Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[ibshambat]

There are many proponents of tyrannical parenting who think that they are doing their country a favour by doing what they do.

They are not. Tyrannical parenting fails to adequately prepare people for living in a democracy.

When raised in households where one person makes all the decisions, people do not learn compromise and negotiation. The only situations in which they do is if they’ve seen their parents work through their differences like adults. And this happens in households in which the parents are equals.

Authoritarian parenting prepares people for authoritarian politics. So that even when afforded the rights and liberties of a democracy, a person raised in authoritarian parenting favours authoritarianism with his vote. We see this with many people in America voting for people such as Reagan and Bush and the people in Iran supporting the Ayatollah. If raised in authoritarianism, people will vote for authoritarians. And the mechanisms of democracy will be subverted to support authoritarian politics.

People living in a democracy need to be made prepared for the democracy; and that means they will have to learn compromise and negotiation. These skills must be instilled since an early age. Which means that the democratic household arrangement, in which the male and the female wield equal power and work with one another like adults, is the correct household model in which to raise people for a democracy. They will see their parents practicing compromise and negotiation with one another. Which means that they will know how to do the same thing with people in their lives and in their political activities.

When my ex-wife’s father was telling her that she should listen to me as a man, I told him that I didn’t believe anything so stupid. He told me that I was stupid and arrogant. I am a Christian, but I believe that this particular Christian teaching is wrong. Once again, if one parent makes all the decisions, the children never learn compromise and negotiation. Which means that they are ill prepared for a democracy.

Preparing people for a democracy should start at an early age. Children need to learn compromise and negotiation. And they will do so, once again, if they see their parents do that with one another, instead of growing up in tyrannical households in which one person’s word is the law.

[Good_Egg]

A successful person is one who can deal with a range of situations.

Which includes negotiated participation in voluntary small-group activities. And large-group contexts (such as a school or workplace with 1000+ people). Or air travel, where the price of cheap flights is being herded like cattle through overcrowded airports. And asymmetric-power situations, dealing with police, doctors, bureaucrats.

A good education promotes adaptability, giving the young person a range of behaviours in their toolkit and an idea of which will be successful in different contexts.

So it seems to me that what's important is not so much what anyone's dominant style of parenting is. But more that children experience (first-hand and through fiction) a range of different situations and relationships, and have opportunity for play - space for pretending, for practicing.

[Pattern-chaser]

There are many proponents of tyrannical parenting who think that they are doing their country a favour by doing what they do.

They are not. Tyrannical parenting fails to adequately prepare people for living in a democracy.

When raised in households where one person makes all the decisions, people do not learn compromise and negotiation. The only situations in which they do is if they’ve seen their parents work through their differences like adults. And this happens in households in which the parents are equals.

Authoritarian parenting prepares people for authoritarian politics. So that even when afforded the rights and liberties of a democracy, a person raised in authoritarian parenting favours authoritarianism with his vote. We see this with many people in America voting for people such as Reagan and Bush and the people in Iran supporting the Ayatollah. If raised in authoritarianism, people will vote for authoritarians. And the mechanisms of democracy will be subverted to support authoritarian politics.

People living in a democracy need to be made prepared for the democracy; and that means they will have to learn compromise and negotiation. These skills must be instilled since an early age. Which means that the democratic household arrangement, in which the male and the female wield equal power and work with one another like adults, is the correct household model in which to raise people for a democracy. They will see their parents practicing compromise and negotiation with one another. Which means that they will know how to do the same thing with people in their lives and in their political activities.

When my ex-wife’s father was telling her that she should listen to me as a man, I told him that I didn’t believe anything so stupid. He told me that I was stupid and arrogant. I am a Christian, but I believe that this particular Christian teaching is wrong. Once again, if one parent makes all the decisions, the children never learn compromise and negotiation. Which means that they are ill prepared for a democracy.

Preparing people for a democracy should start at an early age. Children need to learn compromise and negotiation. And they will do so, once again, if they see their parents do that with one another, instead of growing up in tyrannical households in which one person’s word is the law.

I understand the issue(s). But I can't clearly see what is the philosophical matter we are to discuss...?

[Lagayascienza]

It is clear that this is a philosophical issue. Whether there should be reasonable equality between males and females is a moral issue. And morality has been a perennial philosophical issue. Is the power differential between males and females morally problematic? I think it is. Does patriarchy, which perpetuates male dominance, result in an unjustifiable power differential. I think it does. In which case, I think the philosophical issue is quite clear. Is male dominance problematic , or is it not? I don't see how even an averagely intelligent person with an interest in philosophy could fail to see that this is a philosophical issue.

[Gertie]

Many young men who are now  brought up in more equal households and a more equal society are struggling with the feeling of loss of privilege, dominance and status.  They are also facing the prospect of having to compete in ways which are appealing to modern women who are financially independent.  You see them pining for 'the good old days', turning towards misogynist grifters like Andrew Tate,  voting for an authoritarian  sex offender like Trump, or turning towards patriarchal religions.

This backlash  might be  death throes, but the trend towards the Far Right, and Anti-'Wokeness' is  mainstream  and increasingly dominant. 

The aspect of Progressivism and Identity Politics which teetered on assigning Goodies and Baddies didn't help, nor did often ignoring the broader analysis of Inter-sectionality and Class.  Perhaps inevitably,  as women and minorities fought their individual corners, but unfortunate in retrospect.

Still, while Progressives need to understand the pressures (psychological and practical) of losing privilege and status has on some, and help them through it rather than treat them as enemies, we shouldn't buckle to the backlash. Appeasing has never worked with authoritarian, dominance driven types, they thrive on it.