Mindlessly Minding Our Own Business Often Proves Humanly Devastating

If survived, early-life child abuse, sexual or otherwise, left unhindered typically causes the brain to improperly develop. It can readily be the starting point of a life in which the brain uncontrollably releases potentially damaging levels of inflammatory stress hormones and chemicals, even in otherwise non-stressful daily routines.

It can amount to non-physical-impact brain-damage abuse: It has been described as a continuous, discomforting anticipation of ‘the other shoe dropping’ and simultaneously being scared of how badly you will deal with the upsetting event, which usually never transpires.

The lasting emotional/psychological pain throughout one’s life from such trauma is very formidable yet invisibly confined to inside one’s head. It is solitarily suffered, unlike an openly visible physical disability or condition, which tends to elicit sympathy/empathy from others. It can make every day a mental ordeal, unless the turmoil is prescription and/or illicitly medicated.

A mentally as well as physically sound future should be every child’s fundamental right — along with air, water, food and shelter — especially considering the very troubled world into which they never asked to enter; a world in which Child Abuse Prevention Month [every April] clearly needs to run 365 days of the year.

The wellbeing of all children needs to be of great importance to us all, regardless of whether we’re doing a great job with our own developing children.

Mindlessly ‘minding our own business’ often proves humanly devastating. Yet, owing to the Only If It’s In My Own Back Yard mindset, the prevailing collective attitude (implicit or subconscious) basically follows: ‘Why should I care — my kids are alright?’ or ‘What is in it for me, the taxpayer, if I support social programs for other people’s troubled families?’

While some people will justify it as a normal thus moral human evolutionary function, the self-serving OIIIMOBY can debilitate social progress, even when social progress is most needed. And it seems this distinct form of societal penny wisdom but pound foolishness is a very unfortunate human characteristic that’s likely with us to stay.

Still, we can resist that selfish OIIIMOBY. If I may quote the late American sociologist Stanley Milgram, of Obedience Experiments fame/infamy: “It may be that we are puppets — puppets controlled by the strings of society. But at least we are puppets with perception, with awareness. And perhaps our awareness is the first step to our liberation.”

“It has been said that if child abuse and neglect were to disappear today, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual would shrink to the size of a pamphlet in two generations, and the prisons would empty. Or, as Bernie Siegel, MD, puts it, quite simply, after half a century of practicing medicine, ‘I have become convinced that our number-one public health problem is our childhood’.”
—Childhood Disrupted, pg.228

I’m not suggesting that this isn’t a worthwhile goal, I just don’t see how it can be done. Some people won’t come in, some won’t admit to it happening and some will tell you to MYOGDB. (mind your own GD business.

When I asked a teachers’ union official over the phone about six years ago whether there was any childrearing or child-development science curriculum taught in any British Columbian school district, he immediately replied there was not. When I asked the reason for its absence and whether it may be due to the subject matter being too controversial, he replied with a simple “Yes”.

This strongly suggests there are philosophical thus political obstacles to teaching students such crucial life skills as nourishingly parenting one’s children. Still, it’s difficult to imagine that teaching parenting curriculum would be considered more controversial than, say, teaching students sexual orientation and gender identity curriculum, as is currently taught in many, if not most, Canadian public schools, beginning in Kindergarten.

Being free nations, society cannot prevent anyone from bearing children; society can, however, educate all young people for the most important job ever, even those who plan to remain childless. I would like to see child-development science curriculum implemented for secondary high school students, and it would also include neurodiversity, albeit not overly complicated.

Why? Because too many people will procreate regardless of not being sufficiently knowledgeable of child development science to parent in a psychologically functional/healthy manner. They seem to perceive thus treat human procreative ‘rights’ as though they (potential parents) will somehow, in blind anticipation, be innately inclined to sufficiently understand and appropriately nurture their children’s naturally developing minds and needs.

As liberal democracies we cannot or will not prevent anyone from bearing children, even those who recklessly procreate. We can, however, educate young people for this most important job ever, even those who plan to remain childless, through mandatory high-school child-development science curriculum.

If nothing else, such child-development science curriculum could offer students an idea/clue as to whether they’re emotionally suited for the immense responsibility and strains of parenthood. Given what is at stake, should they not at least be equipped with such valuable science-based knowledge?

For political navigation of this kind of idea, even in British Columbia, it’s best to gain some background knowledge on the “Victorian militarist” mindset of the further-right Conservatives as well as a few far left people. There, you get into a passionate opposition to teaching children anything to do with sexuality, for reasons that tie in with anti-vaccination impulses and other seemingly counterproductive views. I just wrote an article explaining what these people are all about, including their attitudes to sexuality; you might find it worth a read.

How vaccine researcher Peter Hotez became a ‘soyentist’