 2008 08:53

My two year old daughter is determined she's going to grow up to be a person, which seems like an admirable pursuit to me

Joined: 6-03-07
Feb 3 2008 08:50

I've only had time to read the first page but the discussion doesn't seem to have developed a whole lot. I have three children, two (6 and 12) with me now nad have had a hand in the rearing of maybe half a dozen more. That there is a biological effect on character, including a systematic biological effect on gneder roles is bleeding obvious to anyone who has actually raised children. That doesn't mean that children should be ties in gneder role straightjackets.

What Daniel said, eg

The differences between the genders are biological and social, I'd say. The fact is, women are the one's who bare children and have many genetic mothering instincts. Men are more agressive and without as many child-rearing instincts. Of course, that's just general, and the fact that we are humans means we can modify our behavior. Nowadays we can move beyond narrow gender roles. Women don't have to have kids. Neither do men. Males can work on overcoming agressiveness. Women don't have to be passive.

Joined: 6-03-07
Feb 3 2008 08:51

And of course there is a lot of natural variation as with any biological feature. Some women are taller than some men etc.