They’re Dirty Filthy Liars
November 24, 2011 | 10 Comments
News agencies have been picking up on a new report on child, err toddler, education. The Early Years Study 3 has made some waves as the researchers propagandists behind it make the claim that children as young as 18 months need to be dumped into schools where they can start learning.
The report is garbage.
This isn’t some new study that has been released, it’s not even some meta-study, analyzing the results of various other studies. It’s a political manifesto dressed up in academic garb. From the very beginning, the authors state an obvious, but insidious, agenda: their “progressive goal” to make society better. ‘Progressive’ is a funny term. It seems so beneficial, and can so easily be dropped in as a synonym for ‘liberal’, but that’s not what’s going on here. The authors have a political cause to push, and they will stop at nothing – nothing – to disabuse you of any differing views of the functioning of society.
The authors are quite clear in their intent and their concern. They aren’t worried about children; they aren’t worried about families. Yes, they dress up all their politics in fuzzy stories about trips to the library and immigrants finding a place in our cold, dark society, but their concern is only for society, not individuals and not families. Personal desires and preferences should never be a primary concern; the will of the individual should be subverted for the benefit of the state.
Don’t believe me? The report bemoans the lost economic activity of stay-at-home parents. The parents, we are told, are not being productive or contributing to society. They need to be freed, apparently, from the chains of parenting so that they may serve a greater function. The report worries that if the current trend away from stay-at-home parents were to reverse, it could spell the economic doom of Canada. I’m. Not. Kidding.
These people were sly. They’re incredibly dishonest, but they’re not dumb. The report (and there’s too much crap in there for me to fisk the whole thing) begins with discussions about child development, and throws in a nice anecdote about a new Canadian who needed the government to help her care for all her kids. How could you be against child development or new Canadians integrating into society? Early on, though, the fix is in. First off, when the authors begin comparing their preferred model of round-the-clock child care, they tip their hand by comparing the costs to that of other schools in the district (Toronto), but they’re only comparing a public institution to other public institutions. No private schools are ever mentioned. This is a theme throughout the entire report; education is the sole domain of the government.
As they continue in their report, the topic slowly shifts away from actual discussion of child rearing, and into discussions of government provision of goods. It drifts away from anything to do with child development and educational achievement, and speaks only of the political – though the authors never make such an admission. The report is constantly being steeped in science and studies… except when flowery anecdotes and pseudo-marxist prose can do the trick.
But don’t worry – they talk about the scienciness of it all. The second chapter, for instance, is all about neurological development (they even talk about fruit flies, so you know it’s serious business!). The point, no doubt, is to confer some sort of authority upon themselves. Most of the report is little more than anecdotes and freshmen year-grade theses, but occasionally, they get into the science. Of course, they get into it wrong, and offensively wrong.
Postpartum depression is a serious issue facing many mothers. It is a mental illness; it is a medical condition… but not in the report. Postpartum depression, you see, is just something that happens when mothers are “stressed out”, and it can be cured by relaxing in an easy chair while your child participates in structured play overseen by a certified professional.
Yes, they argue that depression can be cured by the right fucking chair.
And not only do they make specious claims about the nature and cure of postpartum depression; they use it as a club against mothers. Mothers struggling with postpartum depression can’t be “great” parents. If you’re suffering from depression, you don’t need people telling you that it is causing harm to your baby. That would be bad enough, but for it to come from snake oil salesmen who claim that they can relieve your suffering – thereby making you a better parent! – it’s just disgusting. I don’t care how many letters you have after your name, if you make these sorts of claims, you’re a wretched person.
These people would stop at nothing to try to make their point. Not only will they claim to support breastfeeding, attachment parenting and toddler led play (only to then turn around and decree policies that would work directly against those things), they try to trick parents with flattery. They speak of all that parents do and describe it as “quite acts of heroism”.
Fuck you if you think spending time with my daughters is a heroic feat.
It’s ridiculous that people who think so little of children, and see parenting as the Augean Stables of adult life, would be the ones we should trust to raise our children for us. And make no mistake, that’s what they want to do. They speak of the need for consistency in adult role models and caregivers, but they never think this should come from parents. This is to come from the teachers as the parents are down the hall in their easy chairs (again, seriously, I’m not making this up). But this is not about raising children, this is about preparing children to be contributors to society, to the state. I mean, they’ve already made clear that one’s value can only be derived from contributing to the economic well-being of the state, so why would there be any to raise anything other that taxpayers? All those other things in childhood (family, fun, church, freedom) they’re just distractions.
Don’t believe me? On Canada AM yesterday, one of the authors spoke of the importance of play, but not real play, “directed play”. This was necessary so that kids could be socialized, including to teach them to follow directions from their teachers. She was talking about two-year-olds. Why do we need to break in toddlers? Why do they need to be good little foot soldiers? Considering that this is all presented to achieve their “progressive goal”, one need not wonder for long.
In discussions of the news articles, I’ve witnessed many people side with the report (though, to be both fair and unfair, I don’t think any of them read the actual report). I’ve generally seen two main themes that weave through the defenses: (a) I sent my child to daycare, so disagreeing with the report is saying I’m a bad parent (don’t worry, we’re all screwing up our kids in many different ways – make your choices and own them); and (b) I‘m a teacher and this report adds increased social worth to my chosen vocation (good for you, what does that have to do with my child). But denouncing this report has nothing to do with denouncing anyone’s personal choices. These people aren’t arguing for or against anyone’s choices; they’re arguing against choice. If you think you should be free to make choices about raising your child, you should rail against this report.
I could go on and on about the sheer dishonesty of the whole thing (they claimed that before May 2011, we didn’t know that older demographics have higher voter turnout than younger demographics. Lisa Simpson knew this 13 years ago!), but there’s just so much of it, so I think I’ll leave you with a tiny bit of truth they offer. The report notes that “[c]hildren make good political props”.
Apparently, they do.
Tags: Child Development > Dirty Liars > Early Years Study > Fraser Mustard > progressivism
Comments
10 Responses to “They’re Dirty Filthy Liars”
Leave a Reply
January 6th, 2012 @ 9:23 am
[...] I say, “Bullshit.” This paper is not about supporting choice: this paper is about making choices for parents. This paper doesn’t have a feminist objective: this paper is the very antithesis of feminism. [...]