10 Ways to Destroy the Imagination of your Child

[emb021]

I stumbled upon this book at amazon.com. Its themes are interesting, and topics that some here have discussed.

 

Here is what is said there:

 

"Were extinguishing the minds (and souls) of our children

 

Play dates, helicopter parenting, No Child Left Behind, video games, political correctness: these and other insidious trends in child rearing and education are now the hallmarks of childhood. As author Anthony Esolen demonstrates in this elegantly written, often wickedly funny new book, almost everything we are doing to children now constricts their imaginations, usually to serve the ulterior motives of the constrictors.

 

"Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child" takes square aim at these accelerating trends, while offering parentsand childrenhopeful alternatives. Esolen shows how imagination is snuffed out at practically every turn: in the rearing of children almost exclusively indoors; in the flattening of love to sex education, and sex education to prurience and hygiene; in the loss of traditional childhood games; in the refusal to allow children to organize themselves into teams; in the effacing of the glorious differences between the sexes; in the dismissal of the power of memory, which creates the worst of all possible worlds in schooldrudgery without even the merit of imparting facts; in the strict separation of the childs world from the adults; and in the denial of the transcendent, which places a low ceiling on the childs developing spirit and mind.

 

Much like "The Wonder of Boys" and "The Wonder of Girls", and "The Dangerous Book for Boys" and "The Daring Book for Girls", Ten Ways to Destroy the Imagination of Your Child confronts contemporary trends in parenting and schooling by reclaiming lost traditions. This practical, insightful book is essential reading for any parent who cares about the paltry thing that childhood has become."

[NJCubScouter]

I would probably agree with some (not all) of what this says, but my ideological antennae are picking up a possible political agenda (and maybe a religious agenda as well.) I agree with him about No Child Left Behind, if he is talking about the over-emphasis on standardized testing that does not necessarily measure whether the child is really being educated. (In my opinion.) On the other hand the references to "sex education" and "the glorious differences between the sexes" do suggest a possible agenda.

 

And then there's "the strict separation of the childs world from the adults," which he seems to see as a problem, and a new problem. What's that all about? I realize there is no context for this phrase, and it's probably explained in the book, but it suggests something odd to me. In my experience, the domains of adults and children seem much LESS separate than they used to be. One of the big problems I see today is that kids are not allowed to be kids anymore. Society seems to try to rush them into the world of adulthood before they are finished being children. And I am not talking about teaching kids about adult responsibilities, which is part of what the Scouting program does, and that's fine. But there IS a difference between being a child and being an adult, and I think that line has been increasingly blurred in recent years.

[perdidochas]

I agree with NJ. I think the problem is not that children's worlds and adult worlds are separate, but rather that children aren't allowed to have a childhood.

[packsaddle]

I think that every moment that anyone spends viewing a video screen is a moment in which imagination and creativity are being sucked out of them.

The idea that a child's world should be similar to an adult's world is ludicrous. If adults want to connect, take the time to read to them from books. And then when they are ready, take the time to teach them to read for themselves. Or better yet, write for themselves.

...writing from my neo-Luddite perspective.

[Scoutfish]

I won't use tv as a bad influence as a blanket statement. Depends on what kind of tv.

 

Used to watch sesame street when I was littlle, It was "okay" but not spectacular. I used to love watching "The Muppet Show". Especially "Pigs in Space"

 

My son watched "Dora the Explorer" and "Blue's Clues"Both helped him learn the alphabet fairly soon,. His speach and comprehension were acellerated too.

 

Pretty much can't argue allthe other stuff though: SpongeBob, Rug Rats, any of the anime cartoons.

 

But they do offer a kid a chance to relax, slow down and take a break from thinking so much.

 

Now, another problem with childhood lost is resuyltant of a global competition: Kids go to school for 8 hours ata time, then bring home 4 or 5 hours of homework.

 

I have nothing against education, but the developing brain needs time to rest, relax, and recharge. A kid who has no time to think of anything but schoolwork lest he fail...well, that's alot of stress too.

 

Remember when we were in school? Most of us didn't seriously consider a career until we were in the eleventh grade.

 

Now days, you need to plan out your agenda and decide what classes to take starting somewhere in the 5th grade.

 

My 4th grade son is studying things I didn't do until 7th grade.

 

Every year, I hear on the news about some school district that is deciding on wether to even have recess anymore for grades K - 5.

 

ARE YOU KIDDING ME?

 

And yeah, we as parents schedule their whole day from breakfast to bedtime. Planned down to the second. Gotta shove and fit in as much "quality" time and activities as we can.

 

We as parents get horrified by the thought of our kids being bored for even half a minute.

 

I told my wife that boredom is not a crime. Boredom is the greatest inspiration for imagination that exists!

[evmori]

Helicopter parents. Very bad and the root of all evil in childhood.

[shortridge]

I told my wife that boredom is not a crime. Boredom is the greatest inspiration for imagination that exists!

 

Hear, hear!

[emb021]

"On the other hand the references to "sex education" and "the glorious differences between the sexes" do suggest a possible agenda."

 

Haven't read the book. I have no idea what the point is about "sex education", but I think I know what the reference is about the differences between the sexes.

 

It refers to those who want to act as if there is NO differences between boys and girls, and refuse to accept that they have difference interests and develop at different rates. Which is why we have Boy Scouts and Girl Guides

 

 

 

[NJCubScouter]

In response to one of my comments, emb says:

 

Haven't read the book. I have no idea what the point is about "sex education", but I think I know what the reference is about the differences between the sexes.

 

It refers to those who want to act as if there is NO differences between boys and girls, and refuse to accept that they have difference interests and develop at different rates. Which is why we have Boy Scouts and Girl Guides

 

Of course, we are BOTH guessing about what the guy actually means, since neither of us has read the book. The author could be going beyond the limited meaning that you suggest. Or not. I don't know, I'm just guessing.

 

As for Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts (I guess they are Guides in some other countries), it's interesting that the BSA actually has two youth programs where female youths are not allowed and one where they are. Well, maybe three and two, counting Varsity separately on one side and the career-oriented Explorer posts on the other. If there were really a "principle" involved with separate programs, it would apply to all ages. I think having male-only Cub and Boy Scout programs really is more of a business and marketing decision and an agreement with the GSUSA not to infringe on their "core" demographic.