All news
Punishment for parents: what is the extent of state intervention in family matters
But this question is no longer rhetorical. This is because the elements of naturalness in it are very blurred. Today, this problem, in which there should be nothing other than the natural desire of people to be fruitful and multiply, has been introduced into the framework of state policy.
If government policy involves reducing the population of the entire state or the long-lived population with an innate right to the land, the government can either directly ('one family - one child') or indirectly (e.g. through forced childbearing) reduce childbearing. . will prevent this. endorsement of such 'human rights' that make people sterile).
If government policy means population growth, the government will pay for children. Or, as in Busan, South Korea, the authorities were so desperate that they decided to give money to young people who simply had relationships after a date set by the local government.
Neither is natural for the embodiment of one of the most important instincts of living beings: procreation. But both fit well into the picture of family life carefully regulated by the authorities.
Have you had a child? Here's a cash incentive. Have you lived to a certain age and never had children? Let me introduce a fine for that. Or at least raise taxes on the childless. Please let them know!
Let's say you are moving along the "childbirth" trajectory. For this, you have the right to material incentives and benefits. At the same time, the state considers itself entitled to punish you as a parent if you do not meet its standards. First of all, again, with the help of money, this universal equivalent appears. And secondly, your child may distance himself from you. The country will raise him better!
If earlier children who offended and tormented their parents were considered a punishment for the parents themselves ("My punishment!", "My cross!"), now such punishments are not enough for the state, and additional punishments are invented to arouse fears. parents. I am doing something wrong. And within the framework of a worldview in which childbirth is regulated by politics, this is just a logical development.
When government policy is indirectly aimed at reducing the number of children, punishment is a consistent measure. But when the government says we should have more children, while at the same time stoking parents' fears that they will be punished for every misstep, the signals are mixed.
In order for wild animals to reproduce in captivity, conditions are created that are “as close to nature as possible.” People believe that money and reward and punishment systems should solve the problem. If this worked, I confess I would be disappointed, as if we were turning the world into a breeding laboratory (to which we still have access). But it does not work. People are paid, but those who want to have children still have more. Here is the interesting thing: Most often this happens in rural areas, not controlled by the state, or in immigrant families or ethnic communities where the state avoids interference. Because “they have their own traditions.” Thus, migrants and gypsies are recognized as having the right to their traditions. Including educational traditions. Until something absurd happens, regulators allow them to reproduce in the wild. However, most Russians (or here they are replaced by “civilized Europeans”) do not recognize the right to traditions and naturalness. This is how the neuroticization of society occurs.
Every tenth woman in the UK takes antidepressants. This number has doubled in 10 years. In the US, 25% of women take antidepressants. However, although it is rarely used in Korea (at least officially, the topic of psychotherapy is not considered very good), it does not affect the birth rate. It is not that antidepressants have a direct effect on fertility, but that we are talking about neuroses. People live in a world where it is easier to provide for themselves, entertain themselves and be responsible, and when children come into this world, it becomes more difficult to entertain yourself, but external control over yourself in the course of calculations will increase. Children are always confused, and in a world strictly observing the boundaries of order, they are an undesirable element that inevitably breaks out and violates. For this, someone must be punished. Right? In the framework of the current ideology, children cannot be punished. This means that parents must be punished!
So shouldn’t the state interfere in family education and the upbringing of children at all?
No, sometimes you have to intervene. First of all, to correct the imbalance that has arisen of its own accord: while some families are declared “traditional” and therefore untouchable, others can be disturbed with a callous hand, without intervention. If a country hopes to use migration as one of the ways to increase its population (and it does), then it is logical that it will start to see migrant families as something more than just that. Because as potential citizens, they should follow not their traditions, but ours.
But for this to happen, we must have and respect our traditions. It must be acknowledged that Russians are more willing to have and raise children in rural areas to avoid state control and interference. Reduce the pressure on native Russians by investing in rural development, including transport access to roads, schools and hospitals, support for housing construction and the organization of jobs (including mobile work). It will be very interesting to see whether in just a year the budget allocated for the improvement of Moscow will be directed to the improvement of the village.
There are families where children are still a joy, not a burden, and families of native Russians. This does not mean that you do not need material goods, but it does mean that you will produce offspring, even if it does not cost you anything extra. And this is right. This course of action must be respected and presented as preferable, and support should be provided in the form of help (things, work, repairs, sending a nanny or social worker when needed), not money. This will be effective help and will look like care, not a “childbearing for money” scheme.
As for punishment, parents should use monetary punishment only in obvious cases (for example, damage to someone else's property). In general, people should be left alone whenever possible, and the level of neuroticism in society should be reduced. This is because children are raised not only by parents, but also by society. But today, as in ancient times, the main punishment for parents is ill-mannered and selfish children.