a little parable.

Let’s say it was the law that children MUST be fed in restaurants, to ensure adequate nutrition. Any family who feels that this is too restrictive, for whatever reason, has the option to feed their children at home under the supervision of a restaurant OR declare their home a private restaurant. Then one day a family is taken to court for abuse and for some reason the case becomes about food. The judge rules that parents may only feed their own children if they are CIA-trained. By which I mean Culinary Institute of America, because the other one would be a little crazy even for this story. But restaurant chefs have no training requirements! Hmm, doesn’t this all sound insane?

8 thoughts on “a little parable.

  1. Soupytwist

    March 7, 2008 at 1:43pm

    I would say “children at home under the supervision of a restaurant OR declare their home a members only dining club” rather than “children at home under the supervision of a restaurant OR declare their home a restaurant” because the restaurant = school/private school thing doesn’t quite work.

    I mean, you can’t be employed at all schools without credentials. Just private schools.

    But I’m nitpicking because I’m married to a teacher. ;)

  2. Annika

    March 7, 2008 at 1:46pm

    Huh, I could have sworn I wrote private restaurant in the first place. I’ve amended that, but I really don’t think it makes a difference to the story. Some restaurants DO require CIA training, and in the scenario I described they’d be governed by different laws than restaurants face now anyway. It’s a parable. Speculative fiction, if you will.

  3. Violet

    March 7, 2008 at 1:58pm

    I think all actions pertaining to children have consequences and, as parents, it’s our job to decide what consequences we can handle.

    If I homeschool, or unschool, I need to be prepared to help my kids learn throughout life (to adulthood, in particular) in a way that’s conducive to them being a part of functional society.

    And as the kids get older and more mature, it’s their job to help decide what the definition of “functional” actually is.

    For some people, functional and contributing members of society are defined in different ways than others’ definition. Personal choice, and all that.

    If I send my kid to any school – public, private, Montessori, etc – it’s still my job to help them get through the years until they’re functional adults. That job doesn’t change.

    Until a child is 18, in most places in Canada (and, I imagine, in the US), the parents are legally responsible for them in a multitude of ways.

    And when they’re 18, they need to start making their own GOOD decisions.

    If they’re homeschooled/unschooled and, at 18, decide they’re not prepared for certain aspects of adult life, they can choose THEN to take classes or courses or get degrees or anything else.

    I wish people would stop implying that learning ends at 18 years of age (or high school graduation) and that the rest of your existence must be dedicated to earning money.

    Hello, I am ranting and rambling. Nice. Very nice.

    Violet’s last blog post..For My Beloved Husband.

  4. Annika

    March 7, 2008 at 2:02pm

    But Violet! That concept is the very basis of compulsory education! (Er, in the United States. I have no idea about you wacky Canadians.)

  5. kara marie

    March 7, 2008 at 4:30pm

    was just going to let you know that Ahnold had said, but then saw the update on the post below. :] I’m glad he’s speaking out on this.

    The whole thing seems even more absurd when you look at it from the restaurant angle. Good parable. :]

    Not that I have kids now, but if in the future… Definitely an option that SHOULD be available to parents.

  6. Frank

    March 7, 2008 at 5:45pm

    I saw that ruling yesterday. I don’t get it… Don’t get it at all…

    Frank’s last blog post..My Bubble

  7. Gwen

    March 8, 2008 at 6:13am

    I am dense, and for about five minutes thought you were trying to make a point about people who get angry about children in restaurants. :)

    Gwen’s last blog post..Lesson of the day

  8. Jamie

    March 8, 2008 at 11:35am

    Violet: I totally agree with this — I wish people would stop implying that learning ends at 18 years of age (or high school graduation) and that the rest of your existence must be dedicated to earning money.

    But I’m not so sure about this — If they’re homeschooled/unschooled and, at 18, decide they’re not prepared for certain aspects of adult life, they can choose THEN to take classes or courses or get degrees or anything else.

    Because the thing is, if they’re not already reasonably well prepared for adult life, they quite possibly will not realize that, and thus will not choose to do anything to change that.

    Imagine that we’re talking about the common accusation against homeschooling, that the children will not be properly socialized. By the reasoning you’ve used here, it’s a non-issue, because even if they do come out of the home completely socially inept, it’s okay because they’ll realize this and find some way to improve their social skills. But, again, this is quite likely NOT going to be the case — people who are really socially inept usually don’t know that they are, so they go through their whole lives that way.

    Or, say they emerge at 18 completely unprepared to manage their money. If it were likely that they would realize this and go take some money management courses (or whatever), then massive credit card debt and bankruptcy would not be as widespread as it is.

    Sorry for the long comment… it’s just, I don’t think it’s a good idea to assume that whatever parents don’t prepare their kids for, they’ll take care of it themselves when they’re 18.

    Jamie’s last blog post..Entry no. 9312 in the ‘Stupidest Things I’ve Ever Heard’ contest:

Comments are closed.