Rick Santorum on Pregnant Rape Victims

Rick Santorum says that pregnant rape victims should "accept the gift of human life" and "make the best out of a bad situation." And yes, that's what every advocate of "personhood for zygotes" must say.



As Ari and I said in The Assault on Abortion Rights Undermines All Our Liberties:

In [a] 2004 survey, around 1.5 percent of women who got an abortion cited rape or incest as the cause of the pregnancy. Forcing a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term when the pregnancy was caused by a sexual assault victimizes her yet again. Even if she gives up the child for adoption, she must live with the ever-present physical reminder of her assault for the duration of her pregnancy. Moreover, the woman might feel a torturous conflict over the born child: she might desperately want to raise her own child, but abhor the thought of raising the child of her rapist.

That last point, I think, is particularly important.

Read more...

Video: Teaching Young People to Use Credit Cards Wisely

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I discussed teaching young people to use credit cards wisely. The question was:

How can young adults learn to use credit cards responsibly? Some young adults (usually college students) seem to make terrible financial decisions, often getting themselves into serious and overwhelming credit card debt. Others seem to handle their new financial responsibilities just fine. How would you recommend that parents teach their teenage children to use credit cards wisely? What advice would you give to young people headed to college about managing their finances well?

Here's the video of my answer:

If you enjoy the video, please "like" it on YouTube and share it with friends in e-mail and social media! Also, all my webcast and other videos can be found on my YouTube channel.

Read more...

Video: Parents, Teach Your Kids About Your Guns!

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I answered the following question about kids and guns:

Should people give up their guns when they have kids? Many people think that having guns in the house with kids is terribly risky, if not child endangerment. They say that the kids might get to the guns, even if locked away, and injure or even kill themselves in an accidental discharge. Is that right? If parents choose to keep their guns in the house, what should they do to minimize the risk of injury?

Here's my answer, now posted to YouTube:



In essence: Don't try to kid-proof guns, but instead, gun-proof your kids by training them in the principles of gun safety.

Links mentioned in the webcast include:

• Free Range Kids
  
• Causes of Child Mortality
  
• NRA on teaching kids about guns

Read more...

Video: Fatherhood Should Be Voluntary

In Sunday's Rationally Selfish Webcast, I answered the following question about the child support obligations of unwilling fathers:

Should a man unwilling to be a father have to pay child support? Suppose that a man and a woman have sex, and the woman becomes pregnant -- even though the couple used contraception based on a shared and expressed desire not to have children. If the woman decides to raise the baby, should she be able to collect child support from the man? What if they'd never discussed the possibility of pregnancy? What if they didn't use any form of birth control?

Here's my answer, now posted to YouTube:



No involuntary servitude! No involuntary parentude!

The policy paper mentioned in the video is The 'Personhood' Movement Is Anti-Life: Why It Matters that Rights Begin at Birth, Not Conception by Ari Armstrong and me.

Read more...

Report from ATLOSCon

Last weekend was the Atlanta Objectivist Society's weekend mini-conference, ATLOSCon. And I'm delighted to report on its many awesome qualities! Here's just a partial list of the awesome.

• Bacon: Paul and I stayed with the Caseys, and they made bacon for us, every single morning. (Yes, I did put that first on my list of awesome. I wouldn't have made it through the weekend without all that bacon!) I love visiting paleo friends, because then I see how others eat paleo in their native habitat (i.e. at home). We didn't do much eating at the Casey's, due to a very full schedule. But the slew of bacon every morning was seriously awesome.
  
• My Lectures on Pride: My two lectures on "The Theory and Practice of Pride" went well, I think. Most Objectivists aren't too clear on the meaning and demands of pride, and that means that they can't use it on a daily basis, as they do other virtues, to make their lives more awesome. My lectures were a start in the right direction, I think, and I look forward to doing more work on this topic.
  
• My Rationally Selfish Webcast: We visited philosophic crazytown -- twice, at least -- but it was fun to do with a live audience. I've already posted the audio here.
  
• The Casey Adults: We'd never met Brendan before, so that was a real pleasure. I particularly enjoyed my talk with him about their approach to vaccinating the kids, in light of his own family history. Also, he's rather better-looking than his Facebook picture... and he has better taste in clothing. Jenn and I talked a good bit about "perfectionism," which is a topic that I'd like to explore more in the future. Overall, it's just so darn easy and pleasant to spend time with them: they weren't a source of "introvert debt," meaning that feeling of being drained and exhausted by other people, however fun they might be. (That term was coined by Tim, I think.) Maybe I only incur "introvert debt" by spending time with extroverts?
  
• The Casey Kids: Happily, I got to spend some time with Ryan, Morgan, and Sean -- although not as much as I would have liked. Sean pretty much ignored us: he wasn't curious or nervous, just uninterested. Morgan and Ryan were exactly as Jenn describes them. Ryan was great fun to talk to, and I wish I had more time (and energy) to talk with him. At one point, Brendan explained who the pope is to Ryan, due to the pope being featured in a story Brendan was telling us. That was fun to witness. Morgan was perfectly sweet and amiable. I would have taken her home with me, because I'm sure she'd be no trouble at all, but alas, Jenn and Brendan would probably object. Also, I was particularly amused when Morgan fell asleep on the couch with her hair slightly in a plate of bacon. Sleepy Child + Bacon = Cute.
  
• Positive Discipline in Action: At the Casey's, I saw the workings of a deeply positive discipline household for myself, from the inside. I've spent oodles of time in families with kids ranging from about a year to ten years old, so I'm familiar with standard modes of interaction for those ages. The Casey kids periodically acted in impulsive or emotional ways, as all kids do. However, the resulting problems were solved in a remarkably low-drama, low-conflict way. I didn't see the standard battle of wills, with the parent forcing their wishes on the unwilling child by threats or bribery. Rather, I saw something more like firm but friendly negotiation for mutually-agreeable solution, and that usually only took a few seconds. That was amazing, particularly given the stress of the weekend. Also, the kids had far, far more respect for the doings of the adults around them than any other kids that I've known. Also, awesome.
  
• I was able to squeeze in a nice long chat with Trey about my plans for the Rationally Selfish Webcast, particularly the changes that I need to make it what I want it to be. That was super-helpful.
  
• The Tweets: We had an excellent slew of #OutOfContext tweets, with my favorite being about my preference for more firm sausage at Saturday's dinner. Yes, that's true in all possible senses, although we were actually talking about food.
  
• Jason Stotts: I had some good conversations with Jason Stotts of Erosophia about sexual ethics. Our general approach seems more similar than I'd expected, and I think that I need to be more careful in how I'm making certain claims, so that I don't overstate my views. On that note, I had three (!) separate conversations about the morality of S&M at ATLOSCon, particularly where to draw the line between (a) beneficial enhancement of the sexual experience and (2) self-destructive harms, degradation, humiliation, etc.
  
• The Volokhs: Paul and I spent an afternoon with the Volokhs, instead of doing the hike as planned on Sunday. (We were exhausted, so some quiet chat seemed so much more appealing.) I was fascinated to see how much older Charlie seemed than Sean, particularly in his verbal capacity, even though they're basically the same age. I wonder if that's just a temperamental, familial, or other ordinary difference -- or whether Sasha's talking to Charlie only in Russian makes some difference in Charlie's verbal skills. (That was awesome to witness!) Also, I was greatly amused by Charlie's chasing me down the long room in giggles, but then getting a bit nervous and running back to his parents, and then admitting that he was scared. With Hanah and Sasha, we had a lengthy conversation about the origins and basis of modern Judaism, which I found particularly fascinating, given my own interest in the history of religion. Earlier, we'd discussed why learning so often requires teaching (e.g. in law school or philosophy graduate school) rather than merely private reading and studying on one's own. That was fascinating to me, and I'm going to have to think about the implications of that for my own work.
  
• The Clutter: When Jenn says that her house is cluttered, she means it! It was remarkably clean, however. That got me thinking about what values I can and perhaps ought to let go, particularly given that I've just got to lighten my load of obligations. I've got an unrecognized perfectionist streak, I think, and that's having some very pernicious effects on my health.
  
• ATLOSCon Lectures: I particularly enjoyed Hanah Volokh's lecture on interpreting laws, Miranda Barzey's discussion of creating a value-dense home, and Kelly Elmore's poetry class. Looking over the schedule again, I heard lots of good things about classes that I didn't attend, and I hope that recordings will be available.
  
• ATLOSCON People: I enjoyed meeting a whole slew of people that I've known online for ages, like Ansley and John, Tori, and Miranda. And I met new awesome people, like Tim and Faye. And I saw friends that I wish I could see more, like Trey, Earl, Tom, Shea, Jenn, and Kelly. For those not mentioned, please consider yourselves awesome too!

I hope that I've not forgotten anything too important, but if so, just add it to the comments. Honestly, I'm still rather wiped out from the whole wild weekend of too many people and too little sleep. I'm quite certain that if every weekend were like ATLOSCon, I'd be soon featured in a VH1 series entitled "Behind the Philosophy" that would track my heedless and wild rise, then my tragic downfall, and then my careful rise again. Happily, ATLOSCon happens only once per year, so I'll be safe from that disaster.

If you missed ATLOSCon, you should come next year! It's fun, fun, fun! But you need not wait that long. You can attend the Chicago minicon over Labor Day Weekend (September 3rd and 4th) or to Denver's next SnowCon from January 11th to the 15th.

Most of all, thank you to everyone who made ATLOSCon possible, both the other speakers and organizers! It was a fantastic experience, and I look forward to seeing everyone next year.

Read more...

Parent Versus Child on Sex

Julia Sweeney unwittingly introduces her eight-year-old daughter to internet porn and gay sex. The result? Completely hilarious!



Via Trey and Shea.

Read more...

Justice for Henry

As many of you know, I've long been a fan of Katie Granju, and I was deeply saddened to read of the tragic death of her teenage son Henry last year. Yesterday, I read Katie's detailed account of the facts of her son's death and the subsequent investigation (or lack thereof) posted to Justice for Henry. It was harrowing -- and deeply disturbing.

Here's my basic view, based on what I've read: Henry had a serious drug problem, and his self-destructive choices certainly set the stage for his death. Nonetheless, he did not die of a simple overdose of his own doing. Others were involved -- and they should be held legally responsible.

Inadvertently, Henry put himself in the power of some very dangerous people. Those people violated his rights: they gave him excessive drugs under false assurances; they took him to their home; they assaulted him severely, and they refused to call for an ambulance. Later, he died as a result of complications from the overdose, but if he'd lived, he would have been profoundly disabled.

In short, Henry's death seems to have been a crime -- or at least, serious crimes were committed in the events leading to his death. Yet the people responsible are still at liberty -- and amazingly enough, regarded with favor by the Knoxville authorities. Critical witnesses have not been interviewed, and compelling evidence has been ignored.

For months, Katie has been silent about what she knows, in the hopes that private requests to law enforcement would result in a serious investigation. Unfortunately that has not happened. It might only be happening now that Katie writing and posting all that she knows on Justice for Henry.

I hope that local authorities conduct a serious, honest investigation -- even if only due to public pressure. Justice should be done -- and that means uncovering and prosecuting any person who violated Henry's rights in the last few days of his life. Even when a person puts himself as risk by his own wrong choices, as Henry clearly did, he still retains his rights. Criminals who choose "easy targets" to prey upon should not be given a free pass. They are still dangerous, destructive, and fully deserving of punishment. That's part and parcel of "equality before the law."

I hope that the authorities in Knoxville see that and act accordingly. Justice should be done.

Read more...

The Cautionary Tale of Todd Marinovich

As a followup to Diana's recent post on parenting styles ("Compare and Contrast"), some readers may recall the sad story of Todd Marinovich.

Todd Marinovich was groomed (and pushed) from birth by his father Marvin to be an NFL quarterback. And he ended up crashing and burning in the national spotlight. Two interesting stories about Marinovich illustrate the consequences of the senior Marinovich's nightmare parenting style.

The first story ("Bred To Be A Superstar") was written in 1988, when Marinovich was a high school football superstar trying to decide with big name college to attend. At that time, his future was seemingly bright with limitless possibilities.

Note the recurrent theme of how much the father was sacrificing for his son's future success, and how little say the son had in his life decisions:

Though Marv owns an athletic research center -- a sort of high-tech gym -- his true occupation has been the development of his son, an enterprise that has yet to produce a monetary dividend. And the Marinovich marriage ended last year after 24 years. "All Marv has done," says a friend, "is give up his entire life for Todd."

This is sadly reminiscent of the character of Peter Keating from The Fountainhead, whose mother "sacrificed" to push Peter into the field of architecture (and away from his natural love of painting) -- with tragic results that unfold during the novel.

The second story was written in 2009, looking back on the younger Marinovich's tragically wasted life. I thought the title ("Todd Marinovich: The Man Who Never Was") was especially apropos. The teaser paragraph summarizes the main theme, but the whole article is worth reading:

Twenty years ago, he was guaranteed to be one of the greatest quarterbacks ever to play the game of football. Engineered to be. He was drafted ahead of Brett Favre. Today he's a recovering junkie. Scenes from the chaotic life of a boy never designed to be a man in the 2010 National Magazine Award winner for profile writing.

No child can become a full human being when his parents fail to teach him how to practice rational, independent decision-making, and instead attempt to impose their own "central purpose" on him.

The Marinovich saga of flame-out, drug addiction, and jail are unsurprising consequences when a parent fails to help teach a child how to live a first-handed life.

Read more...

Compare and Contrast

Law professor Amy Chua on Why Chinese Mothers Are Superior:

Chinese parents believe that their kids owe them everything. The reason for this is a little unclear, but it's probably a combination of Confucian filial piety and the fact that the parents have sacrificed and done so much for their children. (And it's true that Chinese mothers get in the trenches, putting in long grueling hours personally tutoring, training, interrogating and spying on their kids.) Anyway, the understanding is that Chinese children must spend their lives repaying their parents by obeying them and making them proud.

Yup, that's the parenting philosophy that she praises. And, surprise surprise, the method of inculcating that involves a kind of ongoing psychological warfare with the child, one that sometimes becomes a pitched physical battle. Her glowing description of how she brutalized her daughter into playing a difficult piano piece that seemed simply beyond the child's capacity for two-handed coordination is just horrifying.

On the same day that I read that essay, I read a rather different kind of essay by Rose on finding ways to make math and reading fun for her young daughter. Rose is a homeschooling Objectivist mom who I had the pleasure of meeting, along with her daughters, while in Boise recently. Because I played a bit with the daughter in question, I can easily see just how awful attempting to demand that the child "just sit down and learn, dammit" would have been for them ... or anyone nearby.

I've seen some excellent commentaries on Ms. Chua's essay -- particularly from the devastated adults who were parented by the method she extols. It's heartbreaking to hear from people who struggle to find passion in work or life because their parents systematically destroyed any capacity to choose and pursue personally meaningful values.

Thankfully, Paul wasn't raised by such parents. He would have rebelled in a major way... and knowing his stubborn streak, the results would not have been pretty.

Read more...

Time Lapse Child

Ten years of nearly-daily photos of a child... compressed into 85 seconds.



I love when she begins to realize that she's being photographed.

Read more...

Drugging the Kiddos

The NY Times reports on preschoolers diagnosed as bipolar (and other imagined mental illnesses) then put on antipsychotic drugs:

More than 500,000 children and adolescents in America are now taking antipsychotic drugs, according to a September 2009 report by the Food and Drug Administration. Their use is growing not only among older teenagers, when schizophrenia is believed to emerge, but also among tens of thousands of preschoolers.

That's a "Holy cow!", "Jesus Freaking Christ!", and "WTF?!?" rolled into one. (Via Rational Jenn.)

Read more...

A Tragic Death

Last week, I posted the following message to OGrownups:

I've mentioned Katie Granju's writing before, but I've been following her blog more closely than ever because a month ago, her teenage son Henry massively overdosed on drugs and was assaulted.  He has had a major drug problem for years, and even months of in-patient treatment didn't help him.

He's suffered severe brain injuries from the overdose and the assault, and he'll be profoundly disabled for life, at best.  He's doing very poorly now. See this post and this post.

It's a sobering look at what can go terribly wrong in raising children, even with dedicated parents.  

From what I've seen -- and I happen to have spent a great deal of time with recovering addicts in my late teenage years -- most people end up with drug and alcohol addictions as a means of fostering evasion, escaping burdens, numbing feelings, etc.  That can be addressed with therapy, although that's difficult, particularly when faced with the need to undo years of screwing up one's life and screwing over other people due to the drugs and alcohol.

However, a few people have such a strong response to drugs and alcohol that they're utterly consumed by it, and ordinary experimentation leads to a speedy downward spiral.  From the way Katie has described her son's addiction, that seems to be the case with him.  And it's horrifying.

Much to my dismay, Henry took a terrible turn for the worse a few days ago. He died on Monday.

I've been heartbroken for Katie and her family over Henry. I'm still heartbroken.

That seems amazing to me. I've never met Katie Granju, nor any of her family. She's just a blogger that I've been reading for years. Still... I've read her because I liked her, plain and simple. Even when I disagreed with her, I've always been impressed with her thoughtful and determined approach to life, as well as with her dogged yet realistic devotion to her kids. She's challenged my assumptions on more than a few occasions, she's allowed me to peer into a life so different from my own, and I'm better for it.

I'll be sending her some money, via the fund set up by her employer, simply as a gesture of appreciation and heartfelt sympathy. I wish I could do more.

Read more...

Murray Rothbard Versus Children's Rights

On FormSpring, someone asked me whether I agreed with the following quote:

Applying our theory to parents and children, this means that a parent does not have the right to aggress against his children, but also that the parent should not have a legal obligation to feed, clothe, or educate his children, since such obligations would entail positive acts coerced upon the parent and depriving the parent of his rights.

Unfortunately, FormSpring managed to delete the question and my reply. Or so I thought for a while: it was actually just delayed in posting. In any case, here's a slightly edited version of my FormSpring answer:

Oh my god, no no no. That's horrid libertarian drivel. (I wrote that, then I googled the quote. I was right: it's from Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty.)

Parents are obliged to care for any child brought willingly into existence (i.e. not aborted) and then brought home (i.e. not adopted). By doing so, the parents create a creature with a right to life, yet utterly dependent on themselves, and they exclude others from caring for it. To do that, then withhold the food, clothing, or education that the child needs to survive in order to become a self-supporting adult -- that would be a monstrous violation of that child's rights.

Parents are obliged to care for their children for the basic reason that the owner of sailboat cannot simply leave a passenger swimming in the middle of the ocean. Contrary to concrete-bound libertarian nonsense, to do that would be an initiation of force and a violation of rights. That's because the captain has assumed responsibility for safely transporting the swimmer, knowing that the swimmer's life depends on his doing so. The swimmer has a right to be returned to land, where he can fend for himself. To leave him in the ocean would be murder.

The child is like the swimmer, except without the benefit of consenting to the journey. His parents created him as a dependent being, and they are obliged to nurture him in some very basic ways (e.g. food, clothing, shelter, basic education) until he can fend for himself. Or they must find someone else willing and able to assume that responsibility.

If people want to know why I recoil from the term "libertarian," the fact that views like Rothbard's on parental obligations are standard fare should be a clue. Sure, he might talk about rights and free markets, but clearly, his whole understanding of those topics is warped by concrete-bound rationalism about initiating force. If implemented, the practical result of his ideas would be a monstrously barbaric society. I don't support that, and I won't tolerate it. I oppose it!

The people who advocate views like Rothbard's -- or tolerate them from their political allies -- are not my political allies, except perhaps on some very narrow, concrete issues. And I don't wish to make common cause with them, nor be included among their number. The mere thought of Rothbard's views in practice turns my stomach, and I hope that other lovers of liberty have the same reaction.

Read more...

New Blog: Cultivating the Virtues

A delightful announcement from Jenn Casey and Kelly Elmore:

Jenn Casey of Rational Jenn and Kelly Elmore of Reepicheep's Coracle are pleased to announce the launch of their new parenting podcast! The podcast, called Cultivating the Virtues, will address Objectivism and parenting, with a particular focus on positive discipline techniques. We want the podcast to be conversational, so that the listener can image being a part of one of our many parenting conversations. But please be patient with us; we are new to podcasting and are learning more with each one we record.

The podcast will live on a joint blog, also called Cultivating the Virtues, where both Jenn's and Kelly's old parenting posts are collected. We've set up the labels on the CTV blog to make it easier to find parenting topics by kinds of virtues and types of discipline tools. The blog is live, and the address is http://cultivatingthevirtues.blogspot.com. The first podcast will tentatively be available on Tuesday, April 14.

We are recording podcasts now, and we would love to have your questions to answer. Please send parenting questions to cultivatingthevirtues@gmail.com.

Excellent! Ask, ask, ask away!

Read more...

Objectivist Roundup

Amy Mossoff of The Little Things has the latest Objectivist Roundup. Go check it out!

Also, Amy had an interesting post on how she decided to deal with Sammy's hitting and spitting, so if you're interested in rational parenting, don't miss that either!

Read more...

Children and Death

This morning, some of the good folks on OGrownups are discussing the best ways of helping children understand and deal with death. The discussion is quite excellent, and here's my small contribution, in response to a question about how to help kids overcome worry about the death of their own parents:

It might be helpful to tell you children what would happen to them if you died. Your kids are utterly dependent on you -- and they know that. Unless you tell them, they might suppose that they'd need to somehow fend for themselves -- or do something equally unrealistic. They might be worried about what would happen to the family pets, or whether siblings might be split up. However, if they know that they (plus the cat) would all go live with nice Uncle Bob and Aunt Judy, that might help alleviate some of the worry.

In essence, some of the anxiety might be more about themselves than about you! That's all well and good, of course. They should be thinking about their future.

If you're interested in these kinds of discussions, come join OGrownups! You need to be an Objectivist to post, but not to lurk.

Read more...

Reality, Not Authority

In response to my story from my third podcast about a father teaching his child to evade by demanding obedience from her, Rational Jenn posted some fascinating comments on how parents often substitute their authority for that of reality. Here's a bit from her post:

Please don't misunderstand me--this is not to say that I don't exercise my parental authority. I do have it--you sort of get it automatically when the kids are very small. As they are utterly dependent upon the adults in their lives, they of course learn to rely on them for the things they need, including guidance, and they do view parents as authority figures.

But what I try to do is to never ever make my authority the sole basis for discipline. I explain my reasons--sometimes those explanations need to be provided to the child after the fact (there's that rushing out into the street example again). I try to show or tell them something about the reality of the situation and guide them through what needs to happen. And if they can't or won't do what they need to (like not biting a sibling), then I will exercise my authority and help them stop.

Parenting by Authority does encourage kids to evade. They can learn to squash their feelings, to pretend events didn't happen, and to learn how to game the system. They learn that what Dad decides is more important than what actually occurred. And they lose the ability and the chance to use their minds independently.

She then discusses some the consequences of Parenting by Authority, but for that, you'll have to read the post. (Later, Jenn posted a fascinating story on catching her son trying to evade.)

Then the discussion continued: Amy Mossoff posted on the dangers of authority-based education. In her view, "Montessori is the only widely available educational system that does not Educate by Authority." Here's an example:

The Montessori method recognizes that external reward systems such as grades are not necessary, and even harmful. Children naturally want to learn. Anyone who has observed small children can see this. The reward for good work is in the work itself, and in the accomplishment. Montessori materials are self-correcting - the children know whether they have done the work correctly without relying on a teacher's stamp of approval. The blocks of diminishing size must be stacked up from biggest to smallest or the tower will not stand. The cylinders of diminishing size must be placed in the proper holes, or they will not all fit in the puzzle.

I love that!

I'm delighted that my podcast sparked this bit of discussion. Here's my follow-up question: In dealing with other adults at work or elsewhere, do you always deal with them by reason to the greatest extent possible? Or do you sometimes lapse into mere authoritarian demands? It's easy to say "I deal with people by reason, of course!" That's the answer we want to give. However, I suspect that the intrinsicism pervasive in our culture has affected most of us to some degree or other.

Personally, I'm going to make a conscious effort to interact with other people scrupulously in "mind of reason mode" rather than "muscles of authority mode." It's not an error that I make often, but I'm pretty sure that I've slipped into it from time to time with people open to rational persuasion -- particularly when tired, frustrated, or hurried. Clearly, that's a mistake. So if I do that, I hope that someone will point that out to me -- preferably without gloating!

Read more...

Rational Jenn on Back Talk

As my regular readers know, I'm hugely interested in and appreciative of Rational Jenn's blogging on parenting. Paul and I don't have any children, and we plan not to make any. However, I find the general principles Jenn discusses both fascinating in themselves, as well as useful for my interactions with other people, as well as with my dog. (Seriously! Assume positive intent!) Plus, I simply like reading thoughtful people write about lives that are so very different from mine: it expands my acquaintance with the ways of the world.

I was particularly struck by a recent post on "back talk," however. Now I was a bit ho-hum about the topic with her first post -- PD Tool Card: Back Talk. It was all well and good, but that's not a problem relevant to my life. And the same for most of the second post -- More about Back Talk -- until I read the story about how she explained the need for kindness in communication via the Trader Principle and the results thereof. Wowowow. Kids are really, really remarkable creatures.

Also, while I'm promoting Rational Jenn, I should mention that the new OGrownups e-mail list -- managed by her and C. August -- has 128 members. Hooray! I've found the discussions excellent so far.

Read more...

Three Bits on OGrownups

I'm pleased to report three bits of news about the new OGrownups e-mail list.

First, list manager Jenn Casey of Rational Jenn has a partner in crime: C. August of Titanic Deck Chairs. Thank you, C!

Second, non-Objectivists are now welcome to subscribe to the list, but as lurkers only. In other words, they can read posts to the list but not post themselves. Such people need only be interested in parenting and education based on the principles of Objectivism. If you're one of those people, please indicate when you subscribe that you're requesting to join as a non-Objectivist lurker. (Bosom buddies of David Kelley, Chris Sciabarra, Nathaniel Branden, and the like are still unwelcome.)

Third, the list has nearly 100 subscribers already, and good discussion is already underway. Hooray!

Read more...

OGrownups

I'm delighted to report on the creation of a new mailing list on OList.com: OGrownups. Here's the basic list description:

OGrownups is an informal mailing list for Objectivists interested in raising and educating children well. Its basic purpose is to facilitate discussion amongst Objectivists about child development, discipline techniques, education methods, parenting resources, and more.

Any Objectivist interested in polite and practical discussion about raising and educating children rationally may join OGrownups -- parents, grandparents, aunts, uncles, teachers, caregivers, and friends. Anyone considering parenthood is also welcome.

OGrownups is managed by Jenn Casey, author of the blog Rational Jenn. She can be reached at rationaljenn@gmail.com.

Here's what Jenn says in her announcement of the list:

The original name of the list was "OParents" but we thought that name was a little too restrictive. We want to encourage any Objectivist who wants to participate in discussions about "raising and educating children rationally" to join. I know that I would have loved to participate in such a list back when we were contemplating parenthood.

The "Grownups" part refers to the end result of childraising--that they will become grownups, hopefully rational ones. The primary parenting question is, what's the best way to get them there (without losing our minds)?

Actually, my thought was that the "Grownups" part refers to us -- the list members -- because we're the grownups in relation to the kids we interact with. However, either meaning will do!

The criteria for membership are similar to that of the other OList e-mail lists:

To join the OGrownups mailing list, you must meet two criteria:

• You must be an Objectivist, meaning that you agree with and live by the principles of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism as best you understand them. Newcomers to Objectivism are just as welcome as old-timers. Please do not subscribe if you consider yourself to be a libertarian (or associate with the Libertarian Party), advocate revising Objectivism (like David Kelley's "open system"), or associate with the dishonest pseudo-advocates of Objectivism (most notably David Kelley, Nathaniel Branden, Barbara Branden, and Chris Sciabarra).
  
  
• You must be interested in parenting and education based on the principles of Objectivism.

If you do not clearly meet those criteria, you should not subscribe without first e-mailing the list administrator, Jenn Casey, rationaljenn@gmail.com.

The OGrownups list is managed through Google Groups. You can request a subscription via this web interface. You will be asked to confirm that you meet the two criteria for membership. Subscription requires an account with Google. (It's free and easy to create.)

After you subscribe, please feel free to post an introduction.

The rules are the same too, namely:

• Please be friendly or at least civil in posts to the list. Subscribers who behave like asses, such as by insulting other list members or attacking Objectivist intellectuals, will be removed from the list.
  
  
• Please respect the purpose of the list. Subscribers who prove disruptive to the basic purpose of the list -- such as by attempting to arguing against Objectivist positions or posting on irrelevant topics -- will be unsubscribed or subject to moderation.

I've been really pleased to see the serious and thoughtful discussions on parenting that Jenn's blog posts have generated. In less than a day, this new list has acquired 44 members, with discussion already in progress. Wow! Thank you, Jenn, for taking charge!

Read more...