Who agrees with Hillary that "it takes a village to raise a child"?

Question

Personally I think it's the main difference between the Dems and Repubs.

Answer 1

If you're a Bushman in the African bush, then yes.

In a civilized country where individuals have freedoms and rights, then no, I don't.

It takes committed parents to raise a child, especially to prevent the other villagers from filling the child's mind with stupidity.

It's the parent that has the responsibility to raise the child, to instill the child with beliefs as they see fit, to discipline the child in the manner they deem best, to teach the child what is right and wrong as they see it.

It's not the village's job, nor should they have any say in it.

Children are not collective property.

Answer 2

I am republican, and I agree with the statement, just not Hillary's (the the Dems. for the matter) way of raising that child. The type of children that our "village" is currently raising honestly scares the h*ll our of me.

Look at Chula Vista, suing the state for having an English only test?!? What is that?

MA - Young girls are allowed to obtain birth control . . . attempting to make spanking a punishable offense?!?

There is a point when it becomes to much!

Answer 3

Well, if no one ever comes in contact with your child other than his parent than it can be said that it does not take a village to rear a child. Fortunately most of us have children exposed to many different people, teachers, church people, clergy, working people, public servants like police and firefighters, secretaries, medical service providers, what they see on TV and over the Internet all those who come in contact with the child are his village. They all influence in some small way how he will grow up. The primary responsibility for his development is with his parents. They are the people he sees most often. They need to be role models but they also need to give him space to be himself and not try to live through him or to have him be just like them. Sometimes the child is going to need assistance. He might need a boost by dad to put the basketball in the hoop for the first time. He might need a pal to help him meet a girl. He might need parental help with a problem at school or with homework. He will need support from parents as they cheer for him on his soccer team or attend his football games even if his team stinks and he is the worst player. They shouldn't expect other people to do it for them. The scoutmaster is not a babysitter. There may be a babysitter early in his life but that sitter or daycare provider is only part of the total village that rears the child. Yes, it does take a village. It takes people to care. If he needs food he should be fed. If he needs a place to sleep comfortably he should have one. If he is in danger he should have people to protect him from whatever it is. Yes, it takes a village, neigh a town to rear a child.

Answer 4

Why has this statement been ripped out and stomped on so badly?

Conservatives, when you were growing up, did you grow up completely and totally isolated from every influence aside from your parents?

When I was in school, my parents had worked at the school at various times, and my mom had gone to school with several of my teachers, so most of my teachers knew my parents very well. I knew that there was no way on this earth I could act up or misbehave, because I would be in hot water not just with my parents but with those teachers, too. Word would immediately get back to my parents if I did something wrong.

Parents are the primary influence on children and always will be. The biological bond cannot be broken. If anyone disagrees with that idea, then tell me why do adopted children so often spend their lifetimes searching for their birth parents?

But that said, I think it's good to grow up in a small town of community where you can be held accountable for your actions as a kid. Having teachers that knew me well, knew my parents and could hold me accountable like that, that was a tremendous positive influence on me.

Isn't that what Hillary meant?

Answer 5

You're right, that IS the main difference between Dems and Repubs.
Hillary THINKS it takes a village while Repubs SAY it does, while they do everything in their power to make raising a family (or child) as difficult as possible.

Answer 6

It has never been the natural way of things for children to be raised solely by a mother and father (or single parent in today's world). In the past, grandparents, aunts, uncles, clergy persons or religious leaders, teachers, and neighbors were all actively engaged in the lives of local children (as in a village setting). The modern world has changed that and we are seeing the consequences. Now, whether I agree with what Hillary purposes to do about it is another question.

Answer 7

the only active participation I would ask of this so called "village", would be that they refrain from filling my childs head with their collective B.S. Children are not collective property in any sense, NONE!!! While I agree that as adults we must all do what we can in public to help children, that does not extend to coming into my home in any sense or for that matter teaching them things in the mandated public education system that I object to.

Answer 8

Personally I think it does take a village to raise a child, (teachers and other adult role models, boy & girl scout leaders, coaches, etc.) But I have other problems with Hillary,- "BILLERY".

Answer 9

What are you saying? If my kid goes on a vandalizing spree, and gets caught....Who has to actually PAY???? Are you suggesting that the village will pay for damages?

Of Course not!! you libtard, I have to pay the cost of Damages so take your village concept elsewhere until you can make a better argument!!

Answer 10

Indeed. Where in the title of that book is personal responsibility taken into account? If parents would take more responsibility for raising their children instead of expecting the "village" to raise them, there would be less crime in the streets.