Today’s children are FINE. It is commonplace to rant about how children are being treated and how they behave more badly than ever before. There are 2,000 year old records of the same complaints. Imagine the hell we would be living in if it had been true; if every new generation had been worse off or behaved more badly than the previous one!
According to The Good Childhood Inquiry, commissioned by the Children’s Society, and endorsed by The Archbishop of Canterbury, children had it much better in the olden days. Individualism (read: capitalism) is to blame. What else is new from those quarters?
Let’s go through a few of the assertions, as widely quoted on the BBC today:
- Excessive individualism by parents who seek private advantage is blamed for children’s problems. It does not seem to occur to the writers that the parents’ material welfare might be shared with the children. However prosaic self-made toys, or making do, may sound in the ears of your average champagne socialist, I distinctly remember how toy cars or (heaven forbid!) toy guns from the shop had a far greater appeal and receiving them caused substantially more happiness than the non-commercial variety. I was thrilled when my parents sought private advantage because it meant I had it better.
- Income inequality is said to do damage to children. Really? Income inequality is a market method to show which behaviour leads to improving one’s situation, and which doesn’t. Somebody staying in bed all day will be worse off than somebody working ten hours a day. It is income inequality which creates growth. Arguably, it is thanks to income inequality that health, material welfare, and happiness of children has substantially improved over the last millennia.
- A side snipe is made at “children being cared for by someone other than their parents”. Mostly these others are grandparents; more often than not thrilled to the hilt. And what if it is paid care? It might give the children another view on life; teach them languages or other cultures. I hardly think state bureaucrats should decide who cares for our children.
- The state should provide free psychological and family support if relationships struggle; and free parenting classes. Free? How so? Does it grow on trees? A Socialist Classic.
- The state should introduce a birth ceremony conducted by a registrar in which parents publicly accept the responsibilities of parenthood. It did not occur to the Good Childhood Inquiry that free civil society already provides this: it’s called christening and all religions have something like it. The Good Childhood Inquiry goes out of its way to involve the state in aspects of one’s life in which up to now the state had – thank God – no say.
- Marital break-up is partly blamed on women having become financially independent. I wonder what women think about that insulting comment. Personally I do not believe that women are second class human beings who should be dependent upon a male.
- The report points to studies which say that parents do not spend enough time with their children. Of course we would all like to spend more time with our children. Of course it is never enough. These studies are neither surprising nor shocking nor newsworthy. Most of us are old and wise enough to decide for ourselves whether we spend enough time with our children. We don’t need state bureaucrats to take these decisions for us.
- Too much competition in education is also blamed. Does The Good Childhood Inquiry believe that children should not try to sparkle? Would it be better if all children performed according to the lowest common denominator? Competition is what drives society. It’s best to teach our children early on.
- The Good Childhood Inquiry would abolish league tables. Why? Is it so bad that parents are offered information enabling them to make a good school choice? Perhaps The Good Childhood Inquiry would prefer to see everybody dumped in equally bad schools? The horror of information - and choice - for parents!
- They want a ban on all advertising aimed at the under 12s and no TV commercials for alcohol or unhealthy food before the 9 pm watershed. How exactly are the statists going to enforce that? As it is impossible to determine what is aimed at or will appeal to under 12s, perhaps the Inquiry would want to ban under 12s from watching advertising? Unhealthy food only after 9 pm...What exactly is unhealthy food? Does that include cream and meat? And what about children who watch TV after 9 pm ? Only a Big Brother camera in every house could make The Good Childhood Inquiry’s ideals work. It is a plea for tyranny.
- “We must stop building on any open space where children play”. This is too ludicrous for words. Children play everywhere. Where are the children to live if we stop building?
What the Good Childhood Inquiry calls individualism, I call self-reliance. The Inquiry’s calls for bans are calls for Big Brother. Parents will be better off if statist patronising socialists are banned from interfering in their home life.
