You are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

Enigmatic_Continuum ago

Great find! I find it interesting that Brazelton focused on low income children, while Spock focused on middle income families. Seemed they covered every child, but the elites.

Brazelton's "Touchpoints" research and teachings strike me as weird. Especially the way he would tell parents regression is normal. Children usually don't regress unless traumatized or they've experienced extreme changes in their day to day lives.

And, here we are back at the Clintons! Guess what? Putnam is where Hillary got her idea that "It takes a village" to raise a child.

"If it takes a village to raise a child, the prognosis for America's children isn't good: In recent years, villages all over America, rich and poor, have deteriorated as we've shirked collective responsibility for our kids," Mr. Putnam wrote.

The book comes as Congress debates the future of federal support for education to counter poverty, and Mr. Putnam harked back to potential Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, whose 1996 book It Takes a Village made some of the same arguments.

http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/inside-school-research/2015/03/its_hard_to_make_schools.html

lamplight ago

I always thought there was something wrong with "It takes a village." There was a push for women to go to work and place there children in day care centers. I've never been a fan of them myself. As we have seen, many of them sexually abused children and when caught, closed up shop and moved to another town to start over. No accountability. Brazelton urged taking raising children away from parents and put them into the hands of strangers. No wonder we have mixed up kids.

Enigmatic_Continuum ago

Couldn't agree with you more. It seemed that children were much more balanced and grew up to be more productive adults when mothers stayed home. The feminist movement has created the most unbearable offspring.