Do You Think People Should Be Required To take Parenting Lessons before having Children?

[Jenesis]

As with anything else, it depends. There are certain situations i.e. safety where kids must listen and follow instructions of their parents or teachers whether they like it or not.

I totally get why you think that. So please don’t take this the wrong way but this is exactly the opposite of what parents need to learn.

A kid SHOULD and hopefully DOES listen but must - nope. That’s the rub. You can’t control people. Adults, kids, teens. You have no control. You only have guidance and even when it comes to safety.

How did you learn not to touch something that was hot? I bet you were told “no”, “it’s hot”, “danger” and you didn’t listen at some point. Found out for yourself.

For me, my mom always said, “don’t climb on the counter using the stove!!” And when did I learn? After I burned my hand on the stove.

Now I didn’t do it in defiance but I didn’t do what I was told even in a safety situation.
My mom took me to the hospital, got bandaged, got home and she spanked my ass purple for not listening. To her, there needed to be punishment for not listening because kids must listen to what their parents say, especially around safety. That’s not all parents mind you. I get that, but some and more so back in the day when love was meant to be tough

That is why parenting classes need to teach stages of parenting and what parenting actually means. Love is great but love doesn’t make you a great or even good parent. Which is all that people think parenting really is.

You hear it all the time. “As long as you love them, you will do right”. But that is just not the case.

 

[LaceyxJade]

What's needed is more accessible resources for parents in general. Aspiring, new and and those who experience the loss of a child.
Adequate benefits and maternity/paternity leave, including job security and daycare. Ties back into more money needed in social services.
This could begin with a compulsory sex education program. Seems like a pipe dream but should be a no brainer.
Parents are often shamed for being transparent about needing help, or not having it together.
I don't want this comment to be boiled down to paying more taxes (please lol)
I have a Child and Youth Work Diploma and saw entire families fall through the cracks way too many times, even just while in placement.
The resources are plainly just not there. People are going to procreate no matter what. Not sure if I went off topic here but it hurts my heart.

 

[jcpro]

Why stop at mandatory parenting lessons? Why not just replay the "good old days" of the government deciding if you're good enough to have children at all? We could just revive the old policies of forced sterilization of the undesirables and the feeble minded.

 

[explorerzip]

I totally get why you think that. So please don’t take this the wrong way but this is exactly the opposite of what parents need to learn.

A kid SHOULD and hopefully DOES listen but must - nope. That’s the rub. You can’t control people. Adults, kids, teens. You have no control. You only have guidance and even when it comes to safety.

How did you learn not to touch something that was hot? I bet you were told “no”, “it’s hot”, “danger” and you didn’t listen at some point. Found out for yourself.

For me, my mom always said, “don’t climb on the counter using the stove!!” And when did I learn? After I burned my hand on the stove.

Now I didn’t do it in defiance but I didn’t do what I was told even in a safety situation.
My mom took me to the hospital, got bandaged, got home and she spanked my ass purple for not listening. To her, there needed to be punishment for not listening because kids must listen to what their parents say, especially around safety. That’s not all parents mind you. I get that, but some and more so back in the day when love was meant to be tough

That is why parenting classes need to teach stages of parenting and what parenting actually means. Love is great but love doesn’t make you a great or even good parent. Which is all that people think parenting really is.

You hear it all the time. “As long as you love them, you will do right”. But that is just not the case.

Again, it depends. There are roles where your life could be at stake if you don't follow instructions: police, fire, military, health care, forestry, construction, mining, even pilots to a certain degree.

As for learning not to play with knives, touch a pot of water, etc. it also depends. I learned not to play around the stove after hearing that my uncle as a kid, toppled a pot of hot water on himself. So I didn't exactly have to be told not to do certain things.

The trouble with parenting class is that it would need to deal with the cultural aspects of it. Asian cultures (Chinese, Indian, Muslim, etc) tend to be more strict while Western cultures are not. If you're in a traditional Chinese family, the parents sometimes move in with their kids. They help raise the grandkids or help with the cooking, shopping, etc. I saw that first hand with a few of my Chinese friends. This seldom exists in Western cultures.

I have no idea how prevalent that practice still is though. Also, it depends on regional factors. You might not have the space to have in-laws live with you if your family is a in tiny apartment in HK. But having parents living with their adult kids in Canada is easily doable.

I think the other trouble with a parenting class would be deciding on what qualifies as being a "good" parent. I'm not a parent, but I believe that there needs to be some manner of structure or discipline in the house. That's what kids are going to face when they get into the workforce. I believe that parents don't need to become their kids best friend to do it either. Some believe that you need to be your kids best friend. Both styles (and everything in between) are totally valid.

I think that managing stress is a more important lesson, but could also be rolled into a parenting class too.

 

[y2kmark]

I think overpopulation is not as big of a problem as some make it out to be. We have major issues to address like water, energy and food production, housing and waste disposal.

And the root cause isn't overpopulation?...

 

[explorerzip]

And thew root cause isn't overpopulation?...

No, I think it's more of the Western style culture more than actual number of people in the world. Western culture has perpetuated the myth that we need a whole lot of "stuff" in our lives and a most of it is thrown away. I don't think it is necessarily "good" or "bad", but that culture has consequences. Same thing goes for agriculture. We subsidize certain crops or raise livestock that are not suited for their environment. So we consume huge amounts of water, energy and chemicals trying to maintain yields.

 

[Male4Strapon]

not enough structure or discipline in kid's life is also a big problem.

Agreed.

The biggest problem to me is those that would take this idea seriously and learn from it are not the problem parents. It would instead be those who are dedicated to being good parents and open to how to be better parents. That could work for them but the abusive parents would not change from another adult telling them how to raise their kids...... at least that's how they will view it. If anything it may anger them to the point of abuse escalating as they take their frustrations out on their kids.
This would essentially be preaching to the choir.
What's needed IMO is harsher penalties for abusers and more involved support and monitoring. Maybe rather than a course, families are subject to random visits (with a little notice) to check on the family with everyone present. That's not a perfect solution by any means but I think it would be more effective than a course.

 

[explorerzip]

Agreed.

The biggest problem to me is those that would take this idea seriously and learn from it are not the problem parents. It would instead be those who are dedicated to being good parents and open to how to be better parents. That could work for them but the abusive parents would not change from another adult telling them how to raise their kids...... at least that's how they will view it. If anything it may anger them to the point of abuse escalating as they take their frustrations out on their kids.
This would essentially be preaching to the choir.
What's needed IMO is harsher penalties for abusers and more involved support and monitoring. Maybe rather than a course, families are subject to random visits (with a little notice) to check on the family with everyone present. That's not a perfect solution by any means but I think it would be more effective than a course.

We could have harsher penalties for abusers, but the damage has been done at that point. It's kind of the same problem with random checks even if there's suspicion of abuse. You have to find and screen people willing to do the job. The family members (or most of them) need to be at home or else it's a waste of the inspector's time.

I think more supports need to put in place for people for soon to be, current or even those that have no interest in being parents. That could come in many forms like childcare, workplace help lines, etc. Obviously, there's a cost to that.

While the OP's post does have a lot of merit, the big issue is how and if it should be mandatory. We start getting into the weeds of government over-reach, etc. and I don't think that would fly.

 

[superstar_88]

No.
You want to make this a law? Throw the culprit in jail for having illegitimate kids? What about the kids someone is not even aware they have? Condom breaks and off to jail you go.

 

[rhuarc29]

People who sexually abuse, physically abuse, or emotionally abuse their children are stunted human beings and I can't see how mandatory parenting classes will change anything in this situation.

That's my thought on the subject. The cases of abuse are typically by those who shouldn't be having kids to begin with, for which there are quite a few individuals.
For the parents who simply don't know what they're doing, such classes may be useful. But most often they can find resources to help them already.

But there's another matter that I think is creating a lot of problems in our society, with regards to parenting. And that's overstressed and overworked parents. Let's be honest: most family households are now dual-income, by a ratio of about 3-to-1 based on the government of Canada statistics. This was not the norm for a large portion of humanity's history. Many kids in today's society are being raised more by teachers, childhood educators and social media. That, or by parents who can't devote the time to meet their needs fully. It's my personal belief, and maybe others will disagree, that dual-income households are often damaging to the family structure. Keep in mind that I'm not saying mommy should always stay home, I'm simply saying having both parents working can put strain on the family unit.

This begs the question: what has occurred in the previous few decades to perpetuate this? Why is it now virtually required to be a dual-income household in order to subsist?
The answer to that question is extremely complex, involving everything from consumerism, globalism, innovation, immigration and government programs. But even though it's a complex answer, it's one worth figuring out. Because we are raising another generation of overstressed men and women, if they're not outright broken individuals.

 

[Male4Strapon]

Why is it now virtually required to be a dual-income household in order to subsist?
But even though it's a complex answer, it's one worth figuring out. Because we are raising another generation of overstressed men and women, if they're not outright broken individuals.

that’s a great point and as you say it is a complex answer, the first thing I would point to is the prices of homes.
How is a young couple able to afford a million dollar home even if they have above average paying jobs?
They need triple income through part time or weekend work, meaning even less time in parenting.
Of course none of that excuses abuse in an anyway but it does contribute to poor parenting

 

[explorerzip]

The cases of abuse are typically by those who shouldn't be having kids to begin with, for which there are quite a few individuals.
For the parents who simply don't know what they're doing, such classes may be useful. But most often they can find resources to help them already.

But there's another matter that I think is creating a lot of problems in our society, with regards to parenting. And that's overstressed and overworked parents. Let's be honest: most family households are now dual-income, by a ratio of about 3-to-1 based on the government of Canada statistics. This was not the norm for a large portion of humanity's history. Many kids in today's society are being raised more by teachers, childhood educators and social media. That, or by parents who can't devote the time to meet their needs fully. It's my personal belief, and maybe others will disagree, that dual-income households are often damaging to the family structure. Keep in mind that I'm not saying mommy should always stay home, I'm simply saying having both parents working can put strain on the family unit.

This begs the question: what has occurred in the previous few decades to perpetuate this? Why is it now virtually required to be a dual-income household in order to subsist?
The answer to that question is extremely complex, involving everything from consumerism, globalism, innovation, immigration and government programs. But even though it's a complex answer, it's one worth figuring out. Because we are raising another generation of overstressed men and women, if they're not outright broken individuals.

How do we set the goals posts for who "should" or "should" not have kids? Outside of substance abuse, or criminal activity, setting parenting criteria is next to impossible and totally arbitrary. Not to mention that so-called "good" parents can change over time.

I don't think any of your observations are answerable in any meaningful way. There are so many socio-economic issues tied together that's impossible to get a clear picture even with stats and surveys. Some of your
observations could be right and some could be wrong.

Could having a dual-income household cause damage to a family unit? It's possible, but that's just 1 out of 1000's of other factors.

 

[explorerzip]

that’s a great point and as you say it is a complex answer, the first thing I would point to is the prices of homes.
How is a young couple able to afford a million dollar home even if they have above average paying jobs?
They need triple income through part time or weekend work, meaning even less time in parenting.
Of course none of that excuses abuse in an anyway but it does contribute to poor parenting

I'd include the cost (in money and time) for higher education. So you end up with people that are perpetually on the debt treadmill while also trying to keep up appearances.

 

[rhuarc29]

How do we set the goals posts for who "should" or "should" not have kids? Outside of substance abuse, or criminal activity, setting parenting criteria is next to impossible and totally arbitrary. Not to mention that so-called "good" parents can change over time.

Yeah, I don't think we'd ever be in a place where we could actually enforce that anyway. In other words, I don't think the answer is in gating parenting by requiring some kind of mandatory teaching or testing.

I don't think any of your observations are answerable in any meaningful way.
There are so many socio-economic issues tied together that's impossible to get a clear picture even with stats and surveys. Some of your observations could be right and some could be wrong.

This is true of many of the issues we face as a species. If we don't figure out a way to address complex questions, we're dooming ourselves, as we have some big problems in the road ahead.
I offered one hypothesis: that the rise in dual-income households is correlated with newer generations being stressed out, or broken. It has coincided with an increased prevalence of mental illness, drug abuse, and homelessness. Those three things have already been linked with a "negative family environment", so what's causing the negative family environment? I'm not saying my answer is the correct one, or the only one. But I think it's very plausible it's having a large impact.

I grew up in a two-income household, and I was practically raised by my siblings. My mom got home just in time to start on dinner, and was often visibly stressed. My dad got home even later from his two hour commute, often in a bad mood. Their jobs certainly impacted the family environment, even though they weren't the type to abuse. It resulted in much less bonding time with my parents, and less time for them to see to our needs. I was lucky in that us siblings had each other as a support network. Not everyone is so lucky.

 

[explorerzip]

This is true of many of the issues we face as a species. If we don't figure out a way to address complex questions, we're dooming ourselves, as we have some big problems in the road ahead.
I offered one hypothesis: that the rise in dual-income households is correlated with newer generations being stressed out, or broken. It has coincided with an increased prevalence of mental illness, drug abuse, and homelessness. Those three things have already been linked with a "negative family environment", so what's causing the negative family environment? I'm not saying my answer is the correct one, or the only one. But I think it's very plausible it's having a large impact.

I grew up in a two-income household, and I was practically raised by my siblings. My mom got home just in time to start on dinner, and was often visibly stressed. My dad got home even later from his two hour commute, often in a bad mood. Their jobs certainly impacted the family environment, even though they weren't the type to abuse. It resulted in much less bonding time with my parents, and less time for them to see to our needs. I was lucky in that us siblings had each other as a support network. Not everyone is so lucky.

I'm sure you know that correlation does not equal to causation. I agree it is plausible that one or more causes the other. I don't know if it's possible to test your hypothesis out scientifically though. The only way we can compare time periods properly is to have the exact same data. We have more data now and more ways to report it vs decades ago. That makes it impossible to do a proper comparison.

I also grew up in two income home. Dad had a corporate job and mom was a clerk I think. I honestly can't recall if they looked visibly stressed. Maybe they hid it well? From about grades 1 to 3, I spent a number of hours after school at a neighbours house who had some pre-teen to teenaged kids. So that was my support network outside of friends if you will. The youngest daughter was around grade 7 or 8 at the time and would walk me walk me to their home. Sometimes I had dinner there too. I think it was at the start of the Block Parent program in the early 80's. I have no idea if they were doing police checks back then. The program still exists, but I haven't seen any houses with the sign in the window in decades. Perhaps people are less willing to join the program because they're afraid of the liability.

After that grade 3, I'd walk myself home and have the door locked until my parents came home around dinner time. The neighbours knew to check up on me from time to time.

 

[Darts]

Dual income households, yes. Also, I think we probably have more single parent family now than ever in history.

We could try to start a discussion about single parent households but we know the lefties will immediately get on their soapbox and scream racist and bigot.

 

[y2kmark]

No, I think it's more of the Western style culture more than actual number of people in the world. Western culture has perpetuated the myth that we need a whole lot of "stuff" in our lives and a most of it is thrown away. I don't think it is necessarily "good" or "bad", but that culture has consequences. Same thing goes for agriculture. We subsidize certain crops or raise livestock that are not suited for their environment. So we consume huge amounts of water, energy and chemicals trying to maintain yields.

All because of more and more people, and it also applies to violence and wars. Future wars will be water wars, and I don't mean with soaker squirt guns...

 

[Claudia Love]

Whether you think its a good idea or a bad one. The way things are going with society of raising kids isn't as healthy as i wish it would be. We learn from past generations how to raise kids and back in the old days it was common to beat your kids up when they did wrong. Just in the past 30 years people are now realizing thats detrimental to a kids mental health. Look i wasn't the mother of the world when I had kids I had my children very young and it was very hard financially and both of us parents became very stressed out lots of times. As i grew as a person and started reading more self help books i became less stressed and in essence a better mom. I just dont think people should lose their kids unless they beat them and mentally abuse them. A course that i'm suggesting can ONLY help people it cant harm them in any way shape or form and to also have a hotline for parents to call when they feel overwhelmed and have someone whos rational logical and caring on the other end of the phone to guide them in the right direction. The way parents are raising there kids now is proof theres not enough healthy support out there for parents. Remember when we raise healthy kids they dont grow up to be violent. If you talk to adults that are troubled it stems from their upbringing.

 

[onomatopoeia]

Just what we need... whichever political party is in power at the time legislation passes deciding how every child should be raised, what their beliefs and values should be, etc. What could possibly go wrong with a panacea like that?