The human mind is a resource, and the exchange of all ideas (including religion, scientific ideas, social norms, concern over a current event, pop culture, etc.) resembles product distribution (and natural selection). The difference between a long-lasting idea and a passing fad relies on a lot of things. A lasting idea needs to reach a lot of people, be repeated, seem useful and beneficial to the host of the idea, be self-perpetuating, be self-reinforcing, be easy to remember, and be clear and memorable enough to spread by word of mouth or through other common interpersonal communication. [link] (Memetic Evolution)
Advertisement exemplifies the "ideal" long-lasting idea: it is broadcast on tv at many times, which reaches a lot of people and repeats; it changes the way we develop and think about products in relation to our identity and worth, which makes them seem more useful; it is often unfulfilling after the purchase or we think it fulfills us, making the purchase of products self-perpetuating; there are creations of new and updated products all the time, which further self-perpetuates consumption; and it utilizes catchy and humorous phrases and imagery, making it easy to remember and spread by word of mouth.
We've all grown up with advertisements ourselves, so we may not think much of the fact that children watch so much tv and advertisement annually. But considering how advertisements are given to people in a way ideal for hammering ideas in to them, their consequences are overlooked far too much.
How can parents stand a chance against advertising businesses if these businesses are, at the root of it, communicating with children more effectively than most other people/mediums can? If the average American child watches 6 hours of tv a day while their parents are busy doing work, perhaps they probably spend more time with the tv than they do talking to their parents. Even if parents don't buy their kids every toy, their kids are still growing up in a society that unhealthily associates success with consumption, and as a result, kids' minds are still being shaped to value the same things to a large extent.
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Showing posts with label children. Show all posts
Wednesday, January 6, 2010
Sunday, August 30, 2009
Parenting Rights
Recently I read this article about lesbians in the UK being given the right to put both of their names on the birth certificate of their child as parents instead of only having the biological mother being allowed to. This new law allows both women to officially be considered the legal guardians of the child, and allows them the same legal benefits as heterosexual couples in terms of parenting.
When reading the article, I was reminded of the issues that remain in the United States relating to this issue. In the US, despite the fact that many same-sex couples exist in the form of domestic partnership (I'm not referring to those within states allowing gay marriage) and have children, they are still not allowed this very fundamental piece of legal benefit.
For example, although we allow a same-sex couple to bring up children in many states, the fact that many of these couples only have the amount of rights afforded to them that domestic partnerships offer, which is a fraction to that of actual marriage, it seems our laws care more about avoiding recognizing the legitimacy of a relationship than they do about the children in these relationships. For example, if something happens to the partner in a same-sex relationship that is registered as the adoptive parent of a child, that entire family can end up being split apart because the remaining parent is not legally bound to the adopted child. That means that a child that still has one gay parent left could potentially be sent back to foster care, or to a distant family member of the child. Furthermore, this disaster is even more likely to happen when the legal parent of a child in a domestic partnership is not covered by their partner's health insurance (which is another consequence of the lesser rights of domestic partnership).
If these partnerships are allowed to exist in the first place, what is the purpose of not allowing them some small benefits that would provide a world of difference for the family, especially the child? If a child grows up with two loving parents, regardless of their gender, is there any sensible reason why our current laws would rather a foster child go back to the foster care system than live with a remaining parent merely because that parent isn't technically registered as a parent, but is considered one by the child? Shouldn't the children raised by same sex couples out of foster care be the ones to judge what parents are more "natural", or more importantly, suitable as parents?
When reading the article, I was reminded of the issues that remain in the United States relating to this issue. In the US, despite the fact that many same-sex couples exist in the form of domestic partnership (I'm not referring to those within states allowing gay marriage) and have children, they are still not allowed this very fundamental piece of legal benefit.
For example, although we allow a same-sex couple to bring up children in many states, the fact that many of these couples only have the amount of rights afforded to them that domestic partnerships offer, which is a fraction to that of actual marriage, it seems our laws care more about avoiding recognizing the legitimacy of a relationship than they do about the children in these relationships. For example, if something happens to the partner in a same-sex relationship that is registered as the adoptive parent of a child, that entire family can end up being split apart because the remaining parent is not legally bound to the adopted child. That means that a child that still has one gay parent left could potentially be sent back to foster care, or to a distant family member of the child. Furthermore, this disaster is even more likely to happen when the legal parent of a child in a domestic partnership is not covered by their partner's health insurance (which is another consequence of the lesser rights of domestic partnership).
If these partnerships are allowed to exist in the first place, what is the purpose of not allowing them some small benefits that would provide a world of difference for the family, especially the child? If a child grows up with two loving parents, regardless of their gender, is there any sensible reason why our current laws would rather a foster child go back to the foster care system than live with a remaining parent merely because that parent isn't technically registered as a parent, but is considered one by the child? Shouldn't the children raised by same sex couples out of foster care be the ones to judge what parents are more "natural", or more importantly, suitable as parents?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)