You read my post wrong. You assumed far too much.
I think the women's lib revolution is responsible for the mess we're in today wrt two parents needing to work, not the current administration, or Clinton. When you free women from the home to go in to the work place, the first families with two parents working will have an advantage- but then prices will rise, because people can pay more, and soon families that don't have two parents in the workplace will be at a severe disadvantage for basic goods. Women's freedom was bought at the expense of children, imo. I don't see a way to reverse that, though I probably would if I could- since I generally favor the interests of children over adults.
I find it inexcusable that people have children and don't allow the time to raise them. Those too poor to care for their children, or who aren't interested enough in raising them, shouldn't have them. But I don't make the rules. Since I can't do a thing to make parents be responsible, I support regulation of TV, music and movies, that are aimed at children, to protect children from the worst of influences. Violence, sexual situations- especially those coupled with violence- drug use, drinking and smoking- I think the state has an interest in trying to protect children from those elements.
To protect children I think the best solution would be after school care offered on school sites. At the moment childcare in this country is a patchwork of mostly poor care. I'd like to see care that involved sports and homework supervision, along with stimulating educational opportunities. The best way to combat injurious influences is to leave no time for them in the child's life.
I also support regulating children's programs- especially those aimed at the youngest viewers- to try to make them wholesome. I don't think we have to see smoking in a cartoon for it to be entertaining. My kids loved the Care Bears and My Little Pony- there was no smoking, and no one was hit on the head with a hammer, and they enjoyed it anyway. |
