As noble as this quote sounds; taking each of us back in time to the days when life was simpler, work was harder, and families were more intimately connected to each other-- the modern use of this slogan has nothing to do with "the good old days."
I've been contemplating this quote for several weeks, so I was pleasantly surprised when Cindy Dyer used it as Lie #2 in her recent blog post, "Why the World hates the Duggars."
Lie 2: It takes a village. We have been trained by our own experiences with socialized education to believe that children are impossible to handle without the help of professionals. No one family can do it all or pay for it all. In fact, having children in the care of their own parents twenty-four hours a day is the weirdest thing imaginable in our brave new world. And yet, here are the Duggars daring to leave that system we’ve so carefully arranged “for the children” to fend for themselves. Worse, it’s working!Whoa! Pause; Stop; And Rewind! Is that what it means to be a village? Removing kids from parental responsibility and handing them over for "professionals" to raise? Enabling parents to live their own lives while their children fend for themselves? Somehow, that doesn't fit the cozy scenario of village life that I always got from watching "Little House on the Prairie." So I had to consult dictionary.com
vil*lage (noun)So that makes me wonder: what did Senator Clinton mean when she used this quote as her title?
a small community or group of houses in a rural area, larger than a hamlet and usually smaller than a town
"I chose that old African proverb to title my book because it offers a timeless reminder that children will thrive only if their families thrive and if the whole of society cares enough to provide for them..." (Clinton's Speech; DNC, 1996)Anyone else confused? Well, I'll explain. The word village now means the "whole of society." Right. And the word miniscule must mean monstrous; and tiny means enormous! *sarcastic tone* Who needs that stuffy village anyway? We have big brother government!
As noble as her title sounds, it is completely misleading. She is not referring to an intimate group of people that actually care about a child's well-being. Rather, her village is extensive, and cold, and callous. It doesn't care about individuals-- but the mass collective. Does that sound like a village to you?
But this is what confuses me most: people bash the Duggar family all the time, with unbelievable venom, accusing them of not being able to give enough one-on-one attention to each child. But many of the same people have no qualms about dropping their defenseless child off at a daycare where they are placed in a room with 35 other kids the same age. Does that sound like one-on-one attention? Ah, but the teachers are "professionals" so they don't bat an eye! (Maybe someone should inform Mrs. Clinton that in a few years the Duggars may be able to qualify for their very own village! Will that stop the hate-speech? I doubt it.)
From the beginning of time, God has ordained that parents be responsible for their own children.
It does not take a village to raise a child... It takes a family."And these words, which I command thee this day, shall be in thine heart: And thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children, and shalt talk of them when thou sittest in thine house, and when thou walkest by the way, and when thou liest down, and when thou risest up." Deu 6:6-7
"Why the World Hates the Duggars" at Get Along Home.
The Fruit of the Womb is His Reward (Feb 2012)
|In a few years, the Duggars could have their own village!|